Video: Herman Cain supported the TARP bailouts that the Tea Party opposes

By: Wes Messamore

The truth hurts sometimes.

Here's a link to the column Herman Cain wrote to defend the TARP bailouts.


Wes Messamore, 24, blogs at his libertarian website for limited government, individual liberty, and a return to America's Constitution.


  1. Your kidding right? Did you bother to read the link you gave?

    Herman Cain,,,,

    "The problem is economic illiteracy and media incompetence. Some people want to continue to fan the flames of anger and outrage over how we got into this mess in the first place. Anger and outrage will not solve the problem"

    Just who was he speaking about,,,Wes.

    If Wes had a spine connected to his brain he would look at Bush for this and a democratically controlled congress but no, he Wes that is being a Libertarian looks to destroy the only Conservative in the running.

    'Truth hurts' you say,,Yes it does, go away Wes, your lack of education is unwanted.

  2. Chris- this was an article Cain wrote back in 2008 to support what Bush and the Democratically elected Congress did. So let me ask-- do you think the bailouts were the right thing for the government to do?

    The fact is, most people in the Tea Party did not and still do not. As they continue to vet Cain and learn more about him, they will support him less and less. There's nothing conservative about supporting bailouts.

  3. Well Wes, In your infinite wisdom what would have you done back then as just a radio host and accomplished businessman?

    The fact is, you and I are nobody, we all make miscalculations and I resent you throwing out the Tea party moniker.

    The way this bog is going it would seem to target any real conservative running and that is not the goal of the Tea Party.

  4. Christopher- This blog does not target "real" conservatives, rather it targets republicans that betray the tea party moniker by either following big government GOP back door deals (Boehner, et al) or those that have poor track records and have now come to "see the light" now that the tea party is popular. This nation cannot afford another GWB-type republican leader, we are done if they force another one down our throats....

  5. Caine specifically states that he was in support of the TARP because he thought it would work. It is entirely possible that Caine heard all the supportive arguments in favor and came to this conclusion, only to realize he was mistaken and changed his tune. Personally I don't think that one article in support of a failed policy means that he's in support of everything Obama has been doing, so I'm not going to condemn him based on this one posting. If more evidence crops up about him being another wolf in sheep's clothing, then I'll take a second look. Till then, this means basically nothing to me.

  6. Chris- I opposed the bailouts. That's not what I would have done; that's what I did. Like most Americans, I was outraged that Congress was bailing out wealthy bankers and rewarding them for their bad decisions.

    Then a few short months later the Tea Party movement swept through America as anger at those bailouts grew to a fever pitch. Most of the people who went to those Tea Parties were the ones that just a few months earlier, Cain was telling to wake up, and ridiculing as "free market purists."

    So I resent Cain for now trying to pass himself off as a Tea Party candidate because it's a good political move. I think that's dishonest and as Americans vet Cain and learn the truth about his history supporting government bailouts, they will realize he is not the real deal.

  7. Tim (Left Coast Rebel),

    This and and your recent post dispel your comment here.

    You may convince others but I am not buying it.

  8. Wes,

    I did to (oppose the bailouts) but then again are you so high and mighty that yoo have never changed your position on any given issue?

    Again, I did not nor do agree on the bailouts but my God man, do you not afford even your Mother a chance to change her mind?

    In you world view there is not one conservative to fill the spot and we will end up with fucking Huckabee! Call it Dole II

  9. I'm sorry Christopher, I really don't know what you mean, which recent post are you referring to? Do you think I have ulterior motives? I know you've been around here a while and would like to know...

  10. Tim, "ulterior motives"? No, not at all. I think your motives are plain and straight forward for all to see just as clearly as I see them.

    First attack Cain then West which happen to be the most conservative in thier fields; the 1st running and the other serving.

    I take it you being from the West you would like a floopy-fish who see's alien's like Gary Johnson?

  11. Christopher, for the record, I still like Cain but was dissapointed in his performance on Thursday night and I think that Allen West is one of the best in Congress.

    But, but, but...we need to apply pressure to those that we support because if we don't, who will? We need to call out West when he votes for a provision in Obamacare or criticize Cain's support of endless bailouts and TARP. That's what you will get here at LCR, no nonsense support of patriots and limited government heroes and no nonsense criticism of useless GOP tools that harm the conservative cause more than the Demonrats do...

    Boner, for instance. Do you know John Boner's track record? How's that working out for us these days?

    I really like Gary Johnson but I think he's nutso on open borders and a few other things. But you know what? I trust that he would not play along with shifting the chairs on the deck of the Titanic as many of the GOP 2012 folks would....

    Pawlenty, Romney, Gingrich, Huckster...they all are extremely flawed in so far as tea party principles goes.

  12. PS - I'm not saying that Cain and West are "useless GOP tools" here. I reserve that for folks like Lindsey Graham, Boner, John McCain...the list goes on.

  13. Chris- you're absolutely right that I've changed my position on issues (though not on the bailout) and I believe many people have honest changes of heart on issues. That's perfectly fine.

    But I'm not running for President of the United States. There's a big difference there. Isn't that a fair distinction to draw? It's okay to give me the benefit of the doubt when I say I used to support something, but now I don't-- it's okay because there are no stakes involved. You're not staking your future and the future of your children on my assertion that I've had an honest change of heart.

    But Herman Cain is running for President. For him to flip flop on an issue as a full-grown adult whose values should be pretty well-established by now (I'm only 24, by the way), and to do so in a way that he has an obvious incentive to for political reasons... that's inherently suspicious. He shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt when the stakes are so high.

    Why gamble your future on the chance that a politician is telling you the truth when he says he's changed his mind about something? Why stake your prosperity and freedom on the words of someone who has something to gain by deceiving you?

    Instead, pick a politician with an unblemished record on the most crucial issue of our day: the size, role, and influence of DC threatening the future of our Republic. Pick someone who you know isn't lying to you for political gain because they have a consistent record of words and actions to prove it.

  14. Tim,, You say "no nonsense support" and then "I really like Gary Johnson"???

    How do you expect anyone to support anything you say?

    Jesus Christ man, Cain beat the fricking paint's off the RINO's at that 'debate' and you are "disappointed"? What, would have him draw a pistol and shoot them to satisfy your desires?

  15. Wes, "But I'm not running for President of the United States. There's a big difference there"

    Thats my point. You can armchair quarterback just like I can but you lessen the chances of your "fantasy game" when you attack those that can win it for you.

    When you get "in the real game" I and others might attack you for previous decisions,,think about it.

  16. Cain did beat the pants off the RINOs but did NOT provide specifics on many of his answers...Johnson's performance was much worse, horrible, actually.

    Perhaps LCR just isn't a good fit for where you are at philosophically? I'm more libertarian than I have ever been but am also a born-and-raised red blooded conservative...

    And yes, a good old fashioned Old West style shootout may be just what we need :)

  17. BTW, what Wes said:

    Instead, pick a politician with an unblemished record on the most crucial issue of our day: the size, role, and influence of DC threatening the future of our Republic. Pick someone who you know isn't lying to you for political gain because they have a consistent record of words and actions to prove it.

  18. Wes says it better than most: That is the beginning and end of ALL that matters right now.

  19. Tim, Now I think all can agree that was hardly a debate, right?

    Also, what any of them said depended on the questions asked so I go back to my first point.

    As to LCR, up until this point we have agreed but I see no need to depart as I believe healthy debate is required, do you not?

    I am from the Detroit area and am fully armed so I am no stranger to the 2nd Amendment, but it was not necessary in SC.

    Tim, I like you but are you serious; "pick a politician with an unblemished record"?

    If you happen to be Christian you might remember "Those without sin cast the first stone". If you have not I suggest researching it.

  20. Hmm, I think it was a debate but somewhat amateurish.

    Cain's answers rang hollow to me which was dissapointing.

    Healthy debate is good (case in point here)

    I am a HUGE supporter of gun rights and the Wild West mention was a total joke here.

    I am serious in that a candidate must have an unblemished record in defense of saving this country from bankruptcy.

  21. Honestly I don't know what was so great about Cain's performance at the debate. Was it when he said you've got to identify the problem and then solve the problem? Gee, thanks for the advice.

    See Ron Paul actually did identify the problem. He said we have a philosophical problem in America, not an accounting one. He said we think government can run our lives-- and by extension the rest of the world's lives. He said the solution is to return to our Constitution.

    He has a record to prove that he means exactly what he says. You don't have to just trust him when he says he will reign in spending. He's been on record for years now voting to reign in spending, even when it was unpopular for him. You don't have to gamble your future on the hope that he's telling you the truth. You know he is.

  22. Oh shit, I shold have figured on a Ron Paul supporter (if Gary Jonhson was not bad enough)

    How many aliens has he seen?

  23. Cain is the bankers candidate.

  24. Come on Chris- all these swipes at Ron Paul for being "weird" or "kooky" are getting tired. He served in his nation's military for five years, he opened up his own practice as a physician, he's been married to the same woman his entire life, he's never done drugs or alcohol. He's a good, normal, down-to-earth American with family values and principles he's stuck to all his life.

    You honestly want to look at the sex scandals, divorces, ridiculous gaffes, environmental fear-mongering, flip-flopping on issues, and everything else about most other politicians trying to get the GOP nomination and tell me it's not the biggest freakshow this country's seen since Barnum?

  25. Wes: "But I'm not running for President of the United States. There's a big difference there"

    Oh Lord! I guess no one would satisfy you except Jesus Christ! Oh yes, or Ron Paul, of course.

    Perhaps you do not hold Ronald Reagan in as high regard as I do, but perhaps you will agree that he was at least a passably good President. He ran as a Republican, and he was pretty conservative on most issues, but,he started off as a Democrat!

    In your eyes then I suppose Reagan would be disqualified as President.

    Question, if I can document a time where Ron Paul changed his mind on an issue, will you stop supporting him?


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.