Cain Accusations Show Why Beginners Have it Rough

A lot of people seem to like Herman Cain. Given that the GOP field is a choice between Romney, who’s bonafides on the Second Amendment and health care are not to be trusted, and Rick Perry, who is increasingly looking like a candidate who doesn’t have the chops to operate on the national level, Cain seems like he could be a refreshing alternative.

But it was almost predictable that he’d have a “public hair on the coke can” moment. Not only because of the fact that the quickest way to politically lynch a conservative black man is to drag forth the old racist stereotype that the black man can’t control his libido, but also because the guy is a political neophyte who has never really been vetted in a serious way before. Unlike Perry and Romney, Cain has never held any elected office. He’s been involved in politics, but generally as a behind the scenes operator. He has never put a target on his back until he became the GOP frontrunner, and now everything that could ever possibly come out about him is going to come out.

Romney and Perry have the advantage of having attained a governorship, with Romney having done that in a state which is heavily Democratic. Generally speaking, to attain an office like this, you have to work your way up the political ladder. As you work your way up, you put a bigger and bigger target on your back. People have an incentive to dig. Any skeletons in your closet are going to come out, even if they are skeletons someone else put there. All the chickens from your past are going to come home to roost.

Mitt Romney comes from a political family, his father having been Governor of Michigan. This is an advantage to Romney because he would have been exposed to the rancorous nature of politics from an early age. Romney actually attained the governorship of Massachusetts as a relative newcomer to politics — his only experience prior to winning Governor was a failed challenge to Ted Kennedy’s seat in 1994. Nonetheless, this would have put a big enough target on his back for opponents to start digging. His successful gubernatorial run in a Democratic state certainly would have given opponents and the media an incentive to dig.

Rick Perry won his first election to the Texas House in 1984, ironically as a Democrat. After that, as a Republican, he ran for Agricultural Commissioner. From there he ran for Lieutenant Governor, and was elevated to Governor once George W. Bush assumed his role as President. Perry has only really ever faced a tough high-profile race once in his career, which was for Lieutenant Governor. I think his weaknesses as a candidate have been showing in his primary performance.

Cain has virtually no political experience. He has never held any elected office. All the accusations, whether true or not, are going to start coming out now. For the first time, he’s painted a big target on himself. Having run for political office before is certainly not a guarantee you won’t come under new allegations, after all it was Bill Clinton who had a team dedicated to dealing with “bimbo eruptions,” but having run for lower offices previously at least means some of the sources for allegations your opponents might know about have already been used up, and overcome. Herman Cain will have the disadvantage of having to deal with many of them now, rather than in prior races during his political career.

It’s a risk trying to win a national office with someone who has never even held a single elected office. Even Obama, despite his lack of real political experience, at least had the Chicago machine behind him. While I like many of Cain’s positions, have been disappointed in Perry, and harbor no real love for Mitt, I’m wary of pushing such a political neophyte as Cain onto center stage. It’s a huge gamble, and the stakes are unbelievably high for 2012. Our primary goal is to ensure Obama does not get a second term. For that I want the strongest candidate we can run. As much as I wish that could be Herman Cain, his lack of real experience on the political stage is a major issue I don’t think GOP primary voters should overlook.

Sam Rohrer Running Against Casey?

Sam RohrerI got this from Sam Rohrer via his e-mail list today:

Later this month, I will outline my next step in promoting constitutional principles and courageous leadership. It’s a road – like others we’ve traveled before- that will be difficult and with an uncertain destination.

And then there’s this article in MSNBC:

A former state representative who lost to Tom Corbett in last year’s Republican gubernatorial primary is planning to enter a crowded field of GOP candidates running for U.S. Senate.

I’ve always liked Sam Rohrer’s politics. He’s about as close as you can probably get to libertarian in this political climate. But Sam’s Achilles heel, which was shown in the race for Governor, is that he’s a bad fundraiser, and you need to be a good fundraiser to win elections. As much as I might wish this were about principle and restoring liberty, the vast majority of people who vote barely pay attention. As a candidate, you’re a product that is being sold (to voters), and to tell that product, you need to advertise. That costs money. Philadelphia is one of the most expensive media markets in the country, and our media market reaches a lot of GOP voters.

That said, we have no one that looks decent currently stepping up to run against Casey, and I’d be willing to give Rohrer a chance. Maybe with the entire GOP apparatus behind him, he can overcome his fundraising inadequacies. The Democrats will dump whatever money they can afford to hold that seat, however, so it’s not going to be an easy race, even if the GOP nominee were a seasoned politician with a statewide record. If Rohrer runs, he’ll be the king of underdogs. We’ll see what he’s made of.

FOP Backing Holder?

This makes me wonder what they were promised by the Administration in return for their support. Remember that a big component of FOP support for the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was because the crime bill that it was attached to contained funding to hire a hundred thousand more police officers. The FOP has been on our side more lately, but like other unions, it’s a mistake to believe their leadership can’t be bought. They certainly can be bought.

Does It Matter What You Call It?

SayUncle notes that “They won’t like your politically incorrect, self-loading rifle either.” Given the latest polling results, we’re definitely winning on that count. Not only did our opponents lose on that poll, they lost using their own manufactured language that custom tailored to scare people into agreeing with their position. But nonetheless, I’ll feel safer once we get that up another 10-15%. Until we get to that point, I’m going to still consider “assault weapon” a loaded term we’re better off without.

How About Telling us Where to Buy the Sandwich?

Apparently two armed men robbed a 13 year old boy of his sandwich. Yeadon police say they recovered both the gun and the sandwich. They missed a key piece of information though, which is where in Yeadon to buy a sandwich that’s worth committing armed robbery for? I’m about an hour away from there, but I’ll make the drive to try that sandwich.

Different Organizations

John Richardson notes there’s at least one thing the ATF seems to do competently, which is handle C&R licenses. I also possess a C&R, and agree it’s a good way to enhance your collection with relatively minimal BS. You can also get pistols without going through any of the Pennsylvania paperwork (which means it ends up in the state police registry database). But there’s a reason for that. If you look at the top of your C&R, you will notice it says “Department of the Treasury” rather than “Department of Justice.” The same bill that established the Department of Homeland Security also split ATF in two, sending the enforcement side to Justice, and leaving the bean counting and licensing functions in Treasury. This effectively makes them two agencies, in fact if not in name. The people responsible for Fast and Furious were in DOJ.

A Guide to the Pennsylvania Texting Ban

Our state legislature has recently passed a texting ban, while driving. John Micek, author of the Capitol Ideas blog, has an article in the Morning Call outlining the conditions of the ban. Looks like the car has to actually be in motion, so you can still bang out a text at a stoplight, or sitting in halted traffic. This seems like a fair compromise to me. I’m against this ban, but more because it’s been shown that it does nothing to increase public safety (people just hide the phone they are texting on, taking their eyes further off the road), rather than because I think you can text while driving safely.

Greatest Threat to the Second Amendment

It’s not the anti-gun people, it’s guys like this:

The attorney for a Kingsburg[, CA] man charged with allegedly possessing 33 assault rifles, a grenade launcher and a silencer said Thursday that the Second Amendment gives him the right to collect guns.

Apparently some of those assault rifles were actual assault rifles. This is not going to end well folks, if this argument moves forward. I was always pretty pessimistic about saving the right to machine guns in court. I am now getting pessimistic we’ll ever get rid of bans on assault weapons. We really need a few more Supreme Court cases, and some changes on the federal courts, before we’re ready to start litigating on bans on narrow classes of firearms rather than bans on broad categories of firearms.

Had Obama not won, we could have gotten there much faster. But he won, and by historical precedent, he’s likely to win a second term. I think we might have to write off “assault weapons” as protected by the Second Amendment, at least by the courts. Certainly we’ll fight bans politically, and probably win, but that won’t help the half-dozen or so states who restrict narrow categories of firearms. Even Eugene Volokh doesn’t seem too optimistic about slipping that by the federal courts.

There are going to be too many guys like this out there taking cases too soon. If you think about the kind of logic allowing selective banning of classes of weapons requires, it blows a hole in the Second Amendment the size of a barn.

Tips for Influencing Canadians on Gun Rights

A timely topic, given the debate happening in Canada over the long gun registry, is how to influence Canadians when it comes to gun rights. Exurban Kevin, who is an expat from the Great White North offers some good advice on that, even when it comes to speaking about concealed carry. My understanding of Canadian gun laws suggests that guns that are most concealable are generally prohibited firearms. But there’s still plenty of concealable firearms that have barrels over 105mm. Plus, I can’t think of any better way to create a constituency for changing the law.