Good evening everyone,

I was hoping I would never have to write this blog, and if by some miracle I am wrong about this I will be happy because the Herman Cain that I’ve read about was about as conservative as you get from all but the federal reserve standpoint. Nonetheless, I must write this blog.

I came into this nomination season hoping that either Sarah Palin would run (based on her ability to bridge gaps because of her strong stand against crony capitalism, and her strong across the board conservative stands with solid foreign policy views) or we would get someone at least almost as good as her.

I truly thought I had that person, and in some ways we do have that person running. Her name is Michelle Bachmann, and as of now she is still running for President of the United States. However, she allowed herself to get caught in infighting with Pawlenty before he exited, and made a huge deal out of an encounter that could not and was not vetted about an issue that while I agree with her on, is not going to do her any favors. It did not, and when you combine that with her attacks on Herman Cain and others ideas that were conservative ideas she lost every bit of traction she ever had and honestly has the worst run campaign to this date that I have ever witnessed in person.

So, she kinda removed herself from contention, and placed doubts that she would ever be able to look America in the eye and create a competent enough campaign to take advantage of a clearly weakened Barack Obama.

So, after always having a good opinion of Herman Cain I turned to him to see if he could carry my vote to the primary. The first thing that stung, was that his idea was a watered down “transition” to the tax plan I am for at least a similar plan to the Fair Tax. Don’t get me wrong, he is still for the fair tax, but 9-9-9 to me opens up a huge window of opportunity of Cain ended up being a one term president if he were even able to get it passed (which I doubt). That window is an opportunity to reset the income tax structure back to the levels they are now and leaving the sales tax portion as an added VAT tax that democrats across the globe love. Strike 1.

I put that behind me..saying that they would put language in the law that made that a chore for democrats or it would have some sort of timetable to transition to the fairtax after repealing the 16th amendment in the 9-9-9 law.

Ok, then after a few good days I see that he went on Piers Morgan..I knew that wasn’t going to go well. He gets to the Abortion question that invariably he was going to get in this venue. I know that Herman Cain personally is avidly against abortion, so when I hear out of his mouth “its a family decision that the government should not involve themselves in” I go..wait..what? What on earth was that? The next day he gives an explanation that he was talking about that the president is not the one that makes that decision..and that he is 100% pro-life period. With this I went on his facebook and asked a serious, albeit harsh worded question I’m sure, about how his 100% pro-life view can use decidedly pro-choice language in an interview anywhere, much less on a very liberal show on a liberal network. How if he believes as he says in life at conception that you could say that ending that life (murder) could be a family decision that government has no right to involve themselves in? I then get promptly blocked from posting on their facebook page (at this time as close to a Cain supporter as I ever was). That confused, and that really was disappointing at that point. Strike 2.

Then we hear about these women. Coming out multiples saying that he sexually harassed them. I have no clue if he did, it sure doesn’t seem like there is anything to the allegations from here, but his reaction was absolutely reactionary. Not something that a good campaign would have done. Get in front of the story, explain the allegation and how it was handled. Identify what settlements there were and why they were settled by whom. As frustrating as that was, I did not count it a strike against him because it seriously looked like the media was trying to just take him out with it.

Then, I see the interview where he goes into federal unions and bargaining rights. And he sounds like he is saying that he is for them being able to do so. He creates this “if its not hurting the taxpayers” out for himself, but even so this is not the view of a conservative. Then I come to remember the reason I wasn’t so keen to vote for him in the beginning. I remember the hesitancy he gave to auditing the fed, for instance. It started stringing together doubt on numerous fronts that when I put it all together I get a candidate that does not seem to articulate a position that is more conservative then Mitt Romney.

Is he more liberal then Mitt Romney? I do not believe so, but it has erased all of the little trust I had of his running a respectable competent campaign and his conservative core came into question. Without significant, almost miraculous recovery from this I cannot see myself voting for him in the primary.

If you think I’ve erred somewhere and have something to prove me wrong, please do so. The next best candidates I could go to are currently irrelevent, or in the past have told me I’m a heartless racist. So if you can help Mr. Cain, please chime in.