Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Reports – Cain to endorse Newt on Monday (?)

Reports – Cain to endorse Newt on Monday (?)

There are multiple reports that Herman Cain will endorse Newt tomorrow, based on reporting by Fox 5 in Atlanta.  This would not be a huge surprise, as Cain and Newt had a very good relationship, as witnessed by their joint appearance on the issue of entitlements reform.

Expect stuff like this from the nutroots and some supporters of other candidates.  (added) See what I mean.

A CBS reporter says the endorsement is denied by the Cain camp, although it may just be a matter of whether it’s tomorrow or another day.

Details to follow.

Update:  The usual Cain campaign chaos, remains unclear.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


That would disappoint me but I am not surprised. Cain and Gingrich do appear to be friends.

I now lean toward Santorum and Bachmann…

Here’s the interesting point: If Cain’s endorsement is worth anything, he should not have been forced out of the race. If it isn’t what does it say if Newt accepts?

    Darkstar58 in reply to richard_mcenroe. | December 4, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    Of course its worth something – Cain still generally polls better then the hangers on like Huntsman, Bachmann and Santorum; despite Herman hinting he was pulling out of the race a week ago.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Newt strongly considers Cain as his running mate either. The two seem to work well together, the two have been voicing similar ideas and ideals for what we need to do and the two would be a tough combo for a Obama/Biden ticket to take on.

      GrumpyOne in reply to Darkstar58. | December 5, 2011 at 3:48 am

      If only the roles were reversed. One can dream, right?

      Just the thought of Obama/Biden for four more years borders on “Nightmares in Hell!”


I think Darkstar58 makes sense.

It would not surprise me to see Cain endorse Gingrich.
It does NOT follow from that that my vote would go with the Cain endorsement.

With Cain out, he was my preference by selection and my main residual interest is to see the nomination go all the way to the convention.

My ‘model’ is “The 1920 Election” and it’s 18 month recovery to the worst twentieth century depression.

After the Progressive Party Disaster of the 1912 Election, The Progressive Amendments, The [first] Progressive Era – the 1920 election stopped them cold.

TR was the “Heir Apparent” but died in 1919.

By my reckoning we are today in a comparable [second] Progressive Era.

    JayDick in reply to kobayashi. | December 5, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Maybe you should look at your vote choice by working backwards from your bottom line: “we are today in a comparable [second] Progressive Era.” There is considerable merit in that thinking, so the question becomes, what do we do about it.

    Seems to me the first priority is to defeat Obama. If he is reelected, we are doomed; nothing else matters much. So then, how best to defeat Obama? Answer: select the candidate with the best chance to defeat him. But, who is that? We don’t have a lot of hard data on this. We have some polling, but that kind of poll this early has shown itself to be a weak predictor. We have to rely on more subjective criteria. Look at the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses and try to think how each of them would fare against Obama in a general election. This must go beyond personal and political philosophies and include campaigning capabilities.

    On that basis, I see only two that would have a real chance against Obama: Gingrich and Romney. Deciding which would be better against Obama is difficult. Each has different strengths and weaknesses. I tend to think Gingrich would be a more effective campaigner. He is very smart, very knowledgeable, and not afraid to skewer opponents. Actually, I like Romney as a VP candidate along with Newt as President. There are also several others who would make good VP choices.

      kobayashi in reply to JayDick. | December 6, 2011 at 7:36 am

      At this relative stage in the 1980 Election Bush Sr. was the odds on favorite but/and the Carter Campaign felt that Reagan would be much easier! In that election it was Reagans “Coattails” that got additional Congressmen in. My obligation is to myself to vote for conservatives everywhere possible FIRST then vote against the progressive caucus in the General Election. Thanks to the same-old same-old RNC Big Government approach of the last decade+. I don’t have an obligation to any Middle-of-the-road ‘solution’.

The main thing is to populate the House and Senate with conservatives. Then Newt or Mitt could be stuck with governing as conservatives rather than Republicans. Heck, if we got enough conservatives into Congress Obambi would be okay as President. He’d be so busy vetoing bills to abolish this or that government agency or program that he wouldn’t have time to screw up the country any more.

    kobayashi in reply to Peter6067. | December 6, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Yours and other comments point out the same thing – half “The Battle of 2012″ is to get small government strict constitutionalists elected to Congress. Sarah Palin announced her intentions in an….extended interview with Mark Levin on his Oct 5 2011 radio program. As it happens he makes available the full 3 hours of his program as an MP3 file.

    As it happens they are free, open to anyone, and archived for several months.

    As it happens I was already in the habit of downloading his programs since I don’t have timely radio access to the program.

    As it happened I was, like many, discouraged about the Palin announcement.

    What I did after was play and replay the voice interview with Mark.

    The conclusion and satisfaction I drew was that her intent is to pick a number of Congressional Campaigners and Speak.

    Leading into the November 2010 House elections one ‘Washington Insider” – Dick Morris – began predicting as many as 60(sixty) seats turnover. ‘Monday Morning’ proved well over that but what went with the prediction was a plea for the Republican Party to get funding to the close campaigns. That didn’t happen, perhaps an early sign of the “Republican Establishment” v “Tea Party”.

    In the House Election of 1894 …
    The Turnover was 124 seats, Not the 66 of November.,_1894

    So one of the interesting shows of 2012 will be to see if it’s possible to achieve 254 to 93 proportions in “A Conservative Majority”.