Dismissing Herman Cain

by Robert Ringer
Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Herman Cain

Establishment Republicans and most of the media are going to great lengths to downplay Herman Cain’s chances of winning the Republican nomination. Not so much because of his slips on such issues as abortion and negotiating with terrorists, but because he doesn’t have the money or staff to be competitive.

While I’m sure there’s a lot of historical evidence to back up their lack-of-money-and-staff argument, I don’t think they understand the mood of the average American today. They are victims of what I call the Paradigm Restriction.

Metaphorically speaking, we are all restricted by our unique mental paradigms. It’s difficult to comprehend ideas and circumstances we are not accustomed to hearing and seeing within the invisible parameters that surround our lives.

Thus, one of the causes of our differing perceptions of reality is that we all start from our own set of assumptions. To break through one’s Paradigm Restriction requires a willingness to let go of comfortable, long-held beliefs and look at the world the way it is today rather than the way it was ten or twenty or thirty years ago.

The idea that Herman Cain can’t win because of his lack of financial support is based on a pre-Tea Party view of the world. People are angry, and the more they are told that someone like Herman Cain can’t win because of a lack of funds and/or staff, the more determined they are to prove the pundits wrong.

In addition, Cain doesn’t need much money for advertising, because with nonstop debates on the horizon, he will get more and better exposure than ads could ever buy him. And that exposure showcases him as the least uptight, most pleasant candidate, traits that are only magnified by the nasty behavior of guys like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum.

Given that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is a 100 percent pure libertarian-centered conservative, Cain can afford to stumble now and then. After all, the others stumble repeatedly because they lack purity in their words and actions.

All this by way of saying you should not be surprised if Cain wins by a wide margin in Iowa. And don’t be shocked if he comes close to winning in New Hampshire. Finally, unless Rick Perry gets much better very quickly, Cain could very well win in South Carolina.

Herman Cain may not be ideologically perfect, but, contrary to what we’re hearing from the pundits, he can win the nomination. And if he does, pundits are wrong in thinking he can’t beat Barack Obama. Just think of the contrast between the two:

Nasty and hateful (Obama) vs pleasant and likeable (Cain).

Hard-core Marxist (Obama) vs hard-core capitalist (Cain).

No experience in the private sector and creating jobs (Obama) vs tremendous success in the private sector and creating jobs (Cain).

Focus on raising taxes (Obama) vs a focus on lowering taxes (Cain).

Elitist background financed by public and private handouts (Obama) vs pulling himself up by his bootstraps from humble beginnings (Cain).

Above all, how in the world would the worst racist ever to set foot in the Oval Office handle a real black person in head-to-head debates? It would be fun to watch the Master of Malevolence squirm while trying to figure out how to cope with a black conservative. Obama’s beloved race card would be off the table!

We can hope for a surprise Ron Paul victory, but if we can’t get that, don’t count out the man whom the establishment is so certain cannot win. A victory for Herman Cain would throw all the old rules out the window — and into the trash bin of political history.

Reprinted with permission

Copyright © 2011 Robert Ringer

ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.

Andrew Napolitano Discusses Secession as Possible Outcome of America's Political Divisions

Andrew Napolitano

Robert Ringer has long been a personal hero of mine.  He has written several best selling books, the best of which is probably "Looking Out For No. 1."  Now he has a website and interviews prominent conservatives, most recently, Andrew Napolitano.  Napolitano was a Superior Court Judge of New Jersey, is a graduate of Princeton, and has a long a distinguished career as a law professor at Seton Hall.  Now he is a legal analyst for Fox News.

In his interview with Ringer, Napolitano says that secession of states is legal and may be a possible outcome of the increasingly bitter argument between small government conservatives and big government liberals.  He also says that revolution is also possible, though he does not endorse it.  Ringer discusses Napolitano's comments in an article called "Secession is not an Anti-American Option."

Ringer agrees with Napolitano and asks:

Does this mean that Abraham Lincoln was wrong to force the Southern states to stay in the Union? Yes, absolutely. No one has the legal authority to force a group of people whose ancestors helped form an organization to remain in that organization. Forced membership is not freedom; it’s slavery.

Speaking of slavery, we all agree that American slavery was morally wrong in every respect, but slavery was not the issue with Abraham Lincoln. He repeatedly made it clear that he would be willing to continue to allow slavery if that’s what it took to keep the Union together. The Civil War was not about slavery; it was about revenues that would be lost to the federal government if the Southern states were allowed to secede.

Robert Ringer: The Glenn Beck Saga Continues

The Glenn Beck Saga Continues

By Robert Ringer

When Chris Wallace interviewed Glenn Beck on Fox News Sunday the day after his stunningly successful Restoring Honor event at the Lincoln Memorial, he told Beck that in all his years as a journalist in Washington, he had never seen anything quite like him.

I could relate his statement, because in my article Glenn Beck's Departure from Fox News (May 28, 2010), I said that Beck was "the biggest, fastest, most controversial star in the political commentary business in my lifetime" and pointed out that the White House purportedly referred to him as "the Beck problem."

But jealousy and the establishment have a way of Palinizing those who have the courage to take the road less traveled. So it's not surprising that rumors are now flying about Glenn Beck's ratings decline, his loss of major advertisers, and his possible end-of-year departure from Fox News. The word is that the powers that be at Fox supposedly want Beck to put a more positive spin on his commentaries.

Not long ago, neocon Bill Kristol took a shot at Beck when he said, "When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he's marginalizing himself." Kristol seems like a nice enough chap, but he's your classic establishment Republican who doesn't like newcomers saying things that go beyond the normal, meaningless beltway chatter.

Likewise, supercilious Bernard Goldberg, the one-trick-pony who, but for the grace of Bill O'Reilly, would long ago have faded into obscurity, recently made a snide comment that "Beck brings a lot of it on himself."

Really, Bernie? How? By showing actual videos of Van Jones preaching revolution? Of Anita Dunn saying she draws her inspiration from Mao Zedong? Of Mark Lloyd saying that he wants to go beyond the fairness doctrine? Of Frances Fox Piven advocating violence? Of George Soros bragging about how much he enjoys playing God?

This is the kind of stuff Beck has been showing every day for two years now, always encouraging his audience to check out the facts for themselves.

Though Beck is a multi-faceted individual, his greatest talent is that he's a master teacher. His Fox News shows are like going to college, but learning things they don't teach at the most expensive campuses in the country.

And therein, I believe, lies the crux of the problem. Beck is too good of a teacher, something Will Durant warned about when he said, "Woe to him who teaches men faster than they can learn." Most Americans are not yet ready to accept the truths Beck teaches, so they find it easier to dismiss him as a doomsayer or conspiracy nut.

As to the supposed decline in Beck's audience, if true, there could be many reasons for it. One that comes to mind is that, at some point along the way, Beck seemed to start priding himself on having relatively unknown guests on his show, sort of a way to confirm his purity by not having the same old faces that everyone else offers up.

Another is that, as time passed, Beck started having fewer and fewer guests of any kind on his show - known or unknown. Personally, I find his solos to be both educational and enjoyable. But many people have short attention spans and probably prefer to hear other voices engaged in a two- or three-way dialogue.

The bottom line for me is that Glenn Beck is still the most remarkable person on television, and I'm hoping he stays with Fox. But if the powers that be ever did insist that he put a more positive spin on his show (i.e., that he lie to his viewers), I believe his sense of honor would compel him to leave Fox. Beck is on a mission, and I think purity in thought, speech, and action are nonnegotiable with him.

As I said in an earlier article, I believe Beck when he says he will never give up. I believe him when he says if he is forced off television, he will find another platform that is even bigger. I believe him when he says he is willing to die if that's what it takes to speak the truth.

The big unknown remains his health - particularly his eyesight. It's going to be interesting to see if people look back on Glenn Beck as a shooting star or if his best years are yet to come. My guess is that it's the latter.

If so, you can expect the attempt to marginalize him - especially by neocons - to continue and intensify. Folks like Beck, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann - who don't follow the establishment's code of conduct or content - scare the hell out of both the left and the right.

****

You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:

Copyright© 2011 Robert Ringer

ROBERT RINGER is the author of three #1 bestsellers and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. Ringer has appeared on numerous national talk shows and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.