Gallup: Herman Cain has Highest Net Favorability Rating

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gallup-herman-cain-has-highest-net-f... "A recent Gallup survey shows that, among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, Herman Cain has the highest net favorability rating of anyone in the current GOP presidential field."

3037 reads

There are 14 Comments

RPittman's picture

I don't like the way he plays cards. Cain invoked the race card, the best he could do, against Perry. If he stoops to such low tactics to win support, then I have questions about his character. One who has no qualms about how he gains votes has no character to stand for right when the chips are down. After all, Cain's appeal is that folks hope he can get us out of this economic crisis. People voted for immoral Bill Clinton because they thought he could keep the nation prosperous. If one's standard is material affluence, then that person can be bought and sold for a higher dollar.

Joel Shaffer's picture

Quote:
I don't like the way he plays cards. Cain invoked the race card, the best he could do, against Perry.

Anyone's background and skeletons in their closet is fair game One of the ways that we are able to judge whether someone is a good candidate is by their past actions or in Perry's case, inactions. I am perfectly fine with Cain bringing this out, calling it racially insensitive, because if it turns out to be true (that Perry didn't paint over the sign for many many years), Perry showed that he was, in fact, racially insensitive.

RPittman's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:
Quote:
I don't like the way he plays cards. Cain invoked the race card, the best he could do, against Perry.

Anyone's background and skeletons in their closet is fair game One of the ways that we are able to judge whether someone is a good candidate is by their past actions or in Perry's case, inactions. I am perfectly fine with Cain bringing this out, calling it racially insensitive, because if it turns out to be true [emphasis added ] (that Perry didn't paint over the sign for many many years), Perry showed that he was, in fact, racially insensitive.

So, add to the list of sins "racially insensitive." Even Cain admits that he doesn't know if it's true, yet he made the accusation anyway. Whatever happened to the virtues of honesty, integrity, justice, and giving a man a fair shake. Somehow, our values are from different spheres. I'll admit that my values are hopelessly old-fashioned and not politically correct but I will argue that they are virtuous and right.

RPittman's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:
Quote:
I don't like the way he plays cards. Cain invoked the race card, the best he could do, against Perry.

Anyone's background and skeletons in their closet is fair game One of the ways that we are able to judge whether someone is a good candidate is by their past actions or in Perry's case, inactions. I am perfectly fine with Cain bringing this out, calling it racially insensitive, because if it turns out to be true (that Perry didn't paint over the sign for many many years), Perry showed that he was, in fact, racially insensitive.

Skeletons in the closet? Everyone has them. All are wicked sinners. There are things in your life that you wouldn't want to have publicly published. Does every candidate need to do penance and make public confession of all kinds of sordid deeds? I'm sure Mr. Cain has many, many less than wonderful incidents of his own life. He didn't get to the top without stepping on a few faces and making a few deals. So, is it a simple matter of who gets caught? IMHO, the important thing is where the person is now and where he is headed!

Furthermore, this is stretching it to the breaking point. No one has said that Mr. Perry painted the sign. And no one is denying that he did have it painted over at some point. We're not talking about a positive commission of an act but it's something that we as politically correct individuals think Mr. Perry is responsible for having known and acted upon sooner. Now, if that's not judgmental . . . . I'm sure that Mr. Perry had a very busy life and was not constantly thinking about an insignificant sign that someone might find offensive.

No, it's an obvious incident of Mr. Cain playing the race card to his advantage. I have would admired Mr. Cain if he had the guts to say, "Well, I believe my opponent, Mr. Perry, to be a man of integrity and character who would not knowingly or intentionally make or allow racial slurs. I'm going to keep my campaign on the high road without impugning Mr. Perry's character and integrity." Politicians of the past have done that sort of thing. But Mr. Cain? NO! He reveals his own character by jumping on any rumor that will smear his opponent and give himself an advantage. He is obviously without scruples. And the gullible, the naive, and the politically correct parrots echo his mud-slinging nonsense.

Joel Shaffer's picture

Quote:
I'm sure that Mr. Perry had a very busy life and was not constantly thinking about an insignificant sign that someone might find offensive.

Really????!!! To excuse Mr. Perry as a politician for being too busy to get rid of a highly offensive racist sign on his property is an interesting view. To call it insignificant, is also interesting. I wonder if the house that I just bought in my inner-city neighborhood previously had a large sign on the porch called "Niggerhead" and I chose to leave it there, how my black neighbors would perceive our ministry? And how about if I decided, you know, as an urban missionary, I'm just too busy to remove it. Its not very significant anyway..... In fact, I am going to leave it up there because I do not want to bow down to the political correct factions that are at play.......... Smile

I would hope that someone, whether it be a neighbor, a pastor of a supporting church, or whomever, would call me out for being racially insensitive........

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

If this is the worst thing about Cain's character, he's probably too good for the Whitehouse.
Cain was asked to react to a story that appeared in the Washington Post.
(http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/03/herman-cain-perry...)
If you don't know if something's true and you say you don't know it's true, that's called telling the truth. At worst, Cain was a bit careless in saying as much as he did. A simple "I'm not going to comment until I know more about it" would have been wiser and more charitable.
But given the history of political race baiting in the US in recent years... his comment doesn't even register on the scale.

RPittman's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure that Mr. Perry had a very busy life and was not constantly thinking about an insignificant sign that someone might find offensive.

Really????!!! To excuse Mr. Perry as a politician for being too busy to get rid of a highly offensive racist sign on his property is an interesting view. To call it insignificant, is also interesting. I wonder if the house that I just bought in my inner-city neighborhood previously had a large sign on the porch called "Niggerhead" and I chose to leave it there, how my black neighbors would perceive our ministry? And how about if I decided, you know, as an urban missionary, I'm just too busy to remove it. Its not very significant anyway..... In fact, I am going to leave it up there because I do not want to bow down to the political correct factions that are at play.......... Smile

I would hope that someone, whether it be a neighbor, a pastor of a supporting church, or whomever, would call me out for being racially insensitive........

Well, perhaps you oughta wear earplugs so that you don't hear your African-American neighbors using the word. What are you gonna do if they say it in church? Horrors! :O

This appears to be your hobby horse, so "Yippee . . . ride'em cowboy!" Because we don't dare say or write the word, we'll just say it's "[a ] word that everyone else is afraid to define except in utter seriousness, for fear of being branded a rascist, in total ignorance of the colloquial usage of the word, its characterization in popular culture, and the populations of people it is used most by." Seems like political correctness to me.

By-the-way, perhaps you can help me. I realize that I've worn "politically correct" pretty thin with usage but I don't know any other word to describe this raging epidemic and I keep bumping into it everywhere. Words such as stupid, asinine, foolish, moronic, idiotic, et. al. seem so insensitive. What do you suggest? :bigsmile:

RPittman's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
If this is the worst thing about Cain's character, he's probably too good for the Whitehouse.
Cain was asked to react to a story that appeared in the Washington Post.
(http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/03/herman-cain-perry...)
If you don't know if something's true and you say you don't know it's true, that's called telling the truth. At worst, Cain was a bit careless in saying as much as he did. A simple "I'm not going to comment until I know more about it" would have been wiser and more charitable.
But given the history of political race baiting in the US in recent years... his comment doesn't even register on the scale.
I am highly offended whenever I hear my God's name taken in vain (i.e. profanity). Even among professing Christians, God's name is taken lightly and used for slang and interjections (e.g. OMG). Christians even have their own euphemisms when they shy aware from the full expletive. By the strictest definition, Mark Driscoll was not the first preacher to introduce profanity to the pulpit--many fundamentalist preachers have routinely used profanity for decades. God clearly said,
Quote:
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7, Deuteronomy 5:11)
I am especially incensed when I hear the blatant blaspheme using the name of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It tears at my heart and evokes my deepest emotions. Yet, guys like Cain have no conception of the sacrilege done when God's name is used profanely. Cain said:
Quote:
"My reaction is, that’s just very insensitive,” Cain told Fox. “[There ] isn’t a more vile, negative word than the N-word, and for him to leave it there as long as he did, before I hear that they finally painted over it, is just plain insensitive to a lot of black people in this country.”
We may not be surprised that Cain sees this as the ultimate verbal sin but we should be disappointed that Christians view N word usage in Tsunami proportions and do not even feel a seismic tremor when God's name is profaned.

Joel Shaffer's picture

Quote:
Well, perhaps you oughta wear earplugs so that you don't hear your African-American neighbors using the word. What are you gonna do if they say it in church? Horrors!

With all of my students at all of my programs (90% are black), they are not allowed to use "nigga" no matter what the context.

At the same time, those who are among the civil rights generation of African-Americans remember being called nigger by many prejudice white people so there still is quite a negative connotation to it. I've also had several students that have privately told me of experiences such as being followed in a grocery store by a store clerk, saying aloud "gotta follow these niggers so they don't rob the place" or being constantly called a nigger by the opposing white football team, or having a foreman at work calling a young father at factory temp job "nigger" knowing full well that he will be protected by the union. Words still matter despite the pop culture's negative connotations.........

Quote:
This appears to be your hobby horse, so "Yippee . . . ride'em cowboy!"

touche' :bigsmile:

Joel Shaffer's picture

Quote:
I am especially incensed when I hear the blatant blaspheme using the name of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It tears at my heart and evokes my deepest emotions.

Me Too!

David R. Brumbelow's picture

Later in the same day, when he found out more about it, didn't Herman Cain say something like (this is not an exact quote) - "Look, Perry had the rock painted over; end of story"?

And didn't that pretty well end the story, at least as far as Herman Cain is concerned?
David R. Brumbelow

Sean Fericks's picture

Nice change of topic. I think the OP was about Herman Cain's surge, not the ticky-tack story of some offensive rock at a hunting camp. Funny how we get distracted from substance by little soap opera stuff.

I believe Herman Cain is surging because he knows how to preach (the rock star factor), he has a proven success record, he comes from outside Washington, and he inspires confidence. He is like Presidents Obama and Regan in that he can motivate crowds. He also has a few big ideas that resonate with today's (short attention span) voters. His 9-9-9 idea is good for sound bytes, and is much better than the current hated IRS code. He needs to educate better on his idea to eliminate capital gains taxes. The average Joe needs to understand how this seeming rich-man's tax break actually helps him also. The average Joe also needs to understand that he is paying 13% in payroll taxes IN ADDITION TO his federal income tax. Cain's 9-9-9 plan eliminates the 13% payroll tax and current progressive federal income tax. It replaces it with a flat 9% income tax and 9% sales tax.

My difficulties with Herman Cain are: 1) He supported the general concept of TARP. I see federal preservation of failing institutions as theft. It forces the private wealth of America to pay for another's error either through taxation or inflation. 2) He has a whole lot of words in writing and on tape that will surface during the general election if not before. I assume there are some pretty big gaffes that President Obama will use to good effect.

Other than that, I think he is an excellent candidate, and would love to see him go up against President Obama in the general. I don't think he will win the primary. My prediction is Romney/Rubio.

RPittman's picture

Sean Fericks wrote:
I believe Herman Cain is surging because . . . . I think he is an excellent candidate . . . .
My problem with Cain is that he is apparently a pragmatist who will go with the flow. All that I know about him, including his playing the race card, points to his being a pragmatist. I don't like the flow at his point. I prefer a man anchored by principles.

Sean Fericks's picture

Agreed that the surge is probably temporary. Just wait til the media gets finished looking through all his talk radio tapes. There are sure to be some fun ones there.

Who is your preference then? Ron Paul perhaps?