Showing posts with label Herman Cain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Herman Cain. Show all posts

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Herman Cain Endorses Newt Gingrich for President

(Newsmax) Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain endorsed Newt Gingrich for the GOP nomination late on Saturday – at the same time accepting a position as the former House Speaker’s tax reform chairman.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6779472013_6eb220e4b3.jpgThe author of the now-famous 9-9-9 tax plan announced his endorsement in West Palm Beach, Florida, three days ahead of that state’s vital primary. The endorsement is a welcome boost for Gingrich, who has found himself having to defend himself against a vicious onslaught of attacks from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"It is time for conservatives and Republicans to refocus their attention on the ultimate mission of defeating President Obama," Cain said at the Palm Beach County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner. "I believe Speaker Gingrich is the bold leader we need to accomplish this mission..."

Cain and Gingrich both come from the Atlanta area and have been friends for more than 20 years. The two men worked together in the early 1990s to help defeat Hillary Clinton’s plans for healthcare, and as House Speaker, Gingrich appointed Cain to the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform Commission – better known as the Kemp Commission.

Gingrich said he was “honored” to have Cain’s support and immediately announced that the former pizza mogul would co-chair his tax reform and economic growth advisory council.

“America’s challenges are too great for mere tinkering around the edges. Just like Herman, who ran his campaign based on big ideas, I am running on bold solutions that will boost job creation, cut bureaucratic red tape, and fundamentally transform Washington,” Gingrich said... (continued..)

Friday, December 9, 2011

Newt Gingrich - RINO or Genuine Pro-Life Reagan Conservative?

By Jim Robinson

(Free Republic) I posted the below in response to a FReeper who asked me what we should do in regards to progressives Newt and Romney. And he asked me what would George Washington do? So I got to thinking about why I've been gravitating towards Newt. In fact it kept me up for half the night.

Here is my reply:

Well, I’ll tell you, after Palin declined to run I really didn’t have a dog in this race. I liked Bachmann and Cain a lot, even Perry, but not as much as I liked Palin. Bachmann and Cain are both conservative enough, but neither have really been tested in higher office, nor do they have much experience in world affairs.

I also had high hopes for Perry because it looks like he’s done a great job in Texas, but his positions on the border issues turned off a lot of people. And his “heartless” statement didn’t win him much opportunity to turn that around.

I guess Santorum is conservative enough and possibly Huntsman, but neither engender much enthusiasm or excitement. Seems they’re just going through the motions. Don’t know if they have the real world experience to be CINC anyway.

Bachmann seems to be trying really hard but don’t know if she’s really qualified for the top spot either. Even so, had Bachmann really lit a fuse on the trail, I probably would have stood by and supported her, but she flopped and is unlikely to recover.

I thought early on that if Perry got into the race (without Palin) that he’d suck all the air out of it and would dominate. But he flopped. And then Cain took off like a rocket and he flopped.

Now Cain didn’t have elective experience, but he looked like a great conservative so we were all hoping and pulling for him. Well, that didn’t turn out well.

Mind you, that abortionist, lib progressive bastard Mitt Romney is just sitting there smiling through all this and he, Rove and the GOP elite think they’ve got it in the bag. Just gotta hang in there, not say anything rash, not rock the boat, no mistakes, just play defense as one by one the upstart tea party conservative candidates burn themselves out.

In my mind, we must defeat Romney AND Obama. I don’t think George Washington is going to be smiling down on us if we had this great tea party opportunity to knock off the progressives and we let Rove, Romney and the corrupt good old boys club bushwhack us. We’re supposed to be the bushwhackers.

So like a whole lot of conservative Republicans and tea party folks, we’re bouncing candidate to candidate looking for the one to knock off Romney so we can take the tea party battle directly to Obama. Romney is no tea party person. He and Rove, et al, sneer at us. No way in hell are they going to do anything we’re interested in doing even if they do get elected. It’ll be government as usual. Big. They hate us worse than they hate the democrats because we’re a direct threat to their power base.

So in comes Gingrich. Didn’t much care for him at first, mainly because of his well known baggage, and his perceived RINO plumage, but he began making a lot of sense and scoring a lot of points in the debates. Turns out his depth of knowledge and experience in government affairs both domestic and foreign and his experience with Ronald Reagan, the Reagan Revolution and the Republican Revolution of the 90’s are quite extensive and quite impressive if you look.

He’s been through the mill and that’s what a lot of our younger less experienced, less traveled candidates are missing. In the debates he comes off as a wiser, more experienced, more knowledgeable, level-headed senior statesman. And it appeared to me that the other candidates acknowledged and respected that.

So I start thinking back about his history as a congressman and speaker, and lo and behold, it appears to me he’s not such a RINO after all. He was a genuine Reagan protege. And he learned well from the master communicator. He eventually set a goal for himself to build a Republican majority and to take the speakership, and he determinately accomplished that goal.

And he had some great conservative accomplishments as congressman and speaker. He passed the contract with America. He cut taxes. Cut the deficit. Reformed welfare. Blocked HillaryCare. Became a thorn in President Clinton’s side, blocked much of his liberal agenda and ultimately allowed impeachment to proceed. Then of course, he resigned due to his own infidelity scandal. But, unlike Clinton, he didn’t deny it, didn’t lie about it, and he did the right thing by resigning.

Bottom line though, through his years with the Reagan Revolution and the Republican majority much conservative good was accomplished. The Wall came down, the Soviet Union collapsed and our great Reagan economy flourished for two decades.

Now, if a progressive RINO had been in charge of the congress during this period, who knows what would have happened. I’m sure the history would have been a lot different. Remember, before Gingrich and his Republican Majority, we conservatives had wandered in the wilderness for 40 years!! And our country was on life support after Jimmy Carter nearly killed it. And the democrats were saying at the time that there was nothing we could do about it. We were going to be stuck with the cold war. Stuck with the Soviet Union, stuck with Iran. Stuck with high oil prices, gas lines and rationing. Stuck with recession, high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment from that point forward. They could not be fixed. Jimmy Carter and the democrats had given up on America and surrendered the USA to our fate as a failed nation.

In walk Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich and reestablish that great shining city on the hill! Thank God! It’s not the end of the world after all. Iran returns the hostages immediately. Reagan takes the Soviet Union head on! Reagan takes the democrats head on and doesn’t take no for an answer. Takes his ideas to the people. It was a struggle but eventually the economy began turning. Reagan’s central theme domestically was that the government was too big, too intrusive, taxes too high, too much spending, too many regulations, too many restrictions on business and industry and they all must be cut. And he took that battle over the heads of the democrat congress to the tax payers and they loved it. Sound familiar?

And in 1994, Newt Gingrich leads the charge against the democrats who had been in power for 40 years and the Republicans take the majority and Gingrich becomes Speaker. He dreams up the contract with America which was designed as an extension of the Reagan Revolution and and included items attempting to balance the budget, reform welfare, tort reform, term limits, line item veto, etc. Some of it was successfully implemented, some not. But under Gingrich they did cut the deficit and balance the budget four years running. Sound desirable? Sound progressive?

How many times in our history have you seen a liberal progressive, cut taxes, cut regulations, cut spending, cut welfare, balance the budget, block big government programs like HillaryCare, impeach a sitting president, etc?

Never! In other words, all this to say Newt is NO RINO!! He’s a pro-life, pro-small government, pro-national security, Reagan conservative!! In short, we’re desperate, and he’s exactly what we’re looking for, and he’s running head and shoulders over the rest of the field, so what the hell are we squabbling about?

Yes, Romney and Rove hate him, the Republican establishment elite ruling class hates him, the liberals hate him, the democrats hate him and they hate him for the same reasons the taxpayers will support him, the lovers of liberty will support him, the defenders of life will support him, the defenders of national security will support him, the lovers of the Reagan Revolution will support him, and we the tea party should support him!! He’s a tax cutting, budget balancing, strong defense, small government, pro-life Reagan CONSERVATIVE!!

After reviewing Newt vs Romney, George Washington would say, go, NEWT!!

I’ll take a chance with Newt. Over Romney? You betcha!!

What say you?

Saturday, November 12, 2011

The Big Loser of the Night: CBS





If there was a loser on the debate stage tonight, it was CBS. First, they scheduled their debate on a Saturday night between two major football games. Then they decide to only broadcast the first hour of their 90-minute debate. Then their Internet feed failed for the final 30 minutes. This was CBS’s first and only debate — and it showed.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0a5takOfUwdxi/610x.jpgScott Pelley was a terrible moderator. He treated the men who might be the next commander in chief like schoolchildren, cutting them off in mid-sentence, lecturing them to answer his questions. He even lectured Newt Gingrich on policy, telling him that killing “terrorist suspects” is “not the rule of law.” Big mistake. Newt smacked him down, explaining that we are at war and in war we are allowed to kill the enemy without a court order.

This was CBS’s first and only debate — and it showed.

Of the candidates, Rick Perry had his best debate by far. His construct of starting at zero on foreign aid with every country (including Israel) and then deciding from there what is in our national interests got good applause, and both Newt and Romney openly embraced it. He had several self-effacing jokes about that agency he forgot about at the last debate (Energy) which got big (friendly) laughs from the crowd. Despite Pelley’s blatant efforts to trip him up, he did not trip. Who would have imagined that Perry’s best debate would be on foreign policy?
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00oe9xXfwW7HV/610x.jpg 
Newt had a very good night as well. In addition to smacking down Pelley on killing terrorists, he refused to take the bait in Pelley’s effort to start a fight between him and Romney. He was clear and articulate and will only enhance his growing following with his performance.

Romney put in another strong night. His best moment was when he was asked if he would negotiate with the Taliban: “We don’t negotiate with terrorists, I won’t negotiate with the Taliban.”

Bachmann got off several good lines, declaring that Obama stands with Occupy Wall Street but not with Israel, and that when it comes to terrorist interrogation, Obama is letting the ACLU run the CIA.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/09ja9kZcaW4bQ/610x.jpgCain seemed to struggle and was out of his element. Seemed like every answer seemed was: I will gather the facts and consult with my commanders/cabinet. His best moment was when he was asked about waterboarding and declared clearly: “I do not agree with torture. Waterboarding not torture. It’s an enhanced interrogation technique.” (Romney was not asked, but his campaign tweeted his agreement with Cain).

It was a good discussion, undermined by Pelley’s poor moderating and CBS’s failure to broadcast effectively. Fortunately, there will be another discussion of foreign policy and national security soon: the AEI/Heritage/CNN debate on November 22. It will be in prime time on a Tuesday — on a network that knows what it is doing.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Cain, Gingrich Set to Participate in Lincoln–Douglas Debate

By Robert Costa

(National Review) A group of tea-party activists in Texas will host a “modified Lincoln–Douglas debate” between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich next month.

Bill O’Sullivan, the treasurer of Texas Tea Party Patriots, tells National Review Online that both candidates have confirmed their attendance at the forum, which will focus on fiscal issues.

O’Sullivan says the event, which will be held on November 5 at the Woodlands Resort near Houston, will also feature Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) as an emcee.

In background conversations, both campaigns say they look forward to the discussion. A source close to Gingrich tells NRO that the former speaker will speak at length about his policy proposals and will, “in a friendly way,” illustrate his differences with Cain.

“We initially wanted a forum with all of the candidates,” O’Sullivan says. “But when we heard Gingrich say he wanted a more serious debate, like the Lincoln–Douglas debates, we wanted to do that, especially since watching the recent superficial debates has been frustrating.”

Organizing the event was relatively easy, he adds. “We had a relationship with Herman Cain. He spoke at our tea-party event six months ago. We contacted him, asking if he was interested in a Lincoln–Douglas debate on entitlements. Then we got in touch with Speaker Gingrich.”

“This debate is going to be dominated by the candidates going back and forth, in a respectful way,” O’Sullivan says. “It will be divided into parts, one for each major entitlement — Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid — with each candidate detailing their arguments.”

No broadcast network has agreed to air the exchange but O’Sullivan is hopeful. “These two candidates have been the most interesting people to watch in the debates,” he says. “So having them together for a modified Lincoln–Douglas debate will be great; it’ll be a real opportunity for the conversation about entitlements to get serious.”

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Cain 29% Romney 29% Gingrich 10%



Thursday, October 13, 2011

(Rasmussen Reports) Following a Tuesday night debate focused on economic issues, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and businessman Herman Cain are tied in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the only other candidate in double-digits. Republican voters think either frontrunner would be likely to defeat President Obama but most expect Romney to be the nominee.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/085e2E89OAeSW/610x.jpg
Getty Images

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Republican Primary voters shows Cain and Romney each attracting 29% of the vote while Gingrich is a distant third at 10%. Texas Governor Rick Perry was the frontrunner when he entered the race and has suffered through a series of poor debate performances while sliding to fourth place at nine percent (9%). (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Other candidates include Congressman Ron Paul who earns five percent (5%) and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann  who earns four percent (4%). Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman trail at two percent (2%)  each. Three percent (3%) would prefer some other candidate and seven percent (7%) are not sure.

In a two-way race, 43% would prefer Cain and 42% Romney. Cain leads Perry 54% to 29% in a two-man match and Romney leads Perry 54% to 30%....