The Composite Candidate

Politically speaking, there aren’t many things more frustrating than vetting a sizable field of presidential primary candidates in an effort to isolate a viable champion for the GOP only to discover that no one candidate emerges unscathed and unblemished from the process. Every one of them has stellar qualities that, to one degree or another, are offset by inexperience, peccadilloes, idiosyncrasies or personal baggage that leave us observers wondering if any of them will be able to pull the presidential sword from the stone.

We end up pining for a science fiction solution that offers the possibility of herding all the candidates into a matter/energy scrambler and teleporter and then recombining all the best and most desirable qualities from each of them into a single person who appears on the teleporter pad when the process is finished, ready to trounce Obama next November in a landslide of epic proportions.

Can you imagine what such a machine could have done back in 2008? Recall that the top tier candidates were John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. Now picture the scene: we herd these five men into the teleporter and program the computer to isolate the following from the matter matrix and recombine it into a single person:

  1. Mitt Romney’s good looks, perfect hair and pleasing baritone voice;
  2. John McCain’s war record and stubborn refusal to accept earmarks for his state;
  3. Mike Huckabee’s wit, silver tongue, sense of humor and musical ability;
  4. Ron Paul’s enmity toward the Fed and insistence on the rule of Constitutional law;
  5. Fred Thompson’s gravitas and level-headed Reagan conservatism.

Now imagine such a machine today: we herd Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich,  Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum into the teleporter and program the computer to isolate the following from the matter matrix and recombine it into a single person:

  1. Herman Cain’s physical form (after all, as Ann Coulter noted, “our blacks are better than their blacks”), private sector resume and Reaganite impulse;
  2. Mitt Romney’s pleasing baritone voice;
  3. Rick Perry’s gubernatorial experience and service in the military;
  4. Newt Gingrich’s powerful intellect and government experience;
  5. Ron Paul’s enmity toward the Fed and insistence on the rule of Constitutional law;
  6. Michele Bachmann’s profound understanding of the U.S. tax code;
  7. Rick Santorum’s unswerving conservatism on social issues.

The 2012 election would be over before it began the moment our candidate stepped off the teleporter pad.

Unfortunately,the matter/energy scrambler and teleporter remains a creature of science fiction and we the GOP base are left to choose from among the available candidates – each of whom has clearly defined strengths and clearly established weaknesses.

How, then, are we to make a decision regarding the candidate  best qualified to be the GOP nominee? How much of our hair must be torn out by the roots before we finally make up our minds?

The answer is: none. Not a single hair…not a single follicle. You need only answer two questions:

  • Are the candidate’s strengths pervasive and deeply rooted in his or her character or do they lie more in what the candidate has accomplished?
  • Are the candidate’s weaknesses pervasive and deeply rooted in his or her character or are they easily remedied by counsel and instruction?

It really is just that simple and I will be the first to say what I know so many others are thinking: I’d sooner rally behind a man of integrity and profound private sector¬† experience who is nevertheless a political neophyte with a tenuous – but easily remedied – grasp of history and politics than I would a man of questionable integrity who can, without batting an eyelash, respond that the president of Uzbekistan is Shavkat Mirziyoyev.

Thus do I continue to stand by Herman Cain and my choice for the GOP presidential nomination.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Composite Candidate

  1. owleyepundit says:

    I’d take Herman Cain’s voice over that of any other candidate on the slate.

  2. Dana Pearson says:

    This is a great website. I agree with just about everything on it, but not the Cain fascination. Until yesterday, I might have considered voting against Obama, in the unlikely event Cain won the nomination — but I can no longer do so in good conscience, unless it is found that Ms. Bialek out and out lied.

    Hopefully, today will be Cain’s Waterloo. It is hard for me to believe that the fourth woman is making up her detailed claims out of whole cloth. This woman was looking for help finding a job. If she is to be believed (and she is not alone in making sexual harrasment allegations about Cain), Cain abused his position in the Restaurant Association for personal gratification. Cain seems Clintonesque not only in his abuse of power for personal gain but also in his ability to BS his way about things and continue his support from his followers right up to and past the point that the DNA stains are found on the dress. The only thing worse than an empty suit in a Corporate bureaucracy abusing his position of trust for personal gain, is a government employee (President of the US) doing so.

    I wonder if Cain will have a clear memory of what happened that night when Ms. Bialek (a Republican by the way) sought his help. If not, I have to believe Bialek.

    For goodness sakes, Cain was a lobbyist! Cain left his job at Pillsbury 15 years ago. He didn’t know that China has nukes, which they have had for over 40 years. He doesn’t know basic stuff — the word “neocon” entered his lexicon just recently. He BS’d his way through a question on the Palestinian right of return. He supported TARP. Paul caught him in a blatant mistruth two or three debates ago, about his position on the Fed audit. He waffled on abortion.

    He has not done anything good worth mentioning for 15 years, other than lobby the governement.

    He has a nice smile. That’s it. It fools a lot of people, but probably not most.

    There are other decent candidates — Bachman, Perry, Romney and Santorum. Gingrich has the same kind of baggage that Clinton had and Cain has. He talks a good game, but his character leaves a lot to be desired.

    I admire the fact that Bachman did not cave on the TARP vote. I disagree with her on foreign policy, but I think she is the real deal on social issues. You may mock her “profound understanding of the tax code”, but I think it actually helps to have a Presidential candidate that understands the reasons behind the intricate code and why the code gets that way. Tax policy is complex, it balances hundreds of competing interests. I believe her when she says she will cut government spending. Finally, her foster parenting indicates to me that she walks the walk, not just talks the talk.

    Romney flip flops — like almost all politicians (Bachman is a rarity). However, when he was governor MA had a very low unemployment rate. His 59 point plan will not fit on a bumper sticker, but it shows he gave serious consideration to a wide array of issues. He understands that public spending drives taxes. Romney’s private sector experience blows away Cain’s climb up the Pillsbury bureacracy. He was probably the best in the debates.

    Perry and Santorum are serious candidates who have proven winning electoral records.

  3. Pingback: Bulldog Echo Syndrome | BullDog Pundit