OH MY GOD! Newt is a secret KKK, 18th Degree Mason and baby sacrifice cultist! At least according to Ann Coulter. Because Newt Gingrich recommended Congress read THE THIRD WAVE by Alvin and Heidi Toffler and had some public forums with them. Only one problem Blondie: Alvin Toffler himself has said all along that he and Newt agree on very little.
I was going to write on this but the wonderful Maggie’s Notebook covers it so well – I just want to refer you to her post.
As I was reading this column, it dawned on my however that I read the Third Wave also! I suddenly am wondering if this is the reason I voted for McCain instead of Huckabee or why I am not freaking out that Gingrich isn’t conservative enough on immigration. I feel like the Salem witch trials have started all over again, but I always thought it would be Coulter accused of BEING the witch. Or something similar.
Perhaps Coulter is just pulling the old “He’s a THESPIAN!” trick, or perhaps it is far more sinister. Gingrich is a former college professor that LOVES big ideas. He gets high by talking theories through to absurd ends just for the practice of thinking. Should we really believe that Coulter would be for forced conversions to Christianity in Muslim nations as she once wrote?
I noted in my article Is Gingrich Our Obama of Wit Guilt? that Coulter has lost a terrible amount of credibility among conservatives backing a pro-amensty, pro-gun control, pro-9/11 mosque and pro-public sector union candidate in Chris Christie. And now she is peddling Romney as the “conservative” answer. I think she might not want to hang out with her admitted buddy Bill Maehr.
But I will try not and hyperventilate over the fact that Coulter is an intimate friend of Bill Maher and thus is not qualified to talk on conservative issues as she has suggested with Gingrich. But I certainly will point out the hypocrisy. Coulter is calibrated wonderfully to liberal hypocrisy.
But I’m not sure she can be taken be taken seriously on any issues of candidates since she clearly has now progressively backed two Tea Party resistant candidates back to back.
Come back on talk to us Ann when you be funny and sarcastic with truth instead of easily debunked false accusations.
It has been written and analyzed to death that Obama’s key appeal in the 2008 election was that by voting for him, America could absolve our hidden “white guilt.” First popularized by Shelby Steele in his book WHITE GUILT, it discussed how decades of liberal-drip water torture, constantly reminding us how badly “people of color” had been treated, had resulted in whites needing to prove they weren’t “racist.” By always giving the black or Native American man the edge, benefit of the doubt or normal scrutiny - they could absolve themselves of any suspicion that they weren’t secretly attending meetings in white robes and god-awful hats.
My question is:
Are we leaning toward Newt to alleviate the Republican stereotype of lacking intelligence and wit?
As I mentioned in my article, “Newt Is the Next Best Thing to President Rush,” Newt has stirred much of his momentum on the visions of a Gingrich debate dancing on Obama’s head. I wish I could remember where I first heard this so I could attribute it correctly (I think it was a tweet) that, “the GOP is choosing Newt primarily to see him slice and dice Obama in a debate.”
The Best Clips of Chris Christie
This is validated by Ann Coulter (and many Republicans) who embarrassed themselves pandering to get Chris Christie to run for President. (With regards to Coulter, maybe you could expect that from a “conservative” who hangs out with her friend Bill Maher.) But for the rest of those pushing that, How the hell could that be? The guy was pro-9/11 mosque, pro-gun control, pro-AMNESTY, and pro-Global Warming Cap & Trade. But when we witness 1 minute of Christie on economic issues against an arrogant reporter or union shill as witnessed in this “best of” Christie YouTube compilation here, you are quickly tempted to be seduced by the equivalent of philippic political porn. Who cares that he wouldn’t support Scott Walker (and FDR even) for banning public sector unions, right? Just humiliate and embarrass Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow, will ya?
After years of suffering through limp responses from the Republican leadership like Quayle, McConnell and Michael Steele; Christie showed us that you can be vocal, opinionated and combative and not “lose” the independents as we’ve been told. After years of screaming at TV images of McCain, Bush or Boehner in debates or press conferences, it turns out sharp, witty responses are the near-equivalent of conservative crack cocaine.
Our experience with Rush Limbaugh proves however that a single rhetorical victory is insufficient. We are thrilled when we first discover Rush eviscerating liberal lies and making Democrats demonstrably deranged. When, however, it is contained to our small conservative universe (and he is unceremoniously tossed from a platform like Monday Night Football where it would actually REACH the people we want), we find it has the same narcotic drawbacks. The “high” doesn’t last long and you need increasing doses to experience the same level of euphoria. How about someone who actually is IN government, representing US doing that?
But we have to be careful. I warned my fellow conservative Tweeters of this when they were ready to anoint Speaker Boehner the new Bill Buckley, Jr. when he said this during the dueling national speeches with Obama during the budget/deficit debate in late July:
The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.
The rest of us in Neo-conservatives Anonymous weren’t fooled when we heard the warning that followed:
Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces.
Who cares if we have to “put out” a little for a cheap thrill, right? Turns out, even our pusher-man won’t respect us in the morning. What looked like a rhetorical victory on prime time TV (aka “second base”), was instead giving up not just home plate – but the American League Pennant. Super Committee my ass.
My article “Santorum and Bachmann: Weak Tea?” talks about how weird it is that Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum – the two most Tea Partyin’ Presidential prospects – get less combined tea party votes than Romney. Confrontation performance HAS to be one of the components of this, but it makes me wonder if we aren’t OVER-emphasizing this over Policy and Governing/Leadership.
On the other hand, even if Rick Perry had the policies of Jim DeMint and the Contract With America/Balanced Budget success of Gingrich, we would all have to get valium prescriptions just to deal with the anxiety over the first debate with Obama or his first press conference defending the elimination of the Department of…..whatever.
Perry supporters may feel it’s “heartless” to portray it like this, but presenting and defending your ideas in a hostile environment is part of the job. We gave “Seniors” affirmative action to Bob Dole and look where it got us.
There are many former positions - or maybe “dalliances” is a better word - with liberal positions long disavowed by Gingrich – that I’m not drinking the Newt Kool-aid nectar just yet. But we all sure wonder what George Bush 41’s second term poll numbers would have been if it had been Gingrich defending our moves in Iraq instead.
Original Posted in September of 2011 (updated below November 30th) but an excellent overview of how ideas take root or die.)
I have been muddling this article for nearly 2 weeks and was inspired to get it out when I read the most illogical, unsubstantiated, ridiculous commentary about Sarah Palin's viability I have read from a "conservative." I won't bother to point out the intellectual holes and the lack of underlying polling information here (that would completely obliterate this guy's supposition by the way) - but I HAVE TO discuss with you this whole notion of an "idea" and how it becomes "reality." (As usual @gadsdenista and @polarcoug will correct spelling and grammar later.) What does ObamaCare, Dismantling Social Security, Gay Marriage, and the idea of Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich or Cain winning the 2012 Election - all have in common? Can you guess what it is? Some Cautious Conservatives (I mean you @keder) will answer "all idiotic ideas". But RINO's and Tea Partiers alike will likely scratch their heads bald not seeing any connection save being issues of argument. I submit to you awesome readers (whom i would never suck up to just to get you to read my crap...ok - that's not true - I might...) that they either all WERE or ARE preposterous ideas. To many a Bachmann presidency is as unlikely as a GOP Candidate winning a New York Democratic House Seat they've controlled since 1922. ....oh, wait..
Uhmmm... Even two years ago suggesting a candidate advocating against extending unemployment benefits would be as crazy as a Saturday Night Live comedian winning a Senate seat.....oh. Right.
...(this is much harder than I thought...)
WHAT I am TRYING to say is all ideas - good or bad - start with opponents that give them no credit. INCLUDING YOU Joe/Jane Conservative. How many of us were convinced that ObamaCare was dead the minute Scott Brown got elected? Yeah, me too. But there were a few of you warning us all along to not underestimate the scheming disregard of Democrats for our Constitution or electorate. Those that saw this had VALUED the idea against either a mathematical extrapolation of calculus derived data point analysis of former lib probable behavior - and just had a gut feeling - but you were right! You knew power to them was to be exploited - not regarded.
So riddle me this: Are those people who say "Sarah Palin will never be elected President," the same as those people who say, "Ron Paul will never be elected President?" And are either the same as those that said, "Stuart Smalley Al Franken will never be elected to the Senate?" Right now many of you who THINK that you are God's gift to intellectualism are arguing HOW and WHY these suppositions are so different in your cranial container. "Well," you might say, "Franken ran in a state that was already fertile soil for former Pro-Wrestlers, is less serious about politics, benefited from the ObamaZombie voting, three other candidates siphoned away traditional Republican votes, and Democrat judges stole the election." And you'd be right about all those things - but you miss the point. (And you really should watch those run-on sentences.) What was laughed at by most of us in 2007 as a "sure thing" for Norm Coleman - turned into a horrible 6 year SNL blasphemy to our Founders. And if you had the same arrogance in discounting this line of thought when Franken announced - you would be super-sizing your order of 'crow.' The problem is - by lack of understanding or an inability to predict the future - we often don't know who would or wouldn't make until after they do even handicapping polls, positions, past voting patterns and media perception. I've mentioned in previous blogs that I have 2 acquaintances that were solicited for early investment funds by Steve Jobs and Howard Schultz respectively. Both of these guys were extremely intelligent, sophisticated investors, and - the case of Schultz's Starbucks pitch - a coffee 'expert.' They collectively lost the chance at around $50 Billion by using their judgment, experience and analysis over two rather arrogant entrepreneurs with almost no successful track record. But, for every 2 lost opportunities like this, I personally know of 200 or more investments that would have become losses for the investor. (And now for the thinking we used to do while smoking joints in college.*) Or are we sure of that? Perhaps the project failed because it never received investment and thus it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.... See how tricky this can be?
UPDATE: Since this post was originally written, no less than 5 candidates have held commanding leads in the GOP Primary Nomination. EVERY ONE of these underscores this point. A famous RedState blogger totally dismissed early evidence of Herman Cain rising in Florida follow Governor Perry’s incredibly inept debate disaster. Two weeks later he let the rearview polls tell him what the people had already done. He was also Gingrich an early obituary author for the Gingrich campaign, although on that he had a LOT of company. My point is that we better serve ourselves (as well as our compatriots) if we look at new ideas with skeptical openness. TIME is needed for the evolution or momentum of an idea (the less time until a deadline, the more likely things will remain as they are). Humor me here and watch the first 2 minutes and 20 seconds of this video. Two promises. First - you will laugh. Second - we won't get nearly this deep or obscure ---
Ok. Funny right? And true! We can't possibly know EVERYTHING to make a decision or prediction. This is what gets Eric Boehlert and Simon Cowell into trouble. If you jump to a conclusion too quickly without taking into account the accuracy of data or future events - you might end up looking like an a**hole. So, let's dig into the anatomy of political ideas and see if we can determine how or if they will come to pass.
Prochaska's States of Change
Smart guy James Prochaska (aka IntelliJim™) came up with a way to explain how people change behavior. It's called a Transtheoretical Thigamajob. Or something. With apologies to him (and a guarantee I will never ever be allowed to speak at any organization of learning for the rest of my life) Here is what I think it means as adapted to our subject.
Step 1. Fat People don't understand, or have a desire, to change. As ideas go - they can't buy a vowel and don't know that they could. Step 2. Fat People get the revelation that they need to change behavior in the next 6 months but might not know what it is, how to do it, or commit to do it Regarding Ideas: People hear a concept that attracts/repels/interests them - but they can't yet form a firm opinion.
Step 3. Fat People have gathered enough information to decide to do something about their chubbiness within the next 30 days. They are at the stage they are ready to tell others what they will do. Idea-wise: People have either gathered enough information of their own - or have heard enough from people they respect (called Information cascade) to think they know what they think. (DANGER WILL ROBINSON..or fill in the name of your favorite ABCCNNMSNBCCBS reporter!) Step 4. Fat People quit eating and exercise. (Normally most of us go back to Step 3 after trying this for half a day.) Idea Comparison: People vigorously defend (or if opposed - attack) the idea. They act on the idea. As in the case of embracing Global Warming - intelligent people will go back to Step 2 when they learn the East Anglia scientists themselves admit there is no data to support global warming. Liberals, unfortunately, move to... Step 5. Fat People are now thinner, and they continue exercise. Parallel: People either take their idea for granted, or continue to find supporting information to reinforce their position. People with ill formed ideas (like a lot of liberals) continue to be driven by emotional facts or the desire for greed, pride and fear. These are the people like editor Ken Silverstein of EnergyBiz, who pretend that global warming positions in the election cycle are only a reflection of political bribes, rather than admitting he takes speaking fees from groups who wouldn't pay him if he admitted there are thousands of climate scientists who strongly dismiss the evidence of climate change including the head of MIT's respective department in this discipline. Or just READ the letter of Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Laureate who just resigned from the prestigious American Physical Society. How do these supposedly learned professionals maintain their conviction to lies when the truth is so clear? The point of this little exercise is that when ideas are first presented - we haven't gone through this process of developing - and committing to an idea. At this point in 2008 election (fall 2007), Giuliani was the front runner by a wide margin and many were calling for McCain to drop out. (Remember the pictures of McCain flying coach because he was out of money?) Goldwater was horribly behind in 1963 until creating a dead heat with Lodge and Rockefeller to be decided at the GOP Convention. As for concepts like political concepts - we have similar stories. We tend to forget that conservatives were quite fearless in their proclamation that any socialized medical plan like ObamaCare would ever make it through even a Democratic House and Senate since HillaryCare was still a negative - and fresh in the minds of most Americans. As for "Supply Side Economics" - people bought into what George H.W. Bush derisively called "Voodoo Economics" to win election but soured on it by January 1983 when Reagan's approval fell to 35%. A year later it was over 50% and by November of 1984 it was pushing 60%. Why? Reaganomics wasn't any different when Dutch was pitching it in 1979, passing it in 1981 and enjoying its impact on his approval by 1982. I dont' want to get into the argument here of its 'success' in terms of whether it put more people into poverty (it did) or put people back to work (it did). Empirically, the majority of people WERE better off four years later.
So why do some ideas become reality and some not? Many of us were intensely dissatisfied with McCain in 2008 but forget that after announcing Palin, he surged in the polls. And this despite the Kenyan drumbeat of the press declaring the coronation of "The One." But then the financial crisis hit almost immediately and McCain told America, "The economic fundamentals of the USA are strong....errrr, I mean the American workforce is strong....errrr, I better suspend my campaign......uhmmm, why are poll numbers dropping?" Would Obama have NOT been elected if the financial crisis had not hit? Surely Cap and Trade was inevitable before the Russian email dump of the East Angelia University/IPCC. The realization of ALL political candidacies and concepts are dependent on things we can't possibly foresee. In other words, Shift happens.
1. The Radical Idea The idea itself can be good or bad, true or false. Like "Humans cause Global Warming." If you were like me, you wondered..."Wow. Can this be true?"
ANY new idea is immediately run through our internal computer to see what we think of it. The closer an idea matches our perception or validations - the quicker we start to believe it. For instance, "the sky is blue" seems obvious and unquestionable. Many would embrace that quickly because you look up and confirm it with verification by your own beautiful eyes. This is what bad reporters do. It's called Confirmation Bias. The only problem is that on a cloudy day you don't see blue air IN FRONT of the rain clouds and, at dusk. the sky can be orange, yellow or mauve. In fact the sky is generally transparent and has no color. Intelligent people (which should be us!) must continually ask WHY we believe what we do, WHERE we could be wrong, HOW to guard against some unseen flaw in our thinking.
And you can't always rely on the past track record of those presenting the idea. Churchill promoted the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaign in 1915 and was forced to resign from Admiralty in an embarrassing failure. You have to cut Chamberlain some slack when he warned of the Hitler danger. And in addition to some questionable compromises with liberal democrats, Reagan liberalized abortion as Governor of California. Was there a guarantee he would become the poster boy (and grandpa) of conservatism?
While to some the items below are radical ideas - to others they are certitudes:
Sarah Palin, Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann will be elected President.
The Federal Reserve will be dismantled or responsibilities transferred BACK to the congress.
Both DOE's, the Dept of Agriculture and EPA will be abolished
Roe V Wade will be overturned
Graft, Bribes, Crimes (including Fast & Furious) and even Treason will be fully investigated and prosecuted.
I can already hear at least 5 Twitter pals sighing in exasperation. Can't we just focus on the ECONOMY and the CANDIDATE WHO IS MOST ELECTABLE? Sure. But don't expect a candidate who DOESN'T skillfully weave the case for these things to have a reserve of political capital to spend when he/she needs wants to pull the trigger on these things. And please don't be so quick to think taking bold stands somehow invalidate or weaken a candidate. We just won an 89 year Democratic Congressional seat by openly talking about Obama's trashing of Israel, Social Security and Medical Reform and Gay Marriage prohibition! In NEW YORK! And those conservatives that suddenly have become Bill Clinton steering strategy by polls instead of principle (I mean you Erick Erickson), in your eyes Ronald Reagan would never have won the Presidency in 1980 because of his overt, minority position on abortion. What needs to happen on concepts that are currently a minority view (where truth is on our side) is to EDUCATE! I submit to you at one time these realities were similarly held:
The Watergate incident is a small robbery and not enough to sink Nixon.
You can cut taxes and get more revenue into the economy.
A "B" actor who is kind of old and slow will be elected President.
The Supreme Court will legalize the killing of babies in a mother's womb.
Tiger Woods is a lock to win more majors than Nicklaus.
It is often the idea that is dangerous (to some) that is the most intriguing. And it's a fine line. Jokingly building a "moat" at the border won't hurt you much but having a fear that building a fence on it will turn America into Stalag 13 - kind of makes you irrelevant. (And this song just for you Ron Paul fans).
Ahhh - but I'm breaking my own self woven straight jacket here aren't I? IS IT too far fetched to believe our government could turn on us? Well..., Obama has been funding and staffing a "naitonal civilian security force" that is also mentioned in the ObamaCare legislation. MediaMatters calls it "lunacy" giving it even MORE credibility. I have a friend who recently got licensed for conceal carry but a Sheriff of a small - make that tiny - town in the middle of nowhere. The Sheriff said their station received a shipment of assault rifles from the Fed to store "for emergency." Now this town is NO WHERE near an urban area, federal penitentiary or border and has had zero murders in the past 12 years. WHY would they need these? And most of you know about the Department of Education is buying assault rifles? Did you know the 1930's Germany was the most scientifically advanced and intellectually progressive state in history up until that time? Let me be perfectly clear here (does that sound like Obama or Nixon? I can't tell.) I think the likelihood of Obama attempting martial law in ANY WalMart food court in Texas, Arizona or Louisiana would fail miserably. Bubba don't play that. But I also would have never imagined it possible for an African American T-shirt vendor who was brutally beaten at a St. Louis Tea Party meeting by union thugs to not get justice, for a Black Panther brandishing a club at a polling place to not be prosecuted, or a shipyard to be taken over by 500 union thugs without consequence or national outrage. I'll admit it. With this Administration, my limits of what is 'fantastic' are reasonably being expanded beyond comfort. And I for one am going to hear the evidence from every "crazy" person with actual evidence before passing judgment. Don't forget. Only the National Enquirer got Monica Lewinsky correct. What those of us who are older and wiser find (Emily Miller would say I'm at least older), is that we really don't know as much as we think we do. (Especially after having children and/or attempting to start a business) And when we foolishly declare, "PROLIFE DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER BEND TO ALLOW ABORTION IN OBAMACARE," or "McCAIN IS MORE ELECTABLE TO INDEPENDENTS," we lose our own ability to do two things: 1. Remain relevant to those we are trying to influence if we too flippantly dismiss others, and, 2. See clearly our vulnerabilities unless we take a fair portion of humility.
My point here is that it is fine to adopt (or deride) an idea or position. BUT we become the very mindless idiots we chastise on the other side when we don't leave some possiblity we could be wrong (or they could be right).
Can we be a bit more intellectual, conservatives? And once we are SURE of our position (in humility) we must be able to articulate them in a way to attract others. And quit writing horribly long blogs that never seem END!
As for me, I've only be wrong one time. It was the time I thought I was wrong. :-)
2. The Environment Needed For The Idea To Take Root. Jack Kemp wanted to reform Social Security and make our dollar "good as gold." Something that would be handy today against this administrations policies. He lost both the GOP nomination to Bob Dole and the Vice Presidency to Al Gore.
MP Winston Churchill wanted to rearm the Empire after WW1 and was castigated by his peers. But he became Prime Minister. Sometimes your idea is right, it just takes time until people see the NEED for your 'radical' idea. William Wilberforce spent 26 years championing the abolition of the British slave trade until it actually became law. As mentioned before, it was ridiculous to think in January of 2009 that the GOP could retake Congress given the enormous support for Obama. I remember articles projecting a 20 year 'golden age' for the democrats. That kind of went the way with Bush's plan to go to Mars. It's funny how only a year ago, Democrats would sacrifice their very careers to do whatever Obama demanded. Drudge Headlines Friday include open dismissal of ObamaJob 7.0 by even Senator Vietnam Kerry. As with ObamaCare, an idea doesn't have to immediate overwhelm the expectations of a majority. But it does need an incubator of enthusiasts to sustain the idea until it 'takes' root. Let me give you an example: Former Actor Ronald Reagan for President: Speech at Goldwater Convention lit a flame among conservatives and allowed Ronnie a platform for 1980. What seemed laughable to a great deal of the country even until 1978, suddenly grew as others beyond California heard him speak to issues of inflation and economic principle. Supreme Court Nominee - Harriet Meirs: Not so much. So TIMING is important, but also one can't wait to START the declaration of their idea. Who knows how many more lives would have been lost and enslaved if Wilberforce did not begin his terribly unpopular idea when he did? And would Reagan have been able to capture the nomination without the groundwork he laid in 1976?
3. Leadership and Perseverance So we feel confident in our ideas and we are attempting to do what Benjamin Franklin says he learned to do too late in life. That is, to ask questions and deflect certainty of our own positions, rather than raising walls of defense with condescension and ridicule. In no way am I ungrateful for many good things he did, but George H.W. Bush was the politician we all fear. Someone who at the end of the day will capitulate to expediency rather than principle. And politicians who won't capitulate to common sense can be even scarier (put the picture of Mr. Barak here). LEADERSHIP - or rather the TRUST in leadership - is a two edged sword.
Let me put it another way - Obama/Pelosi didn't care what people thought and they got the biggest liberal payoff in our history in ObamaScare. They were willing to subvert the Constitution, congressional rules and even their own compatriots to accomplish their socialist goal. In contrast, Boehner/McConnell were so afraid of the MSM and their own shadow that they not only went back on their $100 Million cut pledge - but they FACILITATED the possibility of the biggest modern day defense cut to happen IN A TIME OF WAR. And during the debt ceiling debate it was the Democrats who held the line to raise the budget - not us. We thought we were William Wallace - but we found out we were Robert the Bruce.
This goes to the heart of the debate with many of my Twitter buds. Was it right to just "concede" the debt ceiling debate because we only had 1/3rd of the house? What football team can possibly win against a superior defense? What saleswoman would ever be successful if she conceded to a competitor that her product cost too much, was delivered too slowly and was 'seemingly' of less value? What poker player would win ANYTHING without bluffing? And what group of untrained colonists would possibly take up a battle against the mightiest and best trained armed forces in the history of the world, with little resources and only an approval of a little over a third of it's citizens? In our EXECUTION of ideas - from who we nominate for President, to how we lobby our representatives to investigate abominations like Fast and Furious, we must get better.
KNOW our idea is right, or keep throwing it against opposition until we know it is.
Make our goal not to argue - but to reason. Finding the core need of our opponent, and showing them how our 'idea' helps them.
Let our speech be seasoned with grace. Not just to maintain our alliances which we will need against the REAL enemy next year. Not just to make it easier for others to HEAR our ideas. But also to know those words won't be so hard to swallow should we have to eat them when proved wrong. (And all of you will be wrong about something. I guarandamntee it.)
Be undeterred in what we know is right. Like Reagan waiting for the tax cuts to kick in, like William Wallace urging us to fight for the freedom of our children rather than ourselves, place the value of doing the BEST, RIGHT thing above expediency.
So what drives these insane arguments between conservatives that get into personal attacks (Bachmann is an idiot) or condescending fortunetelling (Palin is playing with announcing to sell more books or seek glory)?
I think it has to be one (or more) of three things:
Fear
Dishonesty
Pride
FEAR. Some of you, if we bring up ONE negative point about your "guy" or "girl" react like a third grade boy told to use public showers with the middle school boys. YOUR REACTION REFLECTS WORSE ON YOUR CANDIDATE THAN THE TRUTH! You are a conservative, in the mold of Ronald Reagan! We have grace! We have self-deprecating humor! It endears us to people! But your opponents see you like the college freshman who gets asked by the obnoxious, irritating, buck toothed, big nosed, pimply evangelical on campus, "Do you want to know Jesus? If you accept him you can be just like me!!" Would it kill you to ALLOW other people an opinion? Even if you see it is wrong? Sure, fight your point! But base your argument in observable FACT and go easy on emotion. Not the reverse. You Palin people won't win over the Romney fans THAT YOU WILL NEED by disparaging their candidate AS A PERSON. You Perry/Romney fans won't have the fervent ground troops you will need if you diminish and disrespect the hope Palin fans have. And you Huntsman and Ron Paul fans... Well. We pray for you.... Often. DISHONESTY. I am convinced that as bad as the Soros paid trolls, we have people that are not completely honest about either their position - or their loyalty. Some want to remain the "cool" Tweeter, Blogger or enthusiast to be accepted but have already decided to 'fight' for their horse in the race. I'm even more concerned about those that have conflicts they themselves aren't acknowledging. I have lit into Erick Erickson of RedState because it is obvious to me they have taken it upon themselves to push a particular candidate. But I give him kudos for admitting publicly his bosses asked him to renege on an endorsement. A dishonest man would have hidden it. And Conservatives4Palin? You have no doubt of their position. Would it kill some of you to really admit your own bias to yourself and then where appropriate in your tweets and blogs? [Post script: I had not seen this article before I finished this blog. I have seen no bias of Dan Riehl and Robert Stacy McCain (the other McCain) mentioned in this piece, but think it is a great idea for us all to disclose ANY support we receive somewhere on our blog. FULL DISCLOSURE: I receive emotional support from @prfekrdumbrella, @JoAnRisdon and @jimfact. It turns out I either have no wealthy political supporters or they are stingy bastards.]
PRIDE. This is the MOST obvious one to me. Because I've seen it in me. I WANT to think i really know a lot about a lot, but have found quite a few times trying to justify my position not on facts - but on my gut feeling. Many of you Palin-haters fall into this category. Because the "mainstream" sees Palin as a intellectually inferior, you dismiss her (and her followers) thinking it puts you in the 'elite'. Well it doesn't. There is not ONE policy position, political accomplishment or weakness you can lay at her feet that isn't inherent in any other candidate. If her voice or manner of speaking irritate you - or if you are afraid of being a Sarah "groupie," fine! But quit making up false reasons about why she isn't a legitimate candidate. She's polling in 3rd place WITHOUT announcing. Do you remember where Perry was polling without announcing? I do. 7th! At it pisses me off that some of you want to say, "I appreciate what she did in rallying the base, etc. BUT..." SHE IS THE MOST ACCOMPLISHED REPUBLICAN WOMAN WE HAVE EVER HAD. (sorry for shouting.). But when you dismiss her amazing accomplishments in Alaksa and the roll model she is to conservative women, you are doing no less than what the liberals did to Hillary in 2008. You don't like her? Great. Don't support her candidacy or potential. But please at least show respect for the woman that singularly revived the GOP prospects in 2008 and fought the merciless attacks against her and her family without any help from you. (This ends the RANT portion of the blog). So tune in here for all positions you are to embrace from here forward so we can be in unity. Ok? If you don't, you're a RINO, candle lighting, zombie terrorist hobbit who secretly wants more taxes, illegal aliens and four more years of Obama.
------------------------------ *I in no way condone the use of drugs except for liberals. Although short lived, my drug experimentation in college cost me close friends and opportunities I can never recapture. Kids (and adults under 120) don't do drugs. Liberals - please do all the drugs you can so we can either lock you up and put you away or so that your reasoning will be all screwed up for life even a liberal leaning democrat won't understand you.
To the Left: Before I begin, it is an unfortunate fact of political life in the United States today that you must immediately express in no uncertain terms that you are not an “extremist” if you use the word Conservative. So, let me assure you of a few things: (continued here)
Newt Gingrich will be the Nominee of the Grand Old Party. I can’t be the only one who senses that we conservatives have finally given up our infatuation with Ronald Reagan in a skirt, our Cowboy romantic fantasies and a Democrat-demographic crushing Cover-Grail and settled for the Gingrich Next Door. Let’s quickly look at what polling reinforces this conclusion and second, what we have learned as conservatives in the process.
WHY NEWT WILL BE THE NOMINEE
1. No Surprises. No one (outside of Texans) had ever heard a Rick Perry speech – let alone a debate until after the Iowa caucuses in July. Many of these candidates were – to us - like that cool cell phone we think we’ll like, until we find out the battery life is measured in terms of minutes rather than days. Show me the next phone. Cain had scandals and Bachmann was the unfortunate victim of a Perry false promise. We already KNOW Newt. As Charles Hurt says, Gingrich HAS been vetted and his dirty laundry is well known, rewashed and folded. Gloria Allred won’t get any clients or airtime. Every other candidate who fell, did so because of an education process by the base, and the thrill of a new scandal treasure hunt by the media. Candidates rise in the polls ONLY because we either think they can beat Obama, or firmly govern from unwavering conservative policies. There will be nothing new in Newt that will change EITHER of these, baring a health problem or sudden entrance of Sarah Palin.
2. Intensity. Gallup released their “positive intensity” poll showing the former Speaker the ONLY GOP candidate in double digits (20) with a double digit lead (11) over Romney at 9. Back in July/August he hovered in low single digits while we flirted with Michelle and Rick (and leaving our dance card open for Sarah.) Notice however all other candidates intensity except Cain never truly rose from their initial introduction to the base. It’s like dating. People can not hide who they truly are for long. Whether it is 3 dates or 3 months, at some point you feel hope, horror or hopeless indifference at the prospect of a long term relationship. Gingrich is not only consistently rising since we first saw all the candidates on display in Iowa side-by-side for the first time, ALL other candidate interest is falling – not even maintaining a plateau. And unlike others who fell as new ones rose – Gingrich has risen WHILE all others were rising. I suspect Bachmann is the only person who we haven’t gotten a fair shot to “know” yet, but it looks like the Newt momentum won’t give her another chance.
3. Anti-Romney Trends. People who think the race has been chaotic only do so through a personality purview. The polls have been CONSISTENTLY 75% to 80% anti-Massachusetts Mitt nearly the entire year. Everyone else was trying different horses on the Merry-Go-Round but NEVER sat in that stupid bench they always stick in the middle. And it is interesting that the FIRST time Romney has had a significant fall in enthusiasm, is ONLY with the rise of Newt. I suspect this means that Newt is not only inheriting Cain supporters, but possibly those attracted to the “articulate politician with government experience” type. While many of us are sick of politicians in general – Hurt highlights the fact that Newt never really was part of the GOP establishment but certainly has a “experience” to appeal to shoppers concerned about a government inner-workings newbie. Newt is unique in being RINO friendly without seeming like a total sellout. The establishment crowd who always want a Harvard Political Science major – can actually settle for Newt, much more than a Tea Partier could toast the Mitch Daniels or Chris Christies.
4. Newt Friendly Primary Calendar. We have suspected Romney would do better in blue, northern primary states and tea party supported candidates would dominate the South. The GOP has many more “winner take all” primaries AFTER APRIL, but at the moment, Gingrich stands to do exceedingly well in the first 5 primaries. Romney wrote off Iowa long ago and Gingrich has a commanding lead there. New Hampshire, a supposed “gimmie” for Mitt has been narrowed to only a 10 point lead, AND DELEGATES WILL BE APPORTIONED relative to the vote. It’s not a winner take all. I don’t know how important the New Hampshire Union Leader endorsement has been in the past, but it should be noted the narrowing NH margin happened BEFORE that announcement. Gingrich doesn’t need to place first to take a commanding delegate lead with Iowa, a healthy 2nd place in New Hampshire and cleaning up in South Carolina where he leads by 20 points. If New Hampshire Nods to Newt over Mitt – it is highly unlikely Florida would be enough to save Mitt perhaps repeating the 2008 scenario where McCain forced Romney out by Super Tuesday building an insurmountable lead. Romney's New Hampshire lead reversely correlated to Michelle Bachmann’s strength although you will notice a dip with the rise of Newt below:
While Romney has dropped from 42 to 34 while loosing ground to Newt in New Hampshire the past three weeks, Florida shows similar patterns to the national polls. Romney’s high was 33 and is down to 21 (depending upon which poll you believe.) The last poll was early November when Cain was up by 6. If Florida indeed tracks closely to the national polls, it is quite likely that Gingrich could have a commanding 10 point lead there also by the first of the year. (Again – look at the almost exact reverse mirror movements of Bachmann’s campaign with Romney.) UPDATE: Poll released overnight has Gingrich at 41, Romney 17, Cain 13 in Florida. Damn PolitiJim is Good!
The takeaway here is that Florida is not only winnable for Newt, but even if he looses and ALL the delegates go to Romney he would only be slightly behind in cumulative delegates with Colorado/Maine/Minnesota/Nevada one week later where Newt seems to have a fair shot to make up the difference. Southern-loaded Super Tuesday (26% of all national delegates) is a month later and states like Texas are winner take all affairs. (Indispensible primary delegate calendar, rules and tally here.)
I know Mitt has money and can run a million ads to try and skew current numbers, but it seems improbable that he would win Florida where Cain (whose voters and momentum Newt should inherit) has held a 6 point lead.
So I conclude that none of the other candidates have any basis for a resurgence either from some new glorious reason (like a 999 plan) to vote FOR them, or a terrible revelation against Newt. He has spent his last 20 years heavily working in the family values worlds writing books and producing movies like why GOD needs to be in America and American history. The Freddie Mac stuff has been proven to be likely exactly what Newt said. I don’t see how Newt can loose this lead.
LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE CONSERVATIVE
With the massive moves of Perry, Bachmann and Cain, the fake outs by Palin, Ryan and Christie, we should have learned something in this process and I’ll take my shot at it. Just three (of 100) points in no particular order:
1. Not all conservatives are conservative. Ann Coulter wanted to push a pro-amnesty, pro-global warming anti-2nd Amendment candidate because he she had a fantasy cage match with Obama and SEIU dancing in her head. Romney (or anyone for that matter) can claim they are conservative because of one position which may or may not be a position they held 10 years ago. It’s great that our side likes the term unlike Democrats who reenact Usain Bolt’s 100 meter dash World Record in running away from the label “liberal.” But there ought to be a blood test or something so we know who and what we are dealing with in the media or among ourselves.
2. We have some stupid conservatives. No seriously. Every candidate has weird followers and Cain, Palin, Paul and Perry each had a small minority that were so mesmerized by theirs, peyote would have helped them see clearer. Confirmation Bias and Information Cascade will corrupt the most sincere “smaller government” advocates who are too quick to believe everything their candidate or favorite conservative talk show host tell them. There is a LOT of information, so independent research on EVERY issue isn’t always possible. But jumping to conclusions about past positions, proclamations or personal matters injure more than just your ego when you turn out to be wrong. Examples? Palin was right on death panels, PolitiJim was right in arguing against the debt ceiling (Boehner Bill 2.0) compromise and Erick Erickson was wrong on pushing Perry and dismissing early polling of Cain with great condescension. (As I’ve admitted before even I was wrong once….when I thought I was wrong once.)
3. We HAVE to keep respectfully challenging each other. And especially our candidates. I’ve been physically sick at the personal attacks on each other, but very heartened by many who showed humility when they turned out to be wrong. We are all learning and will need these bonds to fight Obama and the liberal plague that isn’t just a problem at the Federal level, but especially our state and local battles. The Perry or Palin supporter you alienate today, could have been your greatest help on a school board fight and probably agree with you on 99% of the OTHER issues. It is a challenge to simultaneously be patient and intellectually open to another’s position, while simultaneously challenging assumptions in a respectful manner. ESPECIALLY when your opposition is acting less than mature.
One quick example was Cain’s 9-9-9 unfairly slammed by people just because it wasn’t THEIR candidate. 99 percent of those arguing on twitter didn’t know a flat tax from a fair tax (or which Cain’s was) let alone just READ the entire thing and wait for opinions to settle. Some acted like Cain had proposed Sharia law and others like it was the NEXT Ten Commandments. Arthur Laffer, Cato Institute, Heritage and others quickly affirmed it was the single biggest step toward conservative ideals any major candidate has ever proposed since Reagan. Others still foolishly argued that the sales tax could be raised ignoring the EXACT same problem with ANY plan with ANY number. In the end, it moved the debate forward, taught us all (hopefully) a lot about what these things should and should not accomplish and hopefully the best parts will championed by us all and adopted by our nominee.
4. Honesty Must Be Paramount. My most popular posts so far this primary season seem to have been calling out media and conservatives. I am NOT being disrespectful to the office by saying that the current occupant is a lying scumbag who intentional deceives even his own party to further a malicious philosophy intent on destroying the foundations of this country. Obama IS a Marxist and surrounds himself with such. He lied to get into office and continues to strategically lie and obfuscate though his Wizard of Oz curtain is more transparent by the minute. And we despise those who don’t question what he says or what he is doing (or has done) all the while ferociously defending him. Then when truth comes out and is obvious to all they ignore it, change the subject or even attack those who brought it to light. It is the core of Rules for Radicals originally dedicated to Lucifer (yes that one) by Saul Alinsky. And some of our people – so called conservatives – have done the same thing bringing disgrace to the conservative cause. Not only do we need to require honesty from our opponents, but also from our leaders. And not just from our leaders – from ourselves.
And these points are critical because we have a battle ahead. Some of you are still hanging on to your Train or hope of an Alaskan grizzly resurging and that’s fine. But if I’m right (and I am of course), we might only get one chance at a neighbor, co-worker, friend or family member.
I can’t tell you the number of people I’ve met that want NOTHING to do with Christianity, because of an experience with a bad Christian. Going forward we will bleed in battle and have a riot (both literal and figurative most likely.) But we have to become better people to win the war of ideas. We aren’t Muslims (the vast majority of us at least) so we don’t read a holy book that commands submission through force. And I don’t know about you but I’m much more willing to listen to ideas from someone who is respectful and gives me respect than a dismissive arrogant blowhard. And if I listen – I certainly have a better chance of learning. I hope we all are.
Daren Jonescu of Canada Free press has written an article called Cain’s World. When he begins with “Herman Cain knows too little about foreign policy to be President of the United States,” I am actually a little bit DEFENSIVE of Cain preparing for another attack on a good conservative. Instead, Jonescu pulls a bait and switch. He attacks (unfairly in my opinion) Gingrich and glosses over the problems with Cain. Go figure. My (likely poor) summation of his points:
Cain’s fall is all because people still believe the sexual allegations, and it gave an excuse for lookey-Lou’s to jump to Newt.
The Republican Establishment coordinated with the liberal media and played a “gotcha game” with Cain on foreign policy because he was an “outsider.”
Cain answers aren’t any worse than Palin’s “I can see Alaska” and should be respected for saying he doesn’t know anything.
Newt is a flip-floppin’, political phony with profuse moral failings.
Sex Scandals Can’t Stain Cain – Lying and Lying Followers Can
With the new sexual affair allegations coming out, (Ginger White is her name,) I think it is important to rally around Herman Cain unless there is 100% convincing proof he is lying (I don’t think he is by the way. This woman lost a libel lawsuit.) I think the evidence the Obama/Axlerod machine is at work is more and more transparent since Obama seems to be counting on racial division to get him re-elected in 2012. (The NYTimes ran an article today essentially confirming what Ulstermann Report has been saying for months.)
As Dick Morris explained a week or two ago, the impact of the sexual allegations (except among conservative women) has been marginal. By and large 3/4ths of conservatives have dismissed the charges and, as you know, on the first surge of accusations - he actually maintain a strong lead. Morris says that the Clinton affair taught him most people don’t WANT to know. I can’t imagine this is true in the conservative community to the same extent it is in the general voter population, but he had effectively rebuffed these charges quickly.
Dick Morris Discusses Cain Accusations
Cain’s fall in the polls can be traced more accurately to the Lincoln/Douglass style debate. (Don’t get me started that it was NOTHING like the Lincoln Douglass debate itself). Cain's thrice shy response to avoid answering questions first from a conservative congressman moderator did more (in my opinion) to shake the confidence of those taking a test drive on Cain Train than any other factor.
DJ complains that Nervous Nellies bailed on Mr. Cain due to perfect storm of false scandals and RINO-LIB motivated attacks. Well pardon me. None of the candidates automatically deserve our support. Cain had less “strong support” than either Perry or Bachmann and couldn’t maintain it. How will he do when battled in a general election or once in office? Is it MY devotion to him, or his ability to earn my devotion that makes a good president? They must earn it. More so with candidates we have never met or evaluated before. This is a job interview. We know what we are getting with Gingrich and Romney not just because we can evaluate their positions and track record giving us MUCH more data to go on - but we can watch their REACTIONS and RESPONSES to issues.
Herman Cain has had curious responses to not just foreign policy, but a simple question on his views of abortion. It turns out Cain may be the strongest pro-Life candidate in the field except Santorum and HAS put over a million dollars of his own money behind it. That is better than a congressional vote record any day. It is also why - after OTHERS (not even his campaign) pointed out his pro-Life credentials, it hasn't come up since. But if one of Cain's strengths is supposed to be his ability to communicate - how can he be so continually inept at answering straight forward questions? If my big three issues on car buying is price, looks and gas mileage - and the price is way too high - that car salesman still has a shot at me. But if the salesman can't PROVE it really saves gas, do you get mad at the customer for not buying it "on faith" when it will take a month of driving to figure out if it did indeed do well in that regard? Of course not.
A series of blunders by Cain following or horrific performance by Cain at the Lincoln/Douglass debate reinforced the idea that Cain may not just be well versed in foreign affairs, he may not even make the right choices on conservative principles with the necessary data. He would release Gitmo terrorists conditionally. It is what he said. He isn't aware of the details of a war initiated in the past year with US ground troops CURRENTLY on the ground, or what Obama's position and actions have been in that country (Libya.) And forgive me if I want a leader that doesn't have to that our largest creditor has nuclear weapons and has had them since 1960.
DECISION MAKING. Cain keeps saying that he is a great decision maker and hires good people. A campaign would be a great place to demonstrate that and yet he continues to hire sub-par (if not embarrassing) campaign and advertising staff promising us that when he is in charge of the US economy and a nuclear bomb he'll do just fine. For now we have to evaluate his ability to sell pizza to stoned college kids, albeit profitably. THIS is what is holding Cain back. He isn't demonstrating an ability to recruit and run a team NOW. It is all the data we have to go on and he is failing. Miserably.
And let's assume that he hires good people and can make decisions. Do we have time for Cain to understand the entire nuance of China/US relations, China's internal policy and before having to make a decision that may be required in a split second? Hell no. That is WORSE than a flip flop. Even Romney wouldn't need a week to be educated on China's currency manipulation and economic models to INCLUDE that understanding when making a decision. I almost got lockjaw from my mouth flying open when Cain suggested his 9-9-9 plan would be an answer to make American goods competitive with China. China keeps their currency artificially low SO THAT they have an unfair competitive advantage. Trade with China might not even be a central issue when determining a US economic policy - but the lack of HOW it would impact surrounding issues isn't just a benign political argument.
How will Herman Cain respond at 3 a.m. in the morning to a nuclear attack by Pakistan on India? We have no idea because Herman has no idea and he will rely on the advice of an unknown Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State whom hasn't even been hired yet. The world is getting WORSE, not better. China has increased their cyberwar effort and escalating their military spending. Russia is hinting at reinstating communist control. More nations adopted sharia-loving regimes than at any time since Mohammad was "marrying" 9 year old little girls. I don't think expecting a candidate to have a remote idea of the MECHANICS of a policy that would stop Iran from getting nukes (other than drilling for more oil in the US which was Cain's answer) is "accepting a RINO." How would Cain even know WHO to hire if he doesn't have the basic grasp of the situation before he puts someone else in control of it?
I’m not trying to say Cain would be terrible. Or that he wouldn’t be better than Obama. I am sure he would. But a reporter asked Cain recently about an issue on Iran and (no kidding) Cain answered him "9-9-9." Sorry, that isn't a conservative answer. Neither is praise for Alan Greenspan who was Cain’s favorite Federal Reserve Chairman. We wouldn't let a Democrat or liberal get by with that, and it is embarrassing that some want us to just "accept" Mr. Cain because he is a good church going man.
And while we all admire a 43 year marriage and a vocal commitment to Christ, can I ask where the repentance is in accusing both the Romney and Perry campaigns for the false accusations with ZERO proof of the sexual harassment attacks? Last I looked in my Bible, gossip and slander were no less of a sin than adultery and murder. And where is the apology and public repentance to Governor Perry for trying to insinuate he was a racist because of where he went hunting? Is this the action of a God fearing Christian? Yet I get emails daily from Cain supporters who act more like propagandists for Pravda than Christian conservatives. Although I am convinced Cain is innocent of the worst harassment charges, conservative Iowa talk show host Steve Deace has testified that he WITNESSED Cain making inappropriate remarks to two of his employees. Sorry if I am NOT convinced Cain is Jesus Christ. And Newt most certainly is not the devil. I am convinced of is that many conservatives are not worthy to wear that title. Especially with Alinsky character assassination.
Newt's personal problems don't plague him because A) he has publicly confessed his failings where they occurred, B) he hasn't repeated them, C) his own daughter has put to rest many of the false accusations, and D) the man has been consistent in pushing for morality in our "civilization" for 20 years now after his own failings. His "flip flops" - for anyone intellectually honest enough to study them - don't belie a hidden liberal. We don't despise ALL of Washington and Jefferson's actions because they owned slaves. Similarly, when the Heritage Foundation is "for" an individual mandate and the "father" of the conservative movement signs legislation to allow amnesty and raise taxes - it is a bit misleading to assume Newt's views were that of flaming liberal in the prosperity of another era. Hell, Churchill LED the dismantling of the British fleet following WW1. Would you really not want him to lead the United Kingdom in War World 2?
I'm not white washing Newt or trying to dissuade those from following Cain. I like both men and could live with either as the GOP nominee. I am, however trying to be ACCURATE. And falsely accusing Sarah Palin of mentioning that you can see Russia from Alaska (which you can) is a poor response (and lazy research) to the truth. CBS has never released the full footage from the interview, but Palin explains in Going Rogue:
Though Katie edited out substantive answers, she dutifully kept in the moments where I wore my annoyance on my sleeve. For instance, when she asked me how living in Alaska informed my foreign policy experience, I began by trying to frame the geographical context. Lower 48ers grow up seeing our state tucked with Hawaii in a little square off the coast of Mexico on the nightly news weather map. So I began by trying to squeeze a geographical primer into a ten-second sound bite, explaining that only a narrow maritime border separates Alaska from Russia, that we're very near the Pacific Rim countries, and that we're bordered by Canada. But Katie interrupted and I did not complete my answer. I wish now I had stopped her and said, "Here's the geographical context. Now may I answer your question?" (p. 274)
So do you believe the only conservative voice in the 2008 election who largely facilitated the tea party movement or the former morning talk show host whose network promoted faked military documents to try and derail George W. Bush? Do you really want to make THAT argument? Until I SEE the footage for myself, I don't' think I'm terribly wrong to give more weight to Palin's recollection than the media's fact-devoid line. I think I’m even righter (PolitiJim grammar) to wonder why a supposedly conservative supporter of Cain would want to trash another iconic conservative falsely to make a point.
Do you really want to compare the records of a successful Governor that dealt with international shipping and water rights, border control, national guard duties and military bases with an ordained minister, talk show host and successful CEO from Atlanta? Why? Why demean (and falsely misrepresent) Palin to make your candidate look better? Those that continue to trash other conservatives - especially without well documented facts - end up embarrassing themselves and loosing credibility.
Is the very solid, conservative New Hampshire Union Leader correct in endorsing Gingrich over the rest of the field? To me Gingrich is like Captain D's seafood dinner.
It doesn't taste too bad while you're eating it but you remember the health code violation from years back and quite can't enjoy it like that fine Santa Barbara seafood restaurant. We do know this. Gingrich allowed himself to be interrogated by the NHUL editorial board. Cain refused. I seem to recall a number of us screamingly "Holy hell" over Obama's unwillingness to be interviewed by Fox News. It was Cain who himself said, “I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy?” Let's try not to be hypocrites and not hold OUR guys to the same standards we used on the Liberals, ok? I think those wishing for Newt’s demise might better focus on why Bill Clinton praised Gingrich this weekend. THAT is what has me really concerned.
in my book, honesty is honesty no matter where the needle points. And if conservatives can’t be honest about the pluses and minuses of their candidates – how can we ever gain credibility with independents or liberals?
So what is an honest view of Cain and Gingrich? They BOTH are pro-life, pro-Israel, claim to care about the Constitution and reducing government. Newt has both a longer ‘Con” list and “Pro” list than Cain, mostly because we know more about him.
PRO-CAIN
PRO-NEWT
Can do more damage to the Democrat Party than anyone and his inspirational story focus poor on hard work rather than hand outs.
Can defend conservative position in media and debates better than anyone and would eviscerate Obama on policy and knowledge.
9-9-9 may be most aggressive economic growth plan put forth and certainly understands creating jobs and reducing regulation.
Has a very good track record of creating a national agenda to elect conservatives, balance the budget and implement welfare reform.
Understands the government machine which may help in dismantling revising.
ANTI-CAIN
ANTI-NEWT
We have no idea if running a successful business will translate to governing.
Newt has proven he has a ton of ideas but has held a LOT of positions that are not purely conservative .
Has proven he simply does not understand US or foreign policy on a host of issues and if he will have a Dan Quayle moment that could kill him in a general election.
Newt still doesn’t understand current data on global warming and showed bad judgment on Pelosi’s couch, Dede Scofozza and (most importantly) Paul Ryan.
We have no idea if he will “flip” on TARP, role of Federal Reserve and (frankly) any issue but pro-life because he has no record from which to extrapolate.
Unsure if pride or being an “insider” will corrupt him as it did when he was Speaker.
Newt’s mixed record of government programs leaves us unsure if truly believes in limited government.
The “compassion” over “conservative” reasoning make us wonder if he is guided by conservative core principles and if he would settle for amnesty.
We can be assured that the Democrats and media will not fight fair, and will be tougher on our candidate than they are on their own. As always (going back to How to Pick A GOP Candidate), the question is not just who is more ELECTABLE, but also who will effectively SELL conservative policies to the masses and GOVERN fearlessly and conservatively.
Neither of these guys are God or Goofy. But I’m leaning toward categorizing conservatives who want to myopically do so to either one of them into the latter.
On the other hand, even if Rick Perry had the policies of Jim DeMint and the Contract With America/Balanced Budget success of Gingrich, we would all have to get valium prescriptions just to deal with the anxiety over the first debate with Obama or his first press conference defending the elimination of the Department of…..whatever.
price, looks and gas mileage - and the price is way too high - that car salesman still has a shot at me. But if the salesman can't PROVE it really saves gas, do you get mad at the customer for not buying it "on faith" when it will take a month of driving to figure out if it did indeed do well in that regard? Of course not. 
DECISION MAKING. Cain keeps saying that he is a great decision maker and hires good people. A campaign would be a great place to demonstrate that and yet he continues to hire sub-par (if not embarrassing) campaign and advertising staff promising us that when he is in charge of the US economy and a nuclear bomb he'll do just fine. For now we have to evaluate his ability to sell pizza to stoned college kids, albeit profitably. THIS is what is holding Cain back. He isn't demonstrating an ability to recruit and run a team NOW. It is all the data we have to go on and he is failing. Miserably. 
