I believe I am not alone in looking for a presidential candidate who has the following characteristics:
1. A solid conservative–fiscal, social, foreign-policy, even if he might disagree with me in a particular.
2. An electable candidate.
3. An effective President–one who has the ability to effectively execute the office and duties of the President.
In my estimation, these are not independent requirements–they are closely interrelated. One who is not a solid conservative will not unite the party and will prove unelectable, nor will he effectively perform the duties of the President, the chief of which is to conserve (or “preserve, protect and defend”) our constitutional order, and NOT to “transform” or “reinvent” it.
Conversely, a solid conservative who disdains electability and effective governance–who disdains the necessity of rallying majorities (which must include some not-so-solid conservatives) is not a solid conservative, because our polity is decided a republic. A true conservative will be interested in governing by the consent of the majority, and NOT in sneering at the people.
SO, who to choose from? Today, the man who’s receiving new attention in Herman Cain.
I’m wondering the following:
(1) Is he a solid conservative? I think the answer is yes. He supported TARP, but his recent explanation of his support was more-or-less satisfying to me. His stance on marriage troubles me, mainly because he seems quite uninterested in talking about it, like Bob Dole’s “pro-life” stance in 1996. Not good. I don’t mind that he refused to adopt some pre-fabricated pledge, tho.
Any pro-traditional-marriage folks who are also strong supporters of Cain? Anyone think his support of TARP is a deal-breaker?
(2) Is he electable? He may be uber-electable, actually, frankly because of his business background (like Romney) and race–hello moderates and maybe, just maybe, 20%? of the black vote.???
But, if he runs away from the base, a la Dole, good-bye enthusiastic base.
(3) Can he govern effectively? He actually seems to have better executive experience than anyone on the stage–handling lots of people in difficult circumstances. Romney wasn’t a manager, but a wheeler and dealer. Anything about his temperment that troubles you all?