In national polls of registered voters, Romney has been leading Obama.

Also, don’t forget about Romney’s impact on Obama supporters. Because of his previous service in Mass, as well as his more centrist positions, many liberals may be fairly apathetic about getting out to vote for Obama. In their minds, it might be “yeah, Obama would be better, but it’s not like he was that fantastic, and Romney might not be so bad.” If a firey conservative, like Bachmann, were in the race, then that might motivate more liberals to get on board and rejuvenate the Obama machine.

Also, Republicans are fired up right now anyway. With the entire grassroots conservative movement coalescing together around the “one term Obama” idea, I don’t see much of a need for Romney to pull the conservative movement together. Local conservative leaders will get people on board simply to ensure that Obama doesn’t get reelected.

In other words, I don’t the Republican candidate’s job is to get the base fired up. The Republican candidate’s job is to not make a mistake, and it’s Obama that gets the conservative base fired up.

Even if the Conservative movement had a physical manifestation, and that manifestation was nominated and eventually elected, it wouldn’t do any good if the House, Senate, and state governments aren’t on board.

Personally, I think the most important elections in 2012 are not the presidential election, but the Senate elections (and to a lesser degree, the House elections). Even if Obama were somehow reelected, a conservative Congress could force his hand.

Right now, he’s using the Congress as a shield for not doing anything, allowing the House and Senate to do the real fighting and grunt work. If faced with a unified Congress, Obama would have no choice but to kowtow to many important points. If we force Obama to veto legislation, then we force him to be explicitly against policies, rather than take no stand on policies that he lets the Senate kill.

Don’t forget that polling shows that Cain is the most popular #2 choice for both Romney and Perry. Especially since (as acat pointed out) people like to pick winners, if they think that Cain could be a winner, much of Romney’s support could flock to him. That’s even more so given the tepid support that Romney enjoys from his “round 1″ supporters.

In this race, a lack of political experience isn’t a handicap. Cain is clearly an intelligent guy, and as his fundraising numbers go up, as they inevitably will due to these poll numbers, he’ll start surrounding himself with more experienced people.

Also, Cain is the only candidate in this race that has two substantive soundbites that resonate with voters: 9-9-9 plan and the Chilean Model for Social Security. I was talking to my heavily pro-business dad last night, and in just a few minutes, I hooked him on Herman Cain. The same can’t be said of any other candidates. Considering he was a Romney supporter originally based on his business credentials, I see others making the switch when they realize another pro-business candidate could clench the nomination.

Lastly, Cain is the perfect mix of Establishment and Conservative. Socially, he has solid conservative credentials, and though I don’t agree with all that, I see how it resonates with the base. This makes him an ideal #2 to Perry.

In the business world, Rick Perry just doesn’t hold a candle to Mitt Romney. I’m sorry, but it’s true. His service in Texas was admirable, but Romney was right: when dealt a great hand, it’s hard to lose (now, I don’t think Perry got 4 aces, but that’s another story). Herman Cain, on the other hand, has been a CEO, and made a successful business, and does know a thing or two about the private sector. He may not have been as successful as Romney, but he’s at least established himself as a business man that understands jobs and the economy.

In my mind, Herman Cain is the perfect compromise candidate. Maybe not quite as conservative as Perry, or quite as business savvy as Romney, but he’s got more than enough of both. Plus, he carries that outsider image that helped so many in 2010.

Lastly, and I know this is a huge elephant in the room, Cain is black. For too long, liberals have used the mantra that conservatives are racist to continually keep black voters fearful of checking R. If Cain is the candidate, not only could he capitalize on the black vote, he could finally change the image about conservatives and the Republican Party. In all honesty, I think Republicans in general are more tolerant of race than Democrats, who continually insist on making race an issue, and it might just take Cain to show Dems that truth.

I’d have to cast my vote for Mitch Daniels.

But in all honesty, I can’t image who else might run, other than Palin, perhaps.

I wish the GOP would stop complaining about the current candidate set, and let us get on with our primaries. With 9 major candidates, there’s enough for everyone:

Romney: Establishment, pro-business, strong business experience, somewhat centrist
Perry: Establishment maverick, hardline conservative, some business credentials, strong government experience
Cain: Political outsider, pro-business, strong business experience, southern conservative
Paul: Establishment maverick, libertarian, heavily pro-market
Bachmann: Establishment maverick, hardline conservative
Santorum: Establishment, hardline conservative, bipartisan experience
Gingrich: Establishment, strong government experience, somewhat social conservative
Huntsman: Establishment, pro-business, business experience, strong government experience, centrist
Johnson: Establishment, Libertarian, strong government experience, bipartisan experience, strong business experience

I can’t believe that not one of the candidates can do it for us.

I know this might be sacrosanct, but I was watching the Daily Show, and John Steward had a bitingly accurate criticism of the Republican Party’s demands for the candidate. Our party seems to be a collection of opposites, and in that way, Romney might be the best candidate, because he’s willing to be whatever you want him to be.

but was that sarcasm or legitimate praise? And I’ll be honest: I’ve never seen the [nt] acronym before.

If it was sarcasm, what exactly do you disagree with? I totally understand that not everyone is on-board with a Cain nomination, and I relish the chance to defend my chosen candidate from actual criticism. If we have a good discussion, one of us might come away with a different view of our preferred candidate–who knows?

I know that I don’t know everything about Herman Cain, and if there’s something he’s done to deserve disrespect, then I’d want to hear it. If I’m clinging to a false ideal, I’d hope people would be kind enough to point out where I’ve gone wrong. Like my grandfather used to say, “if you want someone to believe you, you have to teach them why you’re right. You can never tell them why you’re right.”

Yeah, I’ve not been posting here for too long. I’ll often read the diaries, and I’ve noticed that many of the comments are quite snide and sarcastic. Though obviously not all of RedState is like that.

The reason the [nt] confused me is that, on other forums I’ve used, an (NT) meant something like “No thanks” as an expression of sarcasm, satire, or irony, in order to ensure the viewer got the writer’s meaning. So yeah, I meant no offense, and I hope you can see where I was coming from.

I’m glad you liked my post, and I hope I can continue to constructively contribute in the future!

You assert that FairTax would increase your tax burden. You then assert that you’ve done your math correctly and you’ve accounted for every variable. I challenge you to prove it.

Provide us with your math and your calculations, and then we can show you where you’ve gone wrong. Or, if there are no mistakes with your calculations, and we are indeed raising the tax burden on the average person, then I’d be the first person to jump ship and help convince the FairTax people, and all their supporters, why they’re wrong.

However, I studied tax law in school, and I would consider myself a knowledgeable person when it comes to the tax code. I’ve done my own math. And I’ve done the math for my parents, and my grandparents. FairTax would be a huge benefit to me and my entire family.

The only thing I could think of is that you are one of the many Americans who consumes more than you take in. In other words, you grow your debt every month, every year. With such high levels of spending, it wouldn’t be surprising that FairTax does you harm. However, you don’t seem like that kind of person to me.

Please, if you really believe that FairTax is wrong, share your data with us! I’d love to be proven wrong (I mean, how else do I learn!)

about FairTax before you trash it.

First off, FairTax is not a VAT. Only certain sellers would be required to collect FairTax. Used goods, for example, would not have a sales tax. Exchanges of raw materials would not have a sales tax.

Only in a VAT do you add a tax whenever money changed hands.

Secondly, FairTax does expect about a 30% sales tax-exclusive rate (which is how current sales taxes are calculated). However, an individual pays around a 23% tax-inclusive rate, which is equivalent to the 30% tax-exclusive rate.

However, you are now paying the tax based on consumption, and you get to keep, should you choose, 100% of your paycheck, not 77% of it.

The argument that 999 would be corrupted by politicians is the EXACT SAME threat we face today with the current system. What’s to stop congress from saying, “umm, your tax rate should now be 50%!” other than the will of the people? Nothing. It’s up to us, not Congress, to ensure 999, FairTax, or even our current tax system, doesn’t get corrupted by politicians.

I think the FairTax is nullified 7 years after passing, not four year, if the 16th amendment isn’t repealed.

For me, when you break down the benefits of a consumption tax, it’s obvious how good it is:

1) Foreign tourists will help pay for the American government. I mean, how awesome is that!? We can take advantage of our status as one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations and “trick” foreigners into paying for our government! I don’t see how Democrats couldn’t be on board with that one. We’re no longer just targeting our own citizens, we’re targeting foreign visitors as well! Bwahahah!

2) American goods sold abroad won’t have embedded taxes jacking up their price. This will allow the US to be much, much more competitive on the global stage. No longer will our manufacturing costs include income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, FICA tax. Instead, those goods can be sold for their real value. And in a country that charges VAT, like Germany, American goods will only be subject to those taxes, not both US and foreign taxes.