Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 696314 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
2012 Presidential: The Cain, Gingrich Debate Lincoln-Douglas Style
« Reply #950 on: November 06, 2011, 07:34:11 AM »
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Cain-Gingrich-Debate-Lincoln-Douglas-Style/10737425199/

Under 'Video Playlist', click on "Cain, Gingrich Debate".  The thank yous end and the first question from the moderator Iowa Rep, Steve King begins around the 6:00 mark

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #951 on: November 06, 2011, 03:10:34 PM »
Cranewings: "do you guys still think Herman Cain is serious?"

1) He was this year's keynote speaker at CPAC earlier this year, sort of a dream candidate for people on the conservative side of the spectrum.  What changed?

2) Not much overlap IMO between video game players and Republican primary voters, but I am thankful to have someone else follow the Huff Post and post their best content so that I don't have to.

3) Nothing in the settlement story says that Cain was part of the settlement nor that the date was inspiration for a tax plan, lol.  The well compensated women who once felt uncomfortable story has now been beaten to death without us knowing either what he is accused of or what actually happened.  More likely it has served like a small virus to have caused the buildup of strong antibodies around the candidate to fight off the next wave of attacks from the chorus of haters who started singing long before this non-story broke.

4) The smear against the Koch brothers lands excitement only on the anti-business, anti-capitalism side of electorate that is not going to be pro-Cain or pro-Republican in the first place.

5) "He did take a month off to tour his book when he first took the lead in the polls."  FYI, he still leads in the polls and they all have a book.  It is a form of self promotion that every professional adviser must tell all of them to do.  Traveling and speaking about a book about how you will make a great President is remarkably similar to traveling and promoting yourself as a candidate who will make a great President.  Book sales are how Bill and Hillary got rich, how Obama got rich, and Palin, Gingrich,  etc. Pawlenty tried it: http://www.amazon.com/Courage-Stand-American-Tim-Pawlenty/dp/1414345720/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320616513&sr=1-1Romney book: http://www.amazon.com/No-Apology-Believe-Mitt-Romney/dp/B0055X6EPW/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 Perry book: http://www.amazon.com/Fed-Up-Fight-America-Washington/dp/B005X495KO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320597359&sr=1-1 Bachmann: http://www.amazon.com/Core-Conviction-Story-Michele-Bachmann/dp/1595230904  Even Huntsman: http://www.amazon.com/Winners-Never-Cheat-Everyday-Forgotten/dp/0131863665 Cain already has financial success but the ability to hop on a plane and criss-cross the country without worrying about the cost or going broke is staying power in a long race, and the ability to take a year and a half off of work to campaign is a necessity in their business.  Every book sold puts a conversation piece into the living room an American household. For a guy who started with near zero name recognition, that serves a purpose.

6) Cains sings, Clinton played saxophone, Obama played a little pick up basketball and some really lousy golf.  Doesn't seem to be the deciding issue for any of them.

7) "This whole thing seems like a joke."  It could be that your summary points of his candidacy did not cover: "this whole thing", such as any of his good qualities.

Who do YOU support?  Why?

Cranewings

  • Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #952 on: November 06, 2011, 07:44:44 PM »
DougMac, fair enough. I was just kind of pulling your chains with that last post anyway.

I'm voting for Obama. I never voted for a democrat or republican in a presidential election, but I have to go with Obama on this one. I don't think Herman Cain is going to win the primary. I think his original reason for running was to build up his reputation. I don't think he really meant to get this far and I don't think it is his time. His 9/9/9 tax plan isn't something I can buy into. I don't believe for a second that it is going to spur enough economic growth to offset the fact that the government will only pull in half the amount under it, and without a lot of growth, this just shifts the tax burden to the poor. Right now, half the country doesn't pay any income tax. Under Cain, already poor people will end up paying a 9% sales tax. It isn't right in my book. I think his plan was invented to earn street cred with hard core trickle down conservatives, but I don't think it is good for the country.

Mitt Romney could come back, but I can't trust him. I wish he would just be the liberal he was born to be, but I'm afraid his soulless desire to be popular will cause him to do some unpredictable and unappreciated things.

In any case, I'd never support anyone from the tea party. They don't break from republican leadership. They came into congress claiming to be about financial responsibility and jobs, but I'm not seeing it. I think they just want to watch the country burn so that Obama will get voted out.

Besides, the tea party candidates won't fix the economy. All they will actually end up doing is waging war on women and homosexuals. I'm sure they will try to bring back don't ask don't tell and attack abortion rights and planned parenthood. While I don't agree with abortion as contraception, I don't believe I have the right to restrict it. The tea party's hard core attack on civil liberties and excitement for torture make them really scary, even if I could believe they were really looking out for the welfare of the country. Personally, I think the movement has been fabricated to appeal to conservatives' sense of fairness and responsibility for the purpose of helping unleash the full power of the 1% to rip them off.

As far as Obama, I don't know that he failed. The economy is stalled, but would it be worse without the stimulus? Some people think so. Does he help his donors get rich? Sure. I think there is some corruption. But he's done a lot for civil liberties, I don't know that the stimulus was the wrong move, I agreed with the action in Libya, I LOVE his attitude on foreign policy. I think the fact that he bows to kings is brilliant. I'm not so prideful that I need to see him walk over them. I think it is righteous that he lowers himself, because he is in the higher position. He's not perfect, but, he is good. I didn't vote for him before because I thought his hope and change was full of shit, but I'm a little sorry now I didn't.

Edit: By the way, I like to let Brian Williams do my thinking for me ;)
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 08:15:13 PM by Cranewings »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #953 on: November 06, 2011, 09:54:51 PM »
CW,  I can't tell with just the written word if you are still pulling my chain a little, but thanks for opening up on a variety of issues.

Cranewings

  • Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #954 on: November 06, 2011, 09:56:25 PM »
CW,  I can't tell with just the written word if you are still pulling my chain a little, but thanks for opening up on a variety of issues.

I do troll on occasion, but those really are my thoughts.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #955 on: November 07, 2011, 07:36:29 AM »
CW writes

On the Tea Party "I think they just want to watch the country burn so that Obama will get voted out"

No doubt they want Obama out but it is to save the country.   The country is burning precisely because of the spending of the Democrats and the spending of Republicans trying to out buy votes.

You may not agree with them but your post suggests you miss their points entirely.  You state you never voted for a Dem or Rep in a presidential election.  So do you vote Nader or Paul didn't he run as a libertarian?

"But he's done a lot for civil liberties"
"All they will actually end up doing is waging war on women and homosexuals."

Who is stopping anyone from being or living gay?  Waging war on women?  What?  Could you mean the millions fo single women who now want the taxpayers to pay for the care and nurturing of their children?  Or is this an abortion thng you speak of?
As for abortion that is a difficult issue.   Everyone has their own view.  I am generelly against it yet to say it is wrong in rape incest etc is too far for me.  And generally, I can't feel as emotionally agianst it as many Evangelicals who for a long time absolutely did hyjack the Rep party and make this the single paramount issue.

"As far as Obama, I don't know that he failed. The economy is stalled, but would it be worse without the stimulus?"

Yes, many make this argument.  Bush of course started the stimulus thing.  Unfortunately we are 14 + trillion in debt and if Brock has his way this can only get worse.

"I think the fact that he bows to kings is brilliant."

Do you really think they like us more because he does.  He looks like a fool and I can assure you *they* think he he is a fool.
Why should they not bow to him?

"excitement for torture"

You mean water boarding of a small handful of enemies and murderers of US citizens?  This is pure partisan stuff.

What about Brock's cover up of guns going to Mexico that leads to torture/murder there?

CW I am not sure if you are a liberal Democrat or possibly a Paul fan, or gay or single mother or what but it is great to have your divergent opinion on the board.

 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #956 on: November 07, 2011, 11:18:05 AM »
CCP:  "CW I am not sure if you are a liberal Democrat or possibly a Paul fan, or gay or single mother or what but it is great to have your divergent opinion on the board."

 :-D  My feeling exactly.  I was thinking shoot back with point by point arguments but my views are already all over these pages.  I asked who he liked and why, and he gave a straight answer.  That is a great post!


Cranewings

  • Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #957 on: November 07, 2011, 02:58:31 PM »
ccp, I'm all for prosecuting politicians. The guns to mexico thing is ripe for investigation. I don't know a whole lot about it honestly. I do support any legitimate legal action taken against the administration. I just don't know much about the inner workings of those organizations, what they could really expect to accomplish, or what isn't finger pointing spin.

By waging war on homosexuals and women, I mean appointing conservative judges that will block gay rights, defunding planned parenthood, anti-abortion legislation, reinstating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'm a white straight male, engaged, and never had a problem understanding birth control. These things don't concern my life, but I understand that they impact other peoples. I don't know who is right about a lot of complicated issues, but I do know which side is attacking their civil liberties. Without a dog in the fight, I want to leave those people alone. I don't buy that the military will be sub-par with gays or that homosexual marriage damages strait marriage. I'm unprejudiced towards them. I feel no effect from them. I don't empathize from people that claim their marriages are being weakened by encountering homosexuals.

Quote
"I think the fact that he bows to kings is brilliant."

Do you really think they like us more because he does.  He looks like a fool and I can assure you *they* think he he is a fool.
Why should they not bow to him?

Well, he is a pig faced book nerd. I don't doubt they think he is a fool. Displaying humility is important and I think his effort was a good one. I don't think it was genuine. He looked like an uppity bitch when Netanyahu schooled him, but at least he is trying and I think it works.

As far as the water boarding, I've got a no tolerance policy on that sort of thing. I have some idea of the fantastic levels of suffering you can put a person through without damaging them. Using those techniques on them is only a step on the way to what they really want, using them on us. Next thing you know they will be grabbing OWS protestors to find out who the rapists are (;

Anyway, I feel a giant slap on the wrist for being off topic on the way so I say that this is more defense on why I do not support the conservative candidates for president.

I used to be a Ron Paul supporter, obviously I guess. I think I only ever caught him on his best days. He seemed like a tool during the recent debates. I am a registered republican so you know Mitt can expect a vote from me.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #958 on: November 07, 2011, 03:46:06 PM »
said Cain suddenly reached out and grabbed her after drinks and dinner in Washington D.C. in the summer of 1997. She had left her association job in Chicago, Bialek said, and had traveled to Washington to meet with Cain to ask him for help finding a new job.

I dunno.  Perhaps he was a sleaze but this sounds weird to.  Travel from Chicago to DC and have dinner and drinks and go to the mans car.

Sounds somehow like a set up.

In any case I find it difficult to accept Cain based not on any of this stuff but anyone who doesn't know China has nucs running for the Presidency....

Maybe Newt can still turn it around.  Maybe he needs some ADHD meds...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
WSJ: Romney's awakening
« Reply #959 on: November 07, 2011, 04:59:31 PM »
Mitt Romney's Presidential campaign strategy so far has been to play it safe and leave the bold policy ideas to others. So it's notable that the former Massachusetts Governor is finally beginning to wade into the deeper end of the reform pool.

In a speech last Friday, Mr. Romney laid out in more detail than he has before how he'd attack our fiscal maladies, and his remarks deserve more attention than they've received as a guide to how he might govern. His policy outline isn't the 2012 House Republican budget, but it qualifies as progress, especially on entitlements.

Like most other Republicans, Mr. Romney sets out a target of returning federal spending to around 20% of the economy by the end of his first term. That's in line with the modern historic average and down from the Obama heights of 24%-25%. It's also the right fiscal priority, because returning to pre-2009 spending levels is the only way to balance the budget without a huge tax increase.

To get there, Mr. Romney says he'll apply a simple cost-benefit test across the government: "Is this program so critical, so essential, that we should borrow money from China to pay for it?" That's a needless jingoistic formulation, but it does frame the question correctly in terms of choosing the programs that government should still pay for.

The mistake budget-cutters have made in the past is assuming that you can cut everything across the board. The political price of cutting a program is a high as it is for killing it, but the programs live to spend another day and grow back over time. To really balance the books, the feds have to make choices. Mr. Romney says his choices for elimination would include both the large (the Affordable Care Act) and less so (Amtrak, Planned Parenthood funding), and at least he's naming a few names.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press
 
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
.Mr. Romney's bigger breakthrough is on the growth of the entitlement state, which is now 55% of the government and climbing. On Social Security, he endorsed "progressive indexing," essentially an income test that would slow the increase in future benefits for wealthier seniors. He would also gradually raise the retirement age to adjust for longer life spans.

The candidate notably didn't endorse private Social Security accounts so younger workers can build up wealth that they would own and be able to pass along to heirs. On this point his proposal is inferior to Rick Perry's or Herman Cain's, but he's offering more reform than President Obama ever has.

On Medicaid, Mr. Romney favors block grants to the states capped at inflation plus 1%, which means Governors would lead a wave of federalist experimentation instead of merely expanding the rolls with national taxpayers picking up the bill. This is now GOP orthodoxy, but no less valuable for that.

As for the hardest nut, Medicare, Mr. Romney has moved about two-thirds of the way toward Paul Ryan's "premium support" plan. Like the Wisconsin Congressman, he'd give all seniors a defined cash contribution to choose among private insurance options.

Still to come are major details like how the premium-support payments would grow over time, but even endorsing the Ryan concept is unusual in this Republican field. (Jon Huntsman is the laudable exception.) Mr. Romney also attempts to inoculate himself against Mr. Obama's inevitable Mediscare attacks by retaining traditional fee-for-service Medicare with its arbitrary price controls as an option for seniors, unlike Mr. Ryan.

But the key reform point is that Mr. Romney says that all beneficiaries would receive the same fixed payment whatever plan they chose. In other words, premium support would ensure that all seniors get basic coverage, but if they wanted more expansive coverage they'd have to pay for it themselves. This would introduce competition to keep down costs over time—the alternative to the brute price controls and rationing of ObamaCare.

Once seniors begin to see the results of competition, our guess is that most of them would migrate away from the Medicare status quo. Mr. Ryan's plan is purer and would do more practical good sooner, but Mr. Romney's revision may be an easier sell in a campaign. He also ruled out new taxes as part of entitlement reform, an important political marker.

***
This reform progress is politically important because it moves Mr. Romney toward making the 2012 contest a philosophical choice over the direction of government, rather than merely a technocratic argument over who can create more jobs. One problem with Mr. Romney's earlier rollout of 59—count 'em, 59!—proposals for job creation is that by the end of the campaign Mr. Obama will claim to agree with 50 or more of them.

Mr. Obama will want to blur the philosophic differences, while attacking Mr. Romney's bona fides on jobs by trashing his record at Bain Capital. Mr. Romney's record in Massachusetts makes it hard for him to draw a distinction with Mr. Obama on health care, and the Republican seems to be shying away from a fight over taxes—for example, he's adopted Mr. Obama's $200,000 income threshold for cutting capital gains and dividend taxes. That would let Mr. Obama fight the tax debate solely on his terms of soaking the rich, rather than on reform to spur economic growth.

What next year's GOP nominee needs is a clear reform alternative to Mr. Obama's vision of ever more government and the higher taxes necessary to pay for it. Mr. Romney still needs a bolder economic growth agenda, but his fiscal awakening is encouraging.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #960 on: November 07, 2011, 05:01:39 PM »
second post

Re Cain and China's nukes:  I think if you look at the whole transcript it will be clear that he was talking about development of a certain aspect of nuke technology.  The Pravdas simply are trying to plant a false meme.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential - Cain's 4th accuser
« Reply #961 on: November 07, 2011, 09:54:13 PM »
Cain's 4th accuser made a statement.  Looks like part of CCP's post cut out, here is one link to it: Intro: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/gloria-allred-represents-4th-woman-accusing-herman-cain-14898436?tab=9482931&section=2808950&playlist=2808979  Accuser: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/herman-cain-accuser-sharon-bialek-says-he-reached-for-my-genitals-14898646

I watched it.  She sounds believable to a point.  Suddenly in a place where no one but the two of them will know, he put his hand on her thigh...  This is either true or not true, only the two of them will know. Otherwise there was a great deal of specificity in her story including a real name for once, a real face, a real reason for being there, she told real people contemporaneously, has put herself up for scrutiny and didn't profit from it, at least then.

Seems to me that something will break down in her story if he is innocent and something will break down in his story if all accusations are true.  I will guess they are either all true or all false.   If true, it is too late to just accept him as a Bill Clinton / Sam Malone babe-hound; he has staked his reputation and his campaign on his denials, and did I mention the double standard.  If it is all false, there will be some crack in the accusers' stories.

On first listen I didn't find the steamy details very believable, and she has a celebrity level attorney.   But... it is number 4 and the first two made serious, contemporaneous complaints.  This is not a Clarence Thomas, one accuser, no report story.  It is also not what Bill Clinton faced in January 1992.  Gennifer Flowers was a consensual relationship, Clinton denied it and he had a Democrat constituency and media to persuade.  Paula Jones did not come forward for another 2 years.  Clinton, who didn't inhale, won with 43% of the vote in the general election.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 10:24:21 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential - Cain on China developing nuclear capability
« Reply #962 on: November 07, 2011, 10:19:39 PM »
"Re Cain and China's nukes:  I think if you look at the whole transcript it will be clear that he was talking about development of a certain aspect of nuke technology.  The Pravdas simply are trying to plant a false meme."

Video at this link: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-worried-about-china-developing-nuclear-capability-despite-50-year-nuclear-program/

Can't say that I agree with you but I would say that what he said flew fine with interviewer Judy Woodruff who moved right on to the next question.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential - Bill Bennett on Cain
« Reply #963 on: November 07, 2011, 10:52:00 PM »
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/opinion/bennett-cain-sex-harassment-allegations/
Bill Bennett writing on CNN:
When I became one of Bill Clinton's earliest and chief accusers for the sexual harassment charges against him, two things were eminently true about my motives: (a) I did not become an accuser because Bill Clinton was a Democrat and I was a Republican, I didn't care one whit what the partisan fallout would be; and (b) I spoke out because the charges were plentiful enough and serious enough (I repeat, charges, not facts) to degrade not only all of our politics but all of our country, and because there are certain codes of honor, written and unwritten, for all men, Democrat and Republican. Indeed I wrote a book on this, laying it out, even before we knew the full extent of Bill Clinton's lies.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for those members of the media who didn't take the charges and allegations against Bill Clinton seriously to be taking the allegations against Herman Cain that we now have as seriously as they are. Hypocritical is probably too soft a word, frankly.

That said, Herman Cain and his campaign chief of staff, Mark Block, cannot go on as they have. There has been a pattern now that is both unhealthy for our politics and unhealthy for our polity.

Four women are not an insignificant number. One or two anonymous charges, perhaps. Three anonymous charges (where, as I understand the story, Cain knows of at least two of the women) plus one woman who went very public and opened herself up to all manner of investigation are a lot. It is no longer insignificant. Neither is it insignificant that the Cain campaign discounted the charges in the initial stories, saying they were based on anonymous sources, only to make a mockery by blaming other campaigns with less substantiation than the original stories.

If Herman Cain wants to be taken seriously as a public advocate for anything, never mind running for the chief executive and commander in chief of the most powerful and important and blessed country in the world, he needs to give a full press conference dedicated exclusively to this issue and these allegations.

I have watched long enough and held my tongue long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, but can no longer say this is a witch hunt, "a lynching" to use his word, or any other euphemism. There are allegations out there that matter and they have stacked up. For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn't matter makes us the hypocrites as well.

As I say, all of this is bad for our politics and polity. If Herman Cain cannot stand up to these charges, if he refuses to, then he should step out of the race. A man big enough to run for president should be big enough to have a full and candid press conference on all of this -- he wants us to elect him president after all, he's asking us to trust our lives and the country's life to him. This could be one of his finest moments and it could be one of his worst. But either way, he must confront the moment candidly and manfully.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #964 on: November 08, 2011, 06:26:19 AM »
Anonymous accusations carry little weight with me.

Women listen to other women in these things on a different level than men do.  FWIW my wife watched the snippets on the news and reacted rather poorly to this particular woman (thought she was looking for her 15 minutes of fame and how she could profit from it) and wondered why Gloria Alred, or any attorney for that matter, needed to be there.

Although Bill Bennet over the years has made points with which I agree, has never impressed me that much and his logic here does not overwhelm me.  He certainly understates the case against Bill Clinton.  In addition to the serial philandering (which included using state troopers as lookouts for Hillary) As an attorney general in AK Bill Clinton was accused of rape (Juanita Broderick) As Gov. he had a trooper bring a state employee to him and dropped his drawers.  As president, he groped a woman (name slips my mind) who came to him to plead for her husband's job and while she was there her husband committed suicide  (not to mention getting a blow job while in the Oval Office from Monica Lewinsky).


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #965 on: November 08, 2011, 07:27:01 AM »
Yes the double standard about Clinton vs Cain is obvious with regards to the MSM.

Someone points out that Jones didn't come out with her allegations for two years.  However, this lady didn't come out with it for 14.

In any case for her to pretend she is so innocent and was cruely injured for life over this is a stretch.  As Savage points out it was by her own statement a weird response on her part to state she told him she wouldn't do anything with him because she "has a boyfriend".

For her to say she is coming forward to give other women the strength to come forward is totally non believable.  Of course she wants money out of this.

Allred has been making big bucks off these cases and of course is a liberal crat who relishes in taking down Republicans as she did the same to Arni and Meg.

Neither one in my book has much credibility.

OTOH Cain has proven he is in way over his head.  I hoped he would handle this in a way he would've come out stronger but he obivously has no clue and his handlers are obviously not wrold class.

For me it is down to Mit or Newt.  Just my armchair take.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #967 on: November 08, 2011, 02:51:27 PM »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-herman-cain-accuser-1108-20111108,0,2247743,full.story

Cain accuser has history of financial troubles, legal squabbles
Her father, fiance say they stand with her
 
10:03 p.m. CST, November 7, 2011
The emerging portrait of Herman Cain's most recent accuser shows a suburban homemaker with a history of financial and legal troubles, but one who supporters say has the guts to do the right thing.

Sharon Bialek, 50, is the fourth woman — and the first publicly — to accuse the Republican presidential hopeful of sexual harassment. In a dramatic news conference Monday in New York, Bialek, a former employee of the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation, said she had sought Cain's help in finding a new job in July 1997 shortly after the organization had fired her.

Instead, Bialek said, Cain, who was then head of the restaurant association, reached under her skirt while the two were seated in a parked car and attempted to move her head toward his crotch. Cain's campaign quickly issued a denial, calling her allegations "completely false."

Bialek said she shared her allegations with her then-boyfriend and another male friend shortly after her meeting with Cain. However, the man she is now engaged to said she did not tell him about her history with the former Godfather's Pizza CEO until Friday night, when she told him she was going to New York for the news conference.

Her fiance, Mark Harwood, said he was in "a bit of shock" but admired her decision to come forward.

"It's not an anti-political thing. It's not a money thing," said Harwood, who shares a large, five-bedroom home with Bialek in north suburban Mundelein. "She's just trying to do the right thing, and that takes guts."

Born and raised in Chicago, Bialek graduated from Carl Schurz High School on the Northwest Side and briefly attended Northeastern Illinois University before enrolling at Arizona State University. She graduated from ASU in 1983 with a communications degree, a school spokesman said.

Records show she twice has filed for personal bankruptcy, first in 1991 and then again in 2001. In the latter case, she claimed $5,700 in assets and more than $36,000 in liabilities. Among the creditors seeking payment was a management firm demanding back rent of $4,500, four credit card companies and a lawyer asking for his legal fees.

After the case was discharged, she accused a former boyfriend of harassing her for repayment of a loan, court records in the bankruptcy case show. Bialek borrowed $4,500 from William Concha, though Concha now believes she had no intention of paying him back, according to his brother, Mario.

Reached Monday night in Spain, William Concha declined comment.

At least two liens have been filed against Bialek, according to records from the Cook County recorder of deeds.

The IRS filed a tax lien against her in 2009 for nearly $5,200. In August, the Illinois Department of Revenue claimed Bialek owed the state more than $4,300, including penalties and interest, relating to income taxes from 2004, according to county records.

Court records also show creditors took legal action against her during the past decade, including at least one lawsuit filed in Cook County.

Bialek's fiance, however, denied she had any current money problems. Harwood, a corporate executive in the medical equipment industry, said he supports her financially so she can stay at home with her 13-year-old son from a previous relationship.

Bialek has not had a job outside the home in about two years, according to her attorney, Gloria Allred.

After leaving the restaurant foundation in 1997, Bialek worked for five years in WGN Radio's marketing department, Allred said. A Tribune Co. spokesman declined comment on her employment with the station.

Bialek also spent 21/2 years at CBS Radio as managing director for nontraditional revenue, Allred said. She previously had co-hosted a cooking show on television for nine years and worked for Revlon as an account manager and for the Easter Seals Society in corporate development, according to her lawyer.

Allred described her client as a "registered Republican," though Bialek does not have an active voter card in Illinois, election officials said. The state does not allow voters to register by party, but records show she pulled a GOP ballot in the 2008 primary.

As well as becoming acquainted with Cain, Bialek has had at least one more famous friend over the years. Current White Sox analyst Steve Stone confirmed Monday night that he dated Bialek in the 1980s.

Bialek met her fiance online several years ago. After communicating via email for many months, they fell in love on their first date, which lasted 72 hours, Harwood said.

The couple moved in together four years ago and got engaged while vacationing in Venice, Italy, in June 2010.

"Sharon is very much one of these women with a huge heart and always trying to do the right thing," Harwood said. "Sometimes I have to pull the reins in."

Bialek told reporters she had not seen Cain for more than 14 years after the alleged incident, until she went to a tea party convention organized by WIND 560-AM in the northwest suburbs last month. While at the event, she approached Cain, who indicated he remembered her and looked uncomfortable, she said.

"I kept wondering whether he had done to other women what he had done to me and whether anyone was going to speak up about it," she said.

Monday night on CNN, Piers Morgan asked Bialek if she thinks Cain should become president.

"I don't think we can have anyone in the White House who is unable to tell the truth," Bialek replied.

Her father, Chester Bialek, said he did not know about his daughter's allegation until Monday. Reached at his home in Arizona, he said he was surprised by the revelation but supported her decision to come forward.

"I'm very proud of my daughter, that's all I can tell you," he said.

As TV trucks pulled up in front of her Mundelein home and reporters rang the doorbell, Harwood said his fiancee does not plan any legal action against Cain and does not intend to stand in the political spotlight for very long.

"We're in it together," he said. "My only concern is that it not become some type of media circus."

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Reports of Newt's ex-wife's death greatly exaggerated
« Reply #968 on: November 08, 2011, 07:33:29 PM »
http://www.nomblog.com/8568/

My father, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, has been in politics as long as I can remember.

And as long as I can remember, media coverage about him has contained misstatements of facts. The vast majority are simple mistakes that are easily corrected, understood and rewoven into an ongoing storyline.

But one of them seems to have taken on a life of its own, and simple corrections have not sufficed to set the record straight. Why does this happen? I can't be sure, but I suspect that the narrative created by these untruths proves to be so much more compelling and more dramatic than what actually happened that it proves irresistible.

I'm talking about the story of my father's visit to my mother while she was in the hospital in 1980.

For years, I have thought about trying to correct the untrue accounts of this hospital visit. After all, I was at the hospital with them, and saw and heard what happened. But I have always hesitated, as it was a private family matter and my mother is a very private person. In addition, for the four people involved, it was one of a million interactions and was not considered a defining event by any of us.

My mother and I have both recently run into quite a few people who hold an inaccurate understanding of this hospital visit. Many think my mother is dead.

So, to correct the record, here is what happened: My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a "Miracle Mom," as I titled her in a column this week.

As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me.

It was the spring of 1980. I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

The tumor was benign.

As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.

As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on.

We are not a perfect family, but we are knit together through common bonds, commitment and love.

My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both.

My sister and I feel that it is time to move on, close the book on this event and focus on building a great future. We will not answer additional questions or make additional comments regarding this meaningless incident, which occurred more than three decades ago.

As I said, my mother is a private person. She will not give media interviews. She deserves respect and should be allowed to live in peace.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
More on Cain's accuser
« Reply #969 on: November 08, 2011, 08:37:33 PM »
second post-- following up with more detail to what GM already posted:

Who is Sharon Bialek?
Posted on November 8, 2011 by admin
As Ms. Sharon Bialek has placed herself in the public spotlight through making patently false allegations against Herman Cain, it is only fair to compare her track record alongside Mr. Cain’s.

In stark contrast to Mr. Cain’s four decades spent climbing the corporate ladder rising to the level of CEO at multiple successful business enterprises, Ms. Bialek has taken a far different path.

The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances – which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred.

In the courts, Ms. Bialek has had a lengthy record in the Cook County Court system over various civil lawsuits. The following cases on file in Cook County are:

■2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management
■2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
■2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
■2005-M1-111072 Defendant in lawsuit against Mr. Mark Beatovic.
■2007-M1-189176 Defendant in lawsuit against Midland Funding.
■2009-M1-158826 Defendant in lawsuit against Illinois Lending.
Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV). Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011

In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001. The respective case numbers according to the PACER system are 1:01-bk-22664 and 1:91-bk-23273.

Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years. Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011

Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago.

Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?

The questions should be – who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions?

For More Information:
J.D. Gordon, Vice President of Communications
Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Extended conversation with Newt on Bret Baier Report
« Reply #970 on: November 08, 2011, 09:47:34 PM »
Third post:

Good conversation!

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/index.html#/v/1265332888001/special-report-online-newt-gingrich/?playlist_id=86927

Now that we have learned that Newt did not divorce his dying wife on her deathbed, maybe the fact that he is head and shoulders above any of the other candidates will carry more weight.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #971 on: November 08, 2011, 10:30:02 PM »
Let's see if I have this right. Cain Accuser no. 4 is not convincing, has already accused and sued everyone, accusers 1, 2 and 3 are anonymous and not coming forward.  The opportunistic liberal attorneys brought forward accuser no. 4, who is a registered Republican and nothing is even alleged to have happened on 5 who never got the message or attended the imagined romantic dinner.  That figures. Friend of Anonymous 1 corroborates something contemporaneous was said, would come forward but stays anonymous to protect the anonymity of Anonymous Accuser 1.  Is that about it?  The Caper about the Copper Clappers with Jack Webb and Johnny Carson is easier than this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkZZsS-66c
------------
Newt has one remaining episode to explain and then he is good to go.  When did he start seeing Callista (1993?) and when did he quit starting every sentence with Marianne and I? (1999)   The overlap was roughly during the time of the contract with America, the takeover of Congress, the government shutdown and the Clinton impeachment until Newt gave up his Speakership and resigned from his seat in Congress.  Newt converted Catholic, but maybe should have gone with the Mormon defense.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/08/an-unabridged-guide-to-all-of-newt-gingrichs-wives
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 10:36:10 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Extended conversation with Newt on Bret Baier Report
« Reply #972 on: November 08, 2011, 10:42:52 PM »
Newt still has major character issues and questionable judgement that outshadow his considerable intellect.

Third post:

Good conversation!

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/index.html#/v/1265332888001/special-report-online-newt-gingrich/?playlist_id=86927

Now that we have learned that Newt did not divorce his dying wife on her deathbed, maybe the fact that he is head and shoulders above any of the other candidates will carry more weight.


prentice crawford

  • Guest
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #973 on: November 09, 2011, 06:25:16 AM »
Woof,
 I'm shocked!

  AP Exclusive: Accuser filed complaint in next job
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and SUZANNE GAMBOA - Associated Press | AP – 1 hr 5 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.

Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar's complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.

To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Kraushaar told the AP she considered her employment complaint "relatively minor" and she later dropped it.

"The concern was that there may have been discrimination on the job and that I was being treated unfairly," Kraushaar said.

Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship. Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential. Kraushaar left her job at the immigration service after dropping the complaint in 2003, and she went to work at the Treasury Department.

Details of the workplace complaint that Kraushaar made at the immigration service are relevant because they could offer insights into how she responded to conflicts at work. She now works as a spokeswoman in the office of the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration.

Kraushaar's complaint was based on supervisors denying her request to work full time from home after a serious car accident in 2002, three former supervisors said. Two of them said Kraushaar also was denied previous requests to work from home before the car accident.

The complaint also cited as objectionable an email that a manager had circulated comparing computers to women and men, a former supervisor said. The complaint claimed that the email, based on humor widely circulated on the Internet, was sexually explicit, according to the supervisor, who did not have a copy of the email. The joke circulated online lists reasons men and women were like computers, including that men were like computers because "in order to get their attention, you have to turn them on." Women were like computers because "even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrieval."

Kraushaar told the AP that she remembered the complaint focusing on supervisors denying her the opportunity to work from home after her car accident. She said other employees were allowed to work from home.

Kraushaar, who is married and lives in suburban Maryland, was among two women who formally settled harassment complaints against Cain in exchange for severance payments in the late 1990s when they worked at the restaurant association. Bennett has said Kraushaar settled her claim during the summer of 1999, shortly after Cain left the organization. Neither Kraushaar nor Bennett have described exactly what Cain was accused of saying or doing to Kraushaar when she worked there, although Bennett said Kraushaar wants to conduct a joint news conference with all the women who have accused Cain. The New York Times reported previously that Kraushaar received $45,000 in the settlement with the restaurant association.

Kraushaar agreed to discuss some aspects of the complaint at the immigration service if the AP agreed to protect her privacy, as it did in previous accounts of her complaint against Cain. She subsequently waived her privacy by confirming for news organizations her identity as one of two women who settled complaints against Cain, so the AP no longer is protecting Kraushaar's identity.

Cain has denied that he sexually harassed Kraushaar and others who have accused him of inappropriate behavior.

In a news conference Tuesday evening, Cain said allegations of sexual harassment by Kraushaar — whom Cain identified by name for the first time — were determined to be "baseless," but he did not explain who made this determination and Kraushaar has disputed this. Cain said that after negotiations between Bennett and the restaurant association's outside counsel she received money under an employment agreement, which Cain said was different from a legal settlement.

"When she made her accusations, they were found to be baseless and she could not find anyone to corroborate her story," Cain said.

Cain said he remembered gesturing to Kraushaar and noting that she was the same height as Cain's wife, about chin-high to Cain. The Georgia businessman said Kraushaar did not react noticeably, but he said the restaurant association lawyer later told him that was the most serious claim that Kraushaar made against him, "the one she was most upset about."

"Other things that might have been in the accusations, I'm not aware of, I don't remember," Cain said.

Sharon Bialek, a Chicago woman who once worked for the restaurant association's education foundation, accused Cain in a nationally televised news conference this week of groping her and attempting to force himself on her inside a parked car after they had dinner in 1997. Another woman told the AP that Cain made unwanted sexual advances to her while she worked for the association, and a pollster said he witnessed Cain sexually harass another woman after an association dinner.

Kraushaar's complaint at the immigration service prompted managers to use caution when writing and speaking to Kraushaar while the complaint was being investigated, another former supervisor told the AP. Two supervisors said Kraushaar asked a colleague to act as a witness when she had conversations with one manager after she filed her complaint.

The complaint at the immigration service was "nobody's business," Kraushaar said, because it was irrelevant to her sexual harassment settlement with Cain years earlier. "What you're looking for here is evidence of an employee who is out to get people," she said. "That's completely untrue."

Kraushaar, who started her career in Washington as a reporter, was praised for her work in 2000 when she traveled to Miami to help agency officials during the coverage of the Elian Gonzalez case, when federal agents seized the boy from relatives to return him to his father in Cuba.

"Ms. Kraushaar's assistance was invaluable and her performance extraordinary," wrote Robert A. Wallis, the immigration service district director in Miami. Kraushaar provided seven such letters of recommendation to show that her performance was commendable while working at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the restaurant association and the immigration service.

                         P.C.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Newt on the EPA
« Reply #974 on: November 09, 2011, 08:01:51 AM »


Dust in the Wind: Time for the EPA to Go!
by Newt Gingrich
The key to eliminating our oppressive regulatory regime is simply to replace the existing bureaucracy rather than try to reform it. The current systems are so entrenched that we need to start over with new organizations and new people.
Overbearing bureaucrats are especially prominent at the Environmental Protection Agency. The arrogance, economic ignorance, and dictatorial attitude of the current organization are well known throughout much of America.
The EPA bullies and dictates to businesses, small towns, and states. It routinely tells states what they have to do and then claims not to be at fault when the states tell local communities and businesses they must comply.
The EPA has become a clear example of "bureaucratic socialism"—an ingenious adaptation of European socialism.
Under "bureaucratic socialism," you get to own your company, but federal bureaucrats tell you how to run it.
Two recent events surrounding the rumors of stiffening "dust regulation," which led to a new height of anger against the bureaucrats, highlight the need to replace the EPA with a brand new Environmental Solutions Agency.
In a speech last week, EPA Administrator Linda Jackson acknowledged the anger when she said people referred to her officials as "jack-booted thugs."
What was amazing about her comments was her complete inability to ask why people would use terms like "jack-booted thugs" to describe the agency's behavior. She exhibited a total unwillingness to listen to her critics or try to understand their frustration.
 

Similarly, a Washington Post report on the dust rules was so infuriatingly one-sided and dishonest that it was easy to see why many Americans feel their concerns are trampled by an evasive bureaucracy.
On November 3 the Washington Post ran a story that claimed members of Congress were working to "ban [a] phantom EPA dust rule."
With great glee, the Post writers reported:
"Earlier this year, Republicans found what they saw as an ideal talking point to illustrate a federal bureaucracy gone batty.
"The Environmental Protection Agency, they warned, was trying to regulate something only God could control: the dust in the wind.
"'Now, here comes my favorite of the crazy regulatory acts. The EPA is now proposing rules to regulate dust,' Rep. John Carter (R.-Texas) said on the House floor. He said Texas is full of dusty roads: 'The EPA is now saying you can be fined for driving home every night on your gravel road.'
"There was just one flaw in this argument: It was not true.
"The EPA's new dust rule did not exist. It never did."
I was stunned by this assertion.
Everywhere I had gone in Iowa, people had been complaining about the proposed dust rule. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa), a senior and informed leader in the Senate, had been speaking out against the rule aggressively. In fact, he assigned a staff person to fight the EPA over the proposed rule.
The assertion that it was never considered was plainly dishonest.
Although there was never a formal proposal to create the rule, the prospect of stricter dust regulations had been on the table for months after EPA panels gave conflicting recommendations. Since the EPA makes no distinctions between urban, industrial dust and dust from agriculture or rural roads, many rural Americans were justifiably terrified that the agency was dragging its feet. It was not until mid-October that the EPA finally said it wouldn't tighten the rules, as its panel had recommended.
The Post's characterization of the issue as "hubbub over this phantom rule — surely one of the most controversial regulations that never was" was both false and insulting to the 112 House members and 26 Senators who had cosponsored legislation to prevent the agency from regulating farm dust.
The article, obviously based on one-sided, dishonest EPA description of the fight, suggested all of these elected representatives and their staffs were ignorant and cynical, instead of acknowledging their legitimate concerns on behalf of rural Americans. It was the Washington elite at its most infuriating.
Rep. Kristi Noem, a freshman Republican from South Dakota, the author of the bill on farm dust regulation, issued a powerful statement of myths and facts demolishing the EPA argument.
Between an administrator, who jokes that Americans perceive her officials as "jack-booted thugs," and widespread dishonesty and evasion about proposed dust regulations, it is clear the EPA must be replaced, not reformed.
We need a true Environmental Solutions Agency to replace the EPA—an agency that will emphasize innovation, collaboration, common sense and economic rationality. It can't be done with the same old bureaucrats. It will require new people in a new institution.
Your Friend,
 
Newt

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #975 on: November 09, 2011, 10:03:27 AM »
Ending the EPA doesn't seem politically feasible, won't play well beyond the base.  Redefining its scope is long overdue.  We have pollution control agencies in 50 states.  The focus of the Feds, like interstate commerce, should be limited to just those areas and issues between states where emissions in one is contaminating another and the two are unable to work it out between themselves. 

One good point of Newt's attack is that Bush was afraid to fire obvious hack-zealots for fear of making himself look political.  Newt is addressing it head-on. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Morris on Romney
« Reply #976 on: November 09, 2011, 12:35:33 PM »


MITT ROMNEY IN A RUT
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on November 8, 2011

Printer-Friendly Version
Mitt Romney has maintained his one-quarter vote share in the Republican contest against all comers...and against those who stayed home. Whether confronting hypothetical threats from Donald Trump, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin or Chris Christie -- or real ones from Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry or Herman Cain -- the former Massachusetts governor, with maddening consistency, has gotten a quarter of the primary vote.

But the key question for Mitt is whether his glass is one-quarter full or three-quarters empty. No matter what the matchups, he never drops below one-quarter of the vote or rises above it.
 
It would seem that 75 percent of the Republican primary voters will vote for anybody but Romney, no matter the flavor du jour. And, when candidates fade, their vote share is picked up by the next flavor du jour, rather than going to Mitt Romney.

Right now, Herman Cain, on the strength of his bold and audacious 9-9-9 program, has surged into a tie with Romney. Hopefully the baseless charges against Cain will fade away or be discredited. But if they are not, one can already see former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) poised to inherit the wind. Anybody but Romney!

As the field narrows down to a few candidates, will the Ron Paul voters -- or those now for other candidates -- come to Mitt, or will they embrace anybody but?

And, should Romney win the nomination, this lack of enthusiasm among three-quarters of the GOP vote does not augur well for his capacity to generate the turnout among his party's base he will need to defeat Obama in November.

It is not that Romney is only getting a quarter of the vote, it is that three-quarters oppose him no matter his opponent or what's going on.

Why the aversion to voting for Romney?

Perilously, his support comes mainly from the establishment of the GOP. He is the favorite of the Fortune 500, the Club for Growth, chambers of Commerce, Wall Street and party insiders. But his appeal is much more limited among evangelicals and Tea Party supporters.

In a sense, Mitt is a traditional Republican candidate harking back to the days before Ronald Reagan united the economic conservatives, the national-security backers and the evangelicals under one tent. Unfortunately for Romney, it was the union with evangelicals -- now increasingly recast as Tea Party supporters -- that let Reagan create a majority electoral coalition. Romney must follow in those footsteps if he hopes to win.

Mitt's position supporting RomneyCare in Massachusetts and his flip-flop-flip on abortion and gay rights cause understandable concern among conservative voters. Less reasonable is the aversion to a Mormon candidate among evangelical Protestants. But, regardless of its cause, Romney's candidacy is now reaching too limited a base for success in November.

The energy and kinetic enthusiasm that must animate the Republican campaign has to come from precisely the voters who are, at best, now lukewarm to Romney's candidacy.

Disappointingly, it seems that Romney is not as willing as he should be to reach out to the Tea Party groups. Recently, he rejected an invitation from the Tea Party Patriots -- the largest of the Tea Party groups -- to a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate on Nov. 28 covered by C-SPAN. While Romney can hardly be accused of ducking debates -- it seems he is in one every few weeks -- it was a needless affront to a group that embraces more than half of the Tea Party organizations to plead a scheduling conflict for the date. (Even though it is my birthday!)

Romney must not sit on his lead and calmly watch the other candidates battle it out. He needs to do more to reach out to the GOP base, with which he is badly out of touch.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18520
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #977 on: November 09, 2011, 06:57:12 PM »
What is the case for the unethical nature of the lawyers who are going after Cain using the sex harrasment angle.

Alred and Bennett don't give attorneys a  good name with political assasination on evidence that is so shoddy it would clearly go no where in a court of law. 

When does this become defamation of character?  I think it already is though for Cain to pursue this avenue probably would just prolong the political damage.   If he loses can he not sue these attorneys?   The clients have no money it sounds.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
CNBC debate
« Reply #978 on: November 09, 2011, 09:29:42 PM »
I thought tonight's debate was very good.  A few snap impressions:

a) Newt had set the tone with his praise of his fellow candidates.  Nary a snarky word was heard all night and several positive comments were made about other candidates. 
b) I thought Newt was the strongest one there by far.  The depth of his answers impresses.  His ability to handle "wife beater" questions smoothly is a vital skill and one in which he exceeds all the other candidates-- but Ron Paul comes close on economics.
c) Perry continues to show himself to be all hat and no cattle.  He makes Dubya Bush look positively eloquent, and his moment where he couldn't even remember all three of which departments he would eliminate will be causing much merriment around the net tomorrow.
d) ALL the candidates continue to improve.  The high number of debates has been a good experience for all of them and they are all better for it. 
e) the CNBN reporters thought themselves part of the debate, respresenting the Demcrat side.  Very funny moment when Newt looked at the cute reporter (forget her name) and said "That is humor posing as a question."  She tried calling him on it and his response nailed it.  You are in waaay over your head sugar!

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
The Left's Effort to Destroy Cain - It's Not Working:
« Reply #979 on: November 10, 2011, 03:00:20 AM »
The Left’s Special Hatred of Herman Cain
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On November 10, 2011


In his press conference on Nov. 8, Tuesday afternoon, Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain defiantly addressed the claims against him, rejecting them in full. “The machine to keep a businessman out of the White House is going to be relentless,” Cain robustly affirmed. But the machine Cain referred to is not overly concerned with his business acumen. Rather, the leftist media hit squad, personified by celebrity sleaze lawyer Gloria Allred, has mobilized for the primary objective of destroying the most prominent African-American conservative on the scene today. This is not coincidental. The Left reserves a special destructive zeal for Republican minorities of any variety.

The Left’s distinct hatred of Herman Cain has been transparently evident for some time now. Its assaults rely on classic racist stereotypes of black stupidity and sexual preoccupation. The belittling of Cain’s intelligence and achievement has taken especially appalling and humiliating forms. In August, on Keith Olbermann’s newly resuscitated “Countdown” show, now on Current TV, progressive harridan Janeane Garofalo neatly summarized how such white leftists view any black American who dares to eschew progressive ideology. “[Cain's] a businessman,” she said sarcastically, continuing:

Whoever pays him. And he may have a touch of Stockholm syndrome. There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican Party or the conservative movement or the Tea Party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry favor with the oppressors. Is it Stockholm syndrome, or does somebody pay them?

Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological condition in which hostages express sympathy and/or empathy with their captors. Thus for Garofalo and her odious ilk, Herman Cain couldn’t possibly be a free-thinking individual. He’s either mentally impaired or simply so stupid as to be exploited by his oppressors for pay.

Garofalo is hardly alone. Speaking on Martin Bashir’s program on MSNBC, Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney offers a similar take on Mr. Cain: “One of the things about Herman Cain is I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” she explains. “I think he is giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

HBO’s Bill Maher, offering a rundown of Republican presidential candidates last May, offered the same rationale to his viewers. “Herman Cain, I never heard of this guy, but apparently he ran Godfather’s Pizza, and Republicans say they love him so they’re not racist–right.” And MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell took Herman Cain to task, insinuating that he and his father were little more than house Negroes. MSNBC host Ed Schultz contended Herman Cain panders to “white Republicans out there who don’t like black folks” while “The View’s” Joy Behar warned Herman Cain that the Republican party “hasn’t been black friendly over the many centuries in this country,” a statement of stunning historical ignorance. Jon Stewart mocked Cain’s manner of speaking and said he didn’t like to read.

What’s telling is that every one of the above statements and interviews occurred before the first story about Cain’s alleged sexual harassment was reported by Politico. The fix has always been in.

The Politico stories–more than 90 and still counting since last week–represent an interesting shift. Two nameless women accusing Cain of “sexually suggestive behavior…that made them angry and uncomfortable” turns Cain into a potential predator. When Sharon Bialek appeared on the scene on Monday the accusations moved from sexual harassment to those that could be construed as sexual assault. As a result, the alleged predator becomes a potential criminal.

From what we know so far, Cain’s description of Bialek as a “troubled woman” is putting it politely. If it were a left-wing politician in the crosshairs, when it is the accusers who are actually on trial, Politico would probably have run 90 stories on her chronic failure at life management and record of desperate living standards. Despite claiming she isn’t in it for the money, a friend described her as “a complete gold digger. It’s all about the money.” She has also declared bankruptcy twice, lost several court judgments for large debts, hasn’t held a job for two years and lives with her fiance–who said he only learned of the allegations as recently as last Friday. Furthermore, a witness who saw her encounter with Cain last month at a Tea Party event claims Bialek and Cain “hugged like old friends.” Not exactly as tantalizing to the media as the number of anonymous sources Politico has talked to, which talk show hosts endlessly repeat.

Just as curious and unsavory is the involvement of Gloria Allred in this case. She is a staunch Democratic supporter, having donated more than $10,000 to Democratic candidates and party committees, according to Federal Election Commission records dating back to 1998. Her role in the controversy is somewhat unclear — If Bialek’s claim that she has no intention of filing either criminal or civil litigation is true, why does she need a lawyer? How exactly did they become involved together? The answer to those questions might be far more enlightening than anything revealed by either woman so far.

One of the original anonymous women cited in the Politico stories stepped forward on Tuesday. Yet much like Bialek, 24 hours after Karen Kraushaar went public, she appeared less credible as well. The Associated Press revealed that Ms. Kraushaar, who settled her complaint against Cain with the NRA, filed another complaint three years later, when she was working as a spokesperson for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. She demanded to be allowed to work at home after a car accident, and accused a manager of circulating a “sexually charged email.” Other initial demands, filed by the same lawyer she used against Cain, included thousands of dollars in payments, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident, a promotion, and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “The concern was that there may have been discrimination on the job and that I was being treated unfairly,” Kraushaar contended. Ironically, considering the details the media expect Cain to remember about 14-year-old charges, Kraushaar, claimed she didn’t remember any of the details of her second complaint. Perhaps the memories of some complaints are more vivid than others.

America is witnessing the grim determination of a movement that cannot countenance the idea that a black American could possibly embrace conservative values. Such an embrace is a mortal threat to a political party that must continually convince black America that any ideology that steers individuals away from lives of government dependency and low expectations is something to fear. Like Clarence Thomas before him, Mr. Cain has been charged with the one type of allegation that the Left couldn’t have cared less about when Bill Clinton was under the microscope.

The effort to smear both Cain and the Republican party continued on NBC’s “Today” show on Tuesday. In response to a question from Ann Curry, who contended that Republicans want Cain to “go away” because he’s “continuing to suck the air out of the narrative the Republican party really wants to tell,” David Gregory, host NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there is no “Grand Wizard in the party right now who can really force the issue.” Someone might want to remind Gregory that the most recent member of the KKK to inhabit the federal government was the late Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. Later in the day Gregory tweeted an apology saying he didn’t mean to “make the connection at all.” Sure he didn’t. Perhaps the best statement to sum up the ongoing progressive attempts to take down yet another black conservative was made by one of their own.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, “leftists aren’t racist–right.”
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Coulter on Cain's Accusers...
« Reply #981 on: November 10, 2011, 08:58:28 AM »
DAVID AXELROD'S PATTERN OF SEXUAL MISBEHAVIOR
By Ann Coulter - November 9, 2011


Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country -- Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but never in Chicago.

So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.

But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.

Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them -- over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).

With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)

Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #982 on: November 10, 2011, 09:13:32 AM »
Interesting followup points on the debate from Crafty.  Gingrich for sure is emerging as the alternative with the best timed surge to challenge Romney, but I think Romney will be the nominee.  We will see.  Gingrich's best moments may have been when his peers picked him for VP.  That makes him look Presidential though it still is the male vote.  The line about humor disguised as a question was excellent.  When did the media get its economic coverage wrong, you must be joking, when have they ever gotten it right?

Who knows what to make of the Perry oops moment, radio news versions leave out the awkward struggling, but comedy shows won't.  It exposed an inability to think on his feet and work around it.  Should I suppose have quickly shifted to insisting on using his time to expand on the first two points.  On follow up then insisted there will be plenty of federal programs facing the chopping block.  I would prefer a discussion only of what federal functions we will keep.  His stand on energy was already well-known.  Other than that my reaction to Perry is somewhat neutral, not as negative as Crafty.  For Perry, this was another great opportunity to gain momentum and he didn't.

AP has a story today, Romney stronger than ever: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/10/romney_stronger_than_ever_in_gop_race_112017.html

I think the truth on Romney is in between that assessment and the Morris take, is the glass 1/4 full or 3/4 empty?  Tea Party types want better than Romney because it is still early and are still searching. They want electability, but they also want true conservatism and they want the power or persuasion to get it all done.  

But the early part of the process is going to wrap up quickly.  Iowa is Jan3.  New Hampshire Jan. 10.  South Carolina Jan. 21, Florida Jan. 31 and 4 more the week of Feb and done with super Tuesday on March 6. That means the one on one part of the general election campaign will likely be at least 7,  8 or perhaps 9 months long!  Voters will pick the lowest risk candidate to hold up and prevail through all that.  Who right now is that lowest risk candidate?

If Romney is the nominee, he will have promised a hundred thousand times to end Obamacare on his first day and have espoused endlessly his mostly conservative economic principles as contrasted with the incumbent.  Whatever he thinks states should do, he won't suddenly spring Massachusetts Romneycare on the nation.  He is smart enough to know, even if just poll savvy, that he can't win without nearly 100% of conservatives and more than half of the center.  Obama will still be defending Obamacare, will never agree to end it, and will be inciting envy and division, whining about the need more failed artificial stimuli, and about how it is all other people's fault.  

The vanilla candidate (no racial slur intended) unfortunately has the greatest ability to keep the focus on the failed opponent.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2011, 09:18:55 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #983 on: November 10, 2011, 09:49:22 AM »
My own informal polling survey (i.e. my wife) reacted as follows

Perry's gaffe "OMG!  What a dumbass!"

To Newt's 10 minute speech cited in the Newt thread a couple of days ago, her reaction was one focused, respectful interest.  She really liked the way Newt cited the way Lincoln followed Douglas around and spoke after him and promised to do the same with Baraq until Baraq agreed to Newt's proposal for 7 three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Most everyone who hears this idea knows that Newt alone has what it takes to take Baraq down in such a format. 

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #984 on: November 10, 2011, 11:13:26 AM »
While I am basically ambivalent about the accusations against Cain, some still repeatedly called for Obama's college grades (as if they matter) and there are still a few blind and ignorant birthers out there, but no one calls for all the facts to be released in this matter.  An issue that may or may not have substance.  Let's review the actual accusations.  The investigation, if any.  The agreements.  Etc.  Why not let the chips fall....  And then let's move on to the real issues.
______________

Washington (CNN) -- When you consider the array of public men who have been forced, in one way or another, to come clean on their bad behavior, the list is not insubstantial: a president (Bill Clinton), presidential candidates (John Edwards, Gary Hart), governors (Mark Sanford, Eliott Spitzer), senators (John Ensign, David Vitter). And that's just the top tier.
The bar has been set -- and it's awfully low.  And by the way, many of these men managed to crawl right under that bar and survive, even thrive.

Gloria Borger
Eventually, they found there was just one way out -- owning up to their own shortcomings. Sure, it may have been due to legal pressure. Or political reality. Or both. But some discovered the public can be forgiving, especially if it believes you have something important to offer to the nation. Just ask Bill Clinton, now serving as philanthropist to the world.
So now comes Herman Cain, accused of sexual harassment by four women. He calls the charges baseless and defends his integrity. His political campaign and supporters have gone into full damage-control mode, scrutinizing the women. All predictable -- and reflexive -- enough.

But here's the rub: Cain also tells us that the National Restaurant Association investigated the charges against him and found them to be "baseless." If he wants to get this behind him, how about getting the facts out? Give the association's board permission to release the results of their internal investigation, if there was a formal inquiry.  Then, as they say, the truth will out.

And there's another plus: The partisans and the interest groups will have to start dealing with the facts. And the public can decide for itself.
It's not as if this predicament is new to us. Recall back in the day when Clinton was in the middle of the Lewinsky mess. Republicans were (rightly) outraged, demanding his resignation or impeachment. Feminist groups, by and large, remained largely on the sidelines or supportive of Clinton -- because he was, um, not a sexual harasser. Oh, and yes, he was good on their issues.
Now the tables have turned. Feminist groups are outraged by the charges against Cain and lots of Republican partisans are defending him, choosing to level their scrutiny on the women instead. (We've come a long way, baby, in that some conservative women's groups are criticizing Cain's I-don't-recall defense.)

Conservative CNN contributor Bill Bennett sees the hypocrisy of those who raised the red flag about Clinton, but not Cain. "For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn't matter makes us the hypocrites as well," he wrote on CNN.com. He is, of course, right.

And it is exactly what we are seeing, much of it from the Cain campaign itself.
When declarations of innocence do not seem to be enough, there's the change-the-subject tack: How about fingering a leaker, say from Rick Perry's staff? When that's denied, back off. Then take a turn, and start decrying "anonymous" charges. When the charges are on the record, take on the accuser. And when all else fails, blame the media. And the liberal "Democrat machine."
Ah, it takes me back to the days when Monica Lewinsky was whispered to be a "stalker" and Hillary Clinton was taking on the "right wing conspiracy."
But here's what we learned in that case: The fact that Monica inappropriately bared her underwear to the president did not excuse his behavior. And the fact that Hillary was right about those who were "out to get" Clinton does not mean he was in the clear. It's just not that simple.

The voters will figure it all out, as always. The bar may be set low for the politicians, but the public somehow manages to rise above it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #985 on: November 10, 2011, 11:23:39 AM »
"some still repeatedly called for Obama's college grades (as if they matter)"

They do, given that he was sold as the smartest guy in any room, when he's really just an affirmative action warm body.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Perry-esque
« Reply #986 on: November 10, 2011, 11:30:57 AM »


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #987 on: November 10, 2011, 12:03:11 PM »
JDN:

Methinks you miss quite a few real distinctions, but frankly after reading what has been posted here you are unpersuaded, I find I am little interested in parsing it out.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #988 on: November 10, 2011, 12:25:01 PM »
I wasn't making comparisons unless you are referring to my reference to the ridiculous demands for Obama's grades and the few Birthers still in existence.

Further, I don't think much of the general public is persuaded by Cain's constantly changing explanations.  I'm not saying he's guilty of anything, but perception is the rule in politics.

Cain has not IMHO handled this situation well.  My suggestion, or should I say Gloria Borger's suggestion is to simply lay out the facts rather than pointing fingers at the women, other Republicans, Liberal Democrats, the Media, et al.  Assuming there is no substance, I would hope that the matter would die and everyone would then move on to important issues.  It seems quite reasonable.

Is there something wrong with the facts?

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Herman and Newt...
« Reply #989 on: November 10, 2011, 12:54:50 PM »
JDN:  I second Crafty's admonishment.  My own sister makes your argument, which is essentially "where there is smoke there is usually fire."  Said sister is a staunch conservative and wants to believe Cain.  My response to her is similar to Crafty's response to you.  Examine the evidence before you jump to an emotionally-based conclusion.  There is plenty of evidence posted in this thread which casts serious doubt on the credibility of Cain's accusers.  If you are unpersuaded after actually reviewing said evidence, then you are - quite frankly - not thinking clearly.

Crafty:  I would pay big money to watch a series of Lincoln-Douglas-style debates between Newt and Obama.  I think everyone knows that Newt would wipe the floor with Obama in such a setting, (as would Mark Levin, to mention just one other) and as such, Obama would sooner resign from the presidency than agree to this.  I.E. - it ain't EVER going to happen.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

JDN

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #990 on: November 10, 2011, 01:09:59 PM »
Like your sister I too want to believe Cain. And, I too question his accusers.
But 4 of them? If 4 people saw smoke, even if I didn't trust them,  I'ld still
want to see and check out if there is a fire. Wouldn't you?

It seems rather simple for him to lay out all the facts.

Then we would know if it's just harmless smoke. And everyone could move on.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #991 on: November 10, 2011, 02:08:39 PM »
I forget, did Cain forget and leave his secretary in a submerged vehicle, or wander around sloshed while soliciting women with his pants around his ankles?

Is there a semen stained blue dress?

What I'm asking is, is Cain actually a democrat?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #992 on: November 10, 2011, 03:15:28 PM »
Concerning Baraq trying to duck Newt's Lincoln-Douglas challenge-- check out his strategy in the final couple of minutes of this 10 minute clip-- which after a minute or two of speech intro pleasantries, is quite strong.  Baraq wouldn't have a choice!

http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-gingrich-speech-at-ronald-reagan-dinner/

Newt will destroy Obama in such a context.  It is an absolutely brilliant strategy! 

I rather like the sound of President Gingrich! (the idea of Cain vs. Biden for the VP debates appeals to me too)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Dick Morris on the accusations of Cain
« Reply #993 on: November 11, 2011, 02:25:13 AM »
Dick Morris was Bill Clinton's pollster, so his opinion may carry particular weight on this subject  :lol:

I learned something important from my polling in the Lewinsky scandal.  While the political world and the media were focused on the narrow question of who was right, Clinton or Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, most voters opted for a third choice:  "We don't care.  We don't want to hear more about this.  This is no way to run a government or choose a president."  Some resented the public discussion of oral sex, noting that their children were watching.  They didn't want to hear it.
     
So it is with the accusations against Herman Cain.  We are mired in the worst economic condition in eighty years and will not tolerate more talk about who invited whom up to their room and for what.  We don't care.  We don't want to know.  We want you to go away and let us choose a president based on the serious and grave issues we are trying to consider.  We think the media is a distraction and we want it to stop its drumbeat coverage.  Pro-Cain or anti-Cain is irrelevant.  We want the issue to go away!
   
This third dimension of public reaction was evident when the CNBC reporters in last night's debate tried to ask Cain about the accusations.  The crowd would have none of it. When the reporters tried to couch the questions as relating to managerial ability or the character required of a CEO, they still hooted down the question.  In that moment, I realized that Cain would survive for the same reason Clinton made it - we have more important things to worry about.
   
The media does not admit of this third dimension.  Its mavens and executives give themselves the job of deciding what is news.  They present the news.  We render our verdict on it.  That's how its supposed to work.  But when the news media goes crazy covering something we don't care about, we make our voices heard.  And that's what the audience did last night.
   
In the meantime, Cain was his usual charismatic, brilliant debater articulating his 9-9-9 proposal better than he ever has and demonstrating its centrality to solving our economic problems.  The contrast between the statesmanship and breadth of his remedy and the tawdriness of the charges and counter-charges was evident.
   
In case the media didn't get the message, it is this:  WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR, READ, OR SEE MORE ABOUT THIS STUPID STORY -- GO AWAY!

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Newt's Lincoln-Douglas debate challenge...
« Reply #994 on: November 11, 2011, 09:22:32 AM »
Crafty:  While I certainly agree with you that this would be beautiful to watch, and would love to see it happen - I think you and Newt are overlooking two important factors:

1)  Obama and his handlers will simply claim that agreeing to such a format would be "beneath the office of President" and the media echo chamber will repeat it endlessly.
2)  The so-called "mainstream" media - quite unlike the media in Lincoln's day - will simply refuse to cover Newt's response speeches, or possibly replay/print only small sound    bites.  

I think Newt's quite naive to think that this strategy is going to be successful in today's media environment, much as I wish it were otherwise.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 09:24:35 AM by objectivist1 »
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #995 on: November 11, 2011, 09:29:06 AM »
"I think Newt's quite naive to think that this strategy is going to be successful in today's media environment, much as I wish it were otherwise."

Agreed. Much of the public has been dumbed down to such a degree by the leftist indoctrination industrial complex that if it's not a soundbite or part of a late night host's stand up, it's beyond them.

Newt will be preaching to the choir.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69434
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #996 on: November 11, 2011, 09:37:48 AM »
Disagree completely. 

The MSM needs "product"!

Should Newt become the Rep. candidate and he simply went wherever Baraq went and issued his challenge, it would become impossible to ignore.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #997 on: November 11, 2011, 09:43:52 AM »
Obama and his media minions will just resort to character attacks and assert that Newt is evil and racist.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The Real Cain Scandal
« Reply #998 on: November 11, 2011, 09:52:27 AM »
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/282765

November 10, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Real Cain Scandal
The law tolerates and encourages frivolous lawsuits.





The real scandal in the accusations against Herman Cain is the corruption of the law, the media, and politics.
 
Let’s start with the law. Some people may think the fact that the National Restaurant Association reportedly paid $45,000 to settle a claim made by one of its employees against Cain is incriminating.
 
Most of us are not going to part with $45,000 without some serious reason. But that is very different from the situation of an organization in the present legal climate.
 
The figure $45,000 struck a chord with me because, some years ago, my wife — who is an attorney — was fervently congratulated when her client had to pay “only” $45,000 in a jury award when the plaintiff was demanding $1 million, in a case that was as frivolous a lawsuit as you could find.
 
The person who was suing was a drunk driver, whose car went out of control and slammed into a tree. After the sheriff’s deputies arrested her, she sued them on dubious charges, and the sheriff’s department was glad it had to pay “only” $45,000.
 
The department was painfully aware of the uncertainty about what ruinous costs a jury might impose on the deputies.
 
The real scandal goes far beyond the case of Herman Cain and his accusers. The real scandal is that the law allows people to impose heavy costs on others at little or no cost to themselves. That is a perfect setting for legalized extortion.
 
The fact that neither judges nor juries stick to the letter of the law means that people who have zero basis for a lawsuit, under the law as written, can still create enough uncertainty to extract money from people who cannot afford the risk of going to trial.
 
As for a $45,000 settlement, that is what an organization would pay to settle a nuisance lawsuit — if it’s lucky.
 
If we had a legal system where judges threw frivolous cases out of court, instead of letting them go to trial, that would put a damper on legalized extortion.
 
If those who bring charges that do not stand up in court had to pay the other party for their legal fees — and had to pay for their time as well — these games could not go on.
 
It turns out that the women making televised charges against Herman Cain have histories that do not inspire confidence, including in at least one case a history of making similar complaints against others.
 
Another woman who has come forward tells of Herman Cain asking her, at some conference, to see if she could locate some woman in the audience who had asked him a question, so that he could take her to dinner. This apparently struck her as suspicious.
 
This too reminded me of something I knew about personally. Many years ago, I was at a conference where a woman made some very insightful comments, and I took her to lunch to continue the discussion.
 
It so happens she was a nun. Contrary to cynics, there is more than one reason for a man to take a woman to lunch or dinner.
 
The same mainstream media whose response to proven charges against Bill Clinton was “Let’s move on” is not about to move on from unproven charges against Herman Cain.
 
What role does race play in all this?
 
It is probably not racism, as such, that motivates these attacks on Herman Cain. The motivation is far more likely to be politics, but politics makes a prominent black conservative such as Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain far more dangerous to the Democrats than an equally prominent white conservative.
 
The 90 percent black vote for Democrats is like money in the bank on Election Day. A prominent black conservative who offers an alternative view of the world is a serious danger politically, because if that alternative view has the net effect of reducing the black vote for Democrats just to 75 percent, the Democrats are in big trouble at election time.
 
In this political context, merely defeating a black conservative at the polls or at confirmation hearings is not enough. He must be destroyed as an influence in the future — and character assassination is the most obvious way to do it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18267
    • View Profile
Re: 2012 Presidential
« Reply #999 on: November 11, 2011, 12:33:49 PM »
"Disagree completely.   The MSM needs "product"!"

My 2cents, Reagan began the technique of putting out the story for the evening news and staying with that one story all day so the networks had to cover it.  He had a gift of simplicity and staying on message.  Newt doesn't, but he could push his challenge until it gets covered.  And then what?

Debates in this situation always elevate the challenger to be on the same stage at the same level as the Commander in Chief, leader of the free world. That alone is a victory for the challenger. The incumbent with all the advantages of incumbency always tries to avoid that, then agrees only to only what is necessary or customary.  Obama will laugh off the demands of a challenger dictating terms, while throwing mud back at him.  Then he will settle (my best guess) with having one of the traditional debates be in the format Newt is demanding.  From that, the evening news will still pick just one 10 second sound bite out of that exchange and their story will not be that Newt ate the President's lunch.  People will have to watch to get that.