Tag Archives: Speech

Video and transcript of Herman Cain’s Value Voter Summit speech

Did you see Herman Cain’s speech at the Value Voter Summit? (transcript linked)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Excerpt:

And so the pursuit of happiness, just like my parents pursued their definition of happiness. Mom was a domestic worker. Dad was a barber, a janitor and a chauffeur. When Dad walked off of that small farm, Dad went to pursue his American dream with the only kind of equity he had — sweat equity. And he was able to achieve his American dream, he and my mother. And Dad wanted to give us a little bit better start in life, and they did. And Dad wanted to make sure that one day he could buy a whole house for the family.

You see, growing up in Atlanta, most of the time we lived in what my brother and I called a half a house. It was a six-room house with three rooms on one side, three rooms on the other side. We lived in half of it. My brother and I, being typical kids, used to say: Dad, why do we live in a half a house? (Laughter.) Dad said: It’s a duplex. (Laughter.) Because we didn’t know that Dad was saving for his dream, which was to one day buy a whole house for the family; and he did. Dad knew that the pursuit of happiness meant working those three jobs.

And Dad also knew that the pursuit of happiness meant the three things that they instilled in my brother and I if you want to achieve your American dream; and that is, your belief in God, belief in yourself and belief in the greatest country in the world, the United States of America. And we are exceptional!

And:

A reporter asked me just yesterday: Well, aren’t you angry — (laughter) — about how America has treated you?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Laughs.)

MR. CAIN: I said: Sir, you don’t get it. (Laughter.) I have achieved all of my American dreams and then some — (cheers, applause) — because of the great nation United States of America. (Cheers, applause.) What’s there to be angry about? Angry? (Applause continues.)

America’s — one of America’s greatest strengths is its ability to change. We have weathered those changes. That’s what makes this nation great.

And:

Now Mr. Cain, what are you going to do about Iran?

Well, here’s what I’m going to do about Iran. I’m going to utilize a capability that we have that most people are unaware of. I learned about these capabilities when I served on an advisory board for the Strategic Air Command before they changed it to STRATCOM. We are the only nation in the world that has the ballistic missile detection capability at sea as well as on land — better than any other country in the world. We have the ability to upgrade those ballistic missile defense systems on all of our AEGIS warships, and we have the ability to double the number of AEGIS warships and strategically place them anywhere in the world to detect missiles fired from those locations toward a friend or toward us and knock it out of the sky before it reaches its apex.

And so I would upgrade — make it a priority to upgrade all of our AEGIS surface-to-air ballistic missile defense capability on all of our warships all the way around — all the way around the world, make that a priority, and then say to Ahmadinejad: Make my day. (Extended cheers, applause.)

And:

They want you to believe that we can’t do this. Just like three months ago I was — the pundits, the political pundits said Herman Cain can’t get the nomination, Herman Cain cannot win the presidency, because he doesn’t have high name-ID, he doesn’t have a kajillion dollars and he’s never held public office.

But let me tell you what the American people are saying. They don’t care about a katrillion dollars! America wants to raise some Cain, not raise more money! (Cheers, applause.) That’s what the voters are saying. (Cheers, applause.)

Read the whole thing! Especially for those people who don’t think they need to know what an AEGIS-enabled warship is. Herman Cain knows, because he worked on missile ballistics for the Department of the Navy.

Believe it: the reliable Gallup poll has Cain down by 2

From Gallup:

Cain trails liberal Romney by two points
Cain trails liberal Romney by two points

Steve Ertelt from Life News notes some other recent polls.

Excerpt:

The tidal wave of recent support for Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is manifesting itself in two new polls showing the pro-life businessman now running competitively with pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

The first poll, conducted by the firm Poll Position, shows Cain beating Obama in a potential head-to-head matchup by a 43.3 percent to 41.3 percent margin. In the results the firm found in its automated voice survey technology poll, Cain takes a whopping 24 percent of the African-American vote — a much higher percentage that actual Republican presidential candidates have received in elections past.

[…]Meanwhile, a new Rasmussen poll shows Cain has pulled within three points of Obama in its most recent national telephone survey of likely voters. The latest 2012 hypothetical matchup finds the president earning 42% support, while Cain picks up 39% of the vote. Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and 12% are undecided.

“The latest results represent the best showing for Cain who appears to be experiencing a surge of support among Republican voters. Late last month, the former radio host trailed the president 39% to 34%.  Obama held a seven-point lead a month earlier and led Cain by 18 points in March,” Rasmussen notes.

“Cain draws support from 70% of Republican voters, while Obama picks up the vote from 79% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party are evenly divided between the candidates. Eighty-five percent (85%) of Tea Party voters support Cain, but 55% of non-members prefer Obama,” Rasmussen continued.

Cain likely would do better against Obama, but the Rasmussen poll shows some Republican voters are concerned about his “9-9-9” tax reform plan, as most of those polled agree that if it becomes law, Congress won’t wait long to raise the tax rates higher.  Fifty-six percent (56%) of GOP voters favor Cain’s plan, but 66% of all voters think Congress would raise tax rates within five to 10 years of the plan’s adoption.

The businessman has acknowledged and addressed that concern, saying  his plan would require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes.

Rasmussen polls show Obama  leads all of the current GOP hopefuls except former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with whom he is essentially tied.  New numbers on the Romney-Obama match-up will be released tomorrow, Rasmussen indicates.

If you want to know why he is surging, watch the speech, or read the transcript.

Related posts

George W. Bush’s speech at the Flight 94 memorial

Former President George W. Bush gave a wonderful speech on Saturday in Shanksville, Pennsylvania for the 10 year anniversary of 9-11. It was one of his best. The audience including Vice President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton gave him a standing ovation.

Excerpt:

“One of the lessons of 9-11 is that evil is real and so is courage.”

Obama says that adding 4 trillion to the debt is unpatriotic… then does it

Here’s the speech from July 3, 2008:

Ha! That looks like Obama giving that speech. Oh, it is Obama. Ha ha.

In that clip, Obama says:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

Obama liked to talk about the credit card from the bank of China during the campaign. And many people who watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and Rachel Maddow believed him. They believed him because the comedians told them to believe him. They did not want to stop laughing long enough to look at Obama’s voting record to see that he was consistently getting F ratings on spending and government waste and pork in all of his years as a legislator.

So Obama said that spending 4 trillion is “unpatriotic”. But then Obama did a funny thing. CBS News reports.

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term.

Mr. Obama blames policies inherited from his predecessor’s administration for the soaring debt. He singles out:

“two wars we didn’t pay for”
“a prescription drug program for seniors…we didn’t pay for.”
“tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were not paid for.”

He goes on to blame the recession, and its resulting decrease in tax revenue on businesses, for making fewer sales, and more employees being laid off. He says the recession also resulted in more government spending due to increased unemployment insurance payments, subsidies to farms and funding of infrastructure programs that were part of his stimulus program.

Obama’s explanation for the deficits doesn’t wash, since the deficit was only $162 billion in 2007, the last year the Republicans had control of the House and Senate.

The Washington Times explains.

Excerpt:

A favorite liberal narrative is that President George W. Bush squan- dered the Clinton-era budget surpluses and piled up deficits with expensive wars and tax cuts for the rich. Candidate Barack Obama used this tale to great effect, and President Obama tells it still. Take his State of the Union address last week, when Mr. Obama attributed the Bush-era deficits to “paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

The truth is that Mr. Bush’s deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts. In fact, Mr. Obama could learn an important lesson for his own economic plan by studying Mr. Bush’s two very different attempts at tax-cutting.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

So, Bush passed his tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, but revenue went up:

Federal receipts after Bush tax cuts
Federal receipts after Bush tax cuts

And the deficits went down from 2004 to 2007:

Obama Budget Deficit 2011
Obama Budget Deficit 2011

Bush was on track to balance the budget, then Nancy Pelosi came along and added 5.34 trillion to the debt in her 4 years as Speaker.