I see what you tried to do there. Very clever. 
However, I'm saying that there is a definate liberal media bias. You are saying that Cain isn't smart enough to be president. I'm saying that the only reason he looks that way is due to the liberal media bias. You don't accomplish what he has accomplished in life by being ignorant.
I actually didn't say he wasn't smart enough, in fact I've said the opposite. What I've said is that he isn't educated enough on the topics relevant to the position. And you're right, you don't accomplish that much by being ignorant, but that doesn't mean that what he knows is applicable to the Presidency. A neurosurgeon is certainly not ignorant, nor is the person stupid. But, that doesn't mean you want them to represent you in court, or that they know how to manage a large corporation's budget and taxes.
As I said, with more experience I think Cain would be a great candidate. I don't think he's dumb. But ignorant of this particular field? Yes.
That is a lot of conjecture based upon a couple of statements. They weren't even drastically wrong statements as much as they were statements that could be taken in different contexts. To take your flailings in order, 1. Garnering support, dude was CEO of a couple of major corporations. CEOs know how to delegate and schmooze. What do you think is harder? Arm twisting congressmen who want to get reelected to spend the taxpayer's money, or arm twisting hard business folks who care only about making money to spend their own money? 2. How to manage an executive agency... Put somebody in charge of it that is good at that kind of thing and tell them Make It So. Fed.gov has agencies for everything. No president could possibly know what most of the useless organizations do. Their job is to lead, not manage. Managers are for managing. Good executives pick managers. 3. Not knowing basic info, once again, conjecture based upon a couple of statements. 4. Not knowing what the president does? Yeah, now you're just full of crap.
I'm drawing my opinion based upon several months worth of statements, not one or two.
1. They certainly share skills, but that doesn't mean that understanding one means understanding the other. A group of people on a board have the same motivation: profit. That's all well and good. In Congress though you have 535 people who all have various issues they care about, constituents to answer to, goals that they wish to pursue. Which one is harder to corral on even a fundamental goal, not even how to do it? Congress, hands down.
2. Indeed, you hire managers. But, the bucks stops with the President. If there isn't confidence in their ability to make a sound decision, then there can't be confidence that they will pick good managers.
3. Again, nope.
4. It's one thing to know what the President does, it's another thing to
know what he actually does. Being the CEO of a company isn't the same thing as running a public office. The goals are different, the processes are different, the laws are different. I don't doubt Cain's ability to learn such, but he's not there yet, and I don't think we should give him the top job until he's shown some measure of ability in that sector.
Cain was a mathmatician and he's taken nearly bankrupt giant corporations and turned them around. That's a pretty darn good real life record. Regardless of being tripped up during 24/7 questioning and saying things imperfectly, he's demonstrated in his life that he's intelligent and capable.
No doubt.
Whether you like it or not, it is now down to Romney and Cain for the Republican nomination. The most important thing is Obama goes down. Whoever gets the nod, I'm 100% behind. So the question now is Cain or Romney. Even if you are correct in every one of your concerns about Cain (which I think you are overstating a few for dramatic effect), I don't see Romney rolling back the big government cheese as much.
I don't think Romney want's to roll it back as much, no. But, I think he will roll it back more than Cain would. The reason is ability. Obama's big problem is that while he's a good campaigner, he's really a pretty lousy statesman. He is great at getting into office, but horrible at the politics that gets stuff done. Even when his party held Congress, he had to ramrod stuff through because he couldn't even get his own party on board with out liberal (haha!) use of the stick. Now, he still promises a lot, but can't get anything done.
Cain, I think if elected now, would be similar. He doesn't have the political capital or experience to count on, so unless he's a natural at legislative wrangling his efforts to roll back government are going to be a lot of words but very little results. Cain can say he will do A, B and C, and he may very well do his best to do so, but that's for not if he can't deliver it. Romney might only promise A and suggest he might also do B, but he's got the ability to actually do it.
If I've got a choice between someone who promises me 100% of what I want but can only deliver 25%, vs. someone who promises me 75% of what I want and delivers 50%, I pick the second.* Romney is not even close to my preferred candidate, but in terms of what I think he will actually accomplish, I think he's the better bet.
*All numbers made up.
