In 2008, Mitt Romney received a glowing endorsement from a popular talk-radio host.
“Mitt Romney’s leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great,” the talk-show host noted in an opinion column, pointing to Romney’s business background, Olympic leadership experience, and life largely spent outside politics.
That was Herman Cain, then doing an Atlanta-based talk-radio program.
Advertisement
According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Cain and Romney currently lead the GOP field. In Facebook lingo, the two frontrunners have a “complicated” relationship. Beyond a doubt, Romney and Cain have the most extensive business experience of all the GOP candidates. They also both first ran for Senate and lost, although Romney won the GOP nomination. Romney has occasionally thrown a friendly word toward Cain; Cain, in turn, has more vigorously attacked Rick Perry (including announcing last week that he would not consider being the vice-presidential candidate on a Perry ticket) than he has Romney. Underlying their dynamic is a shared interest in seeing Perry lose support: Cain is directly competing with Perry for the not-Romney candidacy in the primary. From Romney’s perspective, Cain can reduce Perry’s support — and if Cain emerges as the main alternative to him, all the better.
Asked for public comment, neither campaign is effusive. “Governor Romney respects Mr. Cain and thinks real-world economic experience is an essential attribute,” says Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. A Cain aide is even more succinct, saying simply, “They get along well.”
Romney’s friendliness toward Cain has been particularly apparent in the debates. “Herman Cain and I are the two on the stage here who’ve actually worked in the real economy,” Romney argued during the August debate held in Ames, Iowa. “If people want to send to Washington someone who spent their entire career in government, they can choose a lot of folks. But if they want to choose somebody who understands how the private sector works, they’re going to have to choose one of us, because we’ve been in it during our career.”
In the September debate held in Tampa, Fla., Romney was quick to showcase his agreements with Cain on health care. “Herman Cain is right,” Romney said, answering a question about health care immediately after Cain had, “and let’s get back to getting the cost of health care down. I happen to think that’s an enormous issue. And I agree with almost everything you said, Herman, but the reason health care is so expensive, I think you hit the nail on head. You said it’s not just because of insurance, it’s because of the cost of providing care.” Discussing Obamacare in the debate held later last month in Orlando, Romney once again highlighted Cain in his response. “What you heard from Herman Cain is one absolutely key point, which is Obamacare intends to put someone between you and your physician. It must be repealed,” Romney said.
I hope conservatives so obsessed with being anti-elitist, to the point where this becomes an anti-intellecualism that resembles some conservative version of affirmative action (white boys who get Ds are the favored special class), will now realize Rick Perry is not, nor was he ever, the best candidate for the GOP.
Ricky has been holed up, hiding from interview shows for the most part, attempting to avoid any Couric moments, and trying to fill his head with debate points. But debates are simply a subset of being able to think on your feet quickly.
Rick Perry can no more successfully complete a crash course in these skills than an affirmative action student getting Ds could somehow make up for 22 years of a lousy education and succeed at a top law school.
Why his supporters believe he is some embodiment of principled conservatism is beyond me. He has no economic or jobs plan out there, and he couldn't even make a decent showing at Values Voters. And if he can't quickly and smartly respond to Obama in a debate. Well, I think we all know the risk of that. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
It's Romney or Cain at this point. I will be stunned if Perry's D-level brain can do anything to change this.
What makes you think Obama is a good debater? I saw no evidence of that in his debates against McCain. The fact that McCain could not articulate conservative principles is probably why Obama "shone" in comparison.
What is needed then is not a slick politician who has been auditioning for the role for the past 6 years. Perhaps someone who can articulate Constitutional ideals, has a sunny outlook on the future of America, but knows the path ahead is difficult for some (the Leviathan and those who work for her).
George, I don't think Obama's a good debater and I was concerned that I might have implied that in my post. In fact, he shares with Perry greater comfort in reading a prepared script than in debate also. It's just that I want to see Obama trounced. I don't want it to be close.
While we're on the topic of Obama's skills, or lack thereof, as I'm a new participant on the NRO board I'll make it clear I also don't think he's particularly bright.
I'm so disappointed in Herman Cain. He dodged direct questions as to whether Romney is a Christian. For Cain to resort to this sort of soft bigotry has caused me to lose respect for him. I thought he was better than that.
Au contraire - Herman Cain's response to the religion-baiting question about Mr. Romney was spot on target: We can respectfully agree to disagree on points of religion, while still upholding the Constitution, which is the more important issue.
Honestly, while Cain is a good guy and can rally the troops (I've seen him give a speech in person -- in support of Romney in the 2008 campaign -- and he's good), he is not a serious Presidential candidate. Just look at the statements he made about Muslims. In March, he said he wouldn't appoint any Muslims to his administration. His campaign tried to walk back the comment, but then Cain said that he would only appoint a Muslim who disavowed Sharia law, but that “he’s unaware of any Muslim who’d be willing to make such a disavowal.” Then he said that he would appoint a Muslim only if the individual made some proof of loyalty to the Constitution that Cain would not require of individuals of other religions. Such comments might appeal to the fringe right of the Republican party, but they're un-Presidential and would be rejected by most Republicans, not to mention most voters in the general election. Because he's not careful with his words and doesn't have well thought-out positions on all of the issues, adding him as the VP nominee would do more harm than good. Marco Rubio is the obvious choice to join a Romney ticket.
I still don't understand Cain's antagonism toward Perry: he has less problems with a liberal like Huntsman or the idiosyncratic foreign policy positions of Ron Paul? Really?
Maybe there's something more there, but a conservative like Cain shouldn't be so comparatively critical of one of the more conservative candidates, even if doing so is in his best short-term interest.
Cain has been absolutely outraged about Perry's immigration stance, more than any other Republican. To the point of actually suggesting he couldn't support Perry for President even if Perry got the GOP nomination. Why?
My theory is that Cain believes that Hispanic illegal aliens, if they get amnesty, will take jobs away from poor black Americans.
And Cain knows that many black Americans agree. They don't feel solidarity with illegal aliens.
Cain is doing something interesting here: Taking conservative stands on issues, but with a framing that he believes might appeal to his fellow black citizens.
Exactly! It's Cain/Gingrich or Cain/Romney. With GOP control of both houses it would be easy for Romney, if he topped the ticket, to toe the Conservative line. Either way, these guys would mop the floor with Obama/Biden.
In fact, if it were an HBO fight, the ref would stop it.
I haven't yet decided to support any of the candidates, but even if I were a full-throated supporter of Perry, my point is still valid.
Like all politicians, Cain must work to distinguish himself from his competitors. But Cain is also a conservative, and so it's just odd that he would have fewer problems supporting a liberal Republican like Huntsman than he would supporting Perry, when Cain and Perry probably agree on many more issues.
I understand the point you are making, but has Herman Cain ever said he'd support Huntsman over Perry? It seems your using Huntsman here even though he isn't really involved in this debate at all. Cain is competing with Perry for votes. It makes perfect sense to go after Rick Perry. What does Herman have to gain by attacking Huntsman or other "liberals" on the stage.
Lawrence, there is simply no reason for Cain to go after Huntsman or Ron Paul; he is confident that both will sink without Herman Cain shooting any more holes in their boats.
Like any good campaigner, he saves his ammo for the actual threats, the other front-runners. I don't think it's anything personal toward Perry, he just happens to be a threat.
Umm, sorry for the politically incorrect violent metaphors, but you get my point!
Cain seems to currently be in the #2 slot in favorability. Romney, like it or not, still holds the #1 slot.
Are you saying that Cain is wiser to go after the guy in the #3 slot (Perry) than the guy in the #1 slot? It makes no sense. You attack the guy in the lead, not the guy in third place.
I have said before, and will repeat again, I think there has been a quid pro quo between Romney (who turns off the voters in flyover country) with Cain supporters who are saying "You have Obama. I raise you Cain."
If I am right, Cain will still not go after Romney tomorrow night, but instead, he and Romney will tag-team Perry. If I am wrong, Cain will go after the guy whose currenly in the #1 position, Romney.
Oh, and btw, Cain supported a path to citizenship for illegals already here, just don't call it "amnesty."
As one who opposes faux conservative Cain I'd really like to have the documentation of his support for amnesty. I wouldn't dout it since he did nothing as the chairman of the National Restaurant Association to deal with the rampant hiring of illegals in the food industry.
Follow
