There's a minor kerfuffle going on about something that Herman Cain said. It's widely reported that he said he couldn't support Rick Perry as the Republican nominee.
Yep. That's what he said. And that bothers me.
You see, I've been going on and on about how, no matter who the GOP nominee is, we need to support him. And some of you get your panties all in a wad about that.
"I'm not ever going to support Mitt Romney!"
"I won't vote for Rick Perry!"
"If Sarah Palin isn't the nominee, I'm not voting!"
"If Sarah Palin is the nominee, I'm not voting!"
"Ron Paul is nuts!"
Okay, that last one is okay. But still, nuts as he is, he'd a darn sight better than Barack Obama. But some of you are saying you won't support this guy or that girl. Well, now Herman Cain sounds a lot like some of you people. Maybe he's pandering to the panties-in-a-wad crowd.
I don't care for that. I suspect Cain will backtrack, and soon. He'll come up with some statement that sounds like some crafted statement talking about how we can disagree about important issues, but still have the same overriding goal: defeat Barack Obama and return competence to the White House.
But what should have say? Or, better, what should he have said to Wolf Blitzer's question, "Could you support Rick Perry if he were the nominee?"
- Against Obama? Of course. Hell, Wolf, I'd support you over Barack Obama.
- I fully support Rick Perry for vice-president.
- I would support Rick Perry if Zombie Reagan turned down the nomination.
- Nine, nine, nine.
- Not if he was the Democrat nominee. Has he switched back to being a Democrat?
- That's a stupid question, Wolf. What do you think I'm going to say? That I wouldn't support Rick Perry? Do you think I'm nuts