How can a man be the right choice for the GOP nomination when he is wrong about so much?
If we look all the way back in 2008, we can read how Herman Cain praised TARP and went so far as to call detractors “free market purists” whose problem was “economic illiteracy.”
Cain’s column makes him seem comfortable with government ownership of private business so long as it is a small stake and short term.
In Tuesdays debate, Cain missed an opportunity to recant his position on TARP. Instead, he lamented the way TARP was administered. These positions indicate a man who is comfortable with Big Government if he feels the situation warrants it.
Next, let’s briefly revisit the 9-9-9 plan.
Cain has put up a whole section on 9-9-9 on his website.
Cain continues to claim that the 9% consumption tax in conjunction with the 9% income tax removes embedded taxes in the price of all goods. Again, there is no evidence that this would be true. Collecting the 9% income tax would likely still fall on employers and thus generate compliance costs which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Next, and perhaps most inexcusable, is the lack of foreign policy chops.
Herman talks a lot about friends and enemies. He has openly espoused war with Iran over threats to Israel, which has been the most substantive statement he has made on the subject. His website section on National Security reads like the Greatest Hits of Bill Kristol and the Neo-Conservatives. Ironically, Cain claimed to not be familiar with neo-conservatism.
Lastly, Cain has been surprisingly disrespectful to Congressman, and fellow candidate , Ron Paul.
In last week’s debate, Cain lied to Paul’s face about his stance on the Fed.
This week a snippet from Cain’s new book emerged where Cain rails against Paul supporters for constantly asking him “stupid” questions about the Fed. Cain goes on to say Paul is the candidate he is least worried about.
And just today, Cain went on Piers Morgan and declared that he didn’t think Ron Paul would be a good President.
Funny enough Cain declared at the 2010 SRLC Conference that liberals, “shift the subject, ignore the facts, and name call.” So far Herman Cain has shifted focus away from his time at the Federal Reserve, ignored the structural defects their policies put into the economy, and name called those who have questioned him on the subject. Does this make Herman Cain a liberal?
Finally, Herman Cain’s rhetoric and demeanor show an arrogant and confrontational man who is not suitable to represent the GOP or the United States. CEO experience is the exact opposite of what we need in a President. President’s have a Constitutionally limited role, whereas CEO’s are used to commanding others to do what they want.
Herman Cain has shown poor judgement far too often to be taken seriously. He doesn’t understand the market, his own tax plan, or Constitutional foreign policy. Furthermore, he thinks the most consistent and principled candidate in the race is the least suited to be President. Clearly, America deserves better than arrogance laced with ignorance. We deserve better than Herman Cain.