Herman Cain’s campaign overshadowed by allegations of impropriety

Herman Cain, Republican presidential candidate and former businessman, CEO and radio show host, is facing yet another charge of impropriety, this time from an Atlanta businesswoman who claimed she had a 13-year affair with the former pizza company chief executive. The woman, Ginger White, said that she had been aware at the time Mr. Cain was married and that their relationship was “inappropriate.”

Ms. White said Mr. Cain ended sexual relations with her eight months ago, when he began his run for the Republican nomination.

According to reports, Ms. White produced mobile phone bills showing what she said was Cain’s number. She said he had called her dozens of times over a period of several months. According to her, she decided to go public with her allegations after receiving calls from journalists, and she was bothered by the way Mr. Cain had “demonised” other women who had accused him of sexual harassment.

This surely must end what has been, until lately, an entertaining political campaign. According to Robert Costa at the National Review, “Herman Cain told his senior staff that he is ‘reassessing’ whether to remain in the race. He will make his final decision ‘over the next several days’.”

Mr. Cain is reported to have denied the “charges unequivocally.” He said, he had known “this lady” for “a number of years.” And that he’d “been attempting to help her financially because she was out of work and destitute, desperate.”

I believe, sadly, this candidate’s time in the sun is at an end. Even in these everything-goes days, marriage fidelity is expected, demanded, of a man who aspires to be the president. 

© Russell G. Campbell, 2011

GOP debate: no leader emerges to challenge Mitt

The Republican candidates’ debate hosted by CNN, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute Tuesday night was all about foreign policy and national security, and what each of the eight GOP nomination candidates would do differently should he/she win the White House. I thought CNN’s anchor Wolf Blitzer did a good job of keeping candidates on topic and of allowing all to have their say.

I noticed three flubs of a minor nature. The only one that seemed to get any notice was Herman Cain calling Wolf Blitzer, “Blitz” instead of “Wolf”. Two others, though, were interesting from a Canadian point of view.

First there was Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator, calling Africa a “country.” A minor slip perhaps, but it speaks volumes about how American politicians see the world. Also seemingly unnoticed was Rep. Michele Bachmann’s reference to the United States achieving “oil independence” if the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline had been allowed to proceed. Keystone XL is being built be a Canadian firm to transport Canadian-sourced oil. How can that contribute to the U.S.’s “oil independence?” But I quibble.

Jon Huntsman, former Utah governor and former ambassador to China, seemed in his element in this debate that focused heavily on foreign policy. His performance was the best of the night, followed closely by Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. By contrast, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and businessman Herman Cain did not impress.

Newt Gingrich showed political courage by sensibly calling for a limited amnesty for long-time illegal immigrants. Amnesty, of course, is not at all popular with many in the Republican base. The former House Speaker said:

I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter century. And I am prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship, but finding a way to give them legality so as not to separate them from their families.

This was one of the few times I have seen glimpses of statesmanship in this crop of presidential hopefuls.

Jon Huntsman also showed us he has the making of a statesman, at least, when it comes to foreign affairs. He’s arguing for drastic cuts in U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, even though it may be contrary to the advice of military advisers. His assessment of the Afghan scene seems the most dogma-free and realistic. He called for “an honest conversation in this [U.S.] country about the sacrifices that have been made over nearly 10 years.” He explained:

We need a presence on the ground that is more akin to 10,000 or 15,000. That will serve our interests in terms of intelligence gathering and special forces response capability. And we need to prepare for a world, not just in South Asia, but, indeed, in every corner of the world in which counter-terrorism is going to be in front of us for as far as the eye can see into the 21st century.

Michele Bachmann was at her best with perhaps the sagest advice of the night when she warned about the instability of Pakistan’s nuclear sites:

They also are one of the most violent, unstable nations that there is. We have to recognize that 15 of the sites, nuclear sites are available or are potentially penetrable by jihadists. Pakistan is a nation, that it’s kind of like ‘too nuclear to fail.’

“Too nuclear to fail,” I like that line a lot. But slogans, regardless of how true they are, are not of themselves, statesmanship. This was probably Bachmann’s best debate in quite awhile, but I’m far from being sold on her ending up in the White House.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum did well enough, I guess, but I just can’t see him in the role of the leader of the free world—not sufficient gravitas.

I agree with Michele Bachmann, who said Rick Perry’s position on the more than $1-billion U.S. aid sent to Pakistan is “highly naïve.” She disagrees with the Texas governor who sees aid to Pakistan as a blank cheque without any return on the U.S.’s investment. Perry is far too parochial for my liking. His jingoism—he wants the U.S. to consider unilaterally applying a no-fly zone over Syria (an overt act of war), for example—may excite the very right of the Republican base, but lacks depth and nuance. I like to see a more sophisticated approach to foreign policy from a presidential candidate.

Businessman and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain missed a golden opportunity to show he had the necessary grasp on foreign affairs. He sounded like he was reading from seminar notes when he chose phrases like, “number one, secure the border for real” and “I would first make sure that they had a credible plan for success, clarity of mission and clarity of success.” His answers sounded pedantic rather than astute.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has his supporters and likely did not disappoint them. His appeal to a broader segment of the American public probably took a hit, though, when he called humanitarian aid to fight disease in Africa “worthless.” I know his comment was prompted by a belief widely shared that foreign aid money gets syphoned off by foreign despots before it reaches the people who need it. There are countless examples, however, of aid to prevent disease being effective—saving millions of lives. Certainly foreign aid should be more effective—there’s plenty of room for improvement there—but it’s hardly worthless.

So there you have the candidates not named “Mitt.”

As to Mitt Romney himself, I thought he had a mediocre performance. But this man has been running for president for five years and he has learned a great deal. None did a better job of turning questions about foreign policy into answers about domestic issues. And Romney shows best when his positions are matched against those of President Obama. For that reason alone, the former governor of Massachusetts held his own.

So, the GOP race continues to be between Mitt Romney and the best of the rest.

 

 

© Russell G. Campbell, 2011.
All rights reserved.
 
The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or posi­tions of political parties, institutions or organi­zations with which I am associated.

Rick Perry says he’ll “Cut, Balance and Grow”

Republican candidate for the 2012 U.S. presidential nomination, Gov. Rick Perry today promises to “unleash job creation, address the current economic crisis, while at the same time generating a stable source of revenue to address our record deficit and put our fiscal house in order.”

The governor of Texas made the pledge while rolling out a broad economic plan, which he’s dubbed, “Cut, Balance and Grow.” It’s built around the option for Americans to pay a flat 20 per cent income tax rate, and is considered to be a critical element of his strategy to regain front-runner status for his struggling campaign, and to answer the threat of Herman Cain’s proposed “9-9-9 plan.”

Mr. Perry’s proposed flat tax would preserve key tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 a year and would increase the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals, while also eliminating tax paid on the country’s largest estates upon the death of the properties’ owners.

The governor would eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits and allow young workers to invest part of their payroll taxes into private accounts. He also called for corporate tax reform, including a one-time reduced tax rate of 5.25 percent for businesses that bring home their profits that are “parked” overseas.

Gov. Perry said:

The flat tax will unleash growth but growth's not enough. We must put a stop to this entitlement culture that risks the financial solvency of this country for future generations. I mean the red flags are alarming.

[…]

The U.S. Chamber [of Commerce] estimates this one-time tax reduction would bring more than $1 trillion in capital back to the U.S. create up to 2.9 million jobs, and increase economic output by $360 billion.

As expected, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has already launched its counterattack, saying Gov. Perry’s tax plan seems guided by the principle of shifting the tax burden from large corporations “onto the backs of the middle class.” No surprise there.

Flat-tax seems to be the flavour of the month among Republicans. We’ll have to wait to see how this latest effort stands up to the barrage of criticism it’s sure to receive in the coming days.

 

 

© Russell G. Campbell, 2011.
All rights reserved.
 
The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or posi­tions of political parties, institutions or organi­zations with which I am associated.

Bring on the flat tax!

 Republican presidential candidates, businessman Herman Cain and
Gov. Rick Perry | Photo: Justin Sullivan/GettyImages

[This entry was published previously on Postmedia Network’s The Real Agenda blog.]

The 9-9-9 tax plan being proposed by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is beginning  to take heavy fire from other presidential hopefuls and analysts alike. Some  claim Mr. Cain’s plan would shift the tax burden in the United States, raising  taxes on the poor while cutting taxes for the rich—hardly the narrative Mr. Cain wants to hear.

The 9-9-9 tax plan has resonated with Republicans and has helped  propel the former Godfathers pizza CEO onto the top rung of leading contenders  for the Republican nomination. His quick rise in polls, though, has meant Mr.  Cain’s plan is receiving more scrutiny.

Mr. Cain would replace the current federal tax code in its  entirety with a flat 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate income tax, and a  9% tax on sales of new products. He would also eliminate the payroll taxes for  Medicare and Social Security, along with estate and capital gains taxes. And,  in a second phase, Mr. Cain would eliminate all federal income taxes  for individuals and for corporations and replace them with a national sales  tax—Herman Cain, however, hasn’t yet offered an estimate of the sales tax  rate that would be necessary to raise sufficient money to fund the federal  government.

I spent years as an accountant with responsibility for a  corporation’s taxes and remember well the bookcase full of material I referred  to daily. Like that of the United States, the Canadian tax structure is  bewildering in its complexity. And, while Mr. Cain’s campaign hasn’t  offered nearly enough specifics for anyone to do a thorough analysis of  his 9-9-9 plan, I welcome the fact that the idea of a simple flat tax is  now on the table for open debate.

I am encouraged also by Gov. Rick Perry of Texas saying recently  that he too will propose a flat tax as part of a tax overhaul  program.

According to The New York Times, “He [Perry] has in the  past suggested support for some form of a flat tax, but has backed off from  endorsing one. Mr. Perry recently recruited as an adviser Steve Forbes, who  ran for president in 1996 on a pledge of implementing a single flat tax on  income, without any deductions.”

On Wednesday past, Gov. Perry gave us the broad  outlines of his tax plan that he said will feature spending cuts, entitlement  reform and a flat tax. And he promised then to provide specifics in six days. 

Should a flat tax be successful in the United States, we could  expect to see one here in Canada within a decade. Imagine: no need for a  tax accountant or expensive tax software, no complicated forms, few itemized  list of deductions, credits or other “loopholes”. And no estate tax, no  capital gains tax and no dividends tax.

I can hardly wait.

 

 

Except photograph, © Russell G. Campbell, 2011.

The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or posi­tions of political parties, institutions or organi­za­tions with which I am associated.

Is HE The New One?

This is the first speech I've seen on Cain. I couldn't disagree with anything he said, I'm just not sure yet.



He seems pretty levelheaded.  Thankfully Conservatives don't just judge on emotions, they tend to look to facts.