Skip to comments.Cainís Caustic Columns
Posted on 10/17/2011 8:26:37 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Call it the Cain canon.
Starting in 2005, Herman Cain has penned a weekly syndicated column. Week after week, he shares his opinions on the political issues and policies driving the news. The portrait that emerges from reading them over the years is consistent with the charismatic figure who has captured the momentum in the GOP presidential race. With the columns common-sense attitude, blunt phrases, and occasional jokes, you can practically hear Cain saying the words.
Sometimes he has said the words: sneak-a-taxes and the Chilean model both have column cameos. And while Cain doesnt shy from hammering away at politicians he dislikes and policies he opposes, he also notes that hope and optimism, not fear, motivate and inspire voters a statement sure to ring true to anyone following his candidacy. His goofiness is present in some columns: Fighting liberalism while playing by their rules is like challenging Superman to a bullet-deflecting contest and the winner gets a date with Lois Lane. You will lose, and Superman gets the girl. Before he became the pizza candidate (DEEP DISH!), Cain embraced his reputation, writing, I will bet anyone a pepperoni pizza on that prediction.
Lacking political experience, Cain doesnt have a record for voters to paw through. But in these columns, he took positions time after time on issues ranging from health care to entitlement reform to TARP. There may not quite be 999 positions worth noting, but here are twelve key components of Cains political and policy outlook:
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
But don’t you understand? According to the GOP Establishment, unless you are a proud card carrying member of their club, you have no record and therefore cannot be a serious candidate for President.
National Review: The ‘think’-tank of the RINO Elite.
The clear takeaway is that Cain understands very well the difference between being a Republican and being a Conservative. Finally!
His willingness to call out GW Bush, Gingrich, and Santorum for their past willingness to cozy up to liberal Democrats, make deals, and spend tax money on big gov’t programs underscores why he is fundamentally different. Coming from outside the political system, he has no “political debts” to repay, owes no favors, and can be true to himself.
Thanks for posting.
Lol. “Caustic” Cain’s columns are well-written and good-natured in tone. “Caustic” means “doesn’t agree with my liberal stupidity.”
That is so right. I can’t even count how many times in the past month certain people who are supporting a certain governor have written here that he is an unknown with no record. They have said that he is a blank slate like Obama that people are pinning their own dreams on. No, Herman Cain has a large body of work that shows that WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET.
Some cleaning jobs REQUIRE the use of caustic substance.
“He was a staunch supporter of TARP.”
Here’s my question as regards TARP - were the TARP funds (or the vast majority of the TARP funds) paid back to the feds or not?
I’m not a big fan of TARP, but I’m not an expert on economics at the macro level either, and given the stakes at the time, and the intellectual heft of *some* (not all) of the pros who’ve defended TARP, I wouldn’t hold TARP support against someone *if* those funds (or most of those funds) had been repaid.
Now I do realize that even if the feds got back 80% of the TARP money, it was all just flushed down some alternate toilet - but the blame for that should go on the Obama gang, not Cain or other TARP supporters.
NRO does have RINO elite tendencies for sure: but did you read this? It did not seem like a hit piece to me. I don’t like the use of the word goofy, but overall the tone was neutral to positive.
I’m voting for Mr Cain BECAUSE of his record.
Unlike the Marxist poser we now have as Prez.
Ibama’s only accomplishment, other than being professional sh@t disturber, is running for political office.
Actually,to be fair Ibama has done a lot more..all of it detrimental.
I did read it. It didn’t really take much of a position other than words like ‘goofy’ and ‘caustic’, but it read more like opposition research than an article.
Romney’s burning money like crazy and doesn’t have much cash-on-hand, so I guess they took it upon themselves to help him out.
somehow...i don't "think-tank" applies......
maybe "PanderBears" comes to mind
....my, how NR has fallen...since William F. died.
Wasn’t that bad of an article from the Cain perspective. I suspect the word “caustic” in the headline was not the author’s suggested title.
I didn’t see any details of the Chilean non-social security. I’ve only read one article about it that says it is required by governent for workers to add 10% of their income to a retirement account. Not really a tax but a must pay. Maybe you saw something in this article about it and I missed it.
Does anyone have more information about this?
I’ve read lots of articles about 9 9 9 but only read this once.
National Re-puke and the Weakly Stranded......RINOs on Parade...........
That one use of the word, ‘goofy’, tells you their mindset............
>> That one use of the word, goofy, tells you their mindset............>>
NRO is what it is, mostly an establishment publication but with some writers who do not toe that line. We all know that. So what? Should we not read the more conservative leaning writers they have?
This is not a bad piece from a Cain perspective. The fact that it comes from a normally elitist publication makes it all the more interesting.
You’re welcome. I thought the title belied the article, which is more positive than I expected.
Would they have used that word for Perry or Romney? Bachmann?........
And I especailly like the fact he called out Santorum for endorsing Specter over Toomey. If you recall, Specter’s switch sealed 0bamacare....and as a primary voter for Toomey that year, I will NEVER forget that.
This is a MUST READ for all Cain supporters, Cain detractors (not that they will believe his own writing) and Cain undecided.
I have been pointing folks to Cain’s articles - especially those who act like he “came out of nowhere”. The section mentioning TARP - the author left off that in January 2009, Cain wrote against TARP once he saw how badly it was being implemented (by Obama) and was solidly against every bailout and stimulus under the Obama administration.
I credit Cain along with some others as having educated me in conservatism. I was already a conservative at heart but didn’t always recognize what the left or the RINOS were trying to get away with. His radio show was full of good humor, and inspiration. He could also take a liberal out to the woodshed and thoroughly school them, then go back to his calm demeanor and tell the caller to have a nice day.
Herman’s Intelligent Thinker’s Movement was like the “pre” tea party - it is an activist group whose mission was to hold Congress feet to the fire in terms of staying true to conservative ideals of smaller gov’t.
Anyway, folks can read the entire archive of commentaries here: http://www.thinkersvoice.com/content/cainscommentary
Anyway, folks can read the entire archive of commentaries here:
RE: Heres my question as regards TARP - were the TARP funds (or the vast majority of the TARP funds) paid back to the feds or not?
Cain observes and argues that the problem with TARP was its IMPLEMENTATION, which Obama and his cohorts CORRUPTED. He still supported the idea of TARP and its ORIGINAL INTENT.
The fact is most of the TARP money were returned to tax payers WITH INTEREST. Citigroup for instance has already repaid us with interest several months ago.
However, we shuold not ignore the MANY BILLIONS spent on things unrelated to containing the financial crisis — owning Car Companies (including screwing their bondholders), Cash for Clunkers, First home buyer’s rebate program, etc.
Cain argues it is not the idea that was wrong, but the corrupt implementation of it.
I’m not here to defend his defense of TARP, I’m here to clarify what he himself said about TARP.
Your question is a good one and deserves a response, albeit late. Last time I dug around, I found that the answer is “mostly yes” regarding TARP payback. Some portion (about $150B according to the below) will not be - here’s what one economics prof posted in April 2010:
“When the $700 billion Troubled Asset Recovery Program started in the fall of 2008, it was widely thought that taxpayers would never see this money repaid. Where do we stand almost 18 months later? Is the government seeing some of this money returned?
Dr. Mike Walden, North Carolina Cooperative Extension economist in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at N.C. State University, responds:
“Happily the answer is yes. ... Big banks who received the lions share of these funds have actually largely repaid those loans, and I should say they have repaid them with interest.
“Many other recipients are beginning to do the same. The estimate now ... is that of that $700 billion, only — and of course only in quote — $150 billion will not be repaid. And I think that is a major achievement because when TARP was passed — of course we don’t have a perfect crystal ball — many people were very, very concerned that that was the last we would see of that money. The taxpayers, that is.
“So it looks like things have turned out much, much better. And so really you have to ask yourself the question, If indeed we do lose — we taxpayers lose $150 billion — is that an adequate price to pay for preventing the total collapse of the financial system at the end of 2008.
“We will never know for sure, but certainly the outlook right now is much brighter.”
I’ve always been willing to give Bush, Paulsen, and those who supported TARP the benefit of some doubt - call it “fog of war” syndrome, where they felt they had to act on best available information to avert what they were being told was an unprecedented national catastrophe. This is “why they get the big bucks” - in other words, why we have a President instead putting everything up to a vote in some kind of “perfect democracy” that might take days or weeks to agree on the size of the negotiating table. I’ll cut any political leader far more slack in criticizing their response to a genuine crisis than I will when they engage in premeditated acts, such as the passage of Obamacare. Regardless of who is President, we owe it to the Office to not second-guess decisions made in crisis through the lens of 20/20 hindsight.
Just curious, if Herman Cain is a yawn, who of this current bunch do you support and why?
If none, let’s say Cain is the nominee, would you vote for him over Obama? Or would you vote Obama over him? Or would you stay home?
I remember decades back when Buckley was the only consevative type out in the open. I use to subscribe to National Review, they were in finacial problems all the time, as not too many people bought the magazine.
Every year they would ask for donations to keep the magazine going. That was back in the 60's, then American Spectator and Conservative chronicals put out a conservative paper you could subscribe to...everything else was all liberal all the time...I use to read them all.