Interesting Observation About Cain's Meet the Press Interview

[JG55]

Ann Althouse is a Law Professor in Wisconsin.

\

[h=3]Herman Cain nailed "Meet the Press."[/h] In my opinion, and I was quite critical of Cain after the last debate. Here's the transcript and video. I'll add a few comments to this post soon.

ADDED: I thought David Gregory really lost his cool early on, as he was questioning Cain about 9-9-9. If you watch the video, you can see he's agitated and grimacing in a way that really lacks the usual polished journalist quality. To excerpt the transcript bits that hint of this attitude:

The reality of the plan is that some people pay more, some people pay less.... You're saying [prices] actually go down?... This isn't about behavior, Mr. Cain, this is about whether you pay--if you don't pay taxes now, and you now have income tax and a sales tax, you pay more in taxes.... Mr. Cain, we talked to independent analysts ourselves.... We're not just reading newspaper clips here... They tell us, they've looked at this, based on what's available of the plan, and it's incontrovertible.

Gregory's experts are incontrovertible? What kind of a question is that? How does Cain deal with this barrage of disbelief from Gregory? He stands his ground and explains his program:

Some people will pay more, but most people would pay less is my argument.... Who will pay more? The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods....

This discussion got me thinking about the positive side of switching to sales tax. With a progressive income tax, the political process sets different percentages for different income levels, so, for example, the majority can vote jack up the taxes on other people — "the rich" — and those other people can work on extracting various exemptions and credits and so forth in an elaborate, inscrutable government system. With a sales tax, you control what you pay through your shopping decisions. Every time you forgo a purchase or buy used goods — and isn't that good for the environment? — you pay no tax. And every time you choose smaller amounts or cheaper goods, you pay less tax. Now, you have various needs that you have to meet, but you have far more control, and you aren't at the mercy of the ever-ongoing machinations of the political process.

My point is: After the debate last week, I was thinking about the negative aspects of the sales tax, but as he was talking about it on "Meet the Press" today, I felt open-minded about the potential benefits. And that was while Gregory was going for the jugular.

MORE: Gregory asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement: "Do you empathize, as the president does, with the message of those Wall Street protesters?" Gregory invites him to express empathy, a concept Obama has actively promoted (which Gregory prompts us to recall). Cain homes in on the premise that there is a message and proceeds right to criticism of Obama:

What is their message? That's what's unclear. If that message is, "Let's punish the rich," I don't empathize with that message. They should be protesting the White House. The White House has basically enacted failed economic policies. The White House and the Democrats have spent $1 trillion that did not work. Now the president wants to pass another $450 billion. They have their frustrations directed at the wrong group. That's what I'm saying.

Nice clarity and brevity and excellent sharp perception of the opportunity in the question asked.

AND: Gregory confronted him with an extreme statement he made back in February: "The objective of the liberals is to destroy this country" and followed up with a pointed "You think liberals actually seek to do that, that that's their mission, to destroy the economy?"

Cain stood his ground: "It is their mission. Because they do not believe in a stronger America, in my opinion. Yes."

Gregory let it go at that and moved on to another one of Cain's presumably insufficiently thoughtful statements: "You've also said that stupid people are ruining America.... Who exactly are you talking about?"

MR. CAIN: People who are uninformed. People who will not look at an alternate idea. People who are so dug in with partisanship and partisan politics. Open-mindedness is what's going to save this country. The reason that my message is appealing is because it's simple and people can understand it. You know, a good idea transcends party politics...

Somehow, the next question on Gregory's list was: "Is race a factor in this campaign?" Obviously, Cain's answer is going to be no. I'm more interested in why Gregory jumped from "stupid people" to race. Gregory next displays the new Newsweek cover, which calls Cain "the Anti-Obama," and starts to put together a question: "You've actually talked a bit about race, though, and you've created a contrast between yourself and your experience as an African-American, a term you don't like, by the way."

So suddenly the topic is the terminology of race: African-American or black American, which Cain prefers. Gregory asks why. Cain says:

Because my roots go back through slavery in this country. Yes, they came from Africa, but the roots of my heritage are in the United States of America. So I consider myself a black American.

That's a very rich statement. Slavery is a heritage. But Gregory goes for the implicit distinction between Cain and Obama: "So you draw some distinction between yourself and your experiences as a black man in America and the experience of President Obama."

Cain says:

Absolutely. I came from very humble beginnings. My mother was a maid, my father was a barber and janitor and a chauffeur. We, we had to, we had to learn--do things the old-fashioned way. We had to work for it. I--my parents never saw themselves as a victim, so I didn't learn how to be a victim. I didn't have anything given to me. I had to work very hard in order to be able to go to school and work my way through school....

Notice how simply and vividly he struck a chord — the classic black American experience — and made it resonate for anyone who works for living. There is a quality of nobility, that fits with the idea of heritage. Gregory is at a complete loss, I think, to do anything with this:

MR. GREGORY: You actually said President Obama's outside the mainstream. So you're making a different, more of a social cultural background distinction between you and the president.

MR. CAIN: More experiential. Look at his experiences vs. my experiences. It was more at a contrast of experiential differences than anything else.

MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about foreign policy...

YET MORE: I liked the way, when asked to name his model for the ideal Supreme Court justice, he focused on Clarence Thomas:

I believe that Justice Clarence Thomas, despite all of the attacks that he gets from the left, he basically rules and makes his decisions, in my opinion, based upon the Constitution and solid legal thinking. Justice Clarence Thomas is one of my models.

MR. GREGORY: Has he been targeted unfairly, you think?

MR. CAIN: I think he has been targeted unfairly.

Gregory declines to follow up about what the unfairness was. He moves on to the topic of Cain's wife Gloria, who's been invisible so far. He gave a lovely explanation:

My wife and I, we have a family life, and she is maintaining the calmness and the tranquility of that family life so, when I do get a day off of the campaign trail, I can go home and enjoy my family.

She's his wife, not America's wife. Home is a refuge. That's a good traditionalist message.

[Moped]

I saw the end of this interview this morning. Mr. Cain is very well spoken, candid and forthright. I actually find him very refreshing for a politician. He is not one to say what people want to hear, rather what I feel he actually believe. I'm warming up to him compared to the rest of the talking heads that are presented to us. I do, however, question whether he can function positively in Washington, if actually elected. There are going to be some very unhappy people in Washington if that happens. I don't see him willingly playing the game that they like to play there. He isn't part of the good ole boy system so ingrained inside the beltway.

[Guest Old goat]

I saw the end of this interview this morning. Mr. Cain is very well spoken, candid and forthright. I actually find him very refreshing for a politician. He is not one to say what people want to hear, rather what I feel he actually believe. I'm warming up to him compared to the rest of the talking heads that are presented to us. I do, however, question whether he can function positively in Washington, if actually elected. There are going to be some very unhappy people in Washington if that happens. I don't see him willingly playing the game that they like to play there. He isn't part of the good ole boy system so ingrained inside the beltway.

And this may be the very reason he gets my vote, I really couldn't care less if the folks in DC are happy. I said may, not will, have to see how things go.

[oldogy]

Folks are tired of politics as usual. We need to send Cain a congress that understands we are pissed at government for getting everything so fouled up. We should start by throwing the 70 or so admitted socialists out of congress along with those we have strong suspects of being socialist or worse.

oldogy

[MphsTiger1981]

Thanks to the OP for posting this, as I had not seen any of it.

I also find it very interesting that both the main stream media and the Republican establishment are already saying the race belongs to Romney. It seems to me the race still has a long way to go before it's over, but maybe both of these two groups have something to gain by convincing the rest of us that no one but Romney can win, so don't waste your money or your votes.

Our country needs serious, substantial change, not more of the same, even if it comes from a Republican like Romney. Romney in my opinion, is just a version of Obama-lite, a RINO. If Romney gets the nomination, I would be interested to see a third party candidate if for no other reason than to be able to vote without holding my nose this time.

[G27]

I want to like Cain, and in many ways I do, but I'm troubled not only by his ignorance regarding the ideology of neoconservatism (he claims to not even know what it is) while openly being a neoconservative (wrt Iraq).

[MphsTiger1981]

I want to like Cain, and in many ways I do, but I'm troubled not only by his ignorance regarding the ideology of neoconservatism (he claims to not even know what it is) while openly being a neoconservative (wrt Iraq).

I see what you're talking about, but I'm not sure if he's just being coy, or if he just does not want Gregory to paint him into a corner. As Cain said, he's not comfortable with labels. That's probably not a terrible answer for a guy giving an interview in what he perceives as a hostile environment.

I'm in the same place with Cain. He has a lot about him that I like, but I honestly don't know enough about him to get a tingle up my leg just yet. I do not know his position on The Fed, some have pointed out he worked for The Fed for some years, but I'm not sure if that alone is enough to disqualify him from my consideration.

I think Cain paired with Newt Ginrich as VP might be an interesting combination, if he's willing to listen to some of Newt's insight into how to get the right things accomplished in a hurry.

[G27]

I do not know his position on The Fed, some have pointed out he worked for The Fed for some years, but I'm not sure if that alone is enough to disqualify him from my consideration.

He was a Fed chairman, he has no problem with the Fed, though he doesn't agree with how it's been used in the last few years.

[Guest President Fernatt]

Check out this video. THIS is what sealed the deal for me. I love his 9.9.9 tax plan and his genuine desire to turn Americans from government dependency back to working hard to support themselves...BUT, this interview with Lawrence O'Donnell shows exactly what type of man Cain is and he ultimately gained my support. The MSNBC host absolutely charged Herman and did everything in his power to create an intense, angry reaction but Herman Cain did not take the bait. Cain kept cool, respectful, restrained, and in control of himself and the questioning. Any conservative would have been strung up if they treated a Black American like this but no one cares when the liberals do it... from defending his role in the civil rights movement to explaining his government service in Vietnam, Herman Cain exudes honesty and integrity which proves his ability to communicate effectively in high stress situations like foreign affairs and policy debates.

Fireworks: MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell Hostile Interview With Herman Cain | RealClearPolitics

[JG55]

Rasmussen : Cain 43, Obama 41

[JG55]

SO LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERMAN CAIN ON MEET THE PRESS, but what I noticed is that David Gregory doesn’t seem to understand the difference between state taxes and federal taxes. Here’s what he said:

MR. CAIN: We replace capital gains tax. We replace the payroll tax. We replace corporate income tax, replace personal income tax, and replace the death tax. It is a replacement tax structure.

MR. GREGORY: But where do state taxes go? You’re saying they’re going to be repealed?

MR. CAIN: If you–with the current structure, you have state taxes, right? So with this new structure, you’re still going to have taxes–state taxes. That is muddying the water.

MR. GREGORY: How so?

MR. CAIN: Because today, under the current tax code, state taxes are there if they have it. If they don’t have a state taxes, they don’t have it. It has nothing to do with this replacement structure for the federal tax code.

MR. GREGORY: But that doesn’t make any sense to me. If I’m already paying state taxes, and I have a new Cain administration national sales tax, I’ve got more state taxes.

No, you don’t have more state taxes, you have the same state taxes — unless, that is, you don’t know the difference between a sales tax and a state tax, which would seem to be the case for Gregory. If Sarah Palin made such an error, it would be seen as proof that she was unfit for the national stage. For Gregory, well . . . draw your own conclusions.

[Lumber_Jack]

Look up a-s-s-h-o-l-e in the dictionary and you'll find a picture of Lawrence O'donnell.

As for Herman Cain I really like his attitude and demeanor. I like him, I'm not gonna say he has my vote 100% but he is my top choice. We'll see what the future bears out.

[JG55]

Look up a-s-s-h-o-l-e in the dictionary and you'll find a picture of Lawrence O'donnell.

As for Herman Cain I really like his attitude and demeanor. I like him, I'm not gonna say he has my vote 100% but he is my top choice. We'll see what the future bears out.

I think you are right, I want to see how he does further in the process but so far I like what he has to say..

[mav]

I guess I am one of the very few people on the forum that abhor's Cain's 9-9-9 plan. I used to like Cain, but once he started this 9-9-9 crap he moved down to the Romney area, which is at the bottom, for me. His 9-9-9 plan absolutely scares the crap out of me. First off, I question the constitutionality of the federal government implementing a national sales tax. My second problem with 9-9-9 is the existence of a national sales tax in addition to an income tax. Yes, yes, I know this is only the first stage of his ultimate goal of implementing the Fair Tax, there is no need to post it. I have no problem with the Fair Tax, but there is no guarantee that the 9-9-9 will ever lead to it. The correct implmentation of the Fair Tax will require a constitutional ammendment repealing the 16th. That is no easy feat (nor should it be).

Even the Fair Tax Act proposed by congress had a clause in the legislation stating that if the 16th was not repealed within 7 years that the implemented Fair Tax will revert back to the progressive style system we currently have. I haven't heard that from 9-9-9. We could get stuck with a 15-15-15 a few years from now.

I love how Cain talks about the simplicity of the 9-9-9 plan. I don't think it is simple, and I think Bachmann was correct when she said that it should be called the 6-6-6 plan (the devil is in the details). In my mind simplicity is, doing away with the death tax, dividend double taxation, capital gains tax, etc..., and establishing a 15% flat income tax for everybody. There are no deductions, you just shut your mouth and pay the 15%. Everybody has skin in the game and they are treated equally.

Back on the 9-9-9 national sales tax, what scares me the most is the possibility of the national sales tax morphing into a VAT tax, which is really bad. I know politicians, especially on the left side of the aisle, would love nothing more than to implement a VAT tax.

I know a lot of you guys are Cainiacs. Don't get me wrong he would be way better than Obama and in a lot of cases, better than Romney. I will vote for Cain if he gets the nomination. That said, his plan still scares the crap out of me, therefore, there is no way I could possibly vote for him in the primary. My absolute "No" (primary voting only) list keeps on growing.

Romney - No, bad all around, especially on healthcare (waivers aren't the same as repeal Gov. Romney)

Perry - No, terrible on immigration (what can I say, I'm heartless)

Gingrich - No, very smart, but he is a global warming believer, a cap and taxer, too beltway

Cain - No, 9-9-9 and stance on the fed

Hunstman - No, bad all around, except he is decent on foreign policy.

Paul - definitely

Santorum - although he ticks me off immensely when he mischaracterizes Paul's foreign policy, he would still be a maybe

Bachmann - maybe

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Mav, you have to consider that anything these

guys are touting still would have to pass the

scrutiny of the House and Senate, and I doubt

his plan would make it until enough of the right

people were in Congress. That said, I would

like to see something like his plan, but would

rather see the Fair Tax, anyway. Almost

anything beats the current tax code, which

should be abolished completely before it is

replaced.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MphsTiger1981]

Mav, you have to consider that anything these

guys are touting still would have to pass the

scrutiny of the House and Senate, and I doubt

his plan would make it until enough of the right

people were in Congress. That said, I would

like to see something like his plan, but would

rather see the Fair Tax, anyway. Almost

anything beats the current tax code, which

should be abolished completely before it is

replaced.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said. Based upon all the edicts of the current administration, I think a lot of us have forgotten how the founding fathers intended this country to work with three separate but independent branches of power, how laws would be created, and why the checks and balances were put there in the first place. Nice to be reminded a President can't just make law whenever he decides to. After all, we still elect a President, not a King.

[mav]

Mav, you have to consider that anything these

guys are touting still would have to pass the

scrutiny of the House and Senate, and I doubt

his plan would make it until enough of the right

people were in Congress. That said, I would

like to see something like his plan, but would

rather see the Fair Tax, anyway. Almost

anything beats the current tax code, which

should be abolished completely before it is

replaced.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand all of that completely. Yes, the 9-9-9 plan as it is being sold, would be better than the progressive tax system we currently have. However, there is a distinct possibility that it could become worse, much worse if parts of it morphed into a VAT, than our current system. That is what scares me.

We have to remember that there were some Bush policies (the Patriot Act could be an example) and "executive privileges and orders" enacted that while under Bush's watch we really didn't have anything to worry about. However, his administration opened the door and look who we have now and what he has done.

Basically what I am saying is that while intentions may be good and sincere, if ideas are not heavily scrutinized, they can come back to bite you in the ass. If people want the Fair Tax, I'm game, give me the Fair Tax (assuming repealing of the 16th). However, I do not want a hybrid that opens new avenues for the government to tax us.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well, one thing is that I don't think Romney could beat Obama. People won't vote for who they don't like, and I don't think 50.000001 percent of voters will like him enough to vote for him.

Dunno if Cain can beat Obama. Dunno even if Cain would make a better prez, but a heck of alot more people are likely to "like" the man.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, one thing is that I don't think Romney could beat Obama. People won't vote for who they don't like, and I don't think 50.000001 percent of voters will like him enough to vote for him.....

Majority vote doesn't necessarily elect a prez, as I'm sure you just forgot for a moment.

Otherwise, Slick Willie wouldn't have won either time, or Dubya the first time, just to mention a few elections from recent times.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm really more interested in gaining both

house and senate by as much as possible,

than worrying right now who the next

Republican candidate is. As much as

I hate to say it, I would vote for any of

them just to get the current one out and I

think most of the voters would, also. It's

going to be all or nothing and that's the

way it will have to be or it won't matter

afterwords.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest President Fernatt]

Any person can simply sit here, point out the problems and complain about them. It takes a special person to subject themselves to immense criticism because they choose to propose solutions. Herman Cain is simply offering a solution. He is essentially saying, "Here is my idea. I think this plan can work and I want a bi-partisan 2/3 majority vote to get it done so it's not being shoved down the throats of the American people like Obamacare was. I know my numbers are right and this is the most realistic transitionary tax plan we can get in order to finally tackle the possibility of getting the Fair Tax."

I respect him for that. You all need to keep in mind that this tax plan is a starting point and will have to go through congressional approval. Reality is, once it is at that stage, President Cain and political leaders will have to work out the kinks and refine it. I'm okay with that. I simply believe it is exciting for a candidate to actually put something out there rather than talk in sound bites without any real proposal. He IS the only candidate speaking in specifics as opposed to generalizations so I find him completely refreshing!

For all of you folks out there who are saying, "I like him but I will see how he is looking in the future before I make him my candidate"...realize that in the future...he might not be there. People can't just simply admire a great candidate and expect him to succeed alone. Romney and Perry are financial powerhouses in comparison and unless folks take a chance on Cain and begin supporting him, it is very likely that he will simply not be able to compete. You guys can't wait too long, Primaries are in the Spring. That's not a lot of time to choose your candidate and begin rallying vocal and financial support for him.

The worst thing that can happen is for Romeny or Perry to get the nomination. It will turn into 2008 all over again. Most people will stay home from the polls because they don't really like Romney or Obama and the ones that do show up will be forced to vote not "for" Romney but "against" Obama. Just like in 2008. Most people voted against Obama, not for McCain. 2012 needs to be different. Herman Cain appeals to independents, conservatives, and even some minority democrats. He is the only one that will actually motivate people to vote; not because they have to...but because they want to. Cain's energy and passion is what will get people to the polls, not Romney's slimey politcian perfect hair.

Just 6 years ago Romney favored increased gun control, gay civil unions, believed global warming was a crisis, favored abortion, and supported scholarships for children of illegal immigrants. Now all of the sudden he is a "conservative"? Not hardly. He can't beat Obama with his flip-flopping, Washington business-as-usual record.

As for Lawrence O'Donnell...I literally cussed him out as I watched the video lol

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Majority vote doesn't necessarily elect a prez, as I'm sure you just forgot for a moment.

Otherwise, Slick Willie wouldn't have won either time, or Dubya the first time, just to mention a few elections from recent times.

- OS

Well a plurality of voters (living and dead) in enough states summing to half + 1 of the electoral college then. Occasionally there are electoral differences from the majority vote, because of the 100 electors assigned two-per-state regardless of population.

If Romney is the R candidate, I think too many people won't be able to hold their nose and push the R button. Too many will stay home or vote third party.

If someone other than Romney is the R candidate, there will be fewer people so mad about it that they stay home or vote third party. Assuming the R candidate is not an obviously embarrassing flake.

I'm great at futile gestures and don't usually vote the lesser of two evils. The time I relented and voted the lesser of two evils in 2004, it was a mistake because Kerry was such a woefully bad candidate and I figured it was worth voting for Bush just to make sure Kerry wasn't elected.

It was a mistake because Kerry would have definitely been a one-term president, losing as a universally unpopular president in the midst of a bursting economic bubble, unless Kerry's actions would have burst the bubble even sooner than 2008. A republican prez would have been elected in 2008.

In 2004 Bush hadn't yet almost single-handedly destroyed the Republican party. If Bush had been defeated in 2004 then R's would have been very strong by 2008.

So the only time lately I held my nose and voted "the lesser of two weevils" I would have been better off voting Libertarian as usual.

That is why it is hard to think about voting "anybody but Obama" if it happens to be somebody like Romney.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Pres, I agree about your scenario concerning

a Romney(don't like) or Perry(same) candidate,

but a common goal has to be getting a commie

out of office, rather than not voting altogether.

That attitude got us in the mess we are in. Even

the candidates agree on that. It's been obvious

during the debates. This election really depends

on voters coalescing around a hopefully conservative

enough candidate to undo the damage this commie

has done. It's imperative and we may have to hold

our noses to accomplish it in the end.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Lester, would you rather have Obama, if your

vote was the tie breaker? Romney would be

much better with both house and senate being

Republican, Wouldn't it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G27]

Well, one thing is that I don't think Romney could beat Obama. People won't vote for who they don't like, and I don't think 50.000001 percent of voters will like him enough to vote for him.

Yep, there's a zero percent chance I'll vote for Romney, and I know quite a few conservatives who feel the same.

Dunno if Cain can beat Obama. Dunno even if Cain would make a better prez, but a heck of alot more people are likely to "like" the man.

Likewise, there is zero doubt in my mind Cain would be a better president. Zero. The man is a proven business leader and his accomplishments dwarf what Obama has accomplished (even being elected president).

Would Cain be able to save our beloved country by getting us off the self-destructive path we've been on for decades now? I have no idea, but Obama has been horrible by virtually every measure - I cannot fathom any way Cain could equal being as bad.