Tuesday, February 01, 2011
A recent comment from a reader named "Lee" asked for my thoughts on Herman Cain, and whom I might see as a viable candidate for the White House in 2012.
I had heard of Cain. I knew he was great at dispelling myths about conservatives and Tea Party types being "racist". I even knew his name was being floated out there as a possible candidate.
Of course, given the Republicans' absolutely dismal candidates in every presidential election of my voting lifetime (this goes back to 1988), I would never expect them to put someone worth voting for on the ballot anyway. I had high hopes for W in 2000, and didn't feel like a LOTE vote would be all that bad in 2004, but alas, it was just another four-year dictatorship completely inappropriate to the way things are supposed to be in the United States.
Of course, in those days, I was much more Republican than I am today. Read some of my older posts for proof. I was inspired by President Bush's 2005 inaugural address, and stood firm against those who said he was a bad speaker. Truth be told, Mr. Bush was, in fact, a great speaker - head and shoulders above him who illegally sits in his former office today. Sadly, a great speaker does not a great President make. After twenty years of Bush/Clinton, we aren't much better off than we would have been had we allowed Jimmy Carter another four years.
So the Tea Party likes Herman Cain? Whoopie fucking do. They couldn't even find an appropriate speaker to respond to the State of the Union. Even the Republicans beat us that night.
I googled all over the Internet to find something the man stands for, and the only place there was anything at all was (not surprisingly) WorldNetDaily. That's the same WorldNetDaily that is leading the charge to force Mr. Obama to produce documentation proving he is legally eligible for office. All I could find even there was the following:
1. He's not buying the bullshit that the Tea Party is a bunch of racists.
2. He's a problem solver.
3. He's for securing the border, enforcing border and immigration laws, and simplifying the naturalization process.
4. He's for slowing the onset of OblahmaCare and repealing it in as timely a fashion as possible (and replacing it with God knows what - the link was broken).
5. He's pro-life.
6. He's for an indefinite spending cap and drastic cuts in taxation.
7. He's for "restructuring" MediScare and Socialist Security (whatever that means).
8. He's for replacing the current tax structure with a sales tax.
9. He's for a strong military.
10. He's for maximizing use of natural resources, but also advocates "pursuing renewable fuel technologies".
He says he's a Constitutionalist as well.
OK, so what does this mean from a truly Constitutionalist perspective? Simply compare his positions to the Federalist Party Platform and it will all make sense.
Let's go through them one at a time again ...
1. He is correct in his assertion that the Tea Party is not a bunch of racists. - Check.
2. He's a problem solver. - OK fine. That's all neat and peachy. So what? If your solution to a problem isn't constitutional, then you're the same scum that is currently infesting the White House.
3. On illegals and immigration ... OK. I'll take that answer. - Check.
4. Elimination of OblahmaCare. - Check, but beware the alternative. What exactly does he plan to put in its place? Don't forget that the Republicans have decided that they have a government health "solution" as well, which is just as illegal as Oblahma's. Doing away with OblahmaCare isn't enough. We need a candidate that will stop government meddling in the affairs of the people, period.
5. Pro-life. - Check.
6. A spending cap? Whoopie fucking do. You're going to vote for a candidate who will cap spending AFTER all this illegal socialism has been added? Are you fucking kidding me? Cuts in taxation, sure, but simply capping spending indefinitely isn't going to mean squat if money is still being spent illegally.
7. "Restructuring" MediScare and Socialist Security. Unless this means handing it off to the people to administer or to the States where the State Constitutions allow, it's nothing more than the usual Donk-lite. That's not a Tea Partier; that is a REPUBLICAN.
8. Sales tax? No. Sorry, Charlie. That ain't gonna cut it. Somehow America had plenty of money before the libs decided they needed an income tax. Now people want to replace that tax with a different tax on the same people. Why not just do what we did before the libs walked in and decided they needed this huge expensive government? THAT is what makes sense.
9. Strong military. - Check.
10. I would want to know what he means by "pursuing renewable fuel technologies". To me, it sounds like the same government meddling we have now, but without handcuffing those wishing to use American resources. Doesn't sound a bit like he has any desire to divest government of its "interest" in this area.
So out of seven relevant positions, he's solidly acceptable on two.
Not what I'm looking for.
Furthermore, I would be "more than just a little" concerned about a guy who says he's "crazy about the Constitution", and in the same breath would advocate unconstitutional government healthcare, unconstitutional spending, unconstitutional socialist programs, unconstitutional taxation, and unconstitutional environmentalism.
Whom do I see as a viable candidate in 2012?
For now, it's looking a lot like "none of the above".