. . . about a few things.
First, as far as I know, the GOP 2012 presidential nominee field right now officially consists of the following (having either officially declared or formed an exploratory committee) credible candidates:
And there is still the potential that Michele Bachman (Minnesota), John Bolton (Maryland), Rudy Giuliani (New York), John Huntsman (Utah), Peter King (New York), Thad McCotter (Michigan), and/or Sarah Palin (Alaska) may yet step into the mix.
- Herman Cain (Georgia)
- Newt Gingrich (Georgia)
- Gary Johnson (New Mexico)
- Roy Moore (Alabama)
- Ron Paul (Texas)
- Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota)
- Buddy Roemer (Louisiana)
- Mitt Romney (Massachusetts)
- Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania)
I'm not sure what the filing deadline is for the New Hampshire primary (based on a primary date of 14 Feb 2012, I think it'll be around 15 - 22 Nov 2011), but until that point this lineup is clearly subject to change.
Of those nine who are currently either declared or de facto in the running, Herman Cain is my hands-down favorite (and has been since Huckabee dropped out) with Tim Pawlenty as my back-up choice.
There is one thing that many Ron Paul supporters are throwing out as "proof" that Cain is a bad choice for the nomination. Apparently the hard-core libertarians among the republican grassroots are flagging the fact that he is a past Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City as "proof" that he cannot be trusted to rein in the national debt or restore sound currency to America's monetary system. Further, they use the following video as "proof" that Cain supported TARP and the bailouts:
Now, my response to such stuff has usually been along the lines of, "I guarantee you that I can find at least one disqualifier on every single candidate currently in the mix . . . including Ron Paul. If you want perfect, then go recruit Jesus Christ." This always seems to draw looks of utter disbelief from my C4L friends, who often are in denial that wholesale adoption of the Libertarian Party platform is essentially the same as inviting national anarchy.
Yes, I get that Mr. Cain sat on the board of a Federal Reserve Bank. Yes, I get that the Fed is the key reason that America has a f****d-up monetary system right now. Yes, I get that the Fed needs to be either audited or abolished, and preferably both. But harping on that as a reason for disqualifying Cain, without offering equally credible rationale for supporting someone else is very similar to disqualifying Saul Anuzis for GOP challenger to Debbie Stabenow (based on his support for the National Popular Vote initiative) without offering credible reasons for supporting Randy Hekman.
I've read through Herman Cain's platform and issue positions, and to be quite honest I like what I see. The core thing that weaves through both his personal and professional backgrounds is that he has plenty of first-hand experience in taking over disastrous situations and turning them around. Given the train wreck that America is facing right now, that's all I really need to know for the time being.
Until I'm given a credible reason to vote otherwise, my choice is Cain-Pawlenty for 2012.