Oct 25 2011

Cain Refuses To Fade Away

Major Update: Cain is getting some awesome poll numbers out today:

In Wisconsin Cain’s at 30% to 18% for Romney …

In Nevada Romney’s at 29% to 28% for Cain …

He’s gained 21 points from late July in Nevada, when he was at 7%. And he’s gained 23 points from mid-August in Wisconsin where he was also at 7%. It’s the Tea Party that continues to drive Cain’s support. He’s up 37-19 on Romney with those voters in Nevada …

H/T Stop the ACLU, who also links to a new Cain ad

- end update

As the DC Political Industrial Complex continues its efforts to anoint Romney to take on Obama in 2012, the voters are going down a completely different path:

Businessman Herman Cain is now atop the field of Republican White House hopefuls, squeaking past former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.

Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney’s 21 percent.

Cain refuses to fade away because voters are not interested in Romney – who simply Obama-lite. I refer to Mitt as “Robamaney” – given how close he is to Obama’s positions on a range of key issues.

Take government run health care. As long as Robamaney defends RomneyCare, there is little hope he would champion the complete repeal of Obamacare. Given he is the anointed establishment candidate, we are more likely to find him trimming on the margins of Obamacare and negotiating away our freedom to chose our own health care. Until he agrees RomneyCare should go, there is little doubt he will fold when taking on Obamacare.

And then there is how close Robamaney is to Obama on global warming – the largest attempt to fleece the people ever concocted:

John Holdren, now President Obama’s assistant for science and technology, once advised GOP presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on environmental policy. . . .

On Jan. 1, 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, something the Obama administration is trying to do to all states through the Environmental Protection Agency’s draconian job-killing regulations and mandates.

Romney is right in line with Obama and the left on the nonsense of global warming (a real phenomena that has happened before modern civilization in the Roman and Medieval Periods, and thus is not driven by human activities – let alone CO2 which rises in response to warming). Robamaney would tax our energy to the point our economy has no hope of recovery.

On just these two issues they demonstrate the new fronts for encroachment of big government into every nook and corner of our lives (health and energy). And on these two issues he difference between Obama and Robamaney are meaningless. They are both big government solution types.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a free market solution type. He is for exposing the cost (his 9-9-9 plan) and intrusion of government. He has a libertarian message of limited, quiet, on-the-side-line government. He best represents the 2010 tsunami voter, as can be seen by the Cain versus Romney numbers for the Tea Party vote (back to the CBS News link at top):

Cain’s support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent

Romney’s Tea Party support has held steady in October, at 18 percent

The Tea Party vote is the libertarian, limited government voting bloc that decimated the Dems in 2010. While the term “tea party” may be declining in support, the 2010 political wave it was associated with is still out there, biding time until they can address the root cause of their angst – Obama’s liberal policies.

2010 WAS a referendum on Obama’s big government incompetence. The Democrats – the party of big government solutions – took a beating like none seen in living memory. It is why Obama is doomed to be a one term wonder and Romney has no prayer of garnering support.

And for those who naively think the abortion issue is going to apply the brakes to the Libertarian wave – forget about it.

As I noted yesterday, trading left wing, oppressive, centralized control in DC for a right wing version is just not going to fly. Very few people are going to sit out an election because, after four more years, abortion will still be a legal abomination (when performed for personal convenience) that must be considered in times of serious and complex medical situations. And those difficult medical decision must stay with the family – not government and not doctors (trust me, doctors also reach for the procedure too quick at times).

So what happens if far right voters can’t get over their abortion views central to this election? Plenty of small government independents are there to fill the void if they sit out again. The liberals have gone all in and will probably represent 35-40% of the voters when supporting Obama. The rest will be more centrist voters and will swamp the left – with or without the far right.

This is not an abortion election. This is an economic election and a limited government election. It has been that way since 2009. The anti-government tide is still out there (check out all the special elections and the failure of the left in Wisconsin). So no government mandate is going to fly.

Update: Ed Morrissey also notes this shocker poll:

The big story is the durability of Cain, at least thus far.  He’s running one of the most unconventional campaigns in recent memory — or at least one of the more successful unconventional campaigns.  As I said yesterday, Cain is drawing from a deep well of goodwill among Republican voters who love his biography and his sunny, no-nonsense approach to politics.  Voters can relate to Cain, and unless he seriously collapses, he’s not likely to lose that affection.

That connection to the voters in my mind goes beyond his biography and optimism – though that is a big part of it. He is still the only true outsider running, and all the rest keep talking about tinkering around the margins and lots of bogus promises. Stuff we have heard for decades. Cain is different.

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Cain Refuses To Fade Away”

  1. WWS says:

    Who would make a good VP for Cain? Rubio’s an obvious pick, but I think the country is better off with Rubio holding on to his Senate seat; that’s an important position, while the Veep slot is damn near worthless. (the reason it doesn’t really matter that Biden is such a clown) Better off to pick someone who doesn’t leave a big hole behind him when he leaves; same logic applies to Christy. He’s doing more in New Jersey than he could do elsewhere.

    Time to bring Pawlenty back? Or maybe Mitch Daniels?

  2. Cain Passes Up Romney in CBS/NYT Poll…

    After a few Gaffe’s that the liberal media GOP establishment said would doom him, the latest national poll conducted after the gaffes show an increase in Cain’s lead. He now stands outside the margin of error above Romney who is stagnant at…

  3. Another New Cain Ad…

    While everyone is talking about how bizarre this campaign ad is from Herman Cain, check out how powerful this one is. I think this ad illustrates what I said in the post below; People appreciate Herman Cain’s candid and upbeat campaign approach w…

  4. Redteam says:

    I don’t disagree with anything you said. But, let’s look at the objective of the MSM. They have one main objective, re-elect Obama.

    How best to accomplish that. First, push Romney, the one Republican that they feel relatively confident Obama may be able to beat, but just in case he didn’t, they would get a very close approximation of him in that Romney wouldn’t change too much from the way Obama does things.

    Secondary, push Cain, so that when/if he fails the only logical other candidate, since Perry, etc would have been eliminated, will be back to Romney.

    They can easily deal with Cain, if he is the candidate, because there is no logical reason to not believe Obama would wipe the floor with him in debates, making him look foolish (I won’t requote all his gaffs, we already know them) but we will get to see them a lot, if Cain is the candidate.

    “quote:Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a free market solution type. He is for exposing the cost (his 9-9-9 plan) and intrusion of government. unquote” Cain doesn’t have a 9-9-9 plan, he has a plan to have a 9-9-9 plan. or 9-0-9 plan, neither of which are on his web site. (at least I can’t find it and no one has been able to supply a link) I support his plan to have a plan.

    I’m just afraid of these CBS News,etc/NYTimes,etc polls. their objectives are clear. Lie, misquote, mislead, whatever they have to do to get their guy (Obama) re-elected.

    PS:
    WWS, Rubio is not a natural born citizen (native born, yes, natural born, no) therefore, like Obama, not eligible (but who cares, that’s only a constitutional technicality)

  5. Redteam says:

    Why is STOP THE ACLU pushing Cain vs being AGAINST Obama? Just asking.

    Why aren’t they for ANYONE but Obama? People do things for a reason.

    For the record, that powerful campaign ad for Cain: It’s not one I would watch more than once then disregard it. (not very powerful)

    The enemy is Obama, not Perry, Romney, Newt, etc.

    I notice Newt is still rising in the poll. wonder why.

  6. WWS says:

    Redteam, sorry, but you’re wrong about Rubio. You have been sadly misled – the obsession with the term “natural born” as opposed to “native born” is a strange fantasy, and I’m unsure how it started.
    Under the law as it has been practiced for at least 113 years (ever since Wong Kim Ark) there is no legal difference between the terms “natural born” and “native born”. You may wish there were; you may wish it very dearly. But there isn’t one. Try and find a single court decision post-1898 that follows this view – there isn’t one. (The 1898 precedent overrides all previous decisions on the topic, of course)

    btw, I am a practicing attorney. I’ve never met another attorney yet who takes this idea seriously.

  7. dhunter says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jhQVAviVbg4

    To begin airing in Iowa, youch!
    Well they gave him the ammo, hes’ smart enough to use it!
    Wonder how Perry hiring a crack hit squad will work out for him.
    Probably about as good as the above did!

  8. AJStrata says:

    WWS,

    Thanks for clearing up the native born mess. The birther stuff is ridiculous.

    As long as your mother or father is an American citizen – you are one too. Nothing can change that. Especially not birth location.

    Ugh – what nonsense.

  9. Redteam says:

    WWS:
    “btw, I am a practicing attorney. ”

    and you’re bragging, or complaining? And attorneys should be required to pass a test on knowledge of the constitution before being allowed to practice (funny term) law. There would be a lot less attorneys in this country if this were the case. And no, I won’t supply you with any links to the many examples of the interpretation of the law, they are way too numerous and if you are an attorney, you know that as well as I do. That wasn’t the point of my comment in any case.

    “Thanks for clearing up the native born mess” “Ugh – what nonsense.” The statement was about natural born, not native born, clearly not the same thing. I’ve always taken the constitution seriously, and not requiring a candidate to have to prove their eligibility is ridiculous.

    Just watching Greg Gutfeld on ‘the Five’, that’s on the Fox channel and since everyone here seems to have sworn off Fox, you likely didn’t see it. but his take is, now all the candidates are playing “Let’s Make a Deal’ with the tax issue, each one throwing out their ‘outline’ of a plan to top each other one (Costume to draw attention) and once the election is over, the costumes will all be taken off and we keep what we have. He’s probably correct. What someone should be running on is reducing spending. Perry’s outline of a plan is as dumb and full of holes as Cain’s is. Both of them share, increased taxes on lowest income, reduced taxes on the largest incomes. (mine for example would go up a minimum of 50%, and I supplied the numbers for that) and I’m certainly not in the top earner category.

    Still waiting for the link to Cain’s plan (not his outline)

  10. kathie says:

    I like both Cain and Perry. Both have made mistakes, but can’t be as dumb as their mistakes.

  11. crosspatch says:

    Not a Cain fan at all. Let him run a state first. I want him to get some experience being able to work within government.

    I will go with Perry. Cain just isn’t ready for prime time.

  12. WWS says:

    I did pass the test. It’s called a bar exam. I do want you to understand where you’ve gone wrong here; this post will be a bit wordy, but this is as short as I can make a full explanation.

    The source of the problem comes when people read Article 2 of the Constitution and don’t realize it’s wording was superceded by the 14th amendment. Article 2 reads:

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

    See the first problem? “Natural Born” was never defined. You may have an interpretation you like, others have other definitions. These are the kinds of questions that have to be decided by the Supreme Court; that’s what they do. And once they’ve decided, that ruling becomes Law which must be followed by every Court in the land.

    An important point to remember in Constitutional Law is that the most *Recent* Amendment, law, or Court decision always takes precedence over any older wording on the same subject. Thus, the wording of the 14th Amendment takes precedence over the wording of any older clauses with which it may conflict. Now, how did the 14th amendment redefine constitutional citizenship? It reads, in part:

    Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
    “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    If you don’t see the huge problem here, it’s this: The 14th Amendment NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born”; BUT it came LATER in time than Article 2, so it supercedes any earlier parts of the Constitution which may conflict with it. The 14th Amendment defined citizenship in a way that had never been done before 1868, the year it was passed. This *New* constitutional definition did away with all previous definitions.

    There was a very good reason that this phrase was done away with; a reliance on what it meant to be “natural born” was a key part of the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, a ruling which since the day it was made has been reviled as the most racist and destructive decision the US Supreme Court has ever made. Dred Scott said that black persons could never be citizens, they were just property and thus had no rights under the constitution. (this ruling as much as anything caused the Civil War) The entire purpose of the 14th Amendment was to banish any shred of support for Dred Scott from the Constitution forever, and the phrase “natural born citizen” was one of those ancient artifacts that was dropped.

    Once the 14th amendment was passed, there were 30 years of cases attempting to finalize the Court’s position. These are the cases that modern proponents of the “natural born” wording rely on, but again – precedence. All of these early decision were wiped out by the final ruling, Wong Kim Ark vs US, 1898.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#715

    “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution..”

    a very long dissertation on citizenship under common law and in different countries follows, with appropriate references, and in conclusion, the answer of the Court was:

    “that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.”

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    There it is, in words as clear as one can make it. This decision takes precedence over *any* earlier rulings (Happersett, etc) and has never been successfully challenged.

    We can split hairs and argue whether “natural born” now simply applies to anyone who is a citizen from the moment of his birth, or that “natural born” is an archaic phrase written out of the Constitution by the 14th amendment; it’s academic, since the result is the same. Anyone born on the soil of this country and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen from the moment of birth, and is eligible to be President regardless of the nationality of his parents.

    That is indisputable and universally accepted Good Law in every Court in the USA today, like it or not.

    Furthermore, the final piece of constitutional interpretation, as practiced by the SCOTUS, is longstanding acceptance and custom. Wong Kim has stood as good law for 113 years now, which means that many, many different Chief Justices have had a chance to rule on it and have declined. When the Supreme Court continually refuses to hear cases on a topic such as this, it means they consider the matter settled law.

    And once the SCOTUS considers a matter settled law, it doesn’t change without a Constitutional Amendment.

  13. Fai Mao says:

    Redteam,
    What makes you think Cain would agree to a debate?

    It is possible that that He would simply say “Why should I walk into a trap?” He could simply say the debates are rigged, the crowds hand-picked demonrats and the moderators biased. Just say “I have a better way to get my message out. But, if he did debate then the simple way to beat Obama is to demand no teleprompters. Obama would be mute

    Perry did this in his campaign for Governor.

  14. Frogg1 says:

    I’m glad to see Cain is doing so well. I think he is the “default surge candidate”. He is the only outsider so the public will give him a pass on some goof ups (as long as Cain’ keeps them in check). BTW, they have all had some goof ups. I think Cain will do extremely well against Obama in the debates. Cain with his brain; and, Obama without his teleprompter.

  15. Redteam says:

    WWS, you stated the obvious, Wong Kim Ark was judged to be a US citizen. The question of natural born was not adjudicated in that decision. In fact the question was not even whether natural, native or naturalized, it was only if he was a US citizen.
    No later amendment replaces any part of the constitution unless it specifically says that it does. At no point in the 14th amendment do they say that the term ‘natural born’ is no longer a requirement, nor do they mention or define the term. Therefore the requirement for president of the US was not amended in the 14th amendment. Surely if you did pass a bar exam, you know that. Just stating your opinion does not make it a fact, only an opinion.

    Fai Mao: The reason I assume Cain would debate is because it is common for the two candidates to do so. To be afraid to face your opponent is not a desired position to be in. The Lame Stream Media would crucify him.

    I’m relatively sure that won’t come up. and yes, I do not think Obama is brilliant. I’ve seen no evidence of it but he is a slick fast talker and the media loves that. They don’t care for persons that think about a question before they answer it.

  16. Frogg1 says:

    Why the Herman Cain boomlet may actually last
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20126424-503544/why-the-herman-cain-boomlet-may-actually-last/

    ….but with a party so determined to beat President Obama, and with such good chances to do so, can this Cain flirtation blossom into something real? Won’t people start to focus on electability and turn to Romney? The answer (at least as Cain’s people see it): Electability may not be the liability the political elites might think. And actually, the political elites don’t think Cain has an electability problem: 74 percent of Republican insiders in a recent Huffington Post poll think Cain can beat Obama. (Danger Herman: When insiders validate an outsider strategy you should be nervous.)

    For some Cain supporters the electability argument actually works in Cain’s favor, not for Romney. “We need an anti-Obama this time around,” says Jeffrey Jorgensen, the chairman of the Pottawattamie County (Iowa) Republican Party. “Gov. Romney would be a better candidate than John McCain or Bob Dole and a better president than George Herbert Walker Bush, but we need an anti-Obama this time, and governor Romney is not that candidate.”