menu

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