Herman Cain is a Complete Lunatic, Who Has No Business Whatsoever Being Anywhere Near the Oval Office

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on July 17, 2011

There. I wrote it. And I apologize not a whit for the sentiment. If anything, it doesn’t do Cain’s political disqualifications justice; far better to state categorically that Cain is unfit for just about any serious, or quasi-serious political office.

Anyone who knows even the slightest thing about the First Amendment knows Cain’s proposal to be blatantly unconstitutional. Even if the Constitution somehow didn’t argue against Cain’s ludicrous and disgusting proposal, common decency would. Add to this argument the entirely commonsense proposition that if one wants to defeat radical Islamists, trying to enrage Muslims nationwide and worldwide is not the best way to go, and we have an overwhelmingly powerful case against an overwhelmingly bad, and repulsive idea on Cain’s part.

Apparently, Cain has decided that the best way to win the Republican nomination is to appear more lunatic than any of his competitors. I have no doubt that this strategy will fail, but the fact that it is being tried is bad enough. We know that Herman Cain doesn’t exactly have a command of the issues. But in addition to proving himself an ignoramus, it appears that he is bound and determined to prove himself to be fundamentally indecent.

UPDATE: While I appreciate links that drive (some) traffic, and while Herman Cain’s antediluvian ideas concerning religious liberty may appeal to some in the Republican party, Andrew Sullivan’s desperate desire to attribute Cain’s beliefs to “Fox News and much of the Republican machinery” is–as usual–quite overwrought. One would think that if Cain’s views were as mainstreamed into the Republican party as Sullivan portrays them as being, he would be doing better in the polls as he strives for the Republican Presidential nomination. Instead, Cain is a distant fourth in the race, trailing two candidates who haven’t even declared for the Presidency. The leader is someone who has taken issue with Cain’s statements. Funny how that gets no mention in Sullivan’s post.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Also, Trig Palin is Sarah Palin’s biological son, and it would be kind of nice if Sullivan would stop pretending otherwise sometime before the Chicago Cubs win their fourth World Series championship of this young millennium.

  • Jay S

    Oh boy.  I like Cain, but bever considered him as other than a curiosity, especially now with Bachmann in the race.  He is right to try to make Islamofascism an issue in this campaign, but his fixation on loyalty-oaths for Muslims and the “right” of local communities to ban Mosques, is quixotic.

    I think he fumbled this one on FNS today, and he’s generally not a good candidate in these forums, and that’s part of his downfall, but, on the specific issue, it’s just stupid, and, of course, unconstitutional, as you point out.

    We have had a problem with Islamists either acting as advisors in administrations or actually being members of them, but a loyalty oath is not going to stop that.  If you’re going to populate your administration with Muslims, you just need to understand their history, and their views, same as with any other appointee.  He didn’t need to even say anything here, which is so crazy.

    On the Murfreesboro mosque, I don’t know what the point is.  If the builders have some history of non-religious agitation or lawlessness, or advocating the destruction of the country, perhaps there is some justification to deny a permit to build, but, seriously, where does Cain come up with this?  I don’t know what his point is, because it’s so inarticulately communicated.  It just comes across as, “These bubbas don’t like Muslims, and they can choose to discriminate against them.”

    Well, they may dislike them, but they can’t discriminate due to their religion.

    He’s done, and as soon as we get to the final set of candidates, the better.

  • Johndoe

    There is no way whatsoever that a Republican is going to win in November 2012. Obama is going to win and we had all better resign ourselves to it now so that we might more effectively mitigate the inevitable disappointment.

    And, once Obama is reelected, I think we can all legitimately bid our fair America a fond farewell. I trust none of us will have known her as long or as well as we would have liked.

  • Anonymous

    No president’s ever survived over 8% unemployment (more like16% including those who’ve given up looking).

    He ain’t gonna’ be the first.

    Plains, Georgia high-fives itself out of the basement on Obama’s back.

  • Anonymous

    Cain’s fear is common, and rooted in the perception that Mohammed commanded all future generations of Muslims to militarily bring the entire world under Islam. Muslims’ best weapon against this – and against Wahhabist and similar camps – is to demonstrate logically without deconstructionist spin that Mohammed issued his military commands only to his contemporaries and not to Muslims of all times.

    I kinda think Mohammed was an imperialist like all other political leaders of the day. But did he enumerate eternal imperialism in the Islamic canon?

    In this country Marxists can legally set up clubs. Marxism explicitly idealizes criminal activity, outright theft of property and the elimination of private commerce. But there’s a difference between expressing support for an ideal and conspiring to implement it. We do not go after Marxists for merely spouting off opinions. We go after them if we find evidence they’re hatching actual insurgencies.

    If we cannot ban gathering places for Marxists, who universally support policies that are illegal in the US, we certainly cannot ban mosques due to an issue over which Muslims are in vast disagreement.

  • Bucket

    When Cain explained why we have the “right” to ban mosques, his wording implied it was because Muslims follow their own set of laws. He argues that Sharia law oftentimes conflicts with our own legal system, citing its incompatibility with the First Amendment. This, he argues, makes the very practice of a religion subject to ban if the locals decide it should be.
    Can anyone name a mainstream religion that does not have its own set of “laws” and infringes upon rights otherwise granted by our legal system? Does kosher food give us the right to ban a synagogue, or the pro-life stance of the Catholic church give us the right to ban the mass?
    Herman Cain is a go-getter, a man who gets things done, and very effective in his world. But he is not a man I would trust with power of my liberty.

    • Anonymous

      “Can anyone name a mainstream religion that does not have its own set of
      “laws” and infringes upon rights otherwise granted by our legal system?”

      Um, just about all of them? Every religion has its list of what’s right and what isn’t. But how many of them have political enforcement enumerated in scripture? Certainly not Christianity; Jesus and the Apostles never set up a political code. Judaism had one, but according to the canon accepted by both Jews and Christians (the OT) , God abolished the kingdom (and thus its offices) after many Israelite breaches of contract. (IIRC, the Law of Moses did not provide punishments for violations of the dietary laws.)

      I know little of Hinduism, so I can’t say if the Vedas or the Mahabharata have any “thou shalt force thy neighbor to do such-and-such” passages. There is the practice of sati, but the Wikipedia article offers pretty solid evidence that both the Athana Veda and Rig Veda convey instructions to widows that presume that they would be leaving the husband’s funeral alive.

      (Yeah, Wikipedia ain’t exactly Harvard School of Divinity, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.)

      Given that Buddhism is focused on individual enlightenment, I can’t imagine the philosophy containing any sort of code for political controls.

      Did I miss any major religions?

Previous post:

Next post: