--That's because Cain basically said that the idea of auditing the Fed was ignorant as they had nothing that wasn't already audited internally. The bailout that the Fed led embarrassed Bush and Obama and the Fed by covering international banks, not just American institutions, and hid which banks got the money and why. Cain could have said, hey, nothing to hide, let's audit them. Instead, his reaction was essentially perceived as, "I worked there, they're clean, if you weren't so stupid, you'd know that."
[Cain] had an interview where he basically states that people didnt need to audit the Fed because they had internal audits and people could call up and get the copies. Well, Paul supporters took a PART of that interview, and still to this day use it. Well, Cain, as soon as Paulbots started posting this on his page, clarified that if Paul wants to audit the Fed, go right ahead, but that Cain himself is not going to lead the charge.
--I've seen the interview, and Cain is a bit less than charitable in his wording. When Paul pointed this out during the debate, Cain denied that. You may be partial to the man, but others view his defense of the Fed as obstruction until he saw it was not sustainable in the face of broad public support for an independent, not internal, audit. Cain isn't leading the charge because again, he's never supported a public audit. That isn't acceptable in the eyes of the public, who don't want an agency that has so much power to be secretive or private. The Fed is both.
Paul followers have made the most outrageous statements - to listen to them Cain was directly responsible for setting monetary policy. He was a Class C director, meaning that he was a liason between the Fed and the business community. His job description is right here - http://kansascityfed.org/publicat/newsroom/2011pdf/press.release.05.26.11.pdf
--Where? Allegations that he 'set monetary policy' is not anything I have ever seen. But he sure has carried water for the Fed.
Who knows why Rainbow push endorsed him. Project Q in Atlanta hates his guts. So what? I have never heard him waiver on his stance on homosexuality.
So what? This seems to me to go to the heart of concerns that the guy isn't a principled conservative when it comes down to it. If he's got a soft spot for gays--and his recent statement re: this gay soldier sure seem to lean Log Cabin--this is one more weakness in the chain.
Yes he supported the first TARP under Bush. He did see how badly it was implemented and he wrote a letter criticizing TARP it as early as January 2009 and warned against future bailouts and stimulus. http://economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-011909.asp He at least admits it unlike other candidates who backtrack.
BUT he doesn't say it was wrong in the first place, just that he didn't like the implementation. That's an issue you and he miss. It doesn't matter if it's implemented perfectly if it is unconstitutional in the first place.
Speaking of that - Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Palin also supported Tarp. Bachmann supported Patriot Act. Santorum supported No Child Left Behind. Ron Paul voted with Dems against an amendment to protect out troops on the battlefield. NO ONE has a perfect stance on everything.
Hang on--I'd enjoy seeing the vote you're talking about with Paul, simply because he usually has a Constitutional justification for his actions that is pretty solid. IIRC, something like that happened where the Congress was trying to infringe on the CinC's enumerated power to command the military. It's easy to make a statement about how everyone makes imperfect stances when you aren't detailing what those really are. But even if 'everyone does it,' do I want to vote for someone who does on the basis of 'he's no worse than the next guy?' Heck no. I'd rather 'waste my vote' than vote for the lesser of two evils again.
I already answered the gay soldier booing situation and as I pointed out Cain sided with the audience that he did not think they were booing the soldier. I happen to agree with Cain about respecting people. I hate the gay lifestyle. I think its wrong Biblically, and I will tell people that, but I do not hate people, and I do respect people who are serving our country.
I don't agree with Cain or McCain that respecting the uniform requires an audience for a political event to remain silent in the face of questions intended to solicit an adverse political aim, i.e., pro-gay statements from the GOP candidates. I dislike granting rights to any class without a particular reason, and I don't think military service makes you immune from blowback--it had better not ever be that way, or the next John Kerry will get off scot free.
Cain went further in his book They Think Your Stupid that he agrees with equal opportunity but not equal outcome. For some people Affirmative Action means equal outcome. That is not his definition. AA has been co-opted by liberals to mean more than it meant to people who came up through the civil rights era.
His problem here is again that he hasn't said "I would not allow so-called 'affirmative action' in any way and do not approve of using the power of government to promote selection on the basis of skin color, race, or sex." His parsing of words here has been very careful.
I agree with you that hes not polished. He doesnt give poll tested answers. He is REAL. People are responding to that. Im sure he will misspeak dozens more times because he is not a professional politician.
He's not always so real, though. He's chosen 9-9-9 for a reason, even though he supports something different as the end goal. He was 'joking' about a border wall--but he wasn't, and anyone who heard the speech knows it. So why wouldn't the real Herman Cain defend the statement instead of backing off? Why not be 'real' about affirmative action in a way that clearly says it's not acceptable, PERIOD?
And the flip flops everyone keeps referring too - he is not flip flopping on any major stances like Romney. He uses a lot of hyperbole in his speaking which some take literally (China, moats, alligators?) so he has to go back for the idiots who take ever word literally, even though most people understand his meaning, especially here in the South.
I AM a Southron, and I don't care if Cain's got a schtick about his speechmaking that's not literal, he's in the political arena now. Words mean things, and even hyperbole needs to be considered as something that indicates policy aims. Calling words 'jokes' when they're addressing political issues that are important to me is no more than saying it's okay for politicians to lie as long as they're on the stump. Cain HAS flip-flopped, just like he's doing some 'adjusting' with 9-9-9. Perry pulled the same crap with his 'secession' talk, and lately, with this anti-UN stuff. If a politician doesn't believe it, it shouldn't be part of their hype-the-conservative language. And they shouldn't have to flip-flop if they are conservatives because their philosophy ought to be clear to begin with.
Thankfully, other than the people who are desparate for Cain to lose, most people dont CARE about the small faux pas. They know where Herman Cains heart is, they trust him. People from his past all stand by him as a man of integrity and character. His wife, his children, his church, his coworkers, his bosses, even his employees.
Most people care about what you call 'faux pas' when they provide insight into the candidate's principles. He is woefully waffly when it comes to what he doesn't know. That is indicative of a candidate without a guiding principle at either the national or international level. I'm not desperate for any candidate to lose. I just want a principled conservative to win.
He lives conservative values, he doesnt just parade them for political gain.
That would explain why he's used campaign money to buy books from his own company for use by the campaign, basically, legally turning campaign dollars into personal gain. I felt the same sinking feeling when Buchanan hired his sister as his campaign manager and gave her hundreds of thousands of consulting fees.
Every candidate out there has flaws, but instead of going after Romney, the RINO, it seems to be open season on Cain for the smallest of gaffes. It really borders on insane, and reminds me of the liberals almost tangible hatred and evisceration of Palin for the smallest of things.
People eviscerate Cain because he's not proven and his 'faux pas' never seem to be backed up when they're conservative. When they're perceptibly left-leaning, on the other hand, he sure sticks to his guns. Romney, everyone here knows is a RINO. Who defends the defenseless? Romney doesn't even have the overt support of a single poster here as far as I can see.
Its not going to happen again, not if I can help it. Its why, as a stay at home mom, I am here at my computer nearly 10 hours a day providing links to facts to fight every lie and misrepresentation posted on this site.
Are you kidding me? 10 hours a day politicking for Cain? How do you mother when you're constantly cruising the site? I can't sit here for more than a couple hours at a time, let alone 10. You've got to be cashing a check from the man--I won't buy that you sit in front of the computer and mommy at the same time for 10 hours a day.
Simple to understand: She is working for her children's future, with about the same amount of time invested as a full-time employed mother, and with the benefit of being able to be home with them. That's a dedicated mom.
I'm assuming you have no understanding of the volunteer force behind Herman Cain's campaign, wherein hundreds, if not thousands, of supporters are putting in 12 to 16 hour+ days.....NO paycheck. They loyally and consistently dedicate their time and talents to Mr. Cain, believing him to be a true patriot with the best interest of America at heart.
(Not really something worth a personal attack, is it?)