Showing posts with label Herman Cain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Herman Cain. Show all posts

Friday, December 2, 2011

Dear Mr. Cain: It's Time

Dear Mr. Cain:

We've never met, so this advice may sound impertinent. I'm offering it as a serious Republican who is still not committed to a particular candidate, so I hope you will consider what I have to say.

When people said you were a flash-in-the-pan after the South Carolina debates, I defended you way back on May 6th, saying, 

  "The big winner was Herman Cain. Cain clearly won the debate on two levels: his performance and his accomplishment of what he needed as a candidate. Last night Herman Cain proved he belongs on the big stage and that his message has an audience. Pundits may dismiss Cain and we must remember it is a long campaign, but anyone who thinks Herman Cain won’t be around is going to be proven wrong."  

I took a lot of heat for that statement, but I was right. In other posts, I defended your lack of political experience when I pointed out that your positions as CEO were a better preparation for the US Presidency than the herd animals in legislatures. I still believe I'm right about that, too, but now we won't know.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

It's Still the Economy, Stupid!

It appears that that the 2012 US Presidential Election is destined to be about the economy. It's certainly the pressing need, and with the killing of Osama bin Laden, the war on terror will be much less of a concern for many voters. It also appears there will be no standard-bearer for the social conservatives with the ability to make front page news.

Mitch Daniels after an award ceremonyImage via Wikipedia
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels



The most obvious social conservative candidate was the former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee. When Huckabee announced that he would not run, following Mississippi Governor Hayley Barbour's similar announcement, it left a void in the Republican field of candidates.

Barbour had tremendous credentials and was a social conservative without question. Many saw Barbour's announcement that he would not run for the presidency in 2012 as a confirmation that his close friend, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, would run. That has now been disproved with Governor Daniels's announcement that he will not seek the Republican nomination. This leaves former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum as the only remaining candidate with a primarily social conservative message.

I discussed Senator Santorum's problems in the South Carolina debate in "Why Herman Cain Won and Rick Santorum Lost the GOP Debate". Having said that, Santorum is the obvious beneficiary of the decisions of Huckabee, Barbour and Daniels to not seek the GOP Presidential nomination.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Why Herman Cain Won and Rick Santorum Lost the GOP Debate


The South Carolina Republican presidential debate was held last night and featured five GOP candidates that Democrat pollster and Fox News analyst Doug Schoen described as “the B team”. Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum showed up and delivered an energetic, friendly debate that generated some noteworthy video clips and sound bites.

“Winning” the debate is an obvious goal, but candidates had more important things they needed to achieve. Both Herman Cain and Gary Johnson needed to increase their name recognition and prove they could stand on the stage with the competition. Though Johnson is a former New Mexico governor, he is unknown to a vast majority of people and in the South is probably less known than TEA Party icon/businessman/radio talk-show host Cain.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is well-liked in the media. He’s well-spoken and his positions are mainstream. Unfortunately for him, some are not mainstream for Republicans. Pawlenty needed to convince voters that he’s not simply a more articulate, wrinkle-free version of John McCain.

Texas Congressman and libertarian darling Ron Paul had a difficult task. During this campaign, he has to convince a lot of people that what they “know” about him isn’t accurate. Paul has been painted as a “loony” and “dangerous” by political opponents, even though he holds a medical degree from Duke University and was first elected to the US House in 1976. In addition, the Congressman can come across as professorial when discussing economics and his foreign policy is not supported by most mainstream Republicans.

Finally, there is former US Senator Rick Santorum. I was surprised when Chris Stirewalt’s analysis on the Fox News website offered up Rick Santorum as the winner. I didn’t see him as the winner and after further reflection, I still do not see it. With his experience and relatively high profile, Santorum needed to show he was the class of the debate and consequently, was the only one who actually needed to win.

Pennsylvania’s Santorum has a well-earned reputation as a conservative. He is openly patriotic and has shown he will go to the mat for conservative causes. He would like to be the heir to Ronald Reagan, but his visible lack of comfort and  joy prevents him from being the next incarnation of Reagan’s “Happy Warrior”.

Santorum, presented as a checklist of positions and as a squeaky-clean public servant should chart high with conservatives. Santorum’s personal presentation though was stiffer than a plank and his expression was wooden, as well. The Rick Santorum who was first elected to the US House of Representatives at the age of 32 was joyful, passionate, and witty. Speaking during “Special Orders” in the US House, he demonstrated his thoughtful support for the conservative cause with a real smile on his face. If that Rick Santorum does not reappear, along with his missing smile, then this Rick Santorum should simply go home because voters will not support a man this difficult to like.

Gary Johnson came across as a smart man with a sense of humor, but his attempts at using cost-benefit analysis as a platform did not score with the audience. Tim Pawlenty got points for his kind treatment of absent colleagues, but was entangled in his former position on Cap and Trade legislation. Neither completed the needed tasks.

Ron Paul held his own and his supporters were enthusiastic. He got some significant applause lines and laugh lines, but his task is a long-term one. He has to convince voters that his ideas aren’t crazy just because they are different. He certainly lost no votes because he stayed on message and his candor may have brought some new listeners, but he did not dominate the debate. The unanswerable questions at this time are, “Was it enough?” and “Will his message begin to resonate with a broader audience?”

The big winner was Herman Cain. Cain clearly won the debate on two levels: his performance and his accomplishment of what he needed as a candidate. Last night Herman Cain proved he belongs on the big stage and that his message has an audience. Pundits may dismiss Cain and we must remember it is a long campaign, but anyone who thinks Herman Cain won’t be around is going to be proven wrong.
Blog Directory