I don't believe that is Zyphlin's point at all. Rather, he is pointing to the issue that Mr. Cain's experience may be overly narrow. The problems, tasks, and goals in running a business are far narrower than those involved in governance. The former are primarily economic/financial. The latter relate to economic, financial, defense, social welfare, foreign policy, etc., matters. In the former, the trade-offs are less numerous. In the latter, they are more numerous and also more complex. In business, one is dealing with customers and completely voluntary transactions. In the latter, one is dealing with constituents and the relationships are not always voluntary. In the former, a CEO can, in cases, impose decisions to break deadlocks. In the latter, Presidents must work with others e.g., Congress, to translate vision into policy. In the former, a CEO can enjoy long tenure so long as he/she retains the confidence of the Board (over which he/she might have had substantial influence in shaping). In the latter, electoral cycles are relevant.
To date, Herman Cain has not provided any indication that he can make the leap from business success to political success. In the most recent debate, his performance was quite superficial. He seemed out of his league offering some generalities but little of concrete substance.