I want to begin by stating the obvious that WeArePolitics has been publishing a great number of articles regarding Herman Cain and his candidacy.  That being said, I have made WeArePolitics an open forum for supporters of all candidates to express their views without fear of any editting except for obvious grammatical ones.  We have published several pro-Ron Paul articles, a few for Newt Gingrich and even  one for Gary Johnson and have tried to post up-to-date polling information regardless of who the candidate is who happens to lead that poll.  This practice will continue in an unbiased manner whenever articles are sent to me at bill@wearepolitics.com from candidates as well as their supporters. 

I have been a supporter of Herman Cain's before Herman was an actual candidate as I wrote my first article supporting him in the 11th Hour Magazine well over a year ago when he told a crowd in New Orleans that a 'potential dark horse' could be running for the Presidency.  Those of us who have met Herman and supported him for Senate here in Georgia all held our collective breaths in hopes that he would in fact run.  Thank God that he has.

As in all Presidential campaigns, or any political campaign for that matter, candidates are scrutinized to minutia and properly vetted, sometimes fairly, sometimes not.  The last 48 hours has shown the viciousness of the media and their unfair bias against Conservatives as they have gone for the jugular vain of Herman Cain and have blindly followed a Politico article accusing him of sexual harrassment over ten years ago.  CBS News has asked in a poll today 'Can Herman Cain's Campaign Survive?" and in another story "Is Herman Cain Taking Scandal From Bad To Worse?"  The funny thing is they are failing to report that since the 'scandal' has hit, the Cain Campaign has raised at least $300,000 and in another report $350,000 making it the single biggest campaign fund raising day in Herman's Campaign history.  People are fed up with this treatment of candidates and are showing it by supporting Herman when he needs it the most.  (I strongly urge all supporters to do likewise and donate whatever you can afford to make sure that Mr. Cain will be the nominee of the GOP.)

This should show us all a very important thing and that the Obama Administration, and it's minions in the media,  are petrified that Herman Cain can become our nominee and will be able to beat the Socialist agenda of Obama with sound, common sense principles that people can support and understand.  The more they attack, the stronger we should be in our support of him. 

Herman speaks without notes and does it from the heart.  I've been priveledged to see him speak at least five times in person and had conversations with  him at many other occassions.  Does he make mistakes?  You bet.  He's human.  But he knows there's 50 states rather that 57 and I can bet that he would never bow to a foreign leader nor leave Prime Minister Netanyahu wondering if the United States does in fact have Israels' back against Iran or any other terroristic state.  We can't say  that about our Commander-In-Chief right now can we?

If Herman doesn't get the nomination, you can also bet that I will work equally as hard for the nominee who gets it in his place, but we have to ask ourselves one question about  Cain and the other candidates who are in the top tier and have a legitimate shot at the nomination:  Who has the best potential of beating Obama comes November, 2012?  Mitt Romney has the anchor of Romneycare being a model for Obamacare that will be the albatross around his neck; Rick Perry unfortuately couldn't debate Porky Pig and come out looking like a winner; and Ron Paul thinks Iran would be a responsible nation if they had nuclear weapons and makes Obama look like General Curtis LeMay when it comes to the defense of our nation.  Of the rest of the field, only the other Georgian in the race former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would be a formidable candidate.  Am I breaking Reagan's 11th Commandment about speaking poorly about other people in the GOP?  I don't think so.  I'm being realistic.  We have too much to lose in the 2012 Presidential election to sugar coat the truth.

As I said when I started this article, WeArePolitics will continue to report on all of the other campaigns when there is newsworthy items or supporters want to offer their points of view.  I however, have pledged and will pledge again, my support of Herman Cain to be the GOP nominee.

          On Saturday, September 17th, Constitution Day, Ron Paul won the California Republican Party straw poll with 44.9% of the votes as reported by our own Bill Knowles here at WeArePolitics.com. Knowles, however, was quick to qualify his report of Paul’s victory saying, “...no matter how much someone agrees with most of [Paul’s] views they can’t get past his foreign policy.”     Polling numbers support Knowles'  caveat. Of all the top-tier Republican presidential candidates, Paul struggles more than anyone else to gain hisparty’s support.

           Ron Paul’s foreign policy is frequently characterized as “isolationism” by both the media and those who disagree with him. But the talking heads know they are purposefully obfuscating the heart of Ron Paul’s foreign policymessage when they use that term. Paul prefers “non-interventionism” todescribe his beliefs. Or “mutually assured respect,” which was deliberately    chosen to contrast with the foreign policy of mutually assured destruction the world has known for most of the last century. Mutually assured respect is the “Golden Rule” applied to foreign policy. It means friendship and trade with other nations with no threats, bribes, or occupation. It also means ending taxpayer-funded foreign aid to rich dictators.

          The idea of non-intervention is not new in history or unique to Ron Paul.  Thomas Jefferson warned of us of “entangling alliances” in his inaugural address. And as for non-interventionism put into practice, there has never been a terrorist attack on the Swiss, a people whose freedom and security is due in large part to their adoption of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Yet Paul’s endorsement of the message of non-interventionism strikes fear into Conservatives’ hearts.

     In a recent video meant to address Paul’s positions on national defense, Paul explains how the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War has been wasted by special interests groups that benefit from perpetual war.  He reminds us that peace, prosperity, and liberty can only be spread by  example, not by force. Paul does not mince words when he says such attempts to “spread democracy” are not only unconstitutional, but result
in a world dependent on American intervention, as proven by our military presence in over 130 countries. He also warns that America can not fight an endless series of undeclared, unconstitutional wars halfway around the world against regional rivals without bankrupting itself and abandoning its own civil liberties in the process.

           This sort of candor about American Empire and policing the world has become the equivalent of endorsing terrorism for many on the Right. Since 9/11, anxiety over Islamic Jihad, Sharia Law, and suicide terrorism has become the glue that holds together the various factions of the Republican coalition, binding wealthy Wall Streeters to social conservatives in the same manner as anti-communism did a generation ago. For some, Paul’s beliefs seem to contradict all they have been taught about patriotism and love of country. Paul’s demand that we only use constitutional means to accomplish our military goals strikes many as naïve. 

          It does not matter to many Republicans whether Ron Paul agrees that terrorists must be defeated, or that he voted in support of action in Afghanistan after 9/11. It does not matter that Ron Paul is an Air Force veteran and has received more campaign donations from members of the U.S. military than all other Republican presidential candidates combined.  What matters to Republicans is that Paul does not support, as many Republicans do, the belief that militarism can destroy the threat of terrorism or dramatically deter it. As long as that is the case, Paul may find his brand of foreign policy is an impossible obstacle for Republicans to overcome.

Valerie Sargent Martin is a political activist and former candidate for United States Congress.  She holds a Master's Degree in international business administration from Mercer University. Valerie works as a technical writer and information technology business analyst. Her work involves product development for U.S. Air Force bases around the world.   She can be contacted at thevaleriesm@gmail.com and on twitter @valeriesmartin

I know if you're like me you have really gotten lost in all of the shifting around of the early caucus and primary dates.  Here's the latest up-to-date list:

Iowa caucuses ………………… Tuesday, Jan. 3
New Hampshire primary …. Tuesday, Jan. 10
South Carolina primary …… Saturday, Jan. 21
Florida primary ……………… Tuesday, Jan. 31
Nevada caucuses ……………. Saturday, Feb. 4

Once again, former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain has won yet another straw poll, this one being held at the Western Republican Leadership Conference held in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Cain edged out former front-runner former Massassusetts Governor Mitt Romney 31 to 29%.  Another surprise was the very strong vote total of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who pulled in 20%. 

Texas Congressman Ron Paul took 10% while in what can only be defined as the biggest since political disaster since Howard Dean's yell or Ross Perot's paranoia,  Texas Governor Rick Perry got 4%, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann only recieved 1%. 

There is no doubt in my mind that this is now a two man race between Cain and Romney which will prove to be another duel of idealogy between Reagan/Goldwater Republicans and Nelson Rockefeller Republicans.   

  A new poll released yesterday from Rasmussen shows former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain leading all challengers in the all important state of Iowa.  According to Rasmussen, Cain leads former front runner Mitt Romney by 7% among likely voters likely to attend the Iowa caucus.

Herman Cain -28%                                         Michele Bachmann-8%
Mitt Romney- 21%                                          Rick Perry-7%
  Ron Paul- 10%                                                    Rick Santorum-4%
                                                                                         Newt Gingrich-9%                                          Jon Huntsman-2%

 Also according to Rasmussen:  Only one-third of the caucus-goers (32%) are certain of their vote and don’t expect to change their mind. Among these voters, 30% prefer Cain, 22% Romney, and 17% Paul.

Read the entire story here.

This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.