Herman Cain: more of the same

I've been keeping this to myself until now, but given all the hoopla about Cain, I think it's important for some uncomfortable reality to be injected into the discussion. There's a good reason I refuse to jump on the bandwagon for Herman Cain. A lot of drones have already done so, without giving any consideration to the evidence that he's a Company Man. Even though Cain talks a good game, some of his stated positions are far removed from what conservatives and libertarians claim to support, and his past actions and statements are diametrically opposed to the Tea Party folks' demands. My prediction? They'll still vote for him because he's a decent orator. Sound familiar?

Here are some uncomfortable facts that must be faced when supporting Cain:

1. He's the former chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. This is something he proudly proclaims on his campaign website. He is an ardent defender of the Fed, and has claimed that there is "no need to audit the Federal Reserve."
2. He wholeheartedly supported TARP in 2008, as evidenced by his articles here and here. His response to naysayers, or "free market purists" as he called us? "As we say in the South, y’all hush!" Classy.
3. His position on war powers is contrary to a Constitutional understanding of the subject. His position is: he would not involve the U.S. military in war unless three criteria were met. 1. There was a clear objective. 2. There was a verifiable U.S. interest in question. 3. There was a clear path to victory. How about we actually follow the rules laid down in the Constitution instead, Mr. Cain?
4. He backed Mitt Romney in 2008. Even Juan McAmnesty is less of a socialist than Romney.

Sure, it's a short list, and sure, as I admitted, Cain talks a good game (for self-identified "conservatives"). So did Obama (for self-identified "liberals"), and how many campaign promises has he folded on? They're politicians. If a politician has his mouth is open, you can safely assume that he's probably either eating or lying. I'm sure I'll be accused of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In my opinion, however, Cain will do nothing to mitigate the economic disaster we're facing, so he doesn't rank up there in the "good" category. Our multiple illegal wars and the tanking economy are the two biggest challenges we're facing at the moment, so I would think that these should be crucial issues to a candidate's viability.

He might win the nomination for the Stupid Party. There's a miniscule (in my opinion) chance that he could win the General Election, even. I'll even admit that I think he'd be a better president that the fool currently holding that title; but so would the paperweight sitting on my desk. I agree with Arctic Patriot, however, that Obama probably already has it in the bag in 2012.