Note to Republicans re: Herman Cain

Apparently Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe, 55%-39%, that the allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain are not a serious matter. Moreover, 69% say the situation will not make a difference in how likely they are to vote for Cain for President, and the remainder split just 23%-4% as to whether it makes them less or more likely to support him. (Honestly, 4%? Allegations of sexual harassment make you more likely to support the guy?) Now, okay, on one level I get it. If we were in the general election, and it were Cain vs. Obama, and I agreed more with Cain on the issues than with Obama (which is emphatically not the case), I'd vote for Cain. I'd vote for him despite the improprieties in his past. For a more substantive example, there have been lots of allegations of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton throughout his life. If I had been eligible to vote in 1992 or 1996, even knowing everything about Clinton's sexual misconduct that we know now, I'd've voted for him over Bush, Dole, and Perot, practically without a second thought.

But, uh, Republicans, you do know it's not the general election yet, right? And, um, that Barack Obama guy you claim to be so desirous of kicking out of office? He would be cackling for a week if you nominated a guy who, on top of already being Herman "9-9-9" Cain, Herman "Bad-Pizza Mogul" Cain, Herman "Ubeki-beki-beki-stan" Cain, has also been accused of sexual misconduct. No incumbent President would dare pray for an opposing candidate that weak on paper, because it would be an unreasonable request. You couldn't possibly expect to be that lucky. Seriously, how do you not get that, when the matter at hand is who you want to be your party's standard-bearer, a history of sexual impropriety is something you want to avoid?!?

The Weird Limbo of the Republican Race

So, Herman Cain's inevitable collapse no longer looks so inevitable, and is starting to look kind of, uh, yesterday's news? Already happened? Something. So for the past few days we've been treated to a) a parade of stories about the implosion of the Cain campaign, and b) a parade of polls taken before the last debate that show the same old Cain/Romney race with Perry a very distant third. It is my assumption that these polls do not reflect the current state of the field. So what is the current state of the field? We don't know. It'll be very interesting to see what happens when a few more recent polls get released.

UPDATE: According to PPP, the state polls of Nevada and Wisconsin they conducted over this weekend continue to show the Cain/Romney two-man race, with Gingrich in 3rd and Perry's favorabilities awful. That surprises me, quite a lot. Maybe it won't hold up, but it looks like the past week of what felt like rather dramatic changes in the dynamic of the race didn't actually affect anything. If that's the case... is Herman Cain's support somewhat more solid than I had thought? If the week he's had hasn't cut into his support? I mean, if the apparent polling strength of Cain was as weak and symbolic as I thought it was, you'd think that any little excuse to vote against him, and especially waffling like he's displayed lately on the abortion issue, would be latched on to with a vengeance. So, it's weird, and if the polling doesn't start changing soon I'm going to revert to my earlier state of thinking that just maybe Cain has made himself into the real deal.

Jesus was a Conservative? Dude, do you know what "conservative" means?

Herman Cain apparently thinks that Jesus Christ was a conservative. No, seriously. "Never before and not since has there ever been such a perfect conservative." The substance of his argument seems to be that in the years of Jesus' life the welfare state did not exist.

Now, never mind the fact that, as far as I can tell, Jesus Christ never espoused anything remotely resembling a political philosophy, save perhaps for the line about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, which sounds to me like an early formulation of separation of church and state. He's all about moral philosophy, and his moral philosophy is all peace, love, and kindness (plus a bit of theology). Now, conservatives like to claim that that's their moral philosophy, but that they just don't believe the government is the appropriate agent for that philosophy. But liberals also claim that that's our moral philosophy, and that government should be the agent. So the fact that Jesus' moral philosophy was peace/love/kindness doesn't seem to suggest any particular political philosophy. Even if it did, he was living in the pre-democratic age when all things political philosophic were different.

But, uh, does Herman Cain know what the word "conservative" means? It means resisting change!!! That's the definition. Wishing to preserve the status quo. "Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion." Does that sound like Jesus Christ to you? Hell no! He was a frickin' revolutionary! The Pharises and such were the conservatives, the ones who saw this rabble-rouser trying to overthrow their nice elite-empowering religious traditions and didn't like it one bit. Jesus was the guy trying to upset the applecart, to radically re-shape all ideas theological or philosophical. The one deeply and profoundly critical of the system. The guy with the beard and sandals. Not a conservative. Look it up.

Prove It

Apparently Paul Ryan and Haley Barbour have endorsed Herman Cain's nonsensical 9-9-9 plan. This would appear to be a sign of the non-joke nature of the Caindidacy. (Oh, lame Herman Cain puns will not go away until he does.) This is very surprising. But it is not at all unwelcome. Here's my message to the Republicans, and in particular to the Tea Party Republicans, about Herman Cain:

You know how we liberals keep saying that y'all just oppose Obama because he's black? And you keep saying that we're the real racists and it's all about small government principles? Prove it. Make Herman Cain your nominee in 2012 and I will officially admit that your opposition to Obama is not a cipher for racism. And then I will laugh, very heartily, during the months of the general election campaign, while Obama tears through your woefully incompetent candidate. Go ahead, I dare you.

Mitt Romney's Herman Cain Problem

Mitt Romney has a problem named Herman Cain. Cain is now leading PublicPolicyPolling's latest foray into the vital Iowa contest, with 30% to Romney's 22%. Other polls show the two in the other order, but much closer; whatever, I trust PPP way more than any other pollsters at this point. In late August, Cain was getting just 7% in Iowa, compared to Romney's 19%. But that's not Romney's problem, or at least, his problem isn't that Herman Cain will win the Republican nomination instead of Romney. It's that the rise of Herman Cain tells us a hell of a lot about the Republican primary electorate: they really, really, really don't want to vote for Mitt Romney.