Wingnut vs Wingnut on Herman Cain

Wingnut vs Wingnut on Herman Cain October 19, 2011

Hey, it’s more wingnut-on-wingnut crime, even when considering a fellow wingnut. The columnists at the Worldnutdaily disagree on whether Herman Cain should be supported, with Star Parker calling him “rocket fuel for America” while Alan Keyes thinks he doesn’t understand the Constitution at all (and he’s right, of course, but neither does Keyes). Parker first:

What makes Herman Cain so interesting is the passion and clarity of his view of American freedom and his Reagan-like ability to communicate and excite grass-roots Americans…

Cain is the only candidate putting concrete and simple ideas on the table for getting this nation back on track…

America needs a new president who loves freedom and has the guts to pursue it without compromise.

This is just meaningless politico-babble. Keyes at least offers some real arguments, even if they’re crazy ones:

By contrast, however, Herman Cain’s words and actions in a different context offer no such assurance. When he “declined to sign Susan B. Anthony List’s Pro-Life Presidential Pledge,” Mr. Cain justified his action with a statement implying that the pledge’s demand that he advance certain legislation conflicted with the constitutional separation of powers. “Congress must advance the legislation,” he said. He described his refusal as “a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.”

This seems like a statesmanlike reservation, but only to those who fail to take a quick look at the Constitution. Article II, Section 3, states that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. …” Thus the Constitution requires the president to recommend (that is, favorably put forward or advance) legislative proposals for the consideration of Congress. Given this mandate, it makes no sense to argue that doing so is somehow inconsistent with the constitutional separation of powers.

Amusingly, for Parker it’s all about Cain’s ability to appeal to “grass-roots Americans.” Keyes, on the other hand, says the exact opposite:

And that’s even without considering his complicity with the Federal Reserve Bank, the key strategic instrument used by the elitist faction (including Republican practitioners of John Maynard Keynes’ variation of socialism) to usurp control of the material resources of the American people. More to come on that, though Mr. Cain’s reiterated defense of TARP (the failed 2008 bank bailout Congress approved over the sensible and widespread objections of the American people) in the last GOP so-called debate has already awakened more people to the fact that his overacted populism is just a pose. He is the candidate from the Federal Reserve Bank. He carries more water for the Bank’s manipulative oligarchs than for the grass-roots, middle-class Americans their elitist faction has systematically despoiled.

This is fun to watch.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Cain is the only candidate putting concrete and simple ideas on the table for getting this nation back on track…

    In a way, this is true, which might explain some of his popularity. Although it might be more accurate to call them “simplistic ideas”. Even the other Republican candidates can see right through them.

    Also, while his plan is quite clear for the most part, his explanation for how it’s supposed to get the US “back on track” is anything but. Neither are his answers to simple questions about who will pay more taxes and who will pay less.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … ideas on the table for getting this nation back on track…

    The only way these metaphors work together requires considering the USA as a model train set.

    Or does that give the Repubs too much credit for coherent thinking?

  • scienceavenger

    Cain is the only candidate putting concrete and simple ideas on the table for getting this nation back on track…

    When are Americans going to wake up to the fact that in this modern, complicated world, any simple idea is going to be at best suboptimal, and at worst, plain wrong.

  • Aquaria

    Alan Keyes thinks he doesn’t understand the Constitution at all (and he’s right, of course, but neither does Keyes)

    :::Snicker:::: Ed be funny. 🙂

    What makes Herman Cain so interesting is the passion and clarity of his view of American freedom and his Reagan-like ability to communicate and excite grass-roots Americans with IQs below room temperature

    FTFH

    Besides, who cares about the conservative grass roots? 90% of Americans, when hearing Herman Cain’s name, will inevitably respond with: Who?

    Cain is the only candidate putting concrete and simple ideas on the table

    What perfect unintentional descriptions of what passes for ideas from Cain. Concrete, as in deadweight, and simple, as in simple-minded.

    Hermie, let me explain something to you: We had stupid and deadweight. It didn’t work out.

    for getting this nation back on track

    Left unsaid: For stealing more money from the bottom 95%.

    America needs a new president who loves freedom and has the guts to pursue it without compromise.

    But you hated Jimmy Carter.

  • Michael Heath

    Herman Cain’s service on a Federal Reserve Bank board while remaining fiercely ignorant of economics and high finance is analogous to Sarah Palin’s same determined ignorance about oil and gas issues in spite of serving as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a position which she also quit prior to her term expiring.

    The comparison between Mr. Cain and Ms. Palin can also be extended on foreign affairs where Mr. Cain didn’t even know what a neocon was in spite of their being the primary resource which justified Bush’s invasion of Iraq, his approach in Afghanistan, the case to act against Iran militarily, and the case to defend Israel’s interests at the expense of our own and irrespective of how Israel behaves. I’d argue is ignorance in this area is far worse than Ms. Palin’s not knowing a peripheral justification the Bush Administration made to invade Iraq in 2003 (installing a liberal democracy in a sovereign country justifies regime change, which was subservient to the Bush Administration argument Iraq possessed WMDs and was working with terrorists).

    The media is giving Mr. Cain a far nicer ride than even Sarah Palin. Here we have a candidate in Herman Cain committed to ignorance while promoting his ideas. The arrogance and danger such a person represents should be alarming to all people. Instead such an approach is considered a competitive advantage within the conservative movement.