michaelclm
Banned from the timer
Is anyone else watching Herman Cain? I'd be interested in hearing his remarks at this conference and on the 2A in general. He certainly brings the message of conservatism on pretty much every other topic.
Herman Cain to deliver keynote address to NRA conference
- Thread starter michaelclm
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
DutchWrangler
Well-Known Fanatic
Unless he emphatically can reassure me that he is 100% Constitutionalist, then it would be with trepidation that I supported him. As for "conservatism", I hate it. Conservatism is not Constitutionalism as it tends to be a middle of the road and lukewarm. Very distasteful.
I'll know where he stands as I learn more and how those positions he has jive with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Very telling to me if he says he'll continue to support a standing army in contradiction to Article 1, Section 8 and use it to interfere around the globe and here... then he's no Constitutionalist and just another politician.
I'll know where he stands as I learn more and how those positions he has jive with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Very telling to me if he says he'll continue to support a standing army in contradiction to Article 1, Section 8 and use it to interfere around the globe and here... then he's no Constitutionalist and just another politician.
michaelclm
Banned from the timer
Stepping away from Herman Cain for a moment and addressing your comments I would agree with the nature of your frustration, just not your assessments.
Conservative principles are not middle of the road but the politicians who purport to subscribe to them often are. What is distasteful is the selling of one's self as one thing and being another which, I think, is where your frustration lies. I typically describe myself as a Constitutional Conservative in that I demand a government operating within the constraints placed upon it by the Constitution and I also subscribe to the vast majority of mainstream conservative principles. Chief among those is individual responsibility and fiscal responsibility on the part of government.
As for Aricle 1 Section 8 it does not explicitly forbid the concept of a standing army. In fact, it expressly provides for it when it says "To raise and support Armies." During the negotiation of the wording of the Constitution there was discussion (a heated argument, actually) as to the limitation on the number of men to be held within the standing army. The debate went on and on until finally most in attendance were in agreement on the number of 5000. It was at this point that Washington finally spoke. He stated something to the effect of "That number should prove wholly sufficient so long as our invaders promise to limit their own numbers similarly." If we were not to have a standing army why, then, does Section 8 allow for the exercise of authority over "forts, magazines, arsenals dock-yards and other needful buildings;" The same goes for the Navy which, by the way, is also specifically provided for in Section 8.
I do believe Mr. Cain to be a Constitutionalist, by the way, but we must each decide for ourselves. Given time my opinion of him may change. I hope that it doesn't.
Brian Altenhofel
Fanatic
This.
I consider the popular catchphrase nowadays of "Constitutional Conservative" to be an oxymoron. Conservatism does not regard the Constitution as the supreme document governing the United States of America. Conservatism is about preserving traditions, not about promoting freedom. Liberalism is about promoting freedoms without regard to traditions. (I'm using the modern definitions of Conservative and Liberal as used in U.S. politics, meaning that the term is used to define a candidate's stance largely based on social issues.)
What do we see from Conservatives when it comes to the Constitution? How about erosion of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, Eighth Amendment, or, to a lesser extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Or perhaps, Article I Section 8, Article II Section 1, Article III Section 2, or Article IV Section 1? It could reasonably be argued that Liberals show a much higher regard for the Constitution than Conservatives.
From what I gather from the few times that I've heard Cain fill in for Boortz, he's not so much a Constitutionalist as he is a Conservative pedaling an interpretation of the Constitution that is molded to his beliefs, meaning that some parts are held in higher regard than others.
I know that most voters are single issue voters, and I know many voters that use the Second Amendment as a gauge for who they are going to vote for, and the Second Amendment is a somewhat good indicator. But I'm not a single issue voter - I look at the big (and try to look at the complete) picture, and Cain is nowhere near the top of my list. My gut tells me that the GOP will retain the House and the Senate will flip in 2012, which means my top choices are Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or Barack Obama.
dennishoddy
Moderator
I know this may sound stupid, but, with the current list of wannabe's, I don't see any of them beating the obimination, in this economy.
All he and his base can preach is entitlements, and this is what will get him re-elected. Entitlements to the "needy".
There are a ton of people that need and deserve these entitlements, but the majority are just sucking the tit. :angry:
All he and his base can preach is entitlements, and this is what will get him re-elected. Entitlements to the "needy".
There are a ton of people that need and deserve these entitlements, but the majority are just sucking the tit. :angry:
michaelclm
Banned from the timer
As I said before: At this moment I believe Herman Cain to be the closest thing to an electable Constituionalist candidate that exists on the GOP side. Whether he proves me wrong or not has yet to be seen. My purpose was not to get into a debate about the efficacy of Conservatism applied topically to the wounds of these United States. Mine was simply to find out how many others were interested in him as a candidate.
"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we need to reread it!" - Herman Cain, CPAC.
Dennis,
Didn't you know? Those programs are the only thing that make us a great nation: Just ask Obama.
Brian Altenhofel
Fanatic
And, he wants it re-read using his interpretation which ignores the fundamental principle of Separate of Church and State.
And while I agree with him on defunding Planned Parenthood (as I believe that the federal government should fund NO private entities), I don't agree with his reasoning ("Planned Parenthood is planned genocide") which ignores the other 97% of Planned Parenthood's operations.
Like "the enemy", he also seems to enjoy playing the race card. To me, a politician who devolves into playing the race card on issues is not fit to serve as President, even if that office is merely a puppet stage for the same string masters when either the Democrats or Republicans hold it.
As for being the closest thing to electable, consider this: Herman Cain is a talk show host that has no political record. Gary Johnson served as Governor of New Mexico for 8 years and has the track record to show that he has the cojones to stick to his principles.
And then there's Cain's support for affirmative action... and the "Fair Tax"...
