Where, I asked in January, “is the conservative candidate at this conservative moment?” “In the current contest, . . . no candidate has emerged to take on Reagan’s mantle.”  In their search for a charismatic and principled conservatives who could rally the party faithful, many Republican voters, dissatisfied with the frontrunner and eager to find an alternative, have embraced, at various points during the campaign, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum.

Unlike Bachmann, Cain or Gingrich, however, Santorum has never really embraced the libertarian economic policies which defined the Gipper’s domestic policies — and now form the basis for the Tea Party’s agenda.  Moreover, as Ace observes, echoing John Podhoretz, Santorum lacks Reagan’s sunny disposition:

Santorum’s problem, again and again, is that he doesn’t want to make apositive uplifting case for things. He might have given a speech encouraging a newfound, recovered respect for the trades. He might have given a speech about the positive virtue of sweat. And it’s importance in America.

Instead he just brands those who wish their kids to go to college “snobs.”

Taking issue not with Santorum’s tone, but with the content of his recent robocall (faulting Romney for supporting TARP while opposing the auto bailouts), Jay Nordlinger seems dumbfounded, “And this is our guy? Santorum is the conservatives’ guy?”

Many conservatives supported the bank bailout and opposed the auto bailout. You can look up arguments within NR editorials. Conservatives all over the country, in all sorts of forums, made arguments for and against — for and against either bailout. Those arguments continue now, retrospectively.

But is there any thinking or respectable conservative who uses Rick Santorum’s language — the bank bailout was for Mitt Romney’s “Wall Street billionaire buddies” while Michigan workers got their faces slapped? (Santorum opposed the auto bailout, too. Was he slapping workers’ faces?) (more…)

Unlike Bruce, I never backed Herman Cain‘s presidential bid.  I did appreciate his charisma and his ability to articulate the conservative economic message, particularly while offering his experience creating jobs in the private sector, a leader who helped businesses become financially sound.

And as an outsider in a year when people are becoming increasingly disenchanted with Washington, Herman Cain had, for a moment, a strong appeal.

But, he wasn’t prepared for the hostile media that all surging Republicans face.  Nor could he flesh out his ideas on a great variety of issues, foreign and domestic.  Beyond his 9-9-9 plan, he lacked a bold plan for comprehensive reform — which Washington desperately needs.

His appeal, in short, was his charisma — his ability to articulate the conservative message — and his outsider status.  But, he couldn’t build on that.

As he withdraws, Patricia Murphy of the Daily Beast asks, “Where are Jeb Bush and Chris Christie when their party needs them?”

My question exactly.

Last night, as I was preparing for bed, I caught a bit of Greta van Susteren’s On the Record, particularly that segment when she offers us a clip of Rush Limbaugh.  So much did Rush’s point about Newt Gingrich’s surge in the polls resonate that I googled my favorite passage and alighted on his most excellent monologue in which he gets not only the rise of Newt, but also the recent appeal of Herman Cain.

Each man, Cain and Gingrich, do have the ability to articulate conservative principles.  Cain is an outsider, not part of a political class about whom Americans have become increasingly suspicious these last few years.  Newt is a master of policy, but even in coming to master policy, he has not lost sight, at least rhetorically, of those principles which have defined the conservative movement at least since Reagan’s celebrated speech in 1964.

So, let me just leave you with Rush’s monologue of November 18:

First principles are the answer.  First principles, first conservative constitutional principles are the answer.  Articulating that as fact with depth and conviction is what the people of this country want.  We and the rest of the people of this country are sick and tired of careful politicians, business as usual politicians.  We are fed up and exhausted with people who measure their comments. . . . Robust liberty and freedom for the American people is the answer, and then a government willing, after unleashing that, to get out of its way is the answer. (more…)

It’s not just CNN.  Glenn Reynolds sums it up:

THE SOLYNDRA-OBAMA TIES: “While everyone else in the political universe is chasing down rumors about Herman Cain making women uncomfortable, Fox News got down on the real scandal: President Obama giving a half-billion dollars of public money to a major campaign donor.”

Wonder how many stories Politico ran on Solyndra or Fast and Furious where the best that can be said for the Attorney General is that he’s incompetent.

Remember how Democrats attempted to discredit Paula Jones when she leveled accusations of sexual harassment against the then-sitting President of the United States?  Of course, they based their descriptions of Clinton’s accuser not on the facts of her life, but on prejudices against lower middle class white women.  “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park,” Clinton advisor James Carville said, “you never know what you’ll find.”

Well, now that Herman Cain’s first accuser has been identified, we’re finding that she’s not similar to another image from left-wing lore, the hard-working women victimized by the evil Republican boss.  Now, to be sure, some bosses are indeed boorish and to prey on their attractive female employees.  And they should be held to account for their actions.

But, it doesn’t seem Herman Cain is such a man.  Seems the woman who accused the Republican of sexual harassment filed another complaint at her next job.  Ace, who alerted me to the article speculates that she suffers from “Complainey-Face Syndrome“:

Kraushaar’s former supervisor at the INS, who was named in Kraushaar’s complaint, characterized the 2003 complaint to ABC News as “frivolous,” and said Kraushaar may have been offered a few extra sick days as compensation.

The supervisor alleged that Kraushaar had a “poor work ethic.”

The supervisor, a self-described Democrat, decided to speak out about Kraushaar’s complaint because of “doubts about her credibility.”

This is why it is unfair for women accusing of sexual harassment to hide behind their anonymity. When they’re anonymous, we can’t confirm the veracity of their accusations. “She,” Ace adds

. . . tried to get a ridiculous amount of money out of the INS — plus a pricey paid year off and paid tuition at grad school! — over a vague complaint of “unfair treatment.” Because she wasn’t permitted to work from home — how many people are? or were, especially, in 2002 or whenever?

You can bet if the accused were a Democrat, our friends at Politico would have unearthed this information before filing their story.  And if, on that occasion, they even ran the story, the past of the accuser would play a very prominent part, perhaps figuring in its very headline.

Sometime yesterday afternoon (Pacific time), after reading a brief summary of the details of Sharon Bialek’s accusation, but before finding out about f the affidavits, I wondered how much due diligence Gloria Allred had done.  Had Bialek named friends or acquaintances who could corroborate her story?  Had Miss Allred obtained affidavits from said individuals?  (Only when I learned she had did I begin to consider that there might be some truth to this tale.)

Had the female publicity hound contacted the hotel in Washington to see if Miss Bialek had rented a room?  Had Mr. Cain called to upgrade it?  Did she ask for flight records, etc.?

Now, to be sure, this happened fourteen years ago and most people don’t keep records that old, but still did she even try to track them down?  Well, seems a conservative blogger is doing the work she has apparently failed to do.  Jim Geraghty reports that he

put in a call to the Washington Hilton; one aspect of Bialek’s story should be fairly easy to verify, presuming the Hilton Corporation holds records from 1997: did Herman Cain rent a suite at the Capital Hilton in Washington D.C.?

As the multiple updates to my post yesterday indicate, I remain skeptical about Bialek’s credibility, neither convinced that she’s lying nor that she’s telling the truth.

If the charges are true, we do know that he behaved better than Bill Clinton had in similar circumstances.  When the woman said, “No,” he acceded to her request.  Mr. Clinton did not show such respect for the wishes of several women.  And yet feminists and women in the media rewarded him with their votes, support and enthusiasm while the media pillory Mr. Cain.  Mercilessly. (more…)

Among the many things I am currently reading about Sharon Bialek, the only woman to make public her accusations against Republican presidential contender Herman Cain, this one thing stood out, “Bialek does not intend to go forward with a lawsuit against Cain.”

If that’s the case, then why is Democratic attorney Gloria Allred on the case? That said, the publicity hound has “offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.”

That fact alone gives this accuser more credibility than the other alleged victims.  Indeed, as Jim Hoft puts it, citing twitter traffic, “she is as believable as Juanita Broderick (sic) was when she accused Bill Clinton of rape.”  And generating far more media attention for conduct far less offensive.

Cain, she alleges, “reached under her skirt in 1997 as she sought help in finding a job“, but did not persist when she rebuffed his advances.  Mr. Clinton persisted when Ms. Broaddrick rebuffed his.  This is not to diminish the allegations, but to wonder at the media circus.  As Andrew Klavan puts it:

Not only is the news coverage of alleged sexual misconduct different according to political affiliation, the consequences ofactual misconduct are often quite different as well. Republican congressman Mark Foley sent suggestive emails to male pages; he resigned under GOP pressure. Democratic congressman Gerry Studds actually had sex with one of the boys, then flung defiance at the House when they censured him; he was re-elected by Democrats until his retirement.

Via Instapundit.

Although I remain suspicious of Miss Allred’s motives, the sworn affidavits do cause me to take this charge more seriously than the others.

UPDATE:  Law professor William A. Jacobson reminds us that since the woman alleged that the sexual advance took place “after her employment terminated with a National Restaurant Association affiliate . . . the allegation is not one of workplace ‘sexual harassment’ but of an alleged attempt at infidelity“, adding that the “political damage will be significant”: (more…)

Given her record, we can pretty much guess that this has more to do with politics than sexual harassment:

The AP reports that Democratic activist (though they don’t identify her as such) “Gloria Allred said Monday that another woman is accusing Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment and will appear at a news conference in New York City later in the day.”

They call this gal a “High-profile discrimination attorney”. High-profile partisan is more like it. Does seem that whenever California Democrats want their dirty work done for them, they call ol’ Gloria.

Now, the lady is going national.

UPDATE: Given the woman who is trotting this accuser forward, we should demand corroboration before taking her seriously.

In a post today on PJmedia, Alexis Garcia notes how in all the media hullabaloo over the Cain kerfuffle, “we’re losing focus on the narrative.” (Well, maybe that’s the point.)  She lists several issues raising issues related to the administration’s actual record in office that have not received the same scrutiny this “scandal” without specifics has generated

Two of the items on Miss Garcia’s list parallel issues on my list of questions for Politico (to see how much attention they devoted to scandals involving Democrats).  Since posting that piece, I’ve begun to wonder about other issues which the left-leaning journal has all but ignored, say, Joe Biden’s fabrications in the 2008 vice presidential debate.  Did Politico address those (some commentators identified those fabrications)–and inquire into the then-36-year Washington veteran’s pattern of making things up?

Now, today, the lawyer of one of the woman accusing Mr. Cain has come forward to tell us that he won’t tell us anything, leading Stacy McCain to quip that “Lawyer ethics” meanings holding “a press conference to announce that you don’t want to discuss your smear-job against your client’s former boss.”  As Jim Geraghty puts it, the lawyer in refusing to specify the charges, “is arguing, ’I won’t say what he did, but trust me, he’s guilty of wrongdoing.’“

This is one heckuva way to run a witch hunt.

From the National Restaurant Association (NRA), we learn two (very) salient facts:

1. “Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint.”
2. “The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement.”

So, we’ve got Cain disputing the allegations, the lawyer for the accuser refusing to specify the allegations and confirmation that Mr. Cain was not party to the agreement, suggesting the NRA was more interested in resolving the matter than in disciplining its then-employee.

Even without specifics, Politico has run 90 stories on the kerfuffle. (more…)

And this is why I was so furious this week that I donated $1000 to Herman Cain’s campaign. This political fascism from the Left has got to come to an end.

I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Mr. Cain during the first-in-the-South GOP Primary on January 21.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In 1991, in the highest of dudgeon, Democrats told us how serious an allegation sexual harassment was, that if a woman (even if unable to corroborate her claim) said a man hinted at finding pubic hairs on a can of soda or just happened to mention a pornographic movie with a title derived from the name of a fictional pirate, then said man was not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

A few years later, members of that very party informed Republicans they were prudes for obsessing about the then-Democratic president’s “bimbo eruptions” (an expression coined by a top aide to said Democrat).  His extramarital dalliances were immaterial to his ability to serve.  Few in our media paid much heed to a corroborated story alleging that while Attorney General of Arkansas, said Democrat raped a woman — or made untoward advances on another woman in a private study in the White House.

For the past four days, we have been treated to wall-to-wall media coverage about unspecified allegations against a Republican candidate for president, as if this were an issue more important than the president’s ties to lobbyists, a Wall Street tycoon under investigation raising piles of cash for said president, his administration’s possible cover-up of a government program to sell guns to Mexican drug lords, shenanigans in granting government loan guarantees to favored green energy firms, and the sour economy.

Well, we finally have some specifics of the encounter, with a source “telling PJ Media that she witnessed the woman [alleging harassment] and Herman Cain break away from the large group [of co-workers] as part of a smaller group.”

Now, these allegations may indeed be serious, but can you imagine such wall-to-wall media coverage if a conservative news source had published an account alleging a Democrat had sexually harassed employees without specifying the allegations?  On Wednesday, neoneocon wrote

Just take a look at the amount of coverage on memeorandum today, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. All those articles for something that shouldn’t have seen print until (a) the sources were identified; (b) the allegations were specified, including whether there were witnesses to the alleged acts; and (c) the details of what a settlement might mean in terms of a person’s actual guilt or innocence were fully explained.

Now, a few details of the story are dribbling out.  Perhaps, there is indeed a story here.  Only now with these details coming out does it appear to merit publication.  It should not have driven news coverage for the past four days. (more…)

Perhaps the best thing about the proliferation of quality conservative and libertarian blogs is that if you don’t get around to checking the blogs until late morning PST (early afternoon EST) you will invariably find a blogger (or blogress) who expresses your views with reasonable accuracy so to make your point, you just need cut and paste his (or her) post and encourage your readers to read the whole thing.

This just a few minutes ago, when while scanning Memeorandum, I chanced upon law professor William A. Jacobson’s post on the Cain kerfuffle*:

Let’s sum up the “facts” as they are known right now.  Mostly unnamed people accused Herman Cain of unspecified conduct which some people who will not specify the people or the conduct have deemed “inappropriate.” . . . .

That’s what’s known now.  Maybe actual facts will come out proving that Cain did something wrong, but those facts are not out now.

Insisting on actual facts before a major conservative politician is taken down is not “selling out our minds.”

Cain has seriously messed up the situation and his campaign with an inconsistent response and a blame game, but does this justify the gloating and pure happiness being exhibited at the media feeding frenzy?

Read the whole thing.  And read that last paragraph again.  Jacobson really nails it.  Yeah, I agree, the candidate did himself no favors with his (seemingly inconsistent) responses to the allegations.  But, we still don’t know all the facts.

RELATED:  Glenn links another of Jacobson’s posts, Show Us Your Sources Or Shut Up! (with a reference to a former CBS News anchor).

*as happened when I read Michael Barone’s post–but that was in the wee hours of the morning.

While I have devoted most of my coverage of the Cain kerfuffle to discussing what it shows about our biased media, I think the Republican candidate could have done a better job responding to the allegations.  As Michael Barone explains, putting the story into its proper political context:

And it has to be said that Cain and, even more, his campaign spokesmen were unprepared to deliver a single definitive response to a story that they had known was brewing for several days.

Read the whole thing.  Barone is spot on in his analysis.  The candidate seems to keep shifting his strategy as details of the story drip out.  As soon as his team knew the story was “brewing,” they should have developed a strategy to respond.  (As Meg Whitman learned last fall, even a well-prepared response to a a media hit job may not provide adequate “damage control.”)

Simply put, Republican candidates have to be prepared to face a media which covers them more critically than it does Democrats.  It may not be fair.  Indeed, it’s not, but that’s the way it is.  At least for now.

Had John McCain recognized that fact, he might have added a couple more states to his tally in 2008.

NB:  Fixed a whole passel of typos in this post which I originally crafted somewhere between 2:30 and 3:00 AM PST.

On Monday, it was Anderson Cooper.  On Tuesday Wolf Blitzer.  If I work out at different times of the time, I chance upon different CNN anchors flacking the same story.  Despite record deficits, continued economic unease and turmoil abroad, no other topic seems as important as the allegations leveled against a charismatic conservative.

Others have noted the “news” network’s obsession.  An Instapundit reader also took note of the coverage — and its bias:

I’m at one airport, my sister’s at another, and of course they’re both playing CNN, and it’s wall-to-wall coverage of Cain and the harassment charge. Two things: first, they aren’t bringing people on who will defend Cain or at least criticize the poor reporting involved, and second, they are reporting and commenting on it as though it is hard fact and there are no questions about what went on.

CNN, it appears, has devoted more time to this story than it has to the cozy relationships between politicians (mostly but not exclusively Democrats) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises at the heart of the financial meltdown.

Heck, a New York Times reporter even wrote a book on the topic.

With all the media focus on these allegations, they have less time to devote to real scandals inside the Obama administration or to the sour state of the economy.  Maybe that explains why the folks at CNN find this story so newsworthy.

Jim Treacher picks up a detail in the Politico report on Herman Cain, “The story has four credited reporters, but the lead is Jonathan Martin.”  (Via Instapundit.)

Four credited reporters?

Four credited reporters and they couldn’t provide specifics about the allegations?  It takes the conservative media to do that.

Tongues are waging in the media — and across the blogosphere — about two women who, in the 1990s, accused Republicans presidential candidate Herman Cain of “inappropriate behavior.”

When we talk about these things, it seems the inappropriateness of the the behavior depends on the political affiliation of the accused.  A Republican who jokes about pubic hairs on soda cans (even when this story has not been corroborated) acts inappropriately and should be universally condemned, but a Democrat who rapes a woman, well, that’s just not news.

Look, I don’t know the truth to these allegations and will wait for the women to come forward before judging the candidate (about whom I already have some serious concerns and whom I do not intend to support in the California primary).  Perhaps when the hype dies down, the facts will come out.

Color me cynical, but given the eagerness of our friends in the mainstream media to destroy any charismatic Republican, well, I think there’s more smoke than substance to this story.   As we learned in the 1990s when the media tried to bury the story of a corroborated accusation of rape against a sitting Democratic president, our media have become fascinated by the story of a Republican farting inappropriately during a business meeting, yet disinterested in a Democratic candidate carrying on an affair while professing to be a loyal husband to a wife dying of cancer.

As Glenn Reynolds wrote earlier today quoting Roger Simon:

Politico And Cain: The Return Of The High-Tech Lynching. “It took the mainstream media nearly a year to catch up with the John Edwards Affair, but only weeks into Herman Cain’s narrow frontrunner status for the GOP nomination, the goodfellas at Politico are letting the uppity black conservative have it.” Ouch. But let’s correct the record: They weren’t slow to cover the John Edwards story. They covered up the John Edwards story. Keep rockin’!

Can you imagine the headlines we would have read in 2007 had the legacy media devoted the same amount of scrutiny to Barack Obama then they are offering to Cain now (and recently offered to Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry)?

UPDATE:  Reminding us that the article contains “a fair amount of unsourced innuendo,” Simon asks if there’s “any way we can ever know the truth of this? Probably not since the parties are said to have agreed to remain silent for a five-figure payment, a paltry amount in this day and age.”

FROM THE COMMENTS:  SoCalRobert tells us that through the 1990s, he was instructed “that this sort of thing is irrelevant. Only right wing religious fanatics pried into the personal lives of politicians.”  Wonder why they didn’t say that at the outset of the 1990s when the entire liberal punditocracy not to mention a majority of Democratic Senators went apoplectic over allegations that a female employee claimed her conservative Republican boss told her about some pubic hairs he found on a can of coke.

While I appreciate Herman Cain’s charisma and his Reaganesque ability to articulate the small government/personal freedom message that has animated our party at least for the last thirty years, I have several concerns about the personable businessman and do not back him for the White House nor do I share my co-blogger’s enthusiasm for the candidate.

In many ways, I see his appeal on the right in the 2012 cycle as similar to Barack Obama’s appeal to the left in 2008 cycle.  Both are charismatic men, running as outsiders to the political establishment.

Only Cain has made clear his commitment to conservative principles in his campaign while Obama obscured his advocacy of big-government notions in his.  And Cain has a record of accomplishment in the private sector — with the concomitant executive experience.  Oh, and the media has scrutinized the Republican’s record with a fine-toothed comb while paying little, if any, attention to Obama’s.

Hugh Hewitt sums it up:

Herman Cain is fun, and he’s generally right.  He has enormous energy and a sense of humor.  He may not be ready to be president, but he was certainly ready to run for president, just like then Senator Obama in 2007. The big difference is that in 2007 MSM supported Obama’s ambitions and that in 2011 MSM pushes back against Cain’s, reflecting the media elite’s valuing of Obama’s Harvard Law/University of Chicago credentials, time in the Illinois State Senate and cup-of-coffee years in the U.S. Senate much more than Cain’s decades in the private sector. (more…)

What is old is new again!  The alleged “gay Republican organization” known as Log Cabin has once again decided it is more important to tear down our candidates rather than defeat President Obama’s America-destroying agenda.

Log Cabin – a fully bought-off affliliate of the Radical Gay Left’s Tim Gill — attacked Cain after the GOP candidate appeared this morning on “The View”.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Cain chose to divert attention away from a solid platform of greater liberty and smaller government by indulging in anti-gay rhetoric. Log Cabin Republicans sincerely hope that Herman Cain is open to hearing the evidence and changing his mind on these issues.”

Chris Barron has an awesome, and gosh…. FACTUAL…. response to this Cain smear campaign by The Professional Gays.

 Cain specifically says on The View that he hasn’t seen enough scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality isn’t a choice and he admits that others have drawn different conclusions.

Finally, far from attacking gay people, Mr. Cain has made it clear that he is willing to be a President for all Americans – including gay people.  Mr. Cain does not support a federal marriage amendment, will not reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, supports policies like the Fair Tax, free market healthcare reform and social security personal savings accounts – all of which would benefit gay and lesbian Americans.

Back in June I wrote about the left, and in particular the gay left’s reaction to Cain:

For the gay left none of this will matter.  All that matters is the group hug.  For the gay left, it isn’t important whether the policies pursued by a candidate or a party actually improve the lives of gay people, all that matters is that they get the pat on the head – the assurance that they are ok.  I don’t need the group hug, nor do I need affirmation from the government that I am ok.  What I need is a President and a Congress that will pursue policies that will make life better for me and my family.

It is time the gay community put real policy before emotional theater, and that is exactly why gay people should be willing to listen to and consider the candidacy of Herman Cain.

The Gay Left, including their paid-off Log Cabin affiliate, are too invested in the Obama Democrats to have a rational response to the Cain candidacy.  Too bad.  But their hatred of conservatives is too blatant to ignore these days.  So at least there is that.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Common sense solutions from my candidate for President….

Herman Cain in Wall Street Journal: “My Plan to Revive Economic Growth”
Published: Thursday, September 15, 2011

Last week, President Obama unveiled his eagerly anticipated jobs plan. After 43 minutes of his speechifying, Americans were left wondering: We waited 30 months for this?
Indeed, it seems Mr. Obama’s first term has been spent advancing a legislative agenda that pays no mind to our ailing economy and the Americans whose sufferings are casualties in his ideological war. After a failed stimulus package, preferential industry bailouts, and the disastrous government overhaul of the health-care industry, it seems the plight of the American worker has remained an afterthought.

This is the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression. If the Obama administration’s aim was to merely tie for last place with the previous worst recovery, it would have created eight million more jobs, based on comparative data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If our recovery were more typical of the postwar era, as former Sen. Phil Gramm reported on this page in April, we would have 14 million more jobs today.

As a longtime leader in the business community, I know firsthand that government does not create jobs. It can only create the conditions in which businesses operate. These conditions can spur growth, or they can suppress it. The conditions imposed by the current administration have suppressed growth.

Still, there is hope. That hope begins with economic certainty, a sort of assurance the president seems unwilling to provide. I, on the other hand, have proposed a plan that would stabilize and grow our economy:

“Cain’s Vision for Economic Growth,” also known as the 9-9-9 Plan, is founded upon three guiding economic principles: Production drives the economy. Risk-taking creates growth. Units of measurement must be dependable.

The plan begins with restructuring the tax code to include the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rate. The elements are:

• A 9% corporate flat tax. Businesses would deduct purchases from other businesses and all capital investment. The resulting gross income is taxed at 9%.

• A 9% personal flat tax. Individuals would deduct charitable contributions, then pay 9% on the rest of their income. Capital gains are excluded.

• A 9% national sales tax. This levy would be placed on the consumption of all new goods. Used goods purchased would be excluded.

My plan would also permanently eliminate taxes on repatriated profits, as well as payroll taxes and the estate tax.

All of these measures would free up capital, spur production, and incentivize risk-taking, thereby fueling the economy and creating jobs. The plan has been designed to be revenue neutral initially, and then revenues would grow in line with the economy.

But these policies must be coupled with sound money. A dollar must be worth the same tomorrow as it is today. Stabilizing the dollar’s value starts with the federal government taking significant measures to rein in its spending and pay down the national debt. Americans must be assured that the federal government will live within its means and get serious about eliminating our crippling debt. Repealing ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Dodd-Frank bank-regulation bill would be critical steps.

Finally, my plan promotes enterprise zones, also known as “empowerment zones.” Coupled with tax reform and monetary stabilization, empowerment zones would revitalize inner cities by providing tax credits to businesses that hire workers living and working in underprivileged areas.

Some of the most tragic unemployment numbers can be found in minority communities and in urban centers around the country. Empowerment zones would create a whole new generation of wage-earners providing for their families. The late Jack Kemp, a secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development and a dear friend, was one of the first lawmakers to propose empowerment zones. He understood the tremendous economic benefits they would provide.

Each job lost today is not merely a statistic. Americans are struggling to determine whether to pay their mortgages or buy groceries, whether to buy school uniforms or pay the electric bill.

Such despair is unfitting for the greatest nation the world has ever known. After all, it is inherently American to work, to risk and to dream. Our government’s policies should encourage that, not stifle it.

Mr. Cain, a Republican, is running for president of the United States. He is a former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and a former chairman of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

I am proud this morning to announce my support for Herman Cain for President.

This is a personal decision by me and does not reflect the views of my co-bloggers nor should be construed as an official endorsement by GOPROUD of which I am a board member.

Now that I’m done with that disclaimer….let me shout this from sea to shining sea — AMERICA NEEDS HERMAN CAIN!!!! I have been flirting with the Cain candidacy for over a year now. I had the pleasure to meet him at CPAC and I have been closely following his campaign long before most people knew his name.

I felt it was important to declare my preference publicly today as I have decided to become actively involved in Team Cain to assist in the South Carolina primary and beyond. I owe my readers the transparency of knowing why I am writing about certain things and not to be confused by my intent.

Why Herman Cain? Well, haven’t been this excited about a Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984 (the first year I was old enough to truly know anything and make a difference).

Some will now say, “now Bruce….there will never be another Ronald Reagan!” And that is true. And I am NOT equating Mr. Cain to Mr. Reagan. What I am saying is that Mr. Cain excites me with his common sense ideas, love of country, and ability to connect to the American psyche. Choosing a President has always been a “gut feeling” thing for America. I have a great feeling about Herman Cain.

Herman Cain has been plucked by destiny to arrive at America’s electoral doorstep at just the right time. He has a solid business background, is an inspirational leader of people, and understands the complexities of the world economy. He wasn’t a community organizer, he is a jobs and growth creator. He wasn’t a concocted creation of America’s radical left and academic centers of power, he is a true child of the American Experience. He has never scoffed at American values, he embraces our nation’s special place in the history of mankind and knows we are teetering on the edge.

Mr. Cain is familiar with rescuing failing enterprises, which to me is his most important qualification. In a sheer coincidence to the timing of my announcement, Daniel Henninger wrote this yesterday in the Wall Street Journal:

Does a résumé like Herman Cain’s add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we’ve fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I’m rewriting my presidential-selection software. [Emphasis added.]

Conventional wisdom holds that this week’s Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they’ve got.

Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain’s life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.

No other GOP candidate can bring the fight to Obama over the sorry state of the American economy than Herman Cain. Our other choices are, I’m sad to say, more of the same old thing — career professional politicians. Yes, even Ron Paul, folks.

So there you have it. My big announcement. Herman Cain is the first Presidential candidate I will actively and ENTHUSIASTICALLY campaign for through blood, sweat, money & tears since Ronald Reagan in 1984. That’s a long time of being unmoved by GOP nominees, don’t you think?

There will be more to say about Herman Cain and the issues. But I wanted to stand up today and proudly declare my support for the 45th President of the United States of America and the next true heir of the American Experience — Mr. Herman Cain.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)