John's 2nd Attempt At Pontification

That’s me. It was a near tweet but I opted for here so I could expand upon it. I like the analogy because in primaries, ganging up on an opponent sometimes results in damaging the attackers, especially when the distinctions between the attackers and the target aren’t so great. Sure, the GOP field is attacking Rick Perry as “unelectable” but they don’t mean that. What they really mean is that he is least electable of the likely primary victors. Herman Cain was not, until recently, in the “likely victors” group. Rick Perry would have a challenge getting elected but, make no mistake, he can be elected. Herman Cain is not electable. He has no political experience. None. His economic plan would never get through Congress and he, so far, has given no indication of his “no really, 9-9-9 has no chance of passage what’s your real plan” plan. And, similar to Rick Perry, he has come out for entitlement reform which will tank him in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. So unlike the case with Rick Perry, in whose case arguing electability is just a tactic, arguing it with Cain is an imperative if you care about who wins in 2012. Who will take the first shot? And who will shoot him or herself in the foot while doing so?