You are simply not permitted to critique a candidate who is advantaged by having virtually no record whatsoever. It’s supposed to be a virtue, and therefore considered a “plus”
that along with having no record, a candidate like that would have no real clue. That being said, Cain has a much broader grasp and is far more articulate about his fuzzing up what he doesn’t know than Palin ever was, but even she had 18 mos as a governor and was seen willing to buck the establishment. I don’t follow Cain closely, but so far, has he uttered even a peep against Romney, or the establishment, or the corruption involved with all these establishment comprommises? Smoke and mirrors is already sitting in the White House with no record, but boy was he a great speaker in the beginning. What is the difference between community organizing and motivational speaking anyway, really?
I prefer the wrecking ball Rick announced this week. We need one and we need him. IMHO.
Slow day on the Perry threads, isn’t it?...
No, Cain has uttered no criticism of Romney... at least not yet.
I think his initial strategy was to be Romney’s veep.
Now that he’s leading in some polls, he may decide he doesn’t need Romney.
And now that he has a little baggage, Romney may decide he doesn’t need Cain.
Time will tell.
Excellent RitaOK! Rick Perry 2012.
He may have, I don't recall. But if, God forbid, Romney wins the nomination, expect Cain to endorse him. If Romney taps Cain for running mate...well, I just may open a whole chain of crow restaurants.
That said -- yes, most of the other candidates would also endorse Romney, but their supporters wouldn't let it make their skirts fly up.