If you are running for office, you are a politician. If your income and travel costs are coming from campaign contributions, you are a professional politician.

Everyone who has ever ran for office has been a politician while they were running for office.

You don’t want a “polished, smooth” (e.g. “intelligent, coherent”) politician? Vote Cain. Want to win? Vote for someone that can win over independents and intelligent Democrats. And Democrats who like money.

The reputable conservative political analyst Jay Cost did a great column which explains how the only way Obama can get re-elected is if the GOP picks a candidate who is anathema to independent voters and intelligent Democrats: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-what-harry-reid-can-teach-gop-about-2012_598372.html?page=1

Whether you call them “professional politicians” or political leaders it comes down to the same thing: there are a certain set of skills required to be POTUS. You have cataloged them well. Reagan had these skills and it didn’t make him an evil man.

Cain has gaffed his way through the debates and interviews while running for leader of the free world. Cain’s biggest obstacle is convincing people he has the skills and experience even though he has not held office. He is failing in this. One-bama will decimate him in a debate.

Sounds like:
We’re dead if we elect an inexperienced guy (Cain)
The whole history of America since about 1900 shows how the current model is working out for us.
Question?
When you factor in the national disapproval of Congress, and politics in general, do you see why a guy like Cain is polling as he is/
You pros around here can dissect ALL the Repubs running, and do so daily.
Herman is the antidote to people sick of experts.
Serious question (please answer)
Where does America find people who can turn things around?
I agree that people in DC need to know how to be effective, but so many go there and get the beltway disease after a few years.
They pick up politician syndrome along with experience, and you get Boehner or McConnell types.
Seriously, how can we do worse than what we have?
Anti-incumbent fever is running high. That is reality too.
I’m not being a snarker – I ask respectfully and with great concern for my country.

Great comments, thank you for sharing them.

It really scares me that individuals want to believe so bad that there is this “other” option in a Presidential Race against a very well funded incumbent.

I like Herman as a person, but his inability to stay on message, his joking, his lack of knowledge and multiple gaffes are going to be used to destroy him by the democrat party if he were to win the nominee. Independents and Intelligent Democrats will not vote for someone who is questionable, not after Obama, and will stick with a “known” evil and grid lock. Even yesterday Hillary Clinton made Cain the brunt end of a joke, and it was embarrassing to the GOP as a whole to have someone on the Presidential ticket who keeps flopping on Foreign Affairs.

There is no perfect candidate, but we must have a polished, smooth, Presidential candidate to beat Obama.

I really have to ask:
Doesn’t experience and record account for anything when running for POTUS? Shouldn’t we be looking for the most experienced person who has a proven record and a policies that match our conservative values the best as possible.

No candidate is perfect I expect everyone to have some flaws, but what we can accept coupled to who is best to beat Obama is something to seriously think about.

I don’t want to bash Cain, he is a nice guy I took a serious look at him myself but looking closer tells me he is not up to the job and he will ensure another term for Obama in the end.

Okay, I am a Perry supporter and until someone can come along that is better than the record of Perry I am in his corner but I also don’t have a closed mind to other candidates.

Thanks Kevin for getting this out and in the open.

It’s Romney or Perry. And we have to decide which is the right trade-off: a checkered record but a decent campaigner who is evenly matched with Obama in the polls right now (for whatever that’s worth) or a better record but a poor campaigner that has high negatives but has seen his support shift a lot so it might shift again to a more favorable match-up with Obama.

We know. I think we all know that but many are denying it.

Folks it’s Romney or Perry. It really truly is and that’s not because I like either guy or think we need to consolidate the field NOW. We don’t. Not one vote that matters has been cast so there’s plenty of time for consolidation. But don’t sit here and deny reality that there are two guys with the pedigree to be president in this field and a lot of also-rans who will be effective cheerleaders when they inevitably drop out before or shortly after Iowa.

His lack of an immediate filter between his brain and his mouth makes me think he is telling the truth when he first speaks. I am not sure that that would make him good president when he had to deal with the other world leaders but it made me feel good. I remember when Regan was president people said he was a loose cannon and not able to deal with the rest of the world. Funny how things seemed to work out well during his term. I was in the Navy on one of the aircraft carriers in 1986 when we bombed Libya. It made us feel good that the president had our back. When the Libyans bombed the night club in Germany where US service men hung out Regan bombed his house. maybe not the diplomatic solution but it did get the message across.

More disturbing info from past runs.

Herman Cain: “‘Too many people in the electorate are single-issue voters,’ he commented, ‘and to try and cater to the single-issue voters and the single-issue pockets out there felt like I was compromising my beliefs. As an example, with the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing.’
http://politicalvine.com/news/newsview17514.html

“Herman Cain has made the cause of civil rights a major issue. Herman Cain favors Federal Government intervention in the work place on the behalf of blacks and minorities.”
“But unlike many in his party, Cain opposes school vouchers for private schools and backs efforts only to ‘revisit,’ not eliminate, affirmative action. He declined to give his position on abortion rights. In the primaries, Cain’s moderate social stances could pose problems.”
http://christiancitizens.org/georgia/june_20.phtml

Nice story. I’ve been saying we are going to really mess this election up. He is not ready to lead the most powerful nation. It’s seems as if Cain supporters have been in a trance like the Obama supporter. He has ran for office several times, but never elected. He ran for President in 2000. Seems like this is a big marketing gimmick. His book coming the same time he is running. He’s been on a book tour, even using campaign cash to purchase his books. I also think Cain wants to be Romney’s VP. He was taking up for Romney yesterday while attacking Perry again.

I keep hearing Reagan is no more. That their are no great men/women around that would match the GREAT ones of our past… It is a false Allussion to limit your experiences to our past Heros… Do you not see the greatness of others, can you not celebrate the Hope and Dreams we share… If your mental state keeps you in BONDAGE unto despair and gloom please call upon those that have a vision, that by hearing their Faith your enslavement may come too an end…. Try Marco Rubio…

The NEXT walk back Flip Flop and political opportunism moment Cain is going to have to explain is the one on school choice/vouchers. All his life, and quite publicly, Herman Cain he has been against school choice yet now embraces and incorporates it into his 9-9-9 plan?

While contemplating running for an office in Nebraska and then the Presidency in 2000:

“Cain admits to flirting with the idea of elective office but cautions not to expect him “to get in line like a duck and go along with a couple of flawed positions” of the GOP.”

Also flawed, Cain said, is the Republican push to provide vouchers for low-income children to attend private schools. That would mean disaster for public schools, which were never intended to compete like businesses, he said.

“I would not run for anything simply to endorse some mythical party platform,” he said.

Herman Cain opposed vouchers in his last run for president because public schools “were never intended to compete like businesses”.

Cain Carries Free-Enterprise Campaign Omaha World Herald (Nebraska) November 30, 1997, Sunday

“But unlike many in his party, Cain opposes school vouchers for private schools and backs efforts only to revisit, not eliminate, affirmative action. He declined to give his position on abortion rights. In the primaries, Cain’s moderate social stances could pose problems. Not a main stream conservative.” The National Journal March 6, 1999

http://christiancitizens.org/herman_cain_for_president.html

Even in his 2004 run for Georgia Senate Cain’s views on various social issues including School Choice & vouchers were also a matter of much contention but Cain didn’t budge. This was why The Christian Citizens Organization which is a Pro-Family organization known for promoting Pro-Life and Christian Values recommended his opponent.

http://christiancitizens.org/georgia/june_20.phtml

On yet another issue: He was against it before he was for it.

Most of the people who are criticizing Cain because of his inexperience are supporters of Perry or Romney which makes this criticism lame. The professional politician Rick Perry has been governor of Texas for 10 years and has a hard time completing sentences and putting together coherent thoughts. You think that will serve him well against Obama? Please. The professional politician Mitt Romney sounds like a pre-programmed windup doll manufactured in a lab by the Republican establishment. No thanks. I’ll take the “amateur” Herman Cain.

I don’t know why people insist on going back to the trough on this one, because it’s worked so well for us in the past?

I don’t wan’t someone who thinks “politician” is their vocation. I want a person who is a businessman/plumber/doctor/ditch digger/whatever first, happens to take some time off to serve their district/state/nation, and does a good job representing the people they serve.

I would much rather have a bunch of smart, conservative, amateurs serving me in Congress or as president for that matter. They can’t do any worse than the gaggle of “professionals” we’ve already got IMO.

We don’t need leaders who think they’re owed something because they’ve been getting their ticket punched by the political establishment for the last twenty years. We need real people who know how to get things done…and know how to inspire others to get things done.

That doesn’t mean every schmuck on the street should try to get into politics….we’ve got too many of them operating as politicians already. If you want to be a politician you’d better have a polished message, a charismatic personality, and be able to inspire me and others and get us believing you can do it better than the other guy/gal.

Cain spoke today to clarify his 999 plan. I thought he was supposed to finally clarify his “empowerment zones.” Instead he told the “poor” people, forget it, your plan isn’t 999, your plan is 9 0 9. If you are below the poverty level, you don’t have to pay any federal income tax under Cain’s new version of his tax plan. So, we have all these people coming out supporting his 999 plan, because it forces everyone to have skin in the game, right. Not any longer. The poor just got a break from any federal income taxes.

When is enough enough with this guys changes, flip flops, and misspeaks?

The everybody was always on the sales tax part.

Mainly that they say whatever needs to be said to get elected then do as they please more with an eye to going along/getting along and being re-elected than what is overall best for the country.

I’m tired of being burned by them.

The truth of the matter is that anyone who has survived and thrived in the private sector to the degree Cain has is an experienced politician. He is not necessarily a professional public office seeker.

Therein lies the biggest real difference between Cain and Romney.

Who do we want to elect? Another professional office seeker saying what he feels needs to say to advance himself or an experienced politician who speaks from his heart?

Do we want to elect someone who will say something to the effect of “I can’t have that because I’m running for office?”

Do we want to elect someone who will do what is needed, not what is convenient?

At this point I’m leaning towards either Perry or Cain with a preference for a Perry/Cain ticket.

Right now I’m for Perry or Cain.

I’m surprised by Perry’s drop in the polls. Especially in Iowa. It would seem that he should be big in Iowa. If he is to have a chance he needs to work Iowa hard. If he loses Iowa and also loses NH he is going to have a tough time…especially if Cain is still in.

Cain is winning in Iowa without even trying. How can you diss that? I will be excited about either one but I will be pretty disillusioned with Perry if he doesn’t either win or come in a close second in Iowa.

…but what is it with RS, of late, not being able to spell ‘Michele’ correctly?

Just to keep within the same topci and I guess some have already seen this.

Cain clarifies again: Abortion shouldn’t be legal, but some families might decide to break the law anyway
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/21/cain-clarifies-again-abortion-shouldnt-be-legal-but-some-families-might-decide-to-break-the-law-anyway/#comments

and;
Cain trying to improve the already disastrous 999 plan with it going to a 9-0-9 plan for the poor (trying to improve it since Perry will be releasing his flat tax plan next week;
Cain: For low-income families, it’ll be 9-0-9
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/21/cain-for-low-income-families-itll-be-9-0-9/

Perry’s flat tax via Forbes;
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1229186389001/perry-backs-flat-tax-proposal

Cain study recycles 1996 paper

Large parts of the fiscal study on Herman Cain’s website that details the underpinnnings of his “9-9-9″ tax plan is borrowed from the same consultant’s 1996 survey of alternative tax proposals.

[it goes on....]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1011/Cain_study_recycles_1996_paper.html

Here’s a novel idea–how about evaluating candidates on their policies and their actual governing fiscal records?

Who has proposed the best energy and job creation policy?

Perry is the only one who has addressed this in great detail. His plan is several important policy positions rolled into one: energy independence, lower energy costs for consumers, EPA regulatory reform, and job creation. Under Perry’s plan, not only will jobs explode in the energy sector, but the manufacturing sector will explode as well (petrochemical plants, etc.) He is getting ready to roll out a Tax Reform proposal next week which abolishes the IRS code.

Wall Street Journal on Romney plan: “A jobs plan that shrinks from some of the biggest issues” No major individual income tax reform.

9-9-9 or 9-0-9– Can you imagine the uncertainty in the business world when they don’t know from year to year what their tax rate will be based on the inability of Congress to curtail its spending? 9% is certainly not a guarantee. With the elimination of the employer/employee FICA/Medicare taxes, what is the revenue stream for funding the Social Security trust fund? Would be nice to see those assumptions.

As far as comparing the two candidates with governorship experience, there is no comparison. Perry has a strong fiscal conservative record. Romney has no conservative credentials in his record. Rudy Guiliani’s opposition research on Romney in the last primary says it all: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=94624#axzz1bSss03xg

And what about those all important judicial appointments? Texas has one of the most conservative court systems in the country. No wonder Romney had to appoint a committee headed by Robert Bork to advise him on judicial candidates. His record of appointment of activist judges in Massachusetts is quite frightening. He was part of a liberal Republican group that opposed Samuel Alito’s appointment to Supreme Court.

Shouldn’t we be evaluating our candidates on the basis of their policy positions and their actual records rather than speculating who is going to be able to defeat Obama?

With all due respect Mr. Holtsberry the one fact that you omitted from your diatribe is that the model for government handed down from our founders was for citizen legislators. Regular people, .ie plumbers, carpenters, auto mechanics, accountants, school teachers, business leaders, etc. were to serve in DC, (much like in the military), and after, return home and go back to civilian life. Now, I’ve read here and at other political blogs how much wisdom the founders had and the sacrifices they made to start America. Well? what is it? were they as wise as we say? and if not, who decides what we pick and choose from their accumulated wisdom?
You?
Me?
You state that politicians are necessary in order to run the government, I say hogwash.
Case in point, how many congress critters remain un-corrupt after a few years in service? I’d bet not many. We the people have been sold a bill of goods about the qualifications for working in government service. Our congress is made up of the very people who set up the power they hold over the rest of us. They DECLARE what they should be paid, they determine which lobbyist gets what money. They spend OUR money without a thought as to if it’s a good bet or bad bet. They have set up congress to be a club that only others with a like mind can join. They, when faced with an outsider trying to reform, throw every thing they have into shutting them up.
This is what you defend?
We the people are fed up with career politicians. We’re tired of being treated like little children who can’t decide if we should eat what we wish, drink what we wish, go where we wish, or say what we think.
Our system, as it is, has failed us. The politicians we sent to speak in our stead have lied to us, and betrayed the trust in which we put into them. They’re in it for their selves, for their next election, not for us.
I prayed that Sarah Palin would run. I believe that she is one like us, a regular person, not some lofty politico with grandiose platitudes about how much we need them.
I’d suggest that you may want to reexamine the model the founders gave us, citizen government, federal, state and local.
What say you now?

When you say “professional politician”, do you mean professional campaigner or professional policymaker?

You wrote:

The truth is that being a politician is a profession whether we like it or not. Outside of local positions, and very small jurisdictions, elected office is a full time job. The size and scope of government, and the nature of modern society, means the larger the responsibility and power attached to an office the more difficult it is both to get elected and to do the job.

Professional politician as “ability to get elected” is one thing. Larger responsibility and power means something else, unless I’m missing something.

If your critique (and your larger point) is that Cain and others who don’t have an election win under their belts should be disregarded since they can’t win an election, I suppose that’s fair. I do think that standard of “professionalism” leads us to no place good (did any of you support Marco Rubio or Mike Lee?) but it’s a semi-valid point.

If, on the other hand, your critique is that only “professional politicians” have the skill and ability to handle large responsibilities and do the job… I think you’re completely off.

George W. Bush will go down as one of our great presidents in the area of foreign policy, but he had precisely zip in experience with it. Being governor of Texas prepares you for the Commander in Chief job like being a Texas high school QB prepares you to start in the NFL. There is no job I can think of that could possibly prepare you to be President. Not one.

So we just look for executive experience: decisionmaking, team-building, communication, a track record of getting things done. It doesn’t matter to me whether that’s at the head of a town, a city (after all, what experience did Giuliani have to be POTUS?), or a State, or a private company of whatever size. But there does have to be some track record of leadership and getting things done.

It is laughable to me to think that Mitt Romney’s career somehow prepares him for the Presidency. Or Rick Perry’s. And I like both men, and would vote for either over Obama.

There are two other another unique aspects to be considered whenever considering candidates that have no analog in the private sector.
The first is that political campaigns are not subject to truth in advertising laws. The lawmakers wrote the laws that way. This is a state issue but I believe all 50 states are the same in this regard. The upshot of this is that any candidate can say anything in a campaign and there is no legal recourse to out and out lies that come to light after the election.
The second is that elected officials cannot be held liable in a court of law for the actions they take while in office. Once they are elected they are in effect exempt from prosecution by anyone other than other other elected officials who are subject to the same rules and many of which can envision themselves on that same hot seat.
The point of this is that the _only_ thing that one can use to determine a candidate’s position on anything is their voting record. This is the major =reason I won’t be supporting Herman Cain. He doesn’t have a voting record so it is impossible to tell what he will do once put in a position that does not operate under the same constraints as a private sector leader – in fact under almost no constraints at all in regard to personal liability. If he had any public sector history at all we would have a much better picture of him. In this regard he is as unknown as Barak Hussein Obama was when he was elected.
As for the other candidates I don’t look at any particular issue but at the _pattern_ of their voting on many issues. My analysis of their actual performance while in public office so far makes Gingrich, Perry, and Romney unacceptable. What they say in a campaign, as noted above, has nothing to do with what they actually did when in office.
As far any debates: Do we really want to elected an “American Idol” contestant to the office of President?
Please look at their actual voting records when in office.

Not.
I could not disagree with you more.
I’ve been listening to Herman Cain for years. You, obviously, have not. If you had been paying attention to him you would be convinced, as I fully am,, of the content and high quality of his character.

He is inspiring, incredibly intelligent, excellent off the cuff, funny, happy, and as conservative as they come.

“Cain has simply not shown the basic level of competency necessary to run for president let alone get elected”

Bull. How can you even say that?
What the heck do you want?
He is human. But he is a god fearing American first. That’s more than I can say for most the other candidates on that stage.
They are politicians first. Of that I have no doubt. And you don’t either if you’re being honest.. Anyone watching the debates can see the blatant political vomit being spewed by the likes of Bachman, Perry, Santorum and Romney.

If they were Americans first they wouldn’t be unfairly bashing 9-9-9. (which is probably the best thing that could ever happen to this country)

I fear, as all real conservatives do, that Romney, Perry, Bachman, and Santorum are all RINOs.

Do you fear the Cain might be a RINO? Not you don’t. Not if you’ve actually listened to him on the radio for 5 minutes.

Dither, dither, dither. Yak, yak, yak. We must have someone I can agree with. No, no, it must be someone I can agree with. IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE WHO CAN WIN and conservatives cannot do it alone. We must have the Indies and conservative Dems. Contrary to most saying that the country is mostly conservative, I disagree based on the results that liberals have been winning in an awful lot of places. If we are tilted right, then this should be a cake walk, right? I will say it again IT MUST BE SOMEONE WHO CAN WIN or you won’t have to worry about 2016 cause there won’t be much left.