Was Cain against a national sales tax before he was for it?

posted at 5:30 pm on November 6, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve steered away from this question for some time now, since so many other current events have seized the news cycle, but Herman Cain had a fairly long history of pontificating on the radio and writing editorial pieces before he began his current run for the presidency. When you generate that much material, you’re bound to leave behind a few nuggets for your opponents to find. The case in point today, however, if a fairly glaring one. Highlighted by Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway, it’s noted that Mr. Cain may have written passionately about an idea which runs directly against one of the cornerstones of his platform.

I’ve noted before that Herman Cain’s history as a radio talk show host, public speaker, and op-ed columnist was likely to come back and bite him at some point. You simply cannot engage in a long career of speaking off the top of your head on various issues without saying something at some point that is going to annoy someone, or prove to be somewhat embarrassing to you should you ever decide to run for public office…

On November 21st, 2010 in a column at website call The New Voice, Herman Cain wrote this about a proposal made by the Simpson-Bowles Commission

The piece in question seems fairly damning in terms of the political dog and pony show. It has to do with the idea of a national sales tax, which as I’m sure you will recall, is one leg of his 9-9-9 plan.

The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes…

First, we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. not a revenue problem. The Commission claims their goal is to reduce the deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. The task force says its plan would save $6 trillion by 2020. It’s sort of like dueling promises that would never happen, because when has a proposed cut in Washington D.C. ever produced the intended savings over 10 years? Never!

Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing their national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. After discovering many of the tax grenades in the recently passed health care deform bill, which is already driving costs up and access down, it would be real easy for an overzealous bureaucrat to insert the language in the legislation “national retail and wholesale” tax.

It goes on from there in great detail, but I’ll leave it to you to read for yourselves. Essentially, it certainly appears to undermine one of the major aspects of his 9-9-9 plan. (Not coincidentally, the same one which his primary opponents, including both Perry and Romney have criticized at great length during the early debates.) In fact, the argument he makes in this editorial regarding the government eventually raising the tax is precisely the point his critics are making today. And this isn’t some dusty, musty piece from ancient history. It’s from last year. This not only calls into question Cain’s own commitment to his tax reform plan, but puts in play a “flip-flop” issue, which one certainly doesn’t need when running against Romney for frontrunner status.

This is only one item from the vast library of recorded radio shows and writings by Herman Cain. The media hasn’t had nearly enough time to dredge through the entire stash since he achieved frontrunner status. For the present they seem content to settle for the sexual harassment and campaign finance allegations which currently dominate the news. If Cain survives those with strong poll numbers, look for more nuggets like this to emerge over time.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It’s not as though any presidential candidate can enact his own tax reforms, so I wonder why people chip away at the plan. The more important question is, how would he apply vetoes? What kind of conservative would he be? Will he be able to define his foreign policy? What is his mission statement?

People continue to run around in circles as dictated by the elites, and that has to stop now. Let’s focus on the important things, before primary season is upon us.

disa on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

His record in business has been one of success. If there’s been discussions to the contrary, I haven’t seen them, or perhaps missed them.

Demosthenes on November 6, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Has it been a success? I have seen information that it wasn’t.

I mean information like this…

…Inflation from 1985 to 2001 was 64.5%. In terms of 2002 dollars, the $325 million sales of 1985 would be the equivalent of $534 million at the beginning of 2002. The final sales in Cain’s last year with Godfather’s Pizza, $287 million total, when we compare it with the year before Cain’s arrival, adjusted for inflation, shows that sales at Godfather’s Pizza dropped 46% during Cain’s association with Godfather’s Pizza.

We might see how Cain did in just the years where he was CEO. Adjusting for inflation in 1985 to 1994, to compare it to the last year, 1995, that he was a full time CEO at Godfather’s, $325 million equals $448 million. Thus the drop was from $448 million to $265.5 million. This is a drop of about 41%. Adjusted for inflation, sales dropped by about 41% in the ten years that Herman Cain ran the company as CEO. He had five years where sales decreased and five years where sales increased, but the years that sales increased barely kept up with inflation.

I have seen very little to substantiate Cain’s claims of success in business. I don’t want to rely on leftist media regarding Cain’s record but if any examination of Cain is labeled as ‘going liberal‘ then what else is there?

I think all the candidates need to be vetted and I am afraid that is not happening with Cain and if it doesn’t it will be a disaster in the general.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Who cares that Cain has reversed himself on his signature issue in less than a year. Did you all know that Perry was once a Democrat and Romney was pro-choice?

fed-nad on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

I think all the candidates need to be vetted and I am afraid that is not happening with Cain and if it doesn’t it will be a disaster in the general.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Okay. Who else is being scrutinized more than Cain, AND WHY? Enlighten us.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

That’s another element that adds to the problem – the heavy time pressure to put stuff out there which may be based on nothing more than 3rd hand anonymous gossip.
whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Yes, and the conservative pundit/blogger market has become so saturated that they now are climbing over each other to be FIRST with the report without regard to facts, and that is a very dangerous thing. Once you put something out there and it ends up wrong, just being able go back and write …UPDATE: Opps!… is not a wise strategy when it becomes the standard rather than the exception.

Texas Gal on November 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Okay. Who else is being scrutinized more than Cain, AND WHY? Enlighten us.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Well Perry was for a time when he was leading in the polls. When he cratered because he’s an idiot the torch passed to Cain and now he’s getting the heat.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:16 PM

FIFY. Kinda hard to call someone concerned about electability over principles a conservative. Leans conservative might be appropriate but not conservative. Too many Republicans have adopted the conservative mantle but at heart just partisan Republican.

AH_C on November 6, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Sorry AH_C, have to disagree with you on that one.

We are disagreeing with Cain on electability and principles.

I find everything wrong with supporting a candidate (Cain), who has made no secret of the fact that he clearly prefers Romney over Perry.

Last I checked, the conservative movement wanted anybody but Romney. So how can so-called conservatives then turn around to support a candidate (Cain) who is putting no structures in place to win and will most likely endorse Romney when it does boil down to Romney vs. Perry?

TheRightMan on November 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I think all the candidates need to be vetted and I am afraid that is not happening with Cain and if it doesn’t it will be a disaster in the general.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Okay. Who else is being scrutinized more than Cain, AND WHY? Enlighten us.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

I’m sure that Herman is touched by his worrying and deep concern, though.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM

TheRightMan on November 6, 2011 at 7:11 PM

LOL

I don’t think that’s it. I just think people are FREAKING OUT that our POTUS right now is SO BAD…..

everybody’s trippin’ out…things will calm down (I hope) and reason will prevail. We have a whole year to go….
this site is becoming a hotbed for idiotic and empty and worthless arguments.

bridgetown on November 6, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Link

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Not a surprise to me. It didn’t take me long to recognize the pro-Perry leanings at HA. I made a comment about it with the first posting by Brian Preston that was placed in the headlines months ago.

Texas Gal on November 6, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Well Perry was for a time when he was leading in the polls. When he cratered because he’s an idiot the torch passed to Cain and now he’s getting the heat.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:16 PM

I still feel the same way about Perry’s gubernatorial tenure that I did months ago when he was feeling the heat. Media failure to report it doesn’t mean that my principles have all of a sudden changed. And your non-answer to my question was kind of a dodge. You’re complaining that Herman Cain isn’t getting vetted. I think what you’re really trying to say is that you’re concerned that the ass probing he IS getting isn’t affecting his poll numbers like you thought it would.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:20 PM

support a candidate (Cain) who is putting no structures in place to win
TheRightMan on November 6, 2011 at 7:17 PM

What with the way he’s doing now can you imagine the serious butt-kicking he’d deliver if he had “structures”? (I mean other than the structure of the support of most Republicans, of course.)

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 7:21 PM

I think what you’re really trying to say is that you’re concerned that the ass probing he IS getting isn’t affecting his poll numbers like you thought it would.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:20 PM

oh, SNAP!

:)

bridgetown on November 6, 2011 at 7:22 PM

i.e. “I got nuthin’, please go on a scavenger hunt to try to build a case for my argument. Thanks.”

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I have a High School diploma, don’t you? Don’t you know Jefferson, Washington and Madison had political careers? That Benjamin Franklin was elected the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House before the Revolutionary War? My goodness, I can’t believe you call yourself a conservative Republican yet know nothing about the history of our country or our government. That is pretty shameful, Whatcat. I’m surprised we let you vote.

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Ummmm……did we miss this part of the first sentence??………..

on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes…

MaggieMae on November 6, 2011 at 7:22 PM

I think all the candidates need to be vetted and I am afraid that is not happening with Cain and if it doesn’t it will be a disaster in the general.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Maybe that’s what some of his most rabid and fanatical supporters want.

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 7:25 PM

And your non-answer to my question was kind of a dodge.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:20 PM

No it isn’t a dodge. Cain isn’t being vetted a I made it clear that the right is the one refusing to do so. They want to believe in Cain regardless of how idiotic his statements are. You have heard and ignored enough of them to know what I am talking about. Perry, Bachmann, and Ron Paul are rightfully attacked for their missteps but Cain is given a free pass.

I get that Cain is the last one standing before a Romney sweep and that certainly has an endearing quality but that doesn’t change Cain’s incompetence.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Gee, I wonder why?

Maybe we should ask Edward Atsinger, Chairman of the Board of Salem Communications and Perry supporter.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm…

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Hmmm indeed. It’s been clear to me that Tina has been in the tank for Perry for a while. Most that she writes about him are puff pieces, and typically critical pieces on other folks. I can’t really say who Ed backs, but he seems relatively neutral. Jazz…who knows. He was never intro’d as a regular contributor, so I don’t really pay too close attention. Allah is the only one, over the years, that I’ve been sure never shills for one candidate over another.

But yeah…I have to agree on the way the site is going. Ed and Allah were a good team. Bryan and Allah were better. With all due respect, Tina’s hiring was a mystery to me. I’ve seen far better writers in the Green Room, like JE Dyer and Howard Portnoy. It just seems like a Salem/Ed decision, maybe because she knew them.

MadisonConservative on November 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM

I get that Cain is the last one standing before a Romney sweep and that certainly has an endearing quality but that doesn’t change Cain’s incompetence.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:27 PM

And it also doesn’t change the fact that Cain is the last conservative standing. I’m not debating his competence. That ship sailed with right-of-return for me. But you know who was a competent campaigner in 2008? Obama. You know who was not so much the competent campaigner? McCain. I’ve run the numbers and done the math for myself. I don’t need anyone else to tell me what a shitty all-around field we’ve got.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM

i.e. “I got nuthin’, please go on a scavenger hunt to try to build a case for my argument. Thanks.”

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I have a High School diploma, don’t you?
Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 7:22 PM

i.e. “I still got nuthin’ – how’s that snipe hunt to find anything that could be even remotely construed as backing up my claim going?”

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Has Rich Lowrie made any media appearances yet?

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 7:33 PM

I think what you’re really trying to say is that you’re concerned that the (ahem) he IS getting isn’t affecting his poll numbers like you thought it would.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:20 PM

You can predict this story like a B movie by now…Cain’s numbers will dip, probably beginning this week, and Newt will ascend…then the so-called “vetting” by the media will begin anew on the Newtster (Prof Plum and all) until Romney is left–the prime meat they’re really salivating over. Jaded here, yet still hopeful.

RepubChica on November 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM

The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes

I’m no Cain apologist, but I’m pretty sure he is writing against adding a VAT on top of our current rates without changing them. If that’s the case, it’s not a contradiction.

drewwerd on November 6, 2011 at 7:35 PM

My gut is this really doesnt matter, I think your going to see Cains numbers go down and Gingrich’s rise. Just reading these comments and what I hear anecdotally I think people are becoming more wary of Cain and giving Gingrich a second look.

nswider on November 6, 2011 at 7:35 PM

You can predict this story like a B movie by now…Cain’s numbers will dip, probably beginning this week, and Newt will ascend…then the so-called “vetting” by the media will begin anew on the Newtster (Prof Plum and all) until Romney is left–the prime meat they’re really salivating over. Jaded here, yet still hopeful.

RepubChica on November 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM

I’m about to the point where I wouldn’t feel too bad about that, actually. I’m down for Newt/Cain or Cain/Newt after watching their sitdown last night. I’m not entirely sure that Newt would be any better at weathering the storm than Cain was, but there’s only one way to know for sure.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM


Your concerns are fair ones, sharrukin. Your argument as well.

I’ll argue this: It’s not surprising that Cain and Godfather’s Pizza had a tough time in the 80′s; Dominoes in the 80′s began the craze with the “30 minutes or it’s free” slogan and guarantee, and subsequently caught on fire due to this. Also, Godfather’s Pizza suffered from many inexperienced people who had no restaurant experience, most owners simply wanted to make a quick buck with their franchise. Cain was forced to reduce costs and increase margins, getting rid of less popular toppings, deep-dish pizzas (a no-no in many places), and dumped salad bars.

Overall, and considering the strong competition of other franchises which were taking off at the time (Little Caesar *gag*, and Pizza Hut) he remained in the positive.

Demosthenes on November 6, 2011 at 7:37 PM

I’ve run the numbers and done the math for myself. I don’t need anyone else to tell me what a shitty all-around field we’ve got.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Well we can certainly agree on that.

I would much rather have Coburn, Rand Paul, or DeMint, but if wishes were horses…

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Policies are precisely the reason that Perry and Romney are absolutely NOT getting my vote in the primary.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 6:04 PM

What is it that you are against? Oh, besides Gardisil and Heartless:

- Opening up drilling
- Ending all subsidies to energy, including oil, except for R&D
- Neutering the EPA
- Reversing burdensome regulations on businesses
- A fair flat 20% tax with a generous $50K deduction
- Keeping 6% of your FICA taxes in a private account
- Support for state’s rights via the 10th Amendment
- Securing the border with logical solutions (no fence down the middle of the Rio Grande)
- Publicly stated against amnesty and the US Dream Act

Seriously, other than you think he’s an idiot and you think he called you heartless, what is it about his policy positions that so enrages you?

mrsmwp on November 6, 2011 at 7:40 PM

but if wishes were horses…

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:40 PM

We’d be a rodeoin’

darwin-t on November 6, 2011 at 7:42 PM

But you know who was a competent campaigner in 2008? Obama.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Before I go, this is a media-created myth…Obama has been and still is an average campaigner….do not underestimate the glowing coverage, promotion and cover he has gotten from the media from the jump…also, I love watching debates, love ‘em so much I watched all the Dem primary debates from 2007 on…trust me, Obama had quite the few missteps and embarrassing moments on stage, most of which you won’t find anywhere on the web. I know because I’ve looked.

RepubChica on November 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM

You can predict this story like a B movie by now…Cain’s numbers will dip, probably beginning this week, and Newt will ascend…then the so-called “vetting” by the media will begin anew on the Newtster (Prof Plum and all) until Romney is left–the prime meat they’re really salivating over. Jaded here, yet still hopeful.

RepubChica on November 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM

I’m not sure about that. I think it’s time to stop listening to what everyone is trying to feed us and maintain our focus on each candidate and his/her own words.

Susan Estrich said on Fox today that Cain’s campaign was doomed and then we have intellectually dishonest crap that Jazz Shaw has fed us.

I’m tired of these people telling me what I’m supposed to think.

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM

i.e. “I still got nuthin’ – how’s that snipe hunt to find anything that could be even remotely construed as backing up my claim going?”

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 7:32 PM

You’re as stupid as Herman Cain, Whatcat:

Political Experience

The group, as a whole, had extensive political experience. At the time of the convention, four-fifths, or 41 individuals, were or had been members of the Continental Congress. Mifflin and Gorham had served as president of the body. The only ones who lacked congressional experience were Bassett, Blair, Brearly, Broom, Davie, Dayton, Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, Mason, McClurg, Paterson, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Strong, and Yates. Eight men (Clymer, Franklin, Gerry, Robert Morris, Read, Sherman, Wilson, and Wythe) had signed the Declaration of Independence. Six (Carroll, Dickinson, Gerry, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, and Sherman) had affixed their signatures to the Articles of Confederation. But only two, Sherman and Robert Morris, underwrote all three of the nation’s basic documents. Practically all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government. Dickinson, Franklin, Langdon, Livingston, Alexander Martin, Randolph, Read, and Rutledge had been governors, and the majority had held county and local offices.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html

Political and social life

In 1759, 27-year-old George Washington took a seat in the House of Burgesses in the Capitol and helped shape the idea of self-government for the next 16 years. He dined with such locals as George Wythe and Peyton Randolph. He worshipped at Bruton Parish Church. He enjoyed congenial evenings at the Raleigh, King’s Arms, and Christiana Campbell’s taverns. He attended the theater and once viewed four performances in a row, to see a particular red-haired actress deliver her lines. He supped with the governor and attended balls at the Palace and the Capitol. He patronized Williamsburg’s tradesmen.

http://www.history.org/almanack/people/bios/biowash1.cfm

FWIW: My ancestor had the opportunity to cast his vote for GW to be his representative in the House of Burgesses. :-)

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Cain is NOT for a federal tax WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM

ONLY if the entire system is overhauled. This FACT is not missed by any halfway intelligent person

LeeSeneca on November 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Before I go, this is a media-created myth…Obama has been and still is an average campaigner….do not underestimate the glowing coverage, promotion and cover he has gotten from the media from the jump…also, I love watching debates, love ‘em so much I watched all the Dem primary debates from 2007 on…trust me, Obama had quite the few missteps and embarrassing moments on stage, most of which you won’t find anywhere on the web. I know because I’ve looked.

RepubChica on November 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM

I said “competent,” not “ingenious.” Sounds like some of Cain’s detractors want him to be more like Obama than less…

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Overall, and considering the strong competition of other franchises which were taking off at the time (Little Caesar *gag*, and Pizza Hut) he remained in the positive.

Demosthenes on November 6, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Yes, but what are Cain’s remaining selling points if you are arguing that he’s still got a somewhat positive corporate record? It’s like a far less drastic version of the Romney supporters and their ‘he’s electable’ argument. If thats what you are reduced to then maybe its time to re-examine your support? Cain is a terrible crisis manager, makes poor staff choices, is incoherent in his positions, is totally out of his depth in foreign affairs, and has a lukewarm business record.

I would rather Newt or even Santorum though neither of them really blow any wind up my skirt.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Hey puchenko…you left this part out from archives.gov. Selective editing?

The 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention were a distinguished body of men who represented a cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Almost all of them were well-educated men of means who were dominant in their communities and states, and many were also prominent in national affairs. Virtually every one had taken part in the Revolution; at least 29 had served in the Continental forces, most of them in positions of common.

The delegates practiced a wide range of occupations, and many men pursued more than one career simultaneously. Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal training, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.

At the time of the convention, 13 individuals were businessmen, merchants, or shippers: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson. Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson. Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves. Broom and Few were small farmers.

Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office.

kingsjester on November 6, 2011 at 7:49 PM

I would rather Newt or even Santorum though neither of them really blow any wind up my skirt.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Santorum believes in what I call “conservative leviathan,” as does Ron Paul incidentally. And it’s hard for me to get past Gingrich on the couch with Pelosi. There’s not enough bleach in the world to get the stain of that image out of the fabric of my memory. But of course, YMMV.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM

I’ve run the numbers and done the math for myself. I don’t need anyone else to tell me what a shitty all-around field we’ve got.

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Well we can certainly agree on that.

I would much rather have Coburn, Rand Paul, or DeMint, but if wishes were horses…

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:40 PM


We go to battle with what we’ve got.

Demosthenes on November 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM

It sounds like a flip-flop. Granted, it’s a qualified flip-flop in that his newfound support of a national sales tax is part of a complete overhaul of the tax code, but I’m not gonna make excuses for him when I don’t do the same for others. Which BTW is also worth noting. Every candidate with the possible exception of Ron Paul is guilty of this sort of thing. Newt was for an individual mandate before he was against it. Rick Perry is against Obama’s crony capitalism….but he has no problem with his own. Bachmann’s railed against pork barrel spending while being the beneficiary of it herself. Romney….well, don’t get me started on his contradictory statements.

Still, it does make Cain seem a little bit more like your typical politician. Hopefully there aren’t too many more examples like this that come to light.

Doughboy on November 6, 2011 at 7:53 PM

FWIW: My ancestor had the opportunity to cast his vote for GW to be his representative in the House of Burgesses. :-)
Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM

While it’s good that you’re starting to learn to use the internet for research, due pressure by myself and others, you’re still not making a case the FF were “career politicians”. At least not as we use the term today.

You’re correct if say they were involved in the politics of their day, but it wasn’t their source of income – the payoff just wasn’t all that much (if any). They depended on things such as farming and silversmith shops to get by. I expect they would be shocked if they could see the career politicians of today milking the public teat for all it’s worth.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Susan Estrich said on Fox today that Cain’s campaign was doomed
Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Maybe the fact that Estrich was raped in college makes her very sensitive to Cain’s “sexual harrassment allegations”, wishfully thinking that that will doom his campaign.

gracie on November 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Yes, but what are Cain’s remaining selling points if you are arguing that he’s still got a somewhat positive corporate record? It’s like a far less drastic version of the Romney supporters and their ‘he’s electable’ argument. If thats what you are reduced to then maybe its time to re-examine your support? Cain is a terrible crisis manager, makes poor staff choices, is incoherent in his positions, is totally out of his depth in foreign affairs, and has a lukewarm business record.

I would rather Newt or even Santorum though neither of them really blow any wind up my skirt.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:49 PM


I’m not arguing that his record corporate record was mediocre, on the contrary, considering the competition and the time he entered Godfather’s, he did well.

His business/corporate record and successes, do not end with Godfather.

I agree with your overall point, that a greater, fair critique at his record in business needs to be made — before primetime.

Demosthenes on November 6, 2011 at 8:02 PM

I don’t think he wrote that himself. If I didn’t know better, I’d say he had Bachmann write that column for him back then. I think she has used every word of that column in her analysis of Cain’s 999 plan.

Buddahpundit on November 6, 2011 at 8:04 PM

I wonder if Palin had delayed her announcement not to run if that would have also delayed or diluted some of the Beltway GOP venom now directed exclusively at Herman Cain. Both Palin and Cain are outsiders to the Washington GOP fossils thus it would hardly surprise that what Rove and the usual suspects spat at Palin now gets aimed at Cain. He didn’t attend the Beltway social scene and he didn’t go to that short list of highbrow schools and maybe doesn’t know a crumpet from a scone. The horror of it.

Though I’m of the ABO variety where any of the GOP candidates would be preferable to Zero (and likely would make decent Supreme Court nominations) it’s an unhealthy sign that several of the candidates and their peddlers show no hesitation at tearing down our candidates in reckless self-defeating fashion which used to be reserved primarily (pun optional) to the DNC and their media lackeys.

viking01 on November 6, 2011 at 8:05 PM

You’re correct if say they were involved in the politics of their day, but it wasn’t their source of income – the payoff just wasn’t all that much (if any). They depended on things such as farming and silversmith shops to get by. I expect they would be shocked if they could see the career politicians of today milking the public teat for all it’s worth.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM

I know I was correct.

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 8:17 PM

I know I was correct.

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 8:17 PM

You are also a pompous and arrogant douchnozzle. But who’s keeping track?

darwin-t on November 6, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Some of them decided to live off of politics, Whatcat:

At the time of the convention, 13 individuals were businessmen, merchants, or shippers: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gerry, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson. Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson. Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman. Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves. Broom and Few were small farmers.

Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office.

Some things never change. :-(

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 8:26 PM

You’re correct if say they were involved in the politics of their day, but it wasn’t their source of income – the payoff just wasn’t all that much (if any). They depended on things such as farming and silversmith shops to get by. I expect they would be shocked if they could see the career politicians of today milking the public teat for all it’s worth.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM

I know I was correct.

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 8:17 PM

You are indeed if you agree with my summation above.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:27 PM

You are also a pompous and arrogant douchnozzle.

darwin-t on November 6, 2011 at 8:24 PM

If that was the case you would hand me the GOP nomination, proclaim me the heir to Reagan, and cover for my every gaffe,”misstatement”, walk-back, joke, non-joke, flip-flop, and incredibly weak debate performance against Newt Gingrich. Alas, I am no Herman Cain.

:-)

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Some of them decided to live off of politics, Whatcat:

Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office.

Some things never change. :-(
Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 8:26 PM

True, there were some Perry-types even back then who grew fat by spending their lives bellying up to the political trough. But most had earned their keep by the sweat of their brow. And, in some cases, by the sweat of their slaves brows.
At any rate, we remember Paul Revere for two things, mainly. The “Midnight Ride” and his silversmith work – which is still with us today. He had no millions in a Super-PAC political slush funds from which to draw.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM

True, there were some Perry-types even back then who grew fat by spending their lives bellying up to the political trough. But most had earned their keep by the sweat of their brow. And, in some cases, by the sweat of their slaves brows.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM

So being paid a salary in office is bad? How would those of lesser means serve in elected office if they weren’t paid to be there? It sounds like you favor a plutocracy where the Romneys and the Trumps of the nation could only afford to serve in public office.

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Mr. Cain in 2010 is speaking about a VAT atop the tax regime of 2010, which is not the same thing as a national sales tax with the two other legs of his 9-9-9 reform.

Early on Team Barry entertained a VAT. Rates ranged from 10 to 14 to 25 percent. However like so much Team Barry policy, balloons were floated but no plan ever emerged.

There certainly should be a debate about a national sales tax, as once its signed into law it will never go away barring extraordinary forces. But fretting over a 2010 op-ed because it does not prefigure Mr. Cain’s comprehensive reform plan in 2011 is lame. Purity tests dismiss reforms without the bother of seriously examining them. That may be good opposition ball but it is not a serious approach to reform.

DGB

Damian Bennett on November 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM

True, there were some Perry-types even back then who grew fat by spending their lives bellying up to the political trough. But most had earned their keep by the sweat of their brow. And, in some cases, by the sweat of their slaves brows.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM

So being paid a salary in office is bad? How would those of lesser means serve in elected office if they weren’t paid to be there? It sounds like you favor a plutocracy where the Romneys and the Trumps of the nation could only afford to serve in public office.

Punchenko on November 6, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Naw, it not just Perry who hit the jackpot, it’s pretty much the same for way too many politicians in general. That’s the problem. And we’re talking all the perks of a life spent in politics, not the salary. Including such things as Hillary’s cattle futures. On Perry specifically, though, there is no denying that Perry became a millionaire while serving in office.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Has Cain really had such a great business career?

As I don’t know about his tenure at Godfather’s Pizza, first see this post on Godfather’s Pizza:

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

But let’s also look after that. He went to the National Restaurant Association and resigned before his tenure was over, coincidentally the same month the 2nd woman’s complaint was filed with the NRA in 1999. He was also a D.C. Lobbyist during this time.

What has he done since the National Restaurant Association as we know that went well, don’t we? The last 12 years? People claim oh he was on boards. First off, being a board member isn’t even a job in the normal sense of getting up everyday, going to it and busting your hump. It is a part time gig. That’s why people who are typically on them, are on several. Yes, he was on boards. It entailed listening to what they wanted from Congress and gave his opinions on how best to go about getting them and from which Congressman. His job was to lobby Congress for them. They each paid him a salary and expenses for him to live in DC for 5-6 days a week to Lobby for regualations and for our money.

Let’s see, what else? He started a PAC to raise money from others to again lobby Congress and to finance other lobbyists. He also lobbied for regualations again and got stimulus money for these companies, our money.

Hmmm, I wonder if he’s going to not allow Lobbyists in Washington sucking up OUR money? In other words, for decades he worked against all that we believe in, conservatism believes in. We believe in competition, companies are not too big to fail, no subsidizing or stimulus money going out, no picking winners and losers, etc.

Then Cain became a motivational speaker and an employee at a network as a political radio talk show host for years. The motivational speaker part was to motivate with rhetoric, not substance. I’ve been to a couple of his speeches and at different venues. They are designed to energize the employees. They didn’t even relate to the company’s business, they were an upbeat pep talk, if you will.

I also have to wonder with his lack of knowledge on many political, domestic and foreign issues, what the hell he talked about on the radio all those years. Obviously he didn’t learn much. Did he not research for his shows and retain the knowledge? I’ve listened to him and it’s been just opinion and rhetoric, good entertainment but again, no real knowledge of subject nor substance. It’s also pretty easy when you get to pick the subject to talk about. This allows you to avoid those you either don’t want to or know Jack about.

Sorry, although he is a great orator, to vote for him on his “great business record” is hanging it on a business record that sadly is lacking.

If you were an employer, which you are right now, you’re hiring the President of the United States, would you hire a person with this record? Seriously? And someone who’s been out of the business world for 12 years to run one of the world’s largest economies?

Now when you’re interviewing him and ask him important questions, his answer is a laugh, a diversion, incorrect, an “I don’t know, do you?”, a misspeak, a “I’m not going to answer”, gave conflicting answers even flip-flopping or outright lied to you…would he get the job? It might even fly for you as a business owner. It wouldn’t me but I’m not you. The success of your company is up to you. But would you hire this man or woman as the President of the United States? Seriously?

And if you say, he’ll surround himself with people who do know, that’s naive and frankly, sad. We have that now. How’s that working for ya? Also, in that case, then let’s just vote in those knowledgeable advisors and skip the middleman.

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM

There are those “who grew fat by spending their lives bellying up to the political trough.”

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Great words. They perfectly describe Herman Cain.

He may not have done it by serving in office, though not for lack of trying. But he did get his money and OUR money, by Lobbying Congress for it, for decades.

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 9:01 PM

He may not have done it by serving in office, though not for lack of trying. But he did get his money and OUR money, by Lobbying Congress for it, for decades.

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 9:01 PM

You want to back some of those allegations up with links and proof please?

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 9:04 PM

You want to back some of those allegations up with links and proof please?
Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Drat you and your asking for proof! Facts be damned!

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Drat you and your asking for proof! Facts be damned!

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM

I need to know about these “decades” of so called bad things.

Decades, I tell ya, Decades!

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 9:13 PM

You want to back some of those allegations up with links and proof please?

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Drat you and your asking for proof! Facts be damned!

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Do you not know about his two runs for office and his DC Lobbying? Why don’t you?

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Do you not know about his two runs for office and his DC Lobbying? Why don’t you?

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Yes I do, but you said decades

I’ll wait.

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Yes I do, but you said decades

I’ll wait.

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Cain became a member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992. Prior to serving on the bank’s board, he served as Chairman of the bank’s Omaha Branch Board, from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991.

Cain left Godfather’s Pizza in 1996 and moved to Washington, D.C., to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association, a trade group and lobbying organization for the restaurant industry, on whose board of directors he had previously served. Cain’s lobbying work for the Association led to a number of connections to Republican lawmakers and politicians.

Cain was on the board of directors of Aquila, Inc. from 1992 to 2008, and also served as a board member for Nabisco, Whirlpool, Reader’s Digest, and AGCO, Inc.

After Cain’s term with the restaurant advocacy group ended In 1999, Cain returned to Omaha for about a year, moving to his hometown of Atlanta in 2000.

2005–2011 work for Americans for Prosperity

Starting in 2005, Cain worked for the Koch family funded Americans for Prosperity (AFP) alongside Mark Block. Block would later become campaign manager for Cain’s 2012 Presidential run and would be joined in Cain’s campaign by several other AFP employees. Cain continued to receive honorariums for speaking at AFP events until he announced his campaign for the Republican nomination.[62] Cain’s senior economic advisor during his 2012 presidential campaign, Rich Lowrie, who helped devise Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan, had served on the AFP board.

From 1989 to 2011 he was involved with the fed, lobbying, runs for office and political advocacy.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 9:33 PM

I need to know about these “decades” of so called bad things.

Decades, I tell ya, Decades!

Knucklehead on November 6, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Drat you and your asking for proof! Facts be damned!

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Go ahead and mock the way I talk. I get the high road here because at least I researched the candidates and it’s obvious you haven’t.

His runs for office and DC Lobbying are well known. It a sad day when anyone would need to link and prove something that is such common knowledge. However, it’s an even sadder day when his supporters, or those considering him (as I don’t know which category you fit into) don’t know it and are too lazy to go find it on their own, expecting others to do their work for them.

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 9:39 PM

From 1989 to 2011 he was involved with the fed, lobbying, runs for office and political advocacy.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Thank you, Sharrukin. Great write up too.

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 9:42 PM

From 1989 to 2011 he was involved with the fed, lobbying, runs for office and political advocacy.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Not an unfair criticism by any stretch, but this is more important than Governor Gardasil’s vaccine putsch? Or Romneycare? I guess we all choose our battles, but come on!

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 9:42 PM

On Perry specifically, though, there is no denying that Perry became a millionaire while serving in office.

whatcat on November 6, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Sounds like Perry likes to invest in real estate and has since the 80′s. He even got a RE license. Nowhere in that article is there proof of wrong doing, only speculation from political enemies. What a shocker that during an incredible real estate boom he has made money.

From the link you provided:

And unlike President Barack Obama, who has made millions of dollars from two books, Perry didn’t collect profits off of his books. Rather, Perry directed proceeds of one book to legal defense for the Boy Scouts of America and from the other to an Austin-based conservative think tank.

Wow, what a greedy, evil bastage. Giving profits to the Boy Scouts, why the nerve of him.

mrsmwp on November 6, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Not an unfair criticism by any stretch, but this is more important than Governor Gardasil’s vaccine putsch? Or Romneycare? I guess we all choose our battles, but come on!

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 9:42 PM

How you judge the information is something else, but people should know who the guy is at the very least. The information wasn’t exactly hidden in a secret room at CIA headquarters. It’s Wikepedia and common knowledge. Shouldn’t his supporters at least know that much?

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 9:46 PM

All of you ardent Cain supporters are doing him no favors when you mock people who are giving info on him. Some of us want our candidates FULLY VETTED BEFORE THE 2012 ELECTION!

I’m a Perry supporter and I want to hear legitimate info on him. For instance, if someone comes forward and offers proof that one of his real estate deals was a stinky deal ala Rezko, I would like to know!

mrsmwp on November 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM

I’m a Perry supporter and I want to hear legitimate info on him. For instance, if someone comes forward and offers proof that one of his real estate deals was a stinky deal ala Rezko, I would like to know!

mrsmwp on November 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Perry has a lot of baggage that will come out if he ever secures the nomination. A lot of it will be very damaging including his doing a land deal (Horseshoe Bay) that profited him around $500,000 with a pair of business partners (Alan Moffatt/Doug Jaffe) who sold guns to Rwanda during the massacre of 800,000 people there.

The seller was Doug Jaffe.

Perry bought the property from Fraser at cost plus interest for $310,762. According to a study by expert appraisers commissioned by the Dallas Morning News, the selling price hugely undervalued the lot.The market price was around $450,000.

And later the buyer was Alan Moffatt (coincidentally a business partner of Doug Jaffe)

In 2007, Perry sold the property to Alan Moffatt, a business partner of Doug Jaffe’s, for $1.15 million. Independent review shows the market value of the property at the time was about $850,000.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20100724-rick-perry_s-property-buyer-in-07-land-deal-was-influential-but-invisible.ece

In the 1990s, Moffatt and Peak Aviation, a company he owned, were in the spotlight when the British government investigated Peak in connection with arms shipments to Africa for alleged use in the Rwandan genocide. About 800,000 people may have died in the 1994 tribal conflict.

Peak Aviation was accused of shipping about 40 tons of Egyptian grenades, machine guns and Chinese-made ammunition, according to The Shallow Graves of Rwanda, a book by the U.N. secretary-general’s special representative to that country during the 1990s.

Mike Selwood, a 40-year veteran of the aviation business, said he flew arms into Zaire on orders from Peak Aviation. “That’s the only flight that I’ve ever been involved in where I’ve gone, ‘Uh oh. No more. This is wrong,’ ” Selwood told The News.

Reached in Kuwait, Selwood said he recalled one flight aboard a Boeing 707. “You couldn’t miss the fact that there were arms on the plane,” he said.

Selwood told the British television show that he carried “some 36-and-a-half tons, primarily of hand grenades” on a Peak Aviation flight into Zaire. “What is quite apparent is that Peak Aviation and Mr. Moffatt would be only too happy to carry whatever you want, wherever you want and to whoever you want,” Selwood told the show.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Not an unfair criticism by any stretch, but this is more important than Governor Gardasil’s vaccine putsch? Or Romneycare? I guess we all choose our battles, but come on!

gryphon202 on November 6, 2011 at 9:42 PM

I disagree with both of the stances you mentioned for Perry and Romney. With that said, it’s easy to arm chair quarterback or to criticize when you don’t have to make the decisions that actually affect people’s lives. It’s easy when you don’t have a record of your own to stand on, in other words, you’re a blank slate. Sound familiar?

Mr. Cain was given plenty of opportunities to actually have a record but either chose not to, or lost. Not to mention, he actually went against the party and it’s platform many times and on many conservative issues.

He was asked by the GOP to run in NE in 1998 with full backing. He said no and instead backed the Democrats against the Republicans as he did in 1994 and 1997. Before you say but Perry was a Democrat,that is not unusual and most Republican were Democrats. However, Cain was a Republican backing Democrats. The GOP rightly questioned his conservatism and loyalty.

In that same year 1998,in which he supported Democrat Ben Nelson, the one that was the final vote on Obamacare, however, he did announce he’d be running for President in 2000. He ran for President. He dropped out. When questioned about his sincerity to actually win, Cain stated he was in it to make political statements, not to win the nomination. He said Bush was too conservative so not only did he support the more Liberal candidate, he went to work for him as his co-chair against Bush.

Cain then ran for GA Senate in 2004. Cain bashed the more Liberal opponent with the same exceptions to abortion he had. When his own liberal views on social issues came out including against school choice/vouchers, Pro-abortion, Pro-affirmative action, Pro race quotas and Pro-Federal intervention in the workplace, he didn’t have a chance in the race. Cain even stated he would reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. The third person was a staunch conservative with a 100% pro-life record and a 100% conservative record. Cain stayed in the race anyway saying he did so to talk about things he believed in. He split the conservative vote allowing the more liberal candidate to win.

In 2006, the GOP asked him to run for LT. Gov of GA. They wanted him to gain visibility, name recognition and a record that conservatives could look back on so he could move up later politically. He said no, he wanted a higher office such as Governor or President. He said he would take his followers and build a network to do this.

In 2008, Cain was asked if he could support Obama for President. He said he could envision doing just that if he would agree to work across the aisle. Really, now. With all we knew about Obama, would any of us have even gave this any thought? Yet a conservative who was intending on running for President would?

Now in this race, he said he supports Romney. And all indications are that he is doing just that.

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Yep, it’s so bad that, if it keeps up, I’ll be looking for another hangout.

petefrt on November 6, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Word!

Kjeil on November 6, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Tricia, whose campaign are you working for?

I took some excerpts from your comments and did a search, and came across the same material here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280470/cains-past-donations-democrats-katrina-trinko

and a few other places.

When I take a specific quote from your comments:

“was in it to make political statements, not to win the nomination.”

and search, it comes back with three results (four, after this page of comments is indexed).

The way your comments read, the depth, and the places they are being distributed, makes me wonder if you are not working for or on behalf of someone, in some sort of official capacity.

BruthaMan on November 6, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Tricia, whose campaign are you working for?

BruthaMan on November 6, 2011 at 10:38 PM

IIRC she is backing Romney.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 10:40 PM

IIRC she is backing Romney.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Could be Perry too:

http://www.redstate.com/barleycorn/2011/10/27/why-governor-perry-is-still-likely-to-be-nominated/

Some more comments:

http://www.redstate.com/users/tricianc/

From that list of comments, she *most definitely* has a strong dislike for Herman Cain. The depth/length of her comments sure make it look like a political operative at work.

BruthaMan on November 6, 2011 at 10:48 PM

If a 2010 Democratically controlled Congress couldn’t or wouldn’t pass their much-beloved millionaire’s tax and ceded to an extension of the Bush tax cuts, they won’t have the cahoonahs (sp?) to raise the national sales tax.

redfoxbluestate on November 6, 2011 at 5:39 PM

If anything they will offer to lower the tax in exchange for raising the income tax. Then we are back to where we are except we know have a sales tax. The one criticism of 999 that has never been adequately addressed is how you prevent the Dems from doing this. Absent repeal of the 16th amendment giving Dems a national sales tax is foolish.

Bill C on November 6, 2011 at 10:54 PM

The depth/length of her comments sure make it look like a political operative at work.

BruthaMan on November 6, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Possibly. There are a few around but I think you just deal with what they say rather than question their motives. It looks like you are evading the information and what’s the point. If they are working for someone in particular that doesn’t change the truth. It would however be nice if they were honest and straightforward about it, that much is true.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Possibly. There are a few around but I think you just deal with what they say rather than question their motives. It looks like you are evading the information and what’s the point. If they are working for someone in particular that doesn’t change the truth. It would however be nice if they were honest and straightforward about it, that much is true.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 10:55 PM

I prefer to know their motives. If someone is going to that level to try and discredit someone, I’d like to know the motive.

Not evading the information. In God we trust, in all others we verify. In trying to look some of her opinions up to verify, I came across at least one quote attributed to Cain that can only be found in comments on other sites made by her.

I must admit, if I were one of the dozen or so Cain bashers here, it is a salivating piece to which I’m sure most would not put forth any effort to verify, before reposting.

BruthaMan on November 6, 2011 at 11:13 PM

The depth/length of her comments sure make it look like a political operative at work.

BruthaMan on November 6, 2011 at 10:48 PM
Possibly. There are a few around but I think you just deal with what they say rather than question their motives. It looks like you are evading the information and what’s the point. If they are working for someone in particular that doesn’t change the truth. It would however be nice if they were honest and straightforward about it, that much is true.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 10:55 PM

lol, I’m not a political operative. Too ugly of a business for me. I am just a detail oriented, long winded person. I have researched all the candidates like this. I am just one more person, a conservative Republican who votes and who is trying to pick the right candidate. I’m not being sarcastic as I understand your mistrust. I have it too. After the last election and all the shenanigans and manipulation, I was appalled at what went on, especially with the media and the spin. My eyes were opened. I decided not to trust anyone but to verify everything. This is my honest and straightforward reponse.

TriciaNC on November 6, 2011 at 11:24 PM

I’m afraid the GOP has a new Obama: Mr. Herman Cain.

- He lacks experience
- He has no past record we can look to but is a blank screen that his supporters can project their hopes and aspiration on.
- He has a slogan (9-9-9) akin to “Hope and Change”
- He has vociferous supporters that will always gloss over his mistakes.

He is pro-American. Not a stealth hammer and sickle type.

What I find galling is the fact that quite a number of his supporters (bitter Palinistas) know that he has little chance of winning either the primary or the general, but persist in propping him up just to stick their fingers into the eye of a conservative movement that they believe was responsible for Palin not running.

TheRightMan on November 6, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Now, that is one I haven’t heard. Palinistas are torpedoing the GOP with Cain for Palin not being able to decide if she will run or not.

AshleyTKing on November 6, 2011 at 11:48 PM

I have seen very little to substantiate Cain’s claims of success in business. I don’t want to rely on leftist media regarding Cain’s record but if any examination of Cain is labeled as ‘going liberal‘ then what else is there?

I think all the candidates need to be vetted and I am afraid that is not happening with Cain and if it doesn’t it will be a disaster in the general.

sharrukin on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

You laid out a good story about reduced sales. Sales is not the final arbiter of success. Tell us about profits. Did Cain make godfather’s lean and mean? If so, then that’s what the stock owners are looking for — profitability.

AH_C on November 7, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Those are just 2 reasons I do not support Cain. I do not support him because I don’t want to see another person in the WH who is as equally inexperienced as well as proven lack of knowledge in important areas as we have watched the last 4 years.

Voter from WA State on November 6, 2011 at 11:26 PM

I like Perry and I like Cain. I don’t think Michelle or Santorum have a chance. Newt is good but for the baggage.

That said, I own my business and I guess it depends on your product or services whether 999 sucks. Bottomline, Cain envisions it replacing the entire current tax system. This alone will restructure how businesses price employee bennies and fringe. In essence, it shifts all that away from tax breaks for employers to taxable income. I don’t have a problem with that. I like the idea of employees getting all their fringe benefits eliminated and converted to income. I want them to get the cash in hand, then watch the govt snatch it back in year-end taxes. I want them to insure themselves thru anynumber of health plans that are portable and tailored to their needs.

On the tax front, feeling the govt pull the tax out of their Wakefield will sensitized them to just what their money is being used for. To wit theresounding no that Colorado gave its elected betters. On the insurance front, people will think twice about what should be spent out of pocket, I.e. checkups and maintenance and what should be claimed. This will drive down healthcare costs when coupled with tort reform.

Aside from Perry, everyone else either talks about tinkering with the current code or has nothing to say other than blah, blah.

AH_C on November 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2