Herman Cain, Winner

Yes, I saw most of the Republican debate in South Carolina. Yes, every single Republican made more semnse thamn President Obama--giving lie to the mainstream media view that the Republican "field" is a lackluster group. Of course, the favorites were not een there, giving even more lie to that maistream media view (albeit those favoites are not necessarily, or even likely, to be more impressive than those who did appear in South Carolina).


Gary Johnson, for example, came across as a Republican Jerry Brown: impressive, but with the smell of "moonbeam" (or is it stink of brimstomne) about him. I live in El Paso, which is virtually part of New Mexico (some of you may thik part of Mexico, but problems of our sister city, Juarez, Mexico, have not yet filtered into El Paso). Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexcio, and even then had the reputation of marchig to hios own drummer. Imn his ownm way, he is as nuts as Ron Paul, with views on drugs and abortion that are out of step with all but the nmost libertarian of Republicans. He will not win the nominationi. Nevertheless, he was pretty impressive. And I personally, as a libertarian leaning conservative, have some sympathy with his views on illegal drugs (MORE sypathy with taking on the FDA, which I wish these "libertarians" who want to talk about marijana and cocaine would do FIRST). But I have no sympathy with his views on abortion (albeit he is an old style "moderate" on abortion, before the EXTREME position became the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, who are in bed with Planned Parenthood). I will not vote for Johnson, except MAYBE against Obama. But he was not bad. And he has climbed Mt. Everest. Has Barack Obama accomplished ANYTHING like that (disregarding Obama joining the navy Seals and personally shooting bin Laden)?


Ron Paul was Ron Paul--a man of principle who I agree with on most domestic issues, although I disagree with his ISOLATIONISM discredited at Pearl Harbor (not to mention on 9/11). He is too libertarian for me, but not by much. You know he is NUTS, hoever, when I tell you he is the only P{ERSON I know (not just candidate) who would dismantle more of the Federal Goverfnment than I would. I have to admit that Ben Bernanke (really terrible failure and destroyer of American preinciples at the Federal Reserve) is sinle handedly making me look more favorably on Paul's crusade against the Federal Reserve. Paul should send flowers to Bernanke for being on his team.


I will address Tim Pawlenty separately, in a separate article, but we can say he was UNIMPRESSIVE. In my view, Pawlenty sealed his fate: he will not get the nomination. But I thought that about McCain (CRRECTLY, except Repubicans in gneral, and conservatives in particuluar, were too slow to follow my correct thinking there). The ex-Senator from Pennslyvania (don't want to attempt his name here, wihout looking it up) was FINE, and I could easitly vote for him in the Republican primary. Yes, he lost for the Senate in Pennsylvania in 2006, when almost no Republicans won state wide races, but that hardly means anything as to whether he should be President. He had won TWICE in Pennsylvania, and few Repubicans can say that as to a state like Pennsylvania, on a statewide basis. It is merely a mainstream media smear to overemphasize that loss. The reason he was not so impressive in the debate as Kane was thet he did not stand out--coming across aws a politician saying the same things he has said so many times beofere (solid as those things were). In short, he did not TAKE IT TO OBAMA, the way he is going to have to do to win a general election.


Tht brings us to Herman Kane. He is a black businessman who has never held political office. He also WON the debate, hands donw. There is not even any doubt about it. His is a cas where I totally agree with the Fox "foucs group" and (unscientific) poll (much as I hate both focus groups and polls). Kane gave direct and convincing anseres to questons, as if he knew what he was talking about and was able to explain it to YOU. Yes, Kane came across s a SANE Donald Trump who CAN take the fight to Obama. I cannot yet say I will vote for him, but there is absolutely no doubt he won the debate. To paraphrase the theme song of "The Nanny", Kane came across as wearing bright colors, while everyone else was wearing plaid. He was articulate, with a resonating voice--reminding you of a convervative Barack Obama--with the difference that Kane has actually accomplished something in his life outside of government.


Why won't I say that I will vote for Kane? Well, from this debate I wouldd. But the Presidency is not all about debate and WORDS. Otherwise, Obama might be a decent President, which he is not. So I will have to see more of Herman Kane. But he was very impressive.


I am cursed with a good memory. In this blog, I said that Michael Steele was the most impressive Repubican candidate in 2006, even though I knoew he was not quite a conservative the way I would define the term. And I was right. Steele came across as the most impressive Repubican candidate of 2006. Problem: he let me and everyone else down after that--including as Repubican Party chairman. Steele eventaully showed himself to be an ordinary polittician who could not live up to his own words and impressive manner. I am no longer impressed with Steele. Similarly, Alan Keyes (another black man with no pubic office experience) was the most impressive DEBATE performer in TWO Presidential years (if my memory is correct). Keyes articulated my bliefs better than anyone. Yet, he would eventually show, in combination with the truly despicable "leaders" of the Repubican Party in Illinois, that Keyes had no substance either. Yes, Kane has more accomplishments than Keyes, and there almost has to be SUBSTANCE to Kane. But I have not forgotten appearances can be deceiving. Can Kane go out and WIN a major political campaign, when he has never done so? Maybe.


I would emphasize that I don't think Steele and Keyes failed to live up to the promise of their words and manner because they were BLACK. There have been more than enough white Repubicans who have done the same thing. Keyes and Steele failed because they revealed themselves to be POLITICIANS without real substance (ven though they had limited success as politicians). That was why they ultimately betrayed their promise--not because they are black. It is not because he is black that I hesitate on Kane. It is because I have little but words, over a short period of time, uon which to evaluate him. I would already vote for him ahead of everyone one the stage in South Carolina, except maybe one (and that one is NOT Tim Pawlenty--white establishment favorite). I could easily vote for Kane, if he continues to devlop on, and extend, his early promise.


In the meantime, it can be said, as an absolute fact, that Kane "won" the debatge in South Carolina. It was not even close, which was fairly bad news for the rest of the people on the stage. Kane is laready sure to eclipse Gingrich. Trump is a joke. Romney (my choice in 2008, but somewhat by default, een though I made the correct decision long before Limbaugh and Hannity, in time to derail McCain if I had there kind of influence). comes across as an aloof, aristocratic establishment guy. Huckaby may not even want to be President enough (like Fred Thompson last time). There is actually a big opening for someone to catch fire--not because there is no "talent" in the field, but because there is little charismatic leadership shown so far in the field. All of them are better than Obama, but how many of them are showing they know how to take it to Obama, without turning people off? Michelle Bockman fits my views better than anyone, and yet I cannot yet see her as winning the Presidency. Mithc Daniels is a disaster in waiting, pushed by the same estalishment Repubicans who keep giving us the wrong people. Chris Christie is probably not running, although he would be formidable if he did run.


In hsort, Kane has a wide open field in front of him. It is up to him to take advantage, and show that the South Carolina performance was no fluke, but a real representatiion of the SUBSTANCE of the man. No, I had hardly heard of him before the debate, except a few interviews which were only moderately impressive. I was hardly inclined ahead of time to take Kane seriously. That appeas to be the case with a LOT of people. That surprise factor can cause you to overestimate a person, as stated above. It is up to Kane to show that people are not overestimating him because of one debate performance. .


Nope. As Kane himself effectively said, his lack of experience in public office is a GOOD THING--provided he has enough substance to get elected. "Experienced" politicians and political "insiders" (defnitely including Obama as an "insider", despite the Obama and media Big Lie to the contrary) have gotten us into this mess. I think everyone is open to trying the other way, so long as the person without experience in public office meets the burden of showing enough substance to overcome the ONLY "advantage" of experience. "Experience" merely give you comfort that you have a basis of evaluating a person with something beond WORDS. Obama--an "insider" without real experience--has shown us that WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH. Sbustance has to be there.


Good luck, Herman Cain, winner. I am rooting for you, without promising to vote for you.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checkin (eyesight),m although neither would have helped the main error originally in this article (and still there in the bodyy, where it is too difficult for me to correct it). Yes, I apologize to Mr. Cain (as Google insists he spells his name, despite "Citizen Kane"). I did not spell his name correctly. No, my eyesight is NOT good enough to read the "graphics" that often appear on a television screen, or to pick out the spelling of names from print material. What is funny/ironic is that I would have spelled the name of Rick Santorum--the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania who was a clear second in the debate--CORRECTLY. But I thought I KNEW how to spell "Kane" (or "Cain", as he evidently spells it--benighted souls that his ancestors must have been to pick the spelling of the famous brother killer from the Bible). This kind of irony, where I knew how to speell "Santorum" and not "Cain", keeps me (a little) humble.