Cain or Palin?

by

For discussion:

1)Who would be a better President: Herman Cain or Sarah Palin?

2)Which of the two would be a more effective candidate?

28 thoughts on “Cain or Palin?”

  1. The first question is not a question that has a real answer. We only get to see how the winner of an election performs, not the loser. Would Al Gore have been a better president than George Bush? Some people say yes and others no, but there is no way to prove either assertion. We know that Barack Obama is a disaster as a president, but we can not prove that John McCain would have been a lesser disaster.

    The point of the primaries is to make an educated guess about the second question–we get to examine candidates in a competition. Our educated guess may end up being wrong, but at the end of the process it is likely to be a better guess than it was at the beginning.

  2. Nohype….That is true of all virtually all decisions. There are few situations in real life where you get to rerun the experiment with different conditions. Nevertheless, decisions must be made.

    In case it’s not clear, the second question deals with the comparison of the candidates strictly *in terms of their electability*…and that question, too, cannot ever have the answer known with absolute certainty, since you don’t get to rerun the general election with a different candidate.

    So if you feel, for example, that Cain would be a better President but Palin would have better odds of *winning*, then the answer to the questions should be 1:Cain, and 2:Palin.

  3. 1. Cain
    2. Cain

    And I say this as someone who likes Palin.

    However, Cain is taking a month off to promote his book.

    Not good.

    He is possibly not serious, or running for VP.

  5. A book tour and campaign tour may not be mutually exclusive activities. Cain excels as a “retail” campaign guy.

  6. 1)Who would be a better President.

    Imponderable. Sarah seems to have good instincts, but when the going got tough in Juneau, she bugged out. Not a promising sign because the Oval Office will be a thousand degrees hotter than any spot in Alaska.

    I heard Chris Wallace reduce Cain to rubble by asking pretty basic questions on foreign policy. He also was not able to explain with any clarity who had vetted his 9-9-9 plan for economic viability. I was not encouraged.

    2)Which of the two would be a more effective candidate?

    I am not sure that Cain would not implode on stage during a debate.

    Sarah needs to have Bristol and her ex die in a car crash.

    3) Really?

    No. Look at the Intrade board in the left column.

    I will vote for a syphilitic camel, if that stops Hussein Insane from being re-elected in 2012.

  7. One thing about Cain: with his math and computer science degrees, and his work experience with US Navy ballistics, he surely has the analytical ability to understand complex issues of energy policy, and probably the ability to explain these points clearly…in contrast to Obama’s lack of ability, interest or both regarding serious thought about these matters (example here)

    Palin has good instincts on energy, but I’m not sure she’d do quite as well with analytical cred in defending her viewpoints and attacking those of the Dems.

    Also, I’d hazard a guess that Cain’s STEM background would attract at least several hundred thousand votes from people working in those fields, similar to the way in which Obama’s brief experience as an adjunct professor encouraged many academics to (very inaccurately) to perceive him as being “like them.”

  8. Robert – what do you have against syphilitic camels? ;-)

    On Palin’s quitting – she said in her book that the lawsuits were killing her family and AK law had no provision for paying for the governor’s legal issues – only the legislators. So that aspect doesn’t really bother me. Her legal bills were approaching $1 million and I am sure her book sales and Fox contract saved the family from bankruptcy.

    As far as “who would be better” that is an interesting question. Palin has experience in the executive side of govt – and was quite successful at it – Cain has business experience – also valuable – and was very successful. So both know how to work as a leader.

    I would rate it a toss up

  9. I like her instincts, her values, her forthrightness, her energy. She’s also a lightning rod for hatred from the left, but I don’t think I care.

    Can she get elected? She’d have to carry the right and a sufficient portion of the swing voters. I think she could.

    I still like Gingrich best.

  10. I don’t know the answers, but with current knowledge I would vote for Palin over Cain because Palin has successful experience as an elected official. Cain might do a great job but with him we’re reduced to extrapolating from his business background. It’s an impressive background but elected office and business are different in fundamental ways; my guess is that success as a governor predicts success as a president better than success in business does.

    BTW, Palin and her family until recently operated a small business and her husband was a working stiff. I think the small-business background is a major advantage in a candidate. Has any other recent presidential candidate had a similar background?

  11. Perhaps Cain will spend his book tour time getting schooled on foreign policy. He appears to have raw ability, but at the moment, Palin would probably make a better president.

    While Palin is rising a little, the hate may be too much. Cain would be our first real black president, and would get a softer touch because of race. Yeah, I know, Obama looks black, but he is half black … and raised white. Goofy point, I know … only Democrats are supposed to play with race like that … heh. Cain is more electable, but needs a lot of work.

    But I think we may not have time for “raising Cain” up enough, and may need Romney as a transitional president. “Less government, lower taxes” will be forced upon us soon. Obama would maybe deal with a funding crisis in perhaps radical ways, such as installing a domestic force as powerful and well funded as our military. Or is that where the billions for union mobs is going?

  12. Palin would make the better president. Because she’s got the experience from Alaska.

    Cain is the better candidate. Because Palin has this baggage, because Cain has this charisma thing going and he’s not Palin.

  13. 1. Cain
    2. Cain

    I don’t hate or even particularly dislike Palin (yet) but I’m puzzled by the enthusiasm for her. Her business experience isn’t all that extensive, her executive experiene in Alaska wasn’t all that impressive, and her personality rates kind of a “Meh” from me.

    Still, I’d not hesitate a moment to vote for her over any Democratic candidate I can think of.

  14. Cain and Palin both came up in competitive environments. Palin was an athlete and later fought her way to the top of Alaska politics against a hostile Republican establishment. Cain grew up during the days of widespread racial discrimination and later prospered in business. Either of these individuals would likely be a far superior president as compared to Obama, who appears to have been coddled his entire life.

  15. IMO, Governor Palin *seems* to recite canned answers without real reflection and consideration of the question answered. As if “this is about Israel… therefor I should relate the response to rockets being fired upon schools and hospitals.” When the real question was about the Golan Heights or the West Bank and what should be done… That is my impression, but I haven’t listened closely recently.
    Then again, she’s not going to run. I think.
    She has shown that she is not cowed by the Powers That Be, and will not necessarily toe the party line. She is not cowed by the RINOs.
    I don’t think Mr Cain would be cowed either.
    The real question is what would be the makeup of their cabinet? Who do they have, in depth, to handle all of the intricacies, jots and tittles of the various aspects of the subjects at hand for a POTUS. What state level apparatus have they linked up with or created to make them successful as candidates? Who are their “Go To Guys/Gals” for the sobering questions that are to be answered? Who make up their council of advisers?
    If they surround them self with sycophants it says one thing. Choosing people who are knowledgeable and not looking for the ‘next gig’, or their place in history books is a key, absolutely required talent.
    Who will do those the best?
    tom

  16. Palin: I want to see the aurora of exploding liberal heads.

    Plus, Sarah’s hotter than Cain. (I know, I’m shallow.)

  18. The answer to “Ginger or Mary Anne” is always: “Both.”

    So, in that spirit, how about:

    Cain / Palin 2012.

    Whoa. It wouid be a fun ride.

  19. Rumor had it recently that Palin has broken away from her dual loyalist (can you say that on this blog?)advisors and will not do Israel’s bidding in all instances. Patriot Act i.e. Police State enforcer & supporter Cain admits ignorance on Afpak and Iraq and would defer to the generals.

    Unless they themselves are deferring to Andrew Bacevich of a sudden, this is bad news.

    Ron Paul or ruin.

  20. Rumor had it recently that Palin has broken away from her dual loyalist (can you say that on this blog?)advisors and will not do Israel’s bidding in all instances.

    Don’t be coy. Tell us about the Jewish conspiracy that forced Sarah Palin to adopt pro-Israel views that 75% of Americans agree with.

  22. Jonathan, of course the “Christian Zionist” heretics who run a kind of fifth column for a fifth column are themselves indicative of a collapse in traditional Christianity which I’ll be the first to say is only exacerbated, not caused, by domestic Zionist power. But you should know apocalyptic religion-in this case starring the Jews as ushering in the return of Christ by stealing Palestinian land..iow comic book eschatology… is almost always popular during collapses.

    Enjoy while you can.

  23. On the contrary. Christian Zionism has a long and honorable history in this country. It’s no accident that pro-Israel and pro-Jewish sentiment are the norm in the USA where so many people take their Christianity seriously. That you view such people (or anyone, for that matter) as heretics and conspiracy dupes shows that you come from a different tradition, though not an honorable one.

  24. Sarah fights corruption and wins. Nobody else has that on their resume.

    All the others are going to disappoint. Even Sarah would not have enough time in eight years to clean the rot which goes to the core.

    Obama will lose to anybody with a pulse. Let’s hope Cain is able.

  25. I think if we consider the matter seriously, none of the candidates is really qualified. Once upon a time the job of president was less demanding and the elites could be trusted to provide people who could fill the position. No more. For instance, in the last three elections the Democrats have put forward Al Gore (nut job), Kerry (zero), and Obama ( zero^2). Meanwhile the Republicans have put forward Bush (minor experience, moderate abilities) and McCain (not that smart, little experience). Apart from ideology, both parties suffer from a lack of trained talent. Of the current crop, Mitt probably has the best intellect, but is dull and dishonest. Nor do I trust him much in the big decisions. It’s depressing, really. One would like to see candidates with some previous experience in Federal government, say in defense or diplomacy, together with experience governing a state and an understanding of industry and commerce. But it’s hard to find that sort of career path these days. It used to be available to those from influential families, the aristocracy, if you will, but those folks no longer seem generally interested in public service and the elites have gone Left in any case.

    I’m pinning my hopes on republicans gaining control of both houses of congress, which might provide a holding line until we get better options at the executive level. Slim chance I know, but there are more people to choose from at that level.

  26. Jonathan Says:
    October 5th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
    On the contrary. Christian Zionism has a long and honorable history in this country.

    “long and honorable history?” A joke.

    As late as the 1950s, Roman Catholicism and mainline Protestantism dwarfed dispensationalism
    in numbers and popularity. The power-hob nobber Billy Graham,who at one point went as far as to say, after rabbinical pressure, that every ethnic in the world had to accept Christ to be saved, except Jews!!! (ROFLMAO real ‘traditional”) .. the charlatans Swaggart, the hilljacks Falwell and Hagee “honorable?” Not even respectable.

    Indicative of corruption, unserious Elmer Gantryism, comic book spirituality the collpapse of American Christianity.

    With a 50% divorce rate and tawdry Hollywood/hip hop subculture prevailing, the US is a post-Christian nation, has been for a couple generations.

    Protestant Reformers Calvin Luther and Zwingli, and Roman Catholic Tradition from Augustine on,
    rejected all forms of millenialism, Calvin calling it a Jewish heresy. “Christian Zionism’s” form of eschatology didn’t even develop until the mid 19th Century. It has as much claim to long Christian tradition as Mormonism.

    The Tradition I come from has existed for 2000 years. As for Israel, it’s doomed and any Jew who is pinning his or her identity on Zionism is a generation away from loss of faith–as are the Hal Lindsay heretics vis a vis theirs. Lindsay of course believed 1948 represented the generation of return, changed his dates for Christ’s arrival several times. And his wives.

    For those who want to come out of the cult of Christian Zionism.

    http://www.whtt.org

  27. I get it. Doctrines you disagree with are heretical or dismissed as non-mainstream. Your group are the true Christians; others are post-Christians and dupes of the Jews. That way you can dodge having to explain why so few American Christians share your fringe beliefs. (CB readers might check out Mr. Hoop’s blog to get an idea of where he is coming from, ideologically speaking.)

    BTW, how many members does your “ministry” have?

  28. Hmmmm—-I refer approvingly to a cross-range of Protestant Reformers, and Roman Catholics
    (I could have added traditional Eastern Orthodoxy) and you get out of that, narrow sectarianism.)
    Yeah, I’ll take my broad group of Lutherans, Reformed, Catholic and Orthodox over your liberal-modernist apocalpytic and doomed izzy-come-lately cultists.

    Of course as you know, many mainstream Zionists, in Israel,also in the US, both liberals and conservatives, warn against any cooperation with Christian Zionists whose ultimate motives they mistrust and/or whose other political values they often reject.

    American Christianity is too weak, shallow and insignificant now to even worry about what percentage of American Christians, however defined, share my beliefs. You’re the one who should worry, if your concern is Israel continuing as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state with rabbinical law as bedrock.

Comments are closed.