Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Go Herman

I’ve been kinda partial to Herman Cain for most of this year now, and I have been a bit disappointed at how he has been languishing in the polls since things started hotting up.

Then we get to this week.

Suddenly, out of the blue, Herman won the Florida straw poll. Not just winning it, but with more than double the support of the next candidate, the previously booming Rick Perry.

All right, that’s one data point, and a single data point does not a trend make. However, we now got the latest Zogby poll; taken before the Florida vote it has Herman not just front runner, but leading Perry, at number 2, by ten points, 28% to 18%.

He will be a gift to the progressives tho, I can imagine so many of them getting orgasmic at the excitement of calling him an Uncle Tom and an oreo, or a coconut in the non oreo eating world. Accusing everyone who supports him of being a racist, without indulging in the least introspection.

This is shaping up to be a fun campaign.


  1. Peter Risdon says:

    Scarily religious, though.

  2. RAB says:

    Herman Cain… Not more of the same!

    I rather like the look of the bloke…

    He holds up well in public, and the slur that he’s just a Pizza delivery man is a gift to his campaign.

    They’re all religious in some shape or form Peter, I wouldn’t put to much store in that being a downside. Reagan, was, and both Bush’s were. They still got elected.

    Besides, it would be nice to see a real black American in the White House, eh?

  3. Paul Marks says:

    Herman Cane is a normal Bapist – not “scary” unless one considers Christians scary (in which case the majority of Americans are “scary” and always have been).

    Herman Cane benefitted greatly from Rick Perry messing up the debate – the anti Romney vote had to go somewhere, and it went to Cane (although Perry still managed to beat Romney in the Straw Poll, after barely being able to get a sentence straight in the debate – which shows what a glass jaw Romney has).

    However, there were many other candidates the anti Romney vote could have gone – Herman Cane had to WIN it.

    Cane debated very well – his story of exactly why Obamacare would have killed him when he had cancer was both accurate (as anyone with experience of Britain – where cancer is basically a death sentence, should know) and profoundly moving.

    He also seemed to know more about the world than he did before (the recent trip to Israel with Glenn Beck may have helped).

    And the 9, 9, 9, plan may not be perfect (to introduce a national sales tax without ABOLISHING the income tax is very dangerious indeed), but at least it is clear and dramatic.

    Neither Perry not Romney has been either of these things on policy.

    Also (not to be underestimated) Cane can (and does) deliver good speeches.

    Most voters who hear him do not regard his Baptist minister style of making a speech as scary – it is reasuring for most voters (especially black voters, who are so used to this style of speaking, at least Church going blacks are – but then Repubilicans do not have a hope of getting any gang culture anti church votes).

    However, the front runners remain Perry and Romney.

  4. Ian B says:

    (in which case the majority of Americans are “scary” and always have been).

    Yep, that’s pretty much my view in a nutshell.

  5. CountingCats says:

    Until about thirty / forty years ago all western civilisation had been built by people professing to be either Christian or Jewish.

    I have no time for these very recent scare tactics, even hate speech, towards people who profess what is nothing more than mainstream Christian views. Despite being an atheist I see nothing scary about religious people – with the possible exception of one single religion that is.

    Part of Cains appeal is his deep commitment to Constitutionalism, and with that in place who cares about his religion. What does it matter who he prays to? And if his morality guides his policy, well, I would expect that would be true of everyone, in all walks of life.

    Peter, I would have expected better from you than this.

  6. Sam Duncan says:

    “This is shaping up to be a fun campaign.”

    Regardless of Cain’s merits, that’s certainly true.

  7. GW says:

    1. The new definition of a racist in America – a tea party supporter who wins an argument with a liberal.

    2. The Herminator has quite a resume – very successful businessman and the former Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City, an MS from Purdue in computer science. His family story is equally as uplifting. His parents were working class poor with strong belief in religion and a strong work ethic, his father once holding down 3 jobs to support his family. He has my vote.

    3. This bit about being scared by his religiosity suggests an ignorance of history that is appalling. Let me just second the short comment by CC above and ask, who do you want to be deciding what is moral and immoral, what is to be subject to sanction and what is to be praised? For the better part of two millennia, the Golden Rule has been the ideal. What happens when the Judeo Christian ethic is stripped from our government and it is left to the state to put its own ethic in its place?

    As I survey 20th century history, I don’t think that has worked out too well. And indeed, as I look at the prospect of the radical green ethic replacing Christianity in our social compact at some future point, it seems likely the outcome would be horrific on a scale at least equal to the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. At least Stalin didn’t see his people as parasites on the world, nor did he hold up Ghengis Kahn as a role model for decreasing human CO2 contribution through the slaughter of 40 million.

    I am agnostic. But, quite literally, to preserve Western Civilization, I will never vote for a politician who does not profess complete fidelity to the Judeo-Christian ethic as the bedrock of our laws and social fabric. So, go Herman, go.

  8. PeterT says:

    His policy stances are hardly enough to get a libertarian excited, although I must say he is very unpolitician like (Perry and Romney alike both being too much like politicians for their own good). A Cain/Johnson ticket I could get excited about.

  9. David Gillies says:

    My God, you really need to read the long-form version of his CV. Bachelors in Maths. Masters in Computer Science while working full-time for Coca Cola. Developed ballistic missile software for the Navy (so he is an actual fucking rocket scientist ZOMG WTF BBQ !!11!1!!). Turned shit around for Pillsbury. Bought Godfather’s Pizza off ’em and rode it to national success. President of the National Restaurant Association. Became a banker. Went to one rank below the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Father, grandfather, not a whiff of scandal about him. And if anyone calls me a fucking racist for thinking Obama is the worst President in US history, then after they’ve come round from the anaesthetic where their jaw was wired after I punched them, then I will definitely say that out of the current crop of GOP candidates, Cain is the shining star. I would LOVE a Cain presidency, if for no other reason than that the cognitive dissonance it would arouse in Lefties’ heads would be a wonder to behold.

  10. CountingCats says:


    Are you sure about that? You still seem a little uncertain.


    Yes, absolutely. I have been quietly barracking for Herman for months, and have been disappointed at his showings so far. Lefty heads exploding would be a wonderful side benefit, but I really really don’t want to see him elected just because he is black. We don’t want a repeat of last time.

  11. David Gillies says:

    He could be purple with orange candy stripes and he’d still be the best on offer. Almost wish I were a Yank so I could vote for him. It’s not us libertarians that get all hung up on identity politics, but is is a lot of fun watching grotesque little trolls like Janeane Garafolo dismiss people like Cain and Thomas Sowell and Deroy Murdock and Clarence Thomas as race traitors when each of the above has more talent and intellect in a sneeze than that smelly tattooed skank has in her entire body. The only funny bone she ever had in her belonged to Ben Stiller.

  12. PeterT says:

    Imagine the heads exploding on the left if we had a Cain/Allen West ticket. Ha!

  13. CountingCats says:

    A Cain/Palin ticket.
    A Cain/Bachman Ticket.
    A Palin/West Ticket.
    A Palin/Bachman Ticket
    A Palin/Rice Ticket

    The combinations are endless.

    We don’t care about the gender/race of any of them, but the progressives are obsessed.

  14. GW says:

    A good article on Cain in the WSJ today.

    As tickets go, give me Cain/West or Cain/Rubio.

  15. Paul Marks says:

    Ian B. has a point.

    Traditional Americans do not believe that “God is with us” or in the “manifest destiny” of Andrew Jackson and co (both of these things are aggressive – in many ways it was a perversion of the original belief). But they did and do believe that “I must get right with God – I must do the right thing (whatever the cost to me”.

    And that can be scary. For one is dealing with the old “quiet man” who will not step aside – not even if it means his own death.

    The actor James Stewart played such roles sometimes (and was like it in real life) – a quiet, friendly man (full of funny little stories), who (one suddenly grasps) will NOT STEP ASIDE. No rage in the eyes – but a quite determination not to move, and the certain knowlege that if one tries to move him one better kill him (or he will kill you – and kill you with his REASON as much as with his arm).

    Such as person can be a lot more scary than someone screaming with rage.

    The “Black Robed Regiment” (the ministers of religion) were not considered the chief cause of the American War of Independence (by the British government) for nothing.

    The idea of people voluntarily (as individuals) chosing their church (rather than being born into a national church) and standing for principle (regardless of the cost) is scary in some ways.

    However, remember how Gandalf replies to Gimli (in Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”) when Gimli asks if Fangorn is “dangerious”.

    Yes it and he (for Fangorn is a forest and a person) is dangerious – and so is Gandalf and so is Aragorn and so Legolas and so is Gimli himself.

    But being “dangrious” does not also mean that a person might not also be kindly – and have no hostile intent.

    It just means “do not cross this person” – do not try and excise tyranny over this person.


    For they will not step aside in the face of evil. And they will not stand idle when they see someone being attacked.

    Many American Randian Objectivists (strong and open athiests) are the same.

  16. Paul Marks says:

    The above is the rejection of the basis (political, moral, philosophical) of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes – and British political thought has for a very long time being greatly influenced by the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *