It's no secret that I am a big supporter of Herman Cain. If someone were to ask who I was endorsing, I would say Mr. Cain and there are a number of reasons for that. I think he is the most qualified candidate in the room to fix the economy, get us out of debt and lead us in the right direction. Fellow blogger Ted Belman over at Israpundit lays out Cain's impressive resume of accomplishments. To put it simply, he has the educational pedigree of Obama (a Masters in Comp. Sci), better business experience than Romney, the family background of Santorum, the TEA Party fire of Bachmann and dare I say it the gall to say what he means that Ron Paul has! What he DOESN'T have, are the chains of a lifetime of politics dragging him down. He doesn't have the baggage of being a politician. He's been a citizen, a problem solver, a military man and yes, he's been a rocket scientist! So while it doesn't take a rocket scientist to solve our problems, I'd feel better having someone who is one working on the solutions!
With that said, Cain's often attacked over his controversial 9-9-9 plan by people who either don't understand it or are misrepresenting it for political gain. While I don't have the credentials to pretend I know everything, this plan is one that I feel comfortable speaking about because it's just that simple. For many years now, our government has increasingly tried to make things more complicated than they are in an effort to get us to turn away and "leave it to them to deal with". The fact is that it's really NOT that complicated. The economy of the nation is no different than the economy at home. They've over time convinced us that deficit spending is OK, that we don't need to even have a budget and that our nations credit would never be questioned. Well that wall of straw came crashing down when America lost her AAA rating with S&P. While the politicians will demonize S&P for their downgrade, the real fault lies with those politicians who have run up $18 Trillion in debt, treated our Constitution like a wet rag and played fast and loose with the rules. Cain's plan is not a political plan, but a practical business solution to the problem. He started by identifying the problem, which we will do below.
In our homes, if the bills come up off and we owe more than we take in, maybe we get away with that for a month or two but eventually the bills come due. It's no different for government, no matter what they say, the rules of physics, mathematics and accounting are the same. At home, when you see debt you look for ways to pay it off, either you cut down on spending to even it out or you have to find a way to make more money, either with a second job, a raise or some other increase in "revenue". For government, "revenue" (what we call "income" at home) is taxes and fees that citizens are charged to ensure that the bills are met. Government has to take in enough to provide a benefit to the people and cover the cost of the projects. What's happened over time is that as government has convinced us that deficit spending (a.k.a. running up credit card debt) is OK, we've added another cost to the list, interest. So now, government has to spend enough to provide a benefit, cover costs AND pay interest on the debt. Their answer? Borrow more money. It's like at home, instead of cutting back on spending or picking up that part time job, you went out and got another credit card with a higher limit. When it gets really bad, they authorize the Fed to print more money (which we would go to prison for) which really is just borrowing from one hand to pay another, a little like using your rent payment to pay your electric bill. The rent will still come due, you've just kicked the can down the road except when you print MORE money, you decrease the value of it and so you need more of it to pay your bills. Fast forward a little and what you have is the equivalent of the government maxing out credit cards at all of the nations banks, the major international banks, local credit unions and now looking for even MORE. If it sounds insane, it is. This is what the government has done behind our backs and NOW, when their scheme is finally exposed, they look at the banks (credit card lenders) and say "Why did you give us all this MONEY!?" or they look at big business (which eventually becomes small businesses) and say "HEY! You're stealing from us because you have money and we need money!"(like demanding a raise from your boss because you're overspending at home). One day they will look at all of us as taxpayers and demand a raise. So we know the problem, spending, debt and an inability to make the tough choice due to moral and ethical bankruptcy. Why is 9-9-9 such a great solution?
The genius is in the simplicity. The current tax code is more than 60,000 pages of loopholes, legalese and special interest giveaways that confuse, confound and distract from the fact that there are a dozen major federal taxes not to mention the fees charged to people and businesses as a result of our regulatory climate. Cain's plan doesn't tinker around the edges of the code, delete a few loopholes or monkey around with the language. It throws the old system out (and good riddance!) and replaces it with 3 simple taxes for us to follow. No more chasing the other hand and looking for the many hands. It's divided up into 3 parts, a corporate tax of 9% which lowers our current corporate tax from the highest in the world at 35% down to one of the lowest in the world and which will stimulate growth (more on this tax later); an income tax of 9% (currently those making between $0 and $8,500 are taxed at 10% so EVEN those Americans get a tax cut); and finally a 9% national sales tax (this seems to give people the most heartburn but as I'll explain, this is actually far closer to the principles of America's founding than the income tax is). That's it folks, all other taxes go away, no Capital Gains taxes, dividend taxes, death taxes, payroll taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes, zip,zilch NADA. It's GONE! And we are left with just 3 taxes to keep an eye on. So let's look at those taxes and how they compare to the current system.
9% Corporate Tax
As I mentioned above, America's corporate tax rate is 35% which makes it the highest in the world. This is a tax put on businesses of a certain size that basically allows them to do business in America. It's also the main factor behind these corporations "shipping jobs overseas" (well this and regulations like Obamacare...but I digress) and putting Americans out of work. So next time Barack Obama starts yapping about the evil corporations, ask him why the country taxes them so high as compared to the rest of the world and what he would do if he were running that business. Another thing we know about corporate taxes is that they are "regressive" and passed along to consumers in the price of goods and services. This is a word you'll hear Ron Paul supporters and the left use a lot to frighten the poor (we'll cover regressive taxes later when we talk about the national sales tax). So we know that 35% corporate tax gets pushed through on the price of everything you buy, which means there is an automatic 35% markup in pretty much everything you buy. Cain's plan slashes that tax rate from 35% down to 9% which will make it one of the worlds lowest rates and encourage businesses to return to America and employ American workers. That will strengthen the economy, widen the tax base, put more people back to work and generally create MORE revenue and more prosperity. It will also lower the cost of goods, no longer will there be a 35% markup on every product, it will be reduced to 9% which will make everything you buy cheaper and lower the threshold for poverty. These are improvements we can all get behind.
9% National Sales Tax
Now let's talk about he boogieman in the room, the National Sales Tax. As I said above, the far left AND the far right, the Obama supporters and the Ron Paul supporters are already running around calling this a "regressive tax". Basically, a regressive tax is one that affects the poor more than the rich and it's usually used to discourage sales taxes. The idea is that the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities than the rich do. Perhaps this is true on paper BUT in reality the rich spend far MORE in terms of dollars (and often percentage as well) on products than the poor do. The rich buy bigger and more expensive houses, cars, boats, etc. They often spend more on their clothes, eat more expensive food and require more (and higher costing) utilities than the poor. With that said, keep in mind that the slashing of the corporate tax will also drive down the PRICE of goods and stretch American dollars that much farther. Now, a national sales tax is a scary proposition, especially with a Congress like we have. With that said, almost every state in the nation has a state sales tax and have since the beginning of the country so it can't be too bad for the poor or no one would live in a state with a sales tax! The reality is that the corporate taxes DO get passed on but really a sales tax is fair, not regressive. It allows each of us to contribute to our nation's future and with the boost to the economy that the corporate tax reduction would grant, the impact would be far less than it might be if say they were to institute it now with no other changes. Given the savings of all the other taxes that are being dropped completely, this works out in almost every ones favor. In fact, without loopholes, the only people who might be hurt by this are government and the corporations who rely on loopholes to dodge their tax burden today.
FAQ/Myths
1.) Isn't this just a tax increase? - The answer is no. This is not a tax increase. Let's do some simple calculations. As we discussed, you pay a 35% tax on everything you buy today PLUS your income tax of at least 10% (I know that SOME people pay 0 tax but those are anomalies easily dealt with) so your total tax burden is a minimum of 45% of your total income and expenses. Under Cain's plan, with the 9% sales tax, 9% income tax and 9% corporate tax, your total tax burden is just 27% which results in at least a net 18% cut for even the lowest paid Americans.
2.) Won't the politicians just increase the taxes from say 9-9-9 to 15-15-15 and drive our burden up? - The answer is maybe. See, the reason our taxes are so high today is because we have allowed them to get out of control and take more and more and spend more and more without holding them accountable. Our government is not designed to run on auto pilot. We MUST be vigilant and while that requires work on our part, the upside is that WE have the power and control to get them OUT of office. So theoretically, yes they could increase the taxes but with only three to look at, it would be hard to hide an increase and protections in Cain's plan make it harder. #1 Since this is Cain's plan, he would be President and thus would have to sign any increases. Veto anyone? #2 It requires 2/3 majority in both houses to pass and as we've seen in 2011, you try herding these cats to do anything by 2/3rds majority!
3.) How will the poor be protected? - Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry all brought this up during the last CNN debate and quite honestly I think Cain missed an opportunity here. He talked about the fact that there is no sales tax on used goods and since poor people buy more used goods than new goods (cars, houses, etc.) there is less opportunity for those folks to pay the sales tax. He also talked about the Empowerment zones which will be areas in which his plan would focus to rebuild struggling communities. I'm thinking about places like Detroit and other such places devastated throughout the years. What he missed hitting on was the simplest face of all. His plan will drive DOWN the price of goods DRAMATICALLY. Think about this a second, the difference in the cost of an item under his plan in terms of the corporate tax is this, under the current system an item worth $100 ends up being marked up 35% ($35 for every $100) and the total cost to the consumer is $135. Under Cain's plan, the markup drops to 9% making that same $100 item cost $109. That's a savings of $16 in this example. The results are even better in almost every case, when you factor in all of the current taxes vs. Cain's whole plan.
4.) Will this affect Social Security/Medicare revenues? - No, these revenues will be collected from the pool created by the 9-9-9 plan so the only difference will be that they are not going to be separate taxes. Also, Herman would lock those funds back up and make sure Congress stops spending them on wars, roads and welfare.
5.) How will this affect underground consumer markets? - It will bring underground markets back into the tax fold. How? Consider this, today, an illegal immigrant worker is paid under the table where they pay no taxes on the income. They can then go to a state with no sales tax and buy a product off the shelf only paying the 35% markup meanwhile, you and I pay10% percent on income, then the additional 35% markup. Under Cain's plan, the incentive for companies to hire illegal workers under the table is reduced and these illegal workers are then paying into the national tax system via the national sales tax.
6.) What about states who don't have a sales tax like New Hampshire and Delaware? - This is another question that came up in the debate that I think ALL of the other candidates are disingenuous about. #1 - Cain is right when he says that comparing the national sales tax to the state tax is like comparing apples to oranges. They are entirely different things and state taxes will ALWAYS exist. They will exist with the current plan OR with a new plan and so there is no reason to count them. With the national sales tax or without it, Delaware for instance, will not show a state sales tax on the receipt but Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey all will. The price of products will STILL be lower. In fact, there is some talk about not itemizing the national sales tax on the receipt but that will be fleshed out as we go along.
7.) How come no one else has thought of this if it's such a good idea? -These are not necessarily brand new ideas but what Herman has that the others don't is a a lack of political fear. He is not, as I said earlier, shackled to politics like the others. He's a business man and a problem solver and he designs programs to solve problems. 9-9-9 is not a perfect end solution and Herman freely admits that he wants to transition to a Fair Tax system, eliminate the corporate and income taxes all together and get America's engine humming again. This is a stepping stone that takes the best elements from the Flat Tax, the Fair Tax and corporate taxes (if there are any) and rolls them together in a transitional ball.
8) Can this pass the Congress? - The answer is yes. Such sweeping changes to the current system have met with opposition from both sides yes, but there is enough support on the right and among moderates that an election mandate would allow Cain's plan some traction. That's not to say that he would force it through or that he would need a super-majority to pass it the way Obama did to pass his healthcare bill (but it wouldn't hurt to swing the balance of power to the GOP!) but rather that he would be able to present it. Sure the plan will be argued, debated and potentially modified but the upside to that, with Herman Cain in the White House, if it doesn't make sense, he ain't signing it! And, if we don't like it, we throw the bums out and move on!
I know this is long and so I won't take up anymore time. If I haven't convinced you by now, I'm not sure what else I can do BUT if you have a question, drop a comment and I'll get back to you.
*Updates*
10/20/2011 - My good friend Charlie Copeland, who is widely considered one of the smartest guys in Delaware, looks at the 9-9-9 plan from the perspective of economic growth and the drop in prices as a result of the reduced costs on business. http://resolutedetermination.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/9-9-9-if-taxes-are-higher-but-costs-are-lower-americans-are-happier/
Showing posts with label Herman Cain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Herman Cain. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Republicans Outshine Preseason Opener
Some of you may know, I’m a HUGE Philly sports fan and so I was in a quandary when I realized that the Eagles Preseason opener and the Ames Debate in Iowa were the same night. My plan was to record the debate and come back to it after the game but to my surprise, my WIFE decided at halftime that the 4th and 5th string Eagles didn’t matter. Boy was she right. It was well worth watching the Ames Debate live, especially with my new HTC EVO Shift 4G by my side and Tweetdeck feeding me the live stream of tweets to the hashtag #AmesDebate (not that I could read most of them as the stream was flying by, it must have been 100 tweets per second). The pulse of the Twitter verse centered on two candidates who have really utilized Social Media and it’s multiplying force to its advantage. Both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann got A LOT of attention on the streams as the debate went on. Gingrich and Romney each shared some space among the Twitterverse while most of the Ron Paul and T-Paw mentions were at best backhanded compliments and at worst pimp hand smacks. I know Rick Santorum participated but I don’t think I even saw his name mentioned on the Social Media landscape. I know that Frank Luntz, “Lord of the Dials” as I call him, is doing his own focus groups and word testing and he knows far more than I do about the pulse of the people I am sure but I wanted to break down what WE saw from each candidate and what our mood was here at home. As young(er) parents of 4 children we have a unique and different perspective on life but yet it straddles that line between the young, just out of college kid making it on their own and the worldly parent of young children trying to help them grow up right. I think our experience, youthfulness and wisdom will translate well to many people. You be the judge.
I’ll first cover each candidate from our perspective (in no particular order), pro’s, con’s and memorable zingers. Then I will tell you who we thought stood out and finally rank them in our current leaderboard with one line as to why they are where they are. Here we go:
Mitt Romney
Romney came into the debate with a lot of questions. Now I will admit, that I already had a slightly inflated opinion of Romney after watching his handling of hecklers during a rally in Iowa that was posted on TheBlaze earlier that day but my wife was under no such delusions and in the interest of fairness, we’ll weight this toward her opinion. Romney was the frontrunner in many polls but for us, he wasn’t our first choice (despite my recent discovery that he is a VERY distant uncle of mine…hey Uncle Mitt…share that wealth over here partner!). He’s polished, he doesn’t make many mistakes and he’s got a good business sense which makes him formidable when talking about the economy. I thought he also did a good job of talking about the need to restrain the growth of government. He did not appear to WOW or impress my wife much except in that he knows what he wants to do with the job and he didn’t dance around too many questions. The line that I think stood out for me was in response to an attack by Tim Pawlenty on Romney’s signing of a universal healthcare bill in Massachussetts. Pawlenty was once again asked about a statement he made earlier in the campaign season about Romney’s plan in Mass. and comparing it to Obamacare, he called it Obamneycare. Tim Pawlenty had previously ducked the question at another debate but this time doubled down on his answer to which Mitt responded “I think I’ liked Tim’s answer in the last debate better” then he proceeded to defend his actions in Mass. as follows, “There’s some similarities between what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did, but there’s some big differences,” Romney said. “We put together a plan that was right for Massachusetts. The president took the power of the people and the states away from them and put in place a one-size-fits-all plan. It’s bad law. It’s bad constitutional law. It’s bad medicine.” He also promised to grant all 50 states (not 57 states) waivers to Obamacare on his first day in office to give Congress a chance to repeal the bill and allow the states to opt out if they chose to. All in all, I think Romney sounded Presidential (as did Frank Luntz) and so did my wife but we expected that. This is not his first rodeo and so I think he could have been a little more substantive in his answers. We did like the fact that he spent more time comparing himself to Obama than to the other candidates which I feel shows leadership and an ability to run on ones record rather than personal attacks. We thought Mitt did well in the debate.
Newt Gingrich
Newt came into this debate as one of my least favorites based on his ability (or lack thereof) to beat Obama and his lack of commitment to the race. I’m also not a huge fan of some of his potential policy ideas but as debates go, he really had some zingers last night and he took on a media that focuses too much on personal destruction and less on policy. Gingrich said what a lot of us have been thinking over the last few years (decades in some cases). He also had some unflattering words for a Congress hell bent on NOT making a decision until the final minutes of a deal and then making a bad one. His overall performance wasn’t bad, as former Speaker of the House, I expect him to be able to think on his feet but I was really impressed with the fight he took to the current Congress. When asked about the debt reduction deal, and after zinging the press corps (and moderators Brett Bair, Byron York, Susan Ferrechio and Chris Wallace) for their focus on “campaign minutiae” over substantive policy arguments, Gingrich called the Super Committee “as dumb an idea as Washington has come up with,” and many of us would agree with that assessment. In this house we sure did. Gingrich was able to raise his stock a bit during the debate by not being afraid to take on the media, the moderators, the current Congress and Obama but he has a higher climb than many others because of some of his personal issues and because of his attacks on the Ryan Plan and his previous support of TARP, Medicare Part D and others. With that said, we thought Gingrich did well and we thought he picked up a few spots on our board but he didn’t wow us.
Herman Cain
It’s no secret (take a glance to the right of the screen) that Herman Cain was at the top of my board going into the debate. Now, the entrance of Michele Bachmann into the race and some of Herman’s slip-ups in the media have given me pause and reason to consider other candidates but he still hadn’t been passed. Cain is one of those rare candidates who don’t SOUND like politicians. He sounds real and he knows what he’s talking about. His business skills were on display last night as he talked about businesses and regulations. Herman had a great line about growth when he said “I don’t know one company that sits around trying to figure out how to stand still, it’s about growth!” Likewise, he rightly tied America’s energy policy to our national security and lightened the mood when asked about a comment he made in response to Obama’s mocking of calls for border enforcement. His response was “America needs to learn to take a joke.” He also said that he thought the federal government should be out of the business of educating our children and he also pointed out that “people should be committed to the Constitution of the United States first” before they are appointed to the federal government. Cain presented a real regular persons perspective sans political correctness and he really laid things out the way they are. He didn’t get a lot of time to make his points but he capitalized on that time well. We felt like he stood above the fray in the same way that Romney did and that he utilized his shortened chances to speak well. He reacted well to questions about things he said on the campaign trail and he didn’t flame out during the debate.
Tim Pawlenty
Pawlenty was one of the weaker candidates going into the debate and he did not disappoint from that perspective. He remained as one of the worst performers and really has made his name by being an attack dog on the other candidates. This time T-Paw as he’s known in the Twitterverse, found that he wasn’t just going to attack Mitt Romney for what he describes as the “Obamneycare” but he would also include fellow Minnesotan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann who he described as failing in her leadership on issues like stopping Obamacare, stopping the debt ceiling increase and reducing government spending. In fact, at one point the debate between them got so heated that T-Paw actually asked Bachmann to stop leading because she was “killing us”. T-Paw’s defense of his own record as someone who not only supported but pushed through Cap and Trade and who supported an individual mandate to buy health insurance (one of the key problems with Obamacare) was shoddy, weak and he danced around those issues while throwing every dart he could at Bachmann. He looked more like a bully trying desperately to remain relevant (a la Mike Castle in the 2010 Delaware U.S. Senate race than he did like a Presidential candidate. He was off putting both to me and to my wife and he was not convincing. He did NOT increase his stock last night but I’m not exactly sure he could have given his record.
Rick Santorum
So Rick had a podium…and he spoke…and I can’t say I disagreed with most of what he said. He’s principled and he didn’t back down from Ron Paul on the Middle East. As the author of a bill sanctioning Iran, Santorum was clearly on the right side of the debate over whether to let Iran do whatever it wants with regards to its nuclear program and the threat they pose to the U.S. with terror cells working with Mexican drug cartels to setup terrorist training camps just across the border and their use of drug smuggling tunnels to transport weapons, ammo, terrorists and more into the U.S. Paul could muster little more than calling Santorum nothing short of a war propagandist and called for us to talk to the Iranians who have consistently said that they desire both the United States and Israel to be destroyed. Santorum stung Paul with the following comments, “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and the Afghans have. The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel.” He followed with this, “He sees it exactly as Barack Obama sees it. That we have to go around and apologize for the fact that we've gone out and exerted our influence to create freedom around the world. I don't apologize for that. I don't apologize for the Iranian people being free for a long time, and now they're under a mullahcracy [sic] that tramples the rights of women, tramples the rights of gays, tramples the rights of people all throughout their society and is the greatest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world — and — is setting up training camps and is working with Venezuela and other countries south of our border to threaten us.” He also had a good call on political compromise and how you can do it without losing your principles.
His biggest slip in our home was on the abortion issue. My wife and I are STAUNCHLY pro-life but we recognize the care and attention that MUST be paid in the cases of rape and incest specifically. Personally our positions are in favor of life at every turn but we struggle with how it’s our right to decide that for a woman who’s been raped or who’s body has been violated by a relative. In our opinon, if the baby will be healthy then we should look to adoption over abortion but that is a VERY tense situation. So Santorum’s principled stand even on those rough issues is both refreshing on the one hand and potentially over the top on the other. We like Santorum but can he transfer to those in America who are less conservative than we are? My argument is that he was once a PA Senator, a large state with two large cities (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) but my wife argues that it would be similar to the O’Donnell race in Delaware where the media smeared everything and made every issue relate to these contentious issues. I can’t disagree with her position entirely.
Ron Paul
Dr. Paul is a traditional Libertarian and when it comes to monetary policy there is none better in my opinion. My concerns with him are and have always been with regards to foreign policy and domestic social issues. His open support of the legalization of drugs is dangerous to American society and to the American way of life. He touched on that issue during the debate although it was not a major focus. I thought Paul LOOKED a little frail and shaky and didn’t get a ton of time to talk (as usual for the lower tier candidates) but his fiscal policy was strong as always. Where Paul completely lost the debate (and in my opinion all chance of winning the nomination) was in his exchange with Santorum (from above) and Bachmann. Paul is flat out wrong to discount Iran and to blame America for the hatred of the Iranian regime. He misses the deep seeded hatred of the Iranian leaders for the freedoms and liberties that we have in the U.S. and his policy suggestions with regards to Iran are scary bad. I thought last night was a bad night for him and he certainly dropped a spot or two because of it.
Michele Bachmann
Michele was the subject of ire from Ron Paul and from Tim Pawlenty and she weathered the storm. She even handled perhaps the most disrespectful question asked of a candidate since the 2010 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware. Byron York from the Washington Examiner, presumably in an attempt to prepare Bachmann for a run in the mainstream media (as if she doesn’t know what they are saying about her) asked Michele if she would be “submissive” to her husband if she is elected President of the United States which implied, of course, that her HUSBAND would somehow be running the country instead of her simply because she believes in the Bible. Bachmann handled the situation well and responded after a long pause (to allow the boo’s to cascade down on Mr. York). The clip below illustrates the nights most uncomfortable moment:
Now Bachmann also had some exchanges with Tim Pawlenty (as mentioned above) and while Pawlenty came across as obtuse, abrasive and rude; Bachmann was cool and measured in her responses. She challenged Pawlenty on his support and push for a Cap and Trade law in Minnesota as well as his support for an individual mandate for healthcare like what’s in Obamacare. Her blows landed sharply and Pawlenty had no real defense for his positions. Meanwhile, Bachmann showed herself to be a leader on key issues that matter to the American people and someone willing to fight for principle even against dramatically high odds. She came out of the debate really unmarred and better for it in our opinion. She didn’t dance around the questions and she defended herself well. She did get bogged down in combat with Pawlenty who was clearly beneath her but we thought she handled it well and zinged him right back.
Jon Huntsman
Huntsman ducked a few questions and that immediately turned my wife off. He’s not the traditional Republican and if we needed to see what a RINO looks like as compared to the current crop of candidates, he certainly presents that option. Frankly, it’s a bad option and one that I hope few people choose but it’s a voice for those who think that “Hey, Obama’s not such a bad guy.” He didn’t do himself any favors last night.
Ok so that’s our analysis. Winners and losers: Cain and Bachmann were big winners in our opinion, Romney was as expected and Gingrich had a few zingers so they are the winners last night. Paul, Huntsman and Pawlenty really dropped their stock and Rick Santorum did what he could.
Here’s our list to this date:
1. Herman Cain – Cain is a real pragmatic candidate who is more of a regular guy than a politician. He’s a plain talker who speaks the truth and who is unafraid of being politically incorrect but he doesn’t come across as overly abrasive.
2. Michele Bachmann – Bachmann is tough and she’s not going to take any guff from Obama or the liberal media. She’s a fighter who doesn’t get frazzled (as we saw with the York question) in the heat of battle and she’s very smart and very right on the issues.
3. Mitt Romney – Ok, so this one was close but Mitt is showing us something lately. He sounds Presidential and he’s been saying the right things and he’s doing well in the debates but that is to be expected from a guy with so much experience.
4. Rick Santorum – We like Rick. He’s conservative, he’s smart and he’s got the right thought process. The only problem we see is that his conservatism may turn off swing voters and Democrats.
5. Newt Gingrich – We had Newt at the bottom before the debate but last night he really made strides to convince us that he deserves a shot. We still feel more like he’s running for Speaker of the House than President BUT his zinger on the Super Committee and his attacks levied at the media for their focus on campaign minutiae vs. substantive issues was also great. Questions still remain about his personal ethics, support for Bush era progressive policies like Medicare Part D and TARP and his attack on Paul Ryan’s plan to reform entitlements.
6. Tim Pawlenty – Personally I think everyone from Pawlenty down should get out of the race and look for slots in the administration but in the grand scheme of things, if we had to pick someone from the bottom, Pawlenty is the pick over Paul, Johnson and Huntsman.
7. Ron Paul – Paul has dropped below Gingrich and Pawlenty because of his foreign policy alone. Anyone that doesn’t understand the threat of IRAN is clearly incapable of leading America in 2012.
8. Gary Johnson – Pot head votes are going here. Great.
9. Jon Huntsman – If we wanted Barack Obama, we’d vote for him.
I’ll first cover each candidate from our perspective (in no particular order), pro’s, con’s and memorable zingers. Then I will tell you who we thought stood out and finally rank them in our current leaderboard with one line as to why they are where they are. Here we go:
Mitt Romney
Romney came into the debate with a lot of questions. Now I will admit, that I already had a slightly inflated opinion of Romney after watching his handling of hecklers during a rally in Iowa that was posted on TheBlaze earlier that day but my wife was under no such delusions and in the interest of fairness, we’ll weight this toward her opinion. Romney was the frontrunner in many polls but for us, he wasn’t our first choice (despite my recent discovery that he is a VERY distant uncle of mine…hey Uncle Mitt…share that wealth over here partner!). He’s polished, he doesn’t make many mistakes and he’s got a good business sense which makes him formidable when talking about the economy. I thought he also did a good job of talking about the need to restrain the growth of government. He did not appear to WOW or impress my wife much except in that he knows what he wants to do with the job and he didn’t dance around too many questions. The line that I think stood out for me was in response to an attack by Tim Pawlenty on Romney’s signing of a universal healthcare bill in Massachussetts. Pawlenty was once again asked about a statement he made earlier in the campaign season about Romney’s plan in Mass. and comparing it to Obamacare, he called it Obamneycare. Tim Pawlenty had previously ducked the question at another debate but this time doubled down on his answer to which Mitt responded “I think I’ liked Tim’s answer in the last debate better” then he proceeded to defend his actions in Mass. as follows, “There’s some similarities between what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did, but there’s some big differences,” Romney said. “We put together a plan that was right for Massachusetts. The president took the power of the people and the states away from them and put in place a one-size-fits-all plan. It’s bad law. It’s bad constitutional law. It’s bad medicine.” He also promised to grant all 50 states (not 57 states) waivers to Obamacare on his first day in office to give Congress a chance to repeal the bill and allow the states to opt out if they chose to. All in all, I think Romney sounded Presidential (as did Frank Luntz) and so did my wife but we expected that. This is not his first rodeo and so I think he could have been a little more substantive in his answers. We did like the fact that he spent more time comparing himself to Obama than to the other candidates which I feel shows leadership and an ability to run on ones record rather than personal attacks. We thought Mitt did well in the debate.
Newt Gingrich
Newt came into this debate as one of my least favorites based on his ability (or lack thereof) to beat Obama and his lack of commitment to the race. I’m also not a huge fan of some of his potential policy ideas but as debates go, he really had some zingers last night and he took on a media that focuses too much on personal destruction and less on policy. Gingrich said what a lot of us have been thinking over the last few years (decades in some cases). He also had some unflattering words for a Congress hell bent on NOT making a decision until the final minutes of a deal and then making a bad one. His overall performance wasn’t bad, as former Speaker of the House, I expect him to be able to think on his feet but I was really impressed with the fight he took to the current Congress. When asked about the debt reduction deal, and after zinging the press corps (and moderators Brett Bair, Byron York, Susan Ferrechio and Chris Wallace) for their focus on “campaign minutiae” over substantive policy arguments, Gingrich called the Super Committee “as dumb an idea as Washington has come up with,” and many of us would agree with that assessment. In this house we sure did. Gingrich was able to raise his stock a bit during the debate by not being afraid to take on the media, the moderators, the current Congress and Obama but he has a higher climb than many others because of some of his personal issues and because of his attacks on the Ryan Plan and his previous support of TARP, Medicare Part D and others. With that said, we thought Gingrich did well and we thought he picked up a few spots on our board but he didn’t wow us.
Herman Cain
It’s no secret (take a glance to the right of the screen) that Herman Cain was at the top of my board going into the debate. Now, the entrance of Michele Bachmann into the race and some of Herman’s slip-ups in the media have given me pause and reason to consider other candidates but he still hadn’t been passed. Cain is one of those rare candidates who don’t SOUND like politicians. He sounds real and he knows what he’s talking about. His business skills were on display last night as he talked about businesses and regulations. Herman had a great line about growth when he said “I don’t know one company that sits around trying to figure out how to stand still, it’s about growth!” Likewise, he rightly tied America’s energy policy to our national security and lightened the mood when asked about a comment he made in response to Obama’s mocking of calls for border enforcement. His response was “America needs to learn to take a joke.” He also said that he thought the federal government should be out of the business of educating our children and he also pointed out that “people should be committed to the Constitution of the United States first” before they are appointed to the federal government. Cain presented a real regular persons perspective sans political correctness and he really laid things out the way they are. He didn’t get a lot of time to make his points but he capitalized on that time well. We felt like he stood above the fray in the same way that Romney did and that he utilized his shortened chances to speak well. He reacted well to questions about things he said on the campaign trail and he didn’t flame out during the debate.
Tim Pawlenty
Pawlenty was one of the weaker candidates going into the debate and he did not disappoint from that perspective. He remained as one of the worst performers and really has made his name by being an attack dog on the other candidates. This time T-Paw as he’s known in the Twitterverse, found that he wasn’t just going to attack Mitt Romney for what he describes as the “Obamneycare” but he would also include fellow Minnesotan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann who he described as failing in her leadership on issues like stopping Obamacare, stopping the debt ceiling increase and reducing government spending. In fact, at one point the debate between them got so heated that T-Paw actually asked Bachmann to stop leading because she was “killing us”. T-Paw’s defense of his own record as someone who not only supported but pushed through Cap and Trade and who supported an individual mandate to buy health insurance (one of the key problems with Obamacare) was shoddy, weak and he danced around those issues while throwing every dart he could at Bachmann. He looked more like a bully trying desperately to remain relevant (a la Mike Castle in the 2010 Delaware U.S. Senate race than he did like a Presidential candidate. He was off putting both to me and to my wife and he was not convincing. He did NOT increase his stock last night but I’m not exactly sure he could have given his record.
Rick Santorum
So Rick had a podium…and he spoke…and I can’t say I disagreed with most of what he said. He’s principled and he didn’t back down from Ron Paul on the Middle East. As the author of a bill sanctioning Iran, Santorum was clearly on the right side of the debate over whether to let Iran do whatever it wants with regards to its nuclear program and the threat they pose to the U.S. with terror cells working with Mexican drug cartels to setup terrorist training camps just across the border and their use of drug smuggling tunnels to transport weapons, ammo, terrorists and more into the U.S. Paul could muster little more than calling Santorum nothing short of a war propagandist and called for us to talk to the Iranians who have consistently said that they desire both the United States and Israel to be destroyed. Santorum stung Paul with the following comments, “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and the Afghans have. The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel.” He followed with this, “He sees it exactly as Barack Obama sees it. That we have to go around and apologize for the fact that we've gone out and exerted our influence to create freedom around the world. I don't apologize for that. I don't apologize for the Iranian people being free for a long time, and now they're under a mullahcracy [sic] that tramples the rights of women, tramples the rights of gays, tramples the rights of people all throughout their society and is the greatest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world — and — is setting up training camps and is working with Venezuela and other countries south of our border to threaten us.” He also had a good call on political compromise and how you can do it without losing your principles.
His biggest slip in our home was on the abortion issue. My wife and I are STAUNCHLY pro-life but we recognize the care and attention that MUST be paid in the cases of rape and incest specifically. Personally our positions are in favor of life at every turn but we struggle with how it’s our right to decide that for a woman who’s been raped or who’s body has been violated by a relative. In our opinon, if the baby will be healthy then we should look to adoption over abortion but that is a VERY tense situation. So Santorum’s principled stand even on those rough issues is both refreshing on the one hand and potentially over the top on the other. We like Santorum but can he transfer to those in America who are less conservative than we are? My argument is that he was once a PA Senator, a large state with two large cities (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) but my wife argues that it would be similar to the O’Donnell race in Delaware where the media smeared everything and made every issue relate to these contentious issues. I can’t disagree with her position entirely.
Ron Paul
Dr. Paul is a traditional Libertarian and when it comes to monetary policy there is none better in my opinion. My concerns with him are and have always been with regards to foreign policy and domestic social issues. His open support of the legalization of drugs is dangerous to American society and to the American way of life. He touched on that issue during the debate although it was not a major focus. I thought Paul LOOKED a little frail and shaky and didn’t get a ton of time to talk (as usual for the lower tier candidates) but his fiscal policy was strong as always. Where Paul completely lost the debate (and in my opinion all chance of winning the nomination) was in his exchange with Santorum (from above) and Bachmann. Paul is flat out wrong to discount Iran and to blame America for the hatred of the Iranian regime. He misses the deep seeded hatred of the Iranian leaders for the freedoms and liberties that we have in the U.S. and his policy suggestions with regards to Iran are scary bad. I thought last night was a bad night for him and he certainly dropped a spot or two because of it.
Michele Bachmann
Michele was the subject of ire from Ron Paul and from Tim Pawlenty and she weathered the storm. She even handled perhaps the most disrespectful question asked of a candidate since the 2010 U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware. Byron York from the Washington Examiner, presumably in an attempt to prepare Bachmann for a run in the mainstream media (as if she doesn’t know what they are saying about her) asked Michele if she would be “submissive” to her husband if she is elected President of the United States which implied, of course, that her HUSBAND would somehow be running the country instead of her simply because she believes in the Bible. Bachmann handled the situation well and responded after a long pause (to allow the boo’s to cascade down on Mr. York). The clip below illustrates the nights most uncomfortable moment:
Now Bachmann also had some exchanges with Tim Pawlenty (as mentioned above) and while Pawlenty came across as obtuse, abrasive and rude; Bachmann was cool and measured in her responses. She challenged Pawlenty on his support and push for a Cap and Trade law in Minnesota as well as his support for an individual mandate for healthcare like what’s in Obamacare. Her blows landed sharply and Pawlenty had no real defense for his positions. Meanwhile, Bachmann showed herself to be a leader on key issues that matter to the American people and someone willing to fight for principle even against dramatically high odds. She came out of the debate really unmarred and better for it in our opinion. She didn’t dance around the questions and she defended herself well. She did get bogged down in combat with Pawlenty who was clearly beneath her but we thought she handled it well and zinged him right back.
Jon Huntsman
Huntsman ducked a few questions and that immediately turned my wife off. He’s not the traditional Republican and if we needed to see what a RINO looks like as compared to the current crop of candidates, he certainly presents that option. Frankly, it’s a bad option and one that I hope few people choose but it’s a voice for those who think that “Hey, Obama’s not such a bad guy.” He didn’t do himself any favors last night.
Ok so that’s our analysis. Winners and losers: Cain and Bachmann were big winners in our opinion, Romney was as expected and Gingrich had a few zingers so they are the winners last night. Paul, Huntsman and Pawlenty really dropped their stock and Rick Santorum did what he could.
Here’s our list to this date:
1. Herman Cain – Cain is a real pragmatic candidate who is more of a regular guy than a politician. He’s a plain talker who speaks the truth and who is unafraid of being politically incorrect but he doesn’t come across as overly abrasive.
2. Michele Bachmann – Bachmann is tough and she’s not going to take any guff from Obama or the liberal media. She’s a fighter who doesn’t get frazzled (as we saw with the York question) in the heat of battle and she’s very smart and very right on the issues.
3. Mitt Romney – Ok, so this one was close but Mitt is showing us something lately. He sounds Presidential and he’s been saying the right things and he’s doing well in the debates but that is to be expected from a guy with so much experience.
4. Rick Santorum – We like Rick. He’s conservative, he’s smart and he’s got the right thought process. The only problem we see is that his conservatism may turn off swing voters and Democrats.
5. Newt Gingrich – We had Newt at the bottom before the debate but last night he really made strides to convince us that he deserves a shot. We still feel more like he’s running for Speaker of the House than President BUT his zinger on the Super Committee and his attacks levied at the media for their focus on campaign minutiae vs. substantive issues was also great. Questions still remain about his personal ethics, support for Bush era progressive policies like Medicare Part D and TARP and his attack on Paul Ryan’s plan to reform entitlements.
6. Tim Pawlenty – Personally I think everyone from Pawlenty down should get out of the race and look for slots in the administration but in the grand scheme of things, if we had to pick someone from the bottom, Pawlenty is the pick over Paul, Johnson and Huntsman.
7. Ron Paul – Paul has dropped below Gingrich and Pawlenty because of his foreign policy alone. Anyone that doesn’t understand the threat of IRAN is clearly incapable of leading America in 2012.
8. Gary Johnson – Pot head votes are going here. Great.
9. Jon Huntsman – If we wanted Barack Obama, we’d vote for him.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Citizen Cain
Herman Cain burst onto the stage at the Fox News debate in South Carolina and suprised a lot of people. I knew about Herman Cain, I was concerned about his ability to raise enough money to beat Obama but from what I knew of his message and his past, I was happy enough. With that said, he WAS a Federal Reserve Chairman and that was a concern because I know that the Fed is a major problem in our country. I say was, because Herman Cain was confronted about his work with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City by Glenn Beck and his answer was more than sufficient:
People ask, "Why do you support Herman Cain?" and the answer is, "Because Hermain Cain, flat out gets it." Herman is a self made man. He's worked for everything he's ever gotten and he's become a successful business owner who has created jobs and grown that business. Cain understands America and what makes America the greatest country in the world. He is descended from slaves and was raised by hardworking parents in the age of segregation in Atlanta, Georgia. His father worked multiple jobs and his mother also worked to ensure that Herman and his brother had a home to grow up in and that they graduated from college. They had faith the America WAS the nation of greatness that they thought it was. They had faith that if they kept their faith in God and in eachother and worked hard, their dreams would be realized and they were right. Herman and his brother graduated from college and now their son Herman is running for President of the United States.
Herman understands that though America has the scar of slavery on it, the greatness is in the freedom to overcome that mark and to work your way up. He combined that can do attitude with the values of a good work ethic & attention to detail and he earned everything he's ever recieved. Some will say that "Herman Cain can't win." I recall that they said the same thing about Christine O'Donnell in her race versus Mike Castle and look how that turned out. She beat him despite the destruction by the mainstream media and despite the attacks from her own party. In fact, had it not been for those attacks from her own party, we might be looking at Senator O'Donnell right now.
Some will say, "Can Herman Cain beat Barack Obama?" and the answer is YES. Herman Cain is uniquely positioned to confront Barack Obama on all of his policies and to defeat him in the realm of ideas. Additionally, Herman has a business background and he's been in the trenches of America's fiscal swamp. What's more, Herman removes the one weapon that the media and the left have consistently thrown at every challenge to Barack Obama's policies, racism. It almost feels wrong to even think it, but the fact is that no matter how valid the challenge to Barack Obama's Socialist policies, the media wraps it up in the bow of racism and hatred. The media won't be able to do that with a man like Herman Cain who knows what he believes, understands the facts, speaks his mind and by the way, looks like Obama and more importantly, can really relate to communities that other candidates would spend millions of dollars just to begin to learn about.
Others will say, "Herman doesn't have enough name recognition.". Sure, Herman has some work to do on his name recognition but most of that starts with us. It's up to US to get the word out. We've got to be telling our friends about Herman Cain and we've got be using Facebook, Twitter and email along with our face to face discussions to enlighten our friends and neighbors about Herman Cain and what he stands for.
Step 1 - Go to www.hermancain.com and learn what you can about Herman Cain.
Step 2 - Join Team Cain here
Step 3 - Invite your friends and family to check out www.hermancain.com
Step 4 - Invite your Caniac friends to Join Team Cain
Step 5 - Spread the word about Herman Cain to the rest of your community.
My latest blog pal, Mantei has got a GREAT post with tons of other Herman Cain websites where you can get involved. Check him out here. And subscribe to his site: http://mantei.wordpress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)