Open Letter to Paul Ryan: Run!!

Open Letter to Paul Ryan: Run!!

Dear Rep. Paul Ryan,

Run for President. We need you. And I don’t mean we need you so we can win the election -- both Romney and Gingrich can beat Obama. Winning isn’t the problem. The problem is winning isn’t enough. We need YOU to save conservatism, and frankly, save the country.

America is a conservative country. Polls show it. Sixty percent of Americans believe in conservative ideas. Yet we have no conservative party.

Instead, we have an establishment party with two branches. One branch calls themselves Republicans and they pretend to be conservative, while the other calls themselves Democrats and they pretend to be liberal. But neither is what they claim. They are just different factions of the same corporate/elite cleptrocracy that controls the country. And Romney and Gingrich and Obama represent that perfectly.

Obama we know. Obama is the guy who promised socialism, but somehow ended up passing a healthcare bill that takes from taxpayers and doctors and gives to insurance carriers and drug companies. He promised to fix “too big to fail” and ended up making the biggest even bigger. He promised to regulate Wall Street and then let Wall Street write the bill. He bailed out the bad bets of Wall Street and the most connected of the Fortune 500. He promised a cleaner environment but used that to transfer money to GE -- just as “eco-freak” Algore was a tool of Occidental Petroleum and made a fortune selling phony environmental indulgences to suckers, or as anti-business Pelosi has been getting rich riding the IPO train for high tech and natural gas companies, or “average” Joe Biden sold his soul to MBNA bank and tightened up bankruptcy rules to help credit card company profits soar, or Chris Dodd played footsie with Countrywide, and Maxine Waters milked the TARP for her husband, etc. They are thieves.

Now consider Romney. Romney comes to us from the world of finance, where all turmoil has come since the mid-1990s. He has no beliefs except that it is his turn to represent the establishment. He has stood on both sides of every issue he’s ever encountered. To him, principles are things that run schools, risk is a board game, and conservatism is a cloak he bought in 2008. He has a spine of Jello and an aluminum foil will to match. He uses his mind not to chart courses and provide leadership, but to chart the wind so he knows what to believe. He is the human equivalent of bologna on white bread and he believes whatever the establishment tells him to believe at the moment.

Newt’s worse. Unlike Romney and Obama, Newt has ideas. But he can’t distinguish between the good ones and the bad ones and he’s not ruled by his brain in any event, he’s ruled by his ego. Newt is a fraud. He’s the “conservative” who believes in combating global warming by having taxpayers support Big Business, who supports forcing people to buy insurance from Big Business, who believes Obama’s Wall Street regulatory head-fake was “too harsh,” who was for the TARP before he was against it and will be for it again, and who believes in stimulus spending and amnesty for illegals. If Romney is bologna, Newt is a spoiled hot dog marked “filet mignon.”

With Cain destroyed, these are our choices?! Why are there no real conservatives? Why are there no competent candidates? No common sense candidates? No candidates who don’t stink of the establishment.

To put it simply, Mr. Ryan, we have lost faith. We are sick of never having a real choice. We are sick of both sides being the same side. And we are sick of the phony theater the establishment uses to try to trick us into believing otherwise.

We are not stupid no matter what the establishment believes. We know the establishment lets corporations rape the Treasury to cover their bets: heads they win, tails the taxpayers lose. We know the establishment thinks illegal aliens should have more rights than Americans. We know the establishment cares more about the rights of terrorists than about the rights and safety of American soldiers. We know the establishment thinks we won’t notice they are forcing taxpayers to pick up the bill for companies shipping factories overseas. We know the establishment uses the power of regulation to protect its friends from the forces of capitalism. We know the establishment taxes the middle class to support its members. We know the establishment are liars.

We know that an increase in spending is not a cut. We know the big fight over 0% cuts was an obscenity. And no amount of both parties pretending this was significant will change that. You added a trillion in spending to the budget over two years. Now we have a trillion dollar deficit. The solution is easy, and no amount of the establishment calling this an impossible puzzle can hide that. We have NOT always been at war with Oceania!

I am not kidding when I say we are reaching a point where average Americans will no longer take this. And I’m not talking about voting out one group of establishment and replacing them with another. The establishment is playing a dangerous game.

If you care about America, Rep. Ryan, then it’s time to step up. Give us a real choice. Disclaim the Gingroromneybamas. Reject corporate socialism. Give us a flat tax with no corporate giveaways, promise us you will cut the regulatory code in half. Promise us you will open health and education to free markets and will use the power of anti-trust law to end too-big-to-fail by making them too-small-for-us-to care. Tell us you will defend American citizenship, protect our borders, slash the budget by a third NOW, not in 1,000 years. Promise us you will stop kowtowing to China and the twisted sensibilities of Europhiles. Promise us you will kill every single sacred cow and force our government back into the Constitutional confines from which it escaped. Give us a return to common sense.

Save America now, while you have the chance. Run, Mr. Ryan. America needs you.

Sincerely,
AndrewPrice

P.S. If anyone missed it, I profiled Ryan here: LINK.

Dear Rep. Paul Ryan,

Run for President. We need you. And I don’t mean we need you so we can win the election -- both Romney and Gingrich can beat Obama. Winning isn’t the problem. The problem is winning isn’t enough. We need YOU to save conservatism, and frankly, save the country.

America is a conservative country. Polls show it. Sixty percent of Americans believe in conservative ideas. Yet we have no conservative party.

Instead, we have an establishment party with two branches. One branch calls themselves Republicans and they pretend to be conservative, while the other calls themselves Democrats and they pretend to be liberal. But neither is what they claim. They are just different factions of the same corporate/elite cleptrocracy that controls the country. And Romney and Gingrich and Obama represent that perfectly.

Obama we know. Obama is the guy who promised socialism, but somehow ended up passing a healthcare bill that takes from taxpayers and doctors and gives to insurance carriers and drug companies. He promised to fix “too big to fail” and ended up making the biggest even bigger. He promised to regulate Wall Street and then let Wall Street write the bill. He bailed out the bad bets of Wall Street and the most connected of the Fortune 500. He promised a cleaner environment but used that to transfer money to GE -- just as “eco-freak” Algore was a tool of Occidental Petroleum and made a fortune selling phony environmental indulgences to suckers, or as anti-business Pelosi has been getting rich riding the IPO train for high tech and natural gas companies, or “average” Joe Biden sold his soul to MBNA bank and tightened up bankruptcy rules to help credit card company profits soar, or Chris Dodd played footsie with Countrywide, and Maxine Waters milked the TARP for her husband, etc. They are thieves.

Now consider Romney. Romney comes to us from the world of finance, where all turmoil has come since the mid-1990s. He has no beliefs except that it is his turn to represent the establishment. He has stood on both sides of every issue he’s ever encountered. To him, principles are things that run schools, risk is a board game, and conservatism is a cloak he bought in 2008. He has a spine of Jello and an aluminum foil will to match. He uses his mind not to chart courses and provide leadership, but to chart the wind so he knows what to believe. He is the human equivalent of bologna on white bread and he believes whatever the establishment tells him to believe at the moment.

Newt’s worse. Unlike Romney and Obama, Newt has ideas. But he can’t distinguish between the good ones and the bad ones and he’s not ruled by his brain in any event, he’s ruled by his ego. Newt is a fraud. He’s the “conservative” who believes in combating global warming by having taxpayers support Big Business, who supports forcing people to buy insurance from Big Business, who believes Obama’s Wall Street regulatory head-fake was “too harsh,” who was for the TARP before he was against it and will be for it again, and who believes in stimulus spending and amnesty for illegals. If Romney is bologna, Newt is a spoiled hot dog marked “filet mignon.”

With Cain destroyed, these are our choices?! Why are there no real conservatives? Why are there no competent candidates? No common sense candidates? No candidates who don’t stink of the establishment.

To put it simply, Mr. Ryan, we have lost faith. We are sick of never having a real choice. We are sick of both sides being the same side. And we are sick of the phony theater the establishment uses to try to trick us into believing otherwise.

We are not stupid no matter what the establishment believes. We know the establishment lets corporations rape the Treasury to cover their bets: heads they win, tails the taxpayers lose. We know the establishment thinks illegal aliens should have more rights than Americans. We know the establishment cares more about the rights of terrorists than about the rights and safety of American soldiers. We know the establishment thinks we won’t notice they are forcing taxpayers to pick up the bill for companies shipping factories overseas. We know the establishment uses the power of regulation to protect its friends from the forces of capitalism. We know the establishment taxes the middle class to support its members. We know the establishment are liars.

We know that an increase in spending is not a cut. We know the big fight over 0% cuts was an obscenity. And no amount of both parties pretending this was significant will change that. You added a trillion in spending to the budget over two years. Now we have a trillion dollar deficit. The solution is easy, and no amount of the establishment calling this an impossible puzzle can hide that. We have NOT always been at war with Oceania!

I am not kidding when I say we are reaching a point where average Americans will no longer take this. And I’m not talking about voting out one group of establishment and replacing them with another. The establishment is playing a dangerous game.

If you care about America, Rep. Ryan, then it’s time to step up. Give us a real choice. Disclaim the Gingroromneybamas. Reject corporate socialism. Give us a flat tax with no corporate giveaways, promise us you will cut the regulatory code in half. Promise us you will open health and education to free markets and will use the power of anti-trust law to end too-big-to-fail by making them too-small-for-us-to care. Tell us you will defend American citizenship, protect our borders, slash the budget by a third NOW, not in 1,000 years. Promise us you will stop kowtowing to China and the twisted sensibilities of Europhiles. Promise us you will kill every single sacred cow and force our government back into the Constitutional confines from which it escaped. Give us a return to common sense.

Save America now, while you have the chance. Run, Mr. Ryan. America needs you.

Sincerely,
AndrewPrice

P.S. If anyone missed it, I profiled Ryan here: LINK.

Open Letter to Paul Ryan: Run!!

View Detail

Debate Wrap: Of Icebergs And Dissemblers

Debate Wrap: Of Icebergs And Dissemblers

Last night’s debate was interesting. It may have changed the race too, though we won’t know for a week or two. First impressions are that Newt probably shot himself in the head Rick Perry-style. Paul lost a few friends. Cain stopped the bleeding. And I never want to work at the Heritage Foundation.

● Imploder of the Week: Newt. Last night, Newt reminded us exactly why he makes us nervous. When Rick Perry got called onto the carpet in his second debate for subsidizing the education of illegal immigrants, he pointed a cow-pokey finger at the rest of us and told us we ain’t got no hearts. That was the moment Ricky hit the iceberg. Newt was fully aware of Ricky’s tale of woe. Yet, when he was called onto the carpet for supporting the DREAM Act and amnesty, he proceeded to dissemble, telling us that he hates the DREAM Act and amnesty but would happily support both by any other name if they could be set up so he wouldn't be blamed for implementing them. Then he pointed a lobbyist-pocket stained finger at the rest of us and told us we ain’t got no hearts. If arrogance, stupidity and gall had a child, it would have been that moment.

Moreover, Newt was rising in the polls because he seemed to be smart, conservative and firm in his opinions. Last night, shifty Newt was back. To borrow a word from tryanmax, Newt came across as a chameleon, shifting positions to please the crowd without ever saying anything substantive or pinning himself down. And while he was definitely emphatic to the point of arrogance about everything he said, the only good and firm answers he gave were the ones he cribbed from Herman Cain – handling Iran, handling social security, the biggest threat to the nation, etc.

This will probably stop Newt’s momentum cold and may even throw him into a Rick Perry nosedive. Who will benefit? Odds are 46% Cain, 44% Romney, 10% other.

● Winner: Cain. Cain is most likely to benefit from Newt’s implosion because he did two important things last night. First, he stopped the bleeding by stopping the narrative that he’s an idiot. There were no gaffes. His answers were solid and thoughtful and showed remarkable judgment. Indeed, everyone else was stealing his answers, which tells you something. And when it came to explaining his judgment, he proved why we should be looking to business rather than politics for leaders. He accepted no sacred cows and said he would make decisions by looking at everything we do and asking if we are getting the benefits we want from our efforts. Clear, concise, correct.

Secondly, he re-energized his supporters with a strong showing that highlighted why people liked him before the scandals, and by showing broad knowledge on a range of topics. This probably earned him a second look when Newt collapses.

● Winner: Romney. If Cain doesn’t benefit from Newt’s collapse, Romney will. Here’s why. Romney said nothing. . . diddly over squat. He didn’t even sound like he was saying anything. In fact, I honestly cannot tell you anything he said except that every single sentence staked out firm positions on both sides of the issue. But what Romney has going for him is a stamp of approval and just enough fibbing to make you think he’s to the right of Gingrich on illegal immigration. That stamp of approval has generated the “electability” canard and the “maybe it’s time for conservatives to give up and support Romney” meme. This makes him well-placed to benefit from Newt’s implosion if Cain can’t capture Newt’s supporters.

● Loser: Ron Paul. I’ve debated where to put Paul. As usual, he was brilliant at times, but also said things which simply disqualify him with the Republican Party base and the public at large. So I call him a loser because while he made good points, I doubt he reached anyone who didn’t already support him.

● Loser: The Heritage Foundation. What a bunch of stiffs.

● Loser: Perry. Old Rick spent the last two weeks trying to get noticed by challenging Pelosi to a debate, declaring he would make Congress part time, pulling the ears off a gundark, and promising to set up a no-fly zone over Denver Broncos football games and Syria. He didn’t Tebow during the debate, but it might have helped. Instead, the other candidates took turns gut punching the hapless Texan. Bachmann in particular made him look like a fool, as did Paul, when they slapped down and dismissed every one of his ideas. And Perry didn’t help himself with disjointed and nonsensical answers, e.g. at one point, he suggested that Iran is trying to conquer Mexico and his solution to stopping this was another Monroe Doctrine, which he defined as building a fence between the US and Mexico. Monroe was not amused.

● Winner: CNN. Wolf Blitzer did an excellent job keeping the debate moving and being unobtrusive. He had a couple minor gotcha questions, but rarely felt like he was manipulating the discussion.

● Whatever: Bachmann seemed more knowledgeable, but still just floods you with trivia. I’m not sure I heard her enunciate a single principle except repeatedly saying, “we’ve got to do something,” which sounds like the woman in The Simpsons who always yells: “what about the children!” Santorum wasn’t a jerk and almost made sense a couple times, though he remains about as relevant as the furniture. Huntsman continues to say smart things and smug things. His slappy fight with Romney made them both look effete.

● Security: Finally, let’s highlight a particularly interesting area last night. Ron Paul made the smart point that we should not trade our freedoms for false promises of security. He’s 100% right. The cry of “crisis” and “I’ll protect you” have been the bait tyrants have used for generations to get power handed to them willingly.

When Paul said this, the other candidates (except Cain), stumbled all over this issue. Each recognized the danger of openly saying “screw the Constitution,” so they proclaimed a love for the Constitution before they said the Constitution shouldn’t stand in the government’s way when the government screams “security.” This is dangerous thinking. Rights exist for a reason and if the government can simply declare an emergency and terminate those rights, then we have no rights, we have privileges at the whim of the federal beast.

Paul again countered, this time by asking if this meant these candidates supported the government groping old people at airports. Each tried to evade this by attacking Obama for letting those workers unionize. Several suggested privatizing this “function” was the answer. But this is ridiculous. When someone shoves a flashlight up your rear under government authority, it doesn’t really matter who they work for, it’s the government authority that’s the problem.

Newt and Romney tried to slide around this by mixing the issue of foreign invaders and criminals. Both basically said that foreign invaders, i.e. enemy agents, have no rights. Correct. Then they said we need to keep criminal and “security” issues separate. Ok. Then they wiped out these distinctions by claiming that whenever a terrorist act could be stopped, the Constitution should not stop the government from using any tool to uncover that terrorism. In other words, when the government says security, there is no Constitution.

Paul is the only one to remain true to the Constitution on this. The others (excluding Cain) were hypocrites and showed a total disregard for the rights of citizens. Cain is the only one who split this baby by stating that he was willing to look at each power given to the government, demand proof of its effectiveness, and tweak the system to reduce the government’s powers. You can decide where you come down on this issue, but it is highly instructive of the mindset of the candidates when it comes to the issue of respecting the limitations of government power.

Last night’s debate was interesting. It may have changed the race too, though we won’t know for a week or two. First impressions are that Newt probably shot himself in the head Rick Perry-style. Paul lost a few friends. Cain stopped the bleeding. And I never want to work at the Heritage Foundation.

● Imploder of the Week: Newt. Last night, Newt reminded us exactly why he makes us nervous. When Rick Perry got called onto the carpet in his second debate for subsidizing the education of illegal immigrants, he pointed a cow-pokey finger at the rest of us and told us we ain’t got no hearts. That was the moment Ricky hit the iceberg. Newt was fully aware of Ricky’s tale of woe. Yet, when he was called onto the carpet for supporting the DREAM Act and amnesty, he proceeded to dissemble, telling us that he hates the DREAM Act and amnesty but would happily support both by any other name if they could be set up so he wouldn't be blamed for implementing them. Then he pointed a lobbyist-pocket stained finger at the rest of us and told us we ain’t got no hearts. If arrogance, stupidity and gall had a child, it would have been that moment.

Moreover, Newt was rising in the polls because he seemed to be smart, conservative and firm in his opinions. Last night, shifty Newt was back. To borrow a word from tryanmax, Newt came across as a chameleon, shifting positions to please the crowd without ever saying anything substantive or pinning himself down. And while he was definitely emphatic to the point of arrogance about everything he said, the only good and firm answers he gave were the ones he cribbed from Herman Cain – handling Iran, handling social security, the biggest threat to the nation, etc.

This will probably stop Newt’s momentum cold and may even throw him into a Rick Perry nosedive. Who will benefit? Odds are 46% Cain, 44% Romney, 10% other.

● Winner: Cain. Cain is most likely to benefit from Newt’s implosion because he did two important things last night. First, he stopped the bleeding by stopping the narrative that he’s an idiot. There were no gaffes. His answers were solid and thoughtful and showed remarkable judgment. Indeed, everyone else was stealing his answers, which tells you something. And when it came to explaining his judgment, he proved why we should be looking to business rather than politics for leaders. He accepted no sacred cows and said he would make decisions by looking at everything we do and asking if we are getting the benefits we want from our efforts. Clear, concise, correct.

Secondly, he re-energized his supporters with a strong showing that highlighted why people liked him before the scandals, and by showing broad knowledge on a range of topics. This probably earned him a second look when Newt collapses.

● Winner: Romney. If Cain doesn’t benefit from Newt’s collapse, Romney will. Here’s why. Romney said nothing. . . diddly over squat. He didn’t even sound like he was saying anything. In fact, I honestly cannot tell you anything he said except that every single sentence staked out firm positions on both sides of the issue. But what Romney has going for him is a stamp of approval and just enough fibbing to make you think he’s to the right of Gingrich on illegal immigration. That stamp of approval has generated the “electability” canard and the “maybe it’s time for conservatives to give up and support Romney” meme. This makes him well-placed to benefit from Newt’s implosion if Cain can’t capture Newt’s supporters.

● Loser: Ron Paul. I’ve debated where to put Paul. As usual, he was brilliant at times, but also said things which simply disqualify him with the Republican Party base and the public at large. So I call him a loser because while he made good points, I doubt he reached anyone who didn’t already support him.

● Loser: The Heritage Foundation. What a bunch of stiffs.

● Loser: Perry. Old Rick spent the last two weeks trying to get noticed by challenging Pelosi to a debate, declaring he would make Congress part time, pulling the ears off a gundark, and promising to set up a no-fly zone over Denver Broncos football games and Syria. He didn’t Tebow during the debate, but it might have helped. Instead, the other candidates took turns gut punching the hapless Texan. Bachmann in particular made him look like a fool, as did Paul, when they slapped down and dismissed every one of his ideas. And Perry didn’t help himself with disjointed and nonsensical answers, e.g. at one point, he suggested that Iran is trying to conquer Mexico and his solution to stopping this was another Monroe Doctrine, which he defined as building a fence between the US and Mexico. Monroe was not amused.

● Winner: CNN. Wolf Blitzer did an excellent job keeping the debate moving and being unobtrusive. He had a couple minor gotcha questions, but rarely felt like he was manipulating the discussion.

● Whatever: Bachmann seemed more knowledgeable, but still just floods you with trivia. I’m not sure I heard her enunciate a single principle except repeatedly saying, “we’ve got to do something,” which sounds like the woman in The Simpsons who always yells: “what about the children!” Santorum wasn’t a jerk and almost made sense a couple times, though he remains about as relevant as the furniture. Huntsman continues to say smart things and smug things. His slappy fight with Romney made them both look effete.

● Security: Finally, let’s highlight a particularly interesting area last night. Ron Paul made the smart point that we should not trade our freedoms for false promises of security. He’s 100% right. The cry of “crisis” and “I’ll protect you” have been the bait tyrants have used for generations to get power handed to them willingly.

When Paul said this, the other candidates (except Cain), stumbled all over this issue. Each recognized the danger of openly saying “screw the Constitution,” so they proclaimed a love for the Constitution before they said the Constitution shouldn’t stand in the government’s way when the government screams “security.” This is dangerous thinking. Rights exist for a reason and if the government can simply declare an emergency and terminate those rights, then we have no rights, we have privileges at the whim of the federal beast.

Paul again countered, this time by asking if this meant these candidates supported the government groping old people at airports. Each tried to evade this by attacking Obama for letting those workers unionize. Several suggested privatizing this “function” was the answer. But this is ridiculous. When someone shoves a flashlight up your rear under government authority, it doesn’t really matter who they work for, it’s the government authority that’s the problem.

Newt and Romney tried to slide around this by mixing the issue of foreign invaders and criminals. Both basically said that foreign invaders, i.e. enemy agents, have no rights. Correct. Then they said we need to keep criminal and “security” issues separate. Ok. Then they wiped out these distinctions by claiming that whenever a terrorist act could be stopped, the Constitution should not stop the government from using any tool to uncover that terrorism. In other words, when the government says security, there is no Constitution.

Paul is the only one to remain true to the Constitution on this. The others (excluding Cain) were hypocrites and showed a total disregard for the rights of citizens. Cain is the only one who split this baby by stating that he was willing to look at each power given to the government, demand proof of its effectiveness, and tweak the system to reduce the government’s powers. You can decide where you come down on this issue, but it is highly instructive of the mindset of the candidates when it comes to the issue of respecting the limitations of government power.

Debate Wrap: Of Icebergs And Dissemblers

View Detail

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

I owe Herman Cain an apology. This “Libya gaffe” thing is just another smear, and sadly, I bought into it. Mea culpa. Here’s what really happened, along with my thinking on what really matters with the candidates.

Issue One: The Libya “Gaffe”

When Cain’s candidacy started taking off, the media smeared him with bogus sexual harassment allegations. Brought as anonymous and non-specific allegations, the MSM obsessively savaged Cain for failing to satisfy some undisclosed moving-target standard to acquit himself. Yet, within only a week, it became clear there was no substance to these allegations. The accusers aren’t credible: a serial complainer and a money-desperate liar. They have ties to David Axelrod, who has a history of this type of smear. The media witch hunt was overplayed. And polls continue to show Cain at or near the top. The scandal is D.O.A.

But just as Cain appeared to be recovering, a new allegation appeared: that he’s stupid. This allegation was based on his supposed “Libya gaffe,” and has again been pushed by the MSM and useful idiots like Byron York at National Review. But this is a smear too.

According to people like York, the Libya gaffe is this: A reporter asked Cain if he agreed with Obama’s policy on Libya. Cain had no idea what that policy was. He eventually mumbles something about Obama opposing Gaddafi, and then has to ask the reporter if what he’s just said is true.

IF this is true, then Cain really isn’t all that bright. Only. . . it’s not true.

Commentarama reader tryanmax sent me a link with the full interview. Here’s the link to the interview (LINK) and here’s a link to tryanmax’s thoughts on the subject (LINK). The interview is a lengthy discussion of many topics. About 20 minutes into the interview, they turn to the question of whether or not Cain would support democracy movements abroad. Cain tells the reporter he would support democracy movements, but he wouldn’t try to create one. Up to this point, Cain has come across as knowledgeable and relaxed.

The reporter then asks whether Cain thought Bush’s foreign policy was effective in this regard or if Cain has “a major critique” of how Bush handled the balance between American interests and democracy movements. Cain thinks about this and says he believes Bush ultimately struck the right balance. Cain repeats that where a democracy movement exists, he would support it, but he “won’t try to talk people into democracy.”

The reporter then says: “so you agreed with President Obama then on Libya or not?” Note first, that this is a strange question and it assumes much that has not been said by Cain or the reporter up to this point. They were talking about Bush’s foreign policy and suddenly the reporter asks this statement-question which assumes what Obama’s policy was and assumes that Cain has just provided an answer consistent with it. I am not saying this is a “gotcha” question, but it is a vague and ambiguous question with an uncertain subject. It is the kind of question a lawyer would object to and make the reporter rephrase.

Cain again thinks for a moment. Then he says:

“President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘yes, I agree’ or ‘no, I don’t’.”

There’s the supposed gaffe. This is what is being portrayed as Cain asking the reporter to help him with the facts. The MSM is saying Cain’s use of the word “correct” means Cain needs the reporter to assure him he guessed right what Obama did in Libya. BUT that’s a blatantly false interpretation. Watch the video and it immediately becomes clear that Cain is neither confused nor is he asking the reporter to confirm the facts. Instead, Cain is asking the reporter to confirm that this was the topic the reporter meant with his odd question. Cain is using the word “correct” as a rhetorical device to make sure they were talking about the same thing. The fact both Cain and the reporter remain calm and continue the interview without any sense a gaffe has occurred confirms this.

There is NO reasonable way you can interpret this video as Cain being unsure what Obama did in Libya or asking the reporter to help him get the facts right. To assert that, as supposedly-reputable conservatives like National Review have done, is to adopt yet another smear, just as they did with the sexual harassment allegations. It is to intentionally pretend there is confusion, where there is none – just as they continue to wrongly claim Cain was confused about the difference between pro-life and pro-choice or as they tried to turn his verbal slip about China’s nuclear capability into evidence of ignorance.

I have also heard claims Cain must be stupid because he took time to consider his answer before responding. That is simply ridiculous. To expect someone to provide rapid-fire soundbites throughout an informal, 20+ minute conversation style interview on a variety of topics, rather than gather their thoughts, is disingenuous at best.

Issue Two: Dissecting Candidate Brains

Finally, I want to explain why I don’t care if Cain makes gaffes or Perry freezes up occasionally or Romney sounds prissy. Those things don’t matter. They are style over substance. What matters is understanding how the candidates think because what is truly critical is understanding how each candidate will approach whatever problems they face on the job. In other words, whether or not they know the capital of Mexico doesn’t matter, but knowing how they would analyze an invasion of Mexico by Venezuela does. Here is what I’ve seen so far (you may see things differently):

● Cain: Cain thinks like an executive. He’s hands off when it comes to details and he expects “his people” to carry out his orders. This is similar in style to Ronald Reagan. However, Cain lacks Reagan’s strong knowledge base and fundamental theoretical understanding of conservatism, and he has yet to show solid political instincts. His biggest flaw appears to be an assumption that those around him will work toward the goals he sets.

● Gingrich: Gingrich is the smartest man on stage. He is also politically savvy. BUT his history tells me he will often base his decisions on the wrong motives, such as ego or a desire to be loved. This overrides his intelligence and makes him unpredictable.

● Paul: Paul is a smart man with deep knowledge and a generally solid decision making process. However, he is prone to erroneous conspiracy theories and is fundamentally wrong on certain issues.

● Romney: Romney is afraid of decisions. He avoids them at all cost and immediately backtracks at the first sign of disagreement.

● Perry: Perry wants to let others make decisions for him. This means we don’t know who will actually be making decisions.

● Bachmann: Bachmann has failed to demonstrate any independent thinking. She follows bandwagons and believes knowledge of trivia is a substitute for analysis.

● Santorum: Santorum is a disaster. He only wants to hear people who agree with him and he simply does not understand the issues or people.

Some of these problems I can overlook, others I can’t. But one thing is clear: most of the things the MSM focuses on are irrelevant to understanding these people.

I owe Herman Cain an apology. This “Libya gaffe” thing is just another smear, and sadly, I bought into it. Mea culpa. Here’s what really happened, along with my thinking on what really matters with the candidates.

Issue One: The Libya “Gaffe”

When Cain’s candidacy started taking off, the media smeared him with bogus sexual harassment allegations. Brought as anonymous and non-specific allegations, the MSM obsessively savaged Cain for failing to satisfy some undisclosed moving-target standard to acquit himself. Yet, within only a week, it became clear there was no substance to these allegations. The accusers aren’t credible: a serial complainer and a money-desperate liar. They have ties to David Axelrod, who has a history of this type of smear. The media witch hunt was overplayed. And polls continue to show Cain at or near the top. The scandal is D.O.A.

But just as Cain appeared to be recovering, a new allegation appeared: that he’s stupid. This allegation was based on his supposed “Libya gaffe,” and has again been pushed by the MSM and useful idiots like Byron York at National Review. But this is a smear too.

According to people like York, the Libya gaffe is this: A reporter asked Cain if he agreed with Obama’s policy on Libya. Cain had no idea what that policy was. He eventually mumbles something about Obama opposing Gaddafi, and then has to ask the reporter if what he’s just said is true.

IF this is true, then Cain really isn’t all that bright. Only. . . it’s not true.

Commentarama reader tryanmax sent me a link with the full interview. Here’s the link to the interview (LINK) and here’s a link to tryanmax’s thoughts on the subject (LINK). The interview is a lengthy discussion of many topics. About 20 minutes into the interview, they turn to the question of whether or not Cain would support democracy movements abroad. Cain tells the reporter he would support democracy movements, but he wouldn’t try to create one. Up to this point, Cain has come across as knowledgeable and relaxed.

The reporter then asks whether Cain thought Bush’s foreign policy was effective in this regard or if Cain has “a major critique” of how Bush handled the balance between American interests and democracy movements. Cain thinks about this and says he believes Bush ultimately struck the right balance. Cain repeats that where a democracy movement exists, he would support it, but he “won’t try to talk people into democracy.”

The reporter then says: “so you agreed with President Obama then on Libya or not?” Note first, that this is a strange question and it assumes much that has not been said by Cain or the reporter up to this point. They were talking about Bush’s foreign policy and suddenly the reporter asks this statement-question which assumes what Obama’s policy was and assumes that Cain has just provided an answer consistent with it. I am not saying this is a “gotcha” question, but it is a vague and ambiguous question with an uncertain subject. It is the kind of question a lawyer would object to and make the reporter rephrase.

Cain again thinks for a moment. Then he says:

“President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘yes, I agree’ or ‘no, I don’t’.”

There’s the supposed gaffe. This is what is being portrayed as Cain asking the reporter to help him with the facts. The MSM is saying Cain’s use of the word “correct” means Cain needs the reporter to assure him he guessed right what Obama did in Libya. BUT that’s a blatantly false interpretation. Watch the video and it immediately becomes clear that Cain is neither confused nor is he asking the reporter to confirm the facts. Instead, Cain is asking the reporter to confirm that this was the topic the reporter meant with his odd question. Cain is using the word “correct” as a rhetorical device to make sure they were talking about the same thing. The fact both Cain and the reporter remain calm and continue the interview without any sense a gaffe has occurred confirms this.

There is NO reasonable way you can interpret this video as Cain being unsure what Obama did in Libya or asking the reporter to help him get the facts right. To assert that, as supposedly-reputable conservatives like National Review have done, is to adopt yet another smear, just as they did with the sexual harassment allegations. It is to intentionally pretend there is confusion, where there is none – just as they continue to wrongly claim Cain was confused about the difference between pro-life and pro-choice or as they tried to turn his verbal slip about China’s nuclear capability into evidence of ignorance.

I have also heard claims Cain must be stupid because he took time to consider his answer before responding. That is simply ridiculous. To expect someone to provide rapid-fire soundbites throughout an informal, 20+ minute conversation style interview on a variety of topics, rather than gather their thoughts, is disingenuous at best.

Issue Two: Dissecting Candidate Brains

Finally, I want to explain why I don’t care if Cain makes gaffes or Perry freezes up occasionally or Romney sounds prissy. Those things don’t matter. They are style over substance. What matters is understanding how the candidates think because what is truly critical is understanding how each candidate will approach whatever problems they face on the job. In other words, whether or not they know the capital of Mexico doesn’t matter, but knowing how they would analyze an invasion of Mexico by Venezuela does. Here is what I’ve seen so far (you may see things differently):

● Cain: Cain thinks like an executive. He’s hands off when it comes to details and he expects “his people” to carry out his orders. This is similar in style to Ronald Reagan. However, Cain lacks Reagan’s strong knowledge base and fundamental theoretical understanding of conservatism, and he has yet to show solid political instincts. His biggest flaw appears to be an assumption that those around him will work toward the goals he sets.

● Gingrich: Gingrich is the smartest man on stage. He is also politically savvy. BUT his history tells me he will often base his decisions on the wrong motives, such as ego or a desire to be loved. This overrides his intelligence and makes him unpredictable.

● Paul: Paul is a smart man with deep knowledge and a generally solid decision making process. However, he is prone to erroneous conspiracy theories and is fundamentally wrong on certain issues.

● Romney: Romney is afraid of decisions. He avoids them at all cost and immediately backtracks at the first sign of disagreement.

● Perry: Perry wants to let others make decisions for him. This means we don’t know who will actually be making decisions.

● Bachmann: Bachmann has failed to demonstrate any independent thinking. She follows bandwagons and believes knowledge of trivia is a substitute for analysis.

● Santorum: Santorum is a disaster. He only wants to hear people who agree with him and he simply does not understand the issues or people.

Some of these problems I can overlook, others I can’t. But one thing is clear: most of the things the MSM focuses on are irrelevant to understanding these people.

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

View Detail

Debate Wrap Up: 89 Seconds And Counting

Debate Wrap Up: 89 Seconds And Counting

The current debate system is a joke, as highlighted by Saturday’s foreign policy debate. There isn’t enough time to get anything useful from the candidates, the format encourages speaking in soundbites, the division of time is incredibly biased, and the questions asked are awful. Here is your debate wrap up and a few complaints.

● Unequal Time: If you’ve watched the debates, then you noticed there are too many people on stage to get any useful flow of discussion or meaningful answers. In fact, the candidates are being asked to speak in soundbites. But before we get to that, have you noticed that the distribution of time is highly skewed toward Romney and Perry? Here’s some proof.

A University of Minnesota study has determined how much time was given to each candidate in the last three debates before this week. Here are the results:

41 min. Romney
34 min. Perry
24 min. Bachmann
22 min. Huntsman
21 min. Cain
21 min. Gingrich
21 min. Santorum
18 min. Paul

Fascinating, isn’t it? Romney gets twice as much time as anyone except Perry. In last Tuesday’s debate, Romney actually got 25% of the total time, leaving the other seven to divide the rest. In Saturday’s debate, Ron Paul was given a grand total of 89 seconds to speak. . . less than one second for every minute of the debate.

After the debate, Bachmann’s campaign produced an email proving that CBS intentionally minimized candidates. In an email inadvertently copied to Bachmann’s staff, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson was lukewarm about a post-debate interview with Bachmann hoping he could get a higher-tiered candidate. Interestingly, he mentions in this internal e-mail that Bachmann would not be getting many questions during the debate: “let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”

Why invite her at all?

● Inadequate Time: Even beyond the issue of the time being divided unfairly, the real issue is the completely inadequate time in these debates. How in the world can you explain how you would reform health care in 30 seconds? How can you explain what’s gone wrong with Obama’s foreign policy and what you would do different to solve both Afghanistan and Pakistan in 30 seconds?

Unfortunately, this leads to speaking in soundbites, which tell us nothing. Newt in particular has mastered this art, and that’s one thing that keeps me nervous about him. Indeed, Newt’s answers all follow this pattern: Attack the moderator for asking the question and complain about being unable to answer in the short time given. Huff. “Reluctantly” agree to answer and spit out a rapid succession of key words and phrases to give the impression Newt has significant knowledge about the issue and that he was prepared to give a lengthy response before he “shockingly” learned he would only be given 30 seconds to respond. Finish with soundbite. The next time he does this, ask yourself if he actually told you anything? The answer is no, he didn’t.

Romney, by comparison, goes straight to soundbite speak. He spits out lots of words and generic thoughts that mean nothing: “I’ll be tough with people that deserve it and rebuild our relationship with our friends while maintaining America’s interests.” Does that actually mean anything? No. Being tough could be anything from nuking them to sending a harsh letter, and how do you rebuild a relationship with a friend, whoever that is, and rebuild it into what? And what are America’s interests? This is placebo-speak. Newt finishes his responses the same way.

Moreover, the questions are horrible: How do you make decisions? Do you believe in torture? Should we ever go to war? How do we “fix” Pakistan? These are softball, meaningless questions that are so vague they cannot lead to genuinely useful answers.

● Saturday’s Performances: Finally, you want to know how the debate went, so here's a summary.

● Gingrich: Gingrich won. He had excellent soundbites and sounded the most knowledgeable. He also had an excellent answer, which he and Cain seemed to share, about how to handle Iran -- covert action to disrupt their nuclear program including killing scientists and supporting Iranian opposition groups. He also said when an American joins a terrorist group and goes to war against the United States, they have no civil rights and our military can kill them just like any enemy combatant -- it's sad this even had to be explained to the MSM. Newt also has adopted Cain’s happy outlook and has nothing but love for everyone else on stage. That plays well.

● Cain: Cain had a great night because he had solid answers (though the neocons continue to mock him). In particular he led off on Iran and his answer was a home run (see Newt's answer above). He also gave a solid answer about how he would make decisions, which is listening to knowledgeable people with a variety of opinions and choosing among them. He gave a good answer on torture too, which is he wouldn’t allow torture, but he doesn’t think waterboarding is torture.

● Romney: Romney offered many platitudes. He believes in sanctions against Iran. . . and war, though he won’t call it that and he won’t say when it would become an option.

● Perry: Perry wasn’t drunk or drugged, but he made it clear he still doesn’t understand the difference between Texas and Washington -- his answer to how he would make decisions was that he knows good people in Texas. He had a great applause line about zeroing out foreign aid, BUT he actually backtracked immediately and said each country could then explain why they needed aid. . . so “zero” is actually “no change.”

● Bachmann: Bachmann tried to bury us with minutia by listing lots of troop numbers. Yawn. She also said the US has nowhere to put people it captures in the field, which is laughably stupid.

● Santorum: Santorum exposed yet another serious flaw in his thinking when he said he would only hire people who think like he does. Those are called “yes men,” and Santorum sounds increasingly like someone who should never be trusted with power. He also continues to whine that if all those evil Republicans in Washington hadn’t opposed him over and over, the world would be nearly perfect today.

● Paul: Paul didn’t promise to disarm. To the contrary he said that if we need to go to war, then he would go to Congress, get the authority and win it and get it over with.

● Huntsman: I’m going to say something nice about Huntsman, though it pains me. Huntsman was more honest than the others. On instances like how to handle China to the elimination of foreign aid, the other candidates said things to rile up the pitchfork crowd, but always quietly reversed that in the small print. Huntsman was the only one to be honest about these issues and went straight to the small print. For that, he deserves credit. Unfortunately, his foreign policy sounds a lot like Obama’s.

The current debate system is a joke, as highlighted by Saturday’s foreign policy debate. There isn’t enough time to get anything useful from the candidates, the format encourages speaking in soundbites, the division of time is incredibly biased, and the questions asked are awful. Here is your debate wrap up and a few complaints.

● Unequal Time: If you’ve watched the debates, then you noticed there are too many people on stage to get any useful flow of discussion or meaningful answers. In fact, the candidates are being asked to speak in soundbites. But before we get to that, have you noticed that the distribution of time is highly skewed toward Romney and Perry? Here’s some proof.

A University of Minnesota study has determined how much time was given to each candidate in the last three debates before this week. Here are the results:

41 min. Romney
34 min. Perry
24 min. Bachmann
22 min. Huntsman
21 min. Cain
21 min. Gingrich
21 min. Santorum
18 min. Paul

Fascinating, isn’t it? Romney gets twice as much time as anyone except Perry. In last Tuesday’s debate, Romney actually got 25% of the total time, leaving the other seven to divide the rest. In Saturday’s debate, Ron Paul was given a grand total of 89 seconds to speak. . . less than one second for every minute of the debate.

After the debate, Bachmann’s campaign produced an email proving that CBS intentionally minimized candidates. In an email inadvertently copied to Bachmann’s staff, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson was lukewarm about a post-debate interview with Bachmann hoping he could get a higher-tiered candidate. Interestingly, he mentions in this internal e-mail that Bachmann would not be getting many questions during the debate: “let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”

Why invite her at all?

● Inadequate Time: Even beyond the issue of the time being divided unfairly, the real issue is the completely inadequate time in these debates. How in the world can you explain how you would reform health care in 30 seconds? How can you explain what’s gone wrong with Obama’s foreign policy and what you would do different to solve both Afghanistan and Pakistan in 30 seconds?

Unfortunately, this leads to speaking in soundbites, which tell us nothing. Newt in particular has mastered this art, and that’s one thing that keeps me nervous about him. Indeed, Newt’s answers all follow this pattern: Attack the moderator for asking the question and complain about being unable to answer in the short time given. Huff. “Reluctantly” agree to answer and spit out a rapid succession of key words and phrases to give the impression Newt has significant knowledge about the issue and that he was prepared to give a lengthy response before he “shockingly” learned he would only be given 30 seconds to respond. Finish with soundbite. The next time he does this, ask yourself if he actually told you anything? The answer is no, he didn’t.

Romney, by comparison, goes straight to soundbite speak. He spits out lots of words and generic thoughts that mean nothing: “I’ll be tough with people that deserve it and rebuild our relationship with our friends while maintaining America’s interests.” Does that actually mean anything? No. Being tough could be anything from nuking them to sending a harsh letter, and how do you rebuild a relationship with a friend, whoever that is, and rebuild it into what? And what are America’s interests? This is placebo-speak. Newt finishes his responses the same way.

Moreover, the questions are horrible: How do you make decisions? Do you believe in torture? Should we ever go to war? How do we “fix” Pakistan? These are softball, meaningless questions that are so vague they cannot lead to genuinely useful answers.

● Saturday’s Performances: Finally, you want to know how the debate went, so here's a summary.

● Gingrich: Gingrich won. He had excellent soundbites and sounded the most knowledgeable. He also had an excellent answer, which he and Cain seemed to share, about how to handle Iran -- covert action to disrupt their nuclear program including killing scientists and supporting Iranian opposition groups. He also said when an American joins a terrorist group and goes to war against the United States, they have no civil rights and our military can kill them just like any enemy combatant -- it's sad this even had to be explained to the MSM. Newt also has adopted Cain’s happy outlook and has nothing but love for everyone else on stage. That plays well.

● Cain: Cain had a great night because he had solid answers (though the neocons continue to mock him). In particular he led off on Iran and his answer was a home run (see Newt's answer above). He also gave a solid answer about how he would make decisions, which is listening to knowledgeable people with a variety of opinions and choosing among them. He gave a good answer on torture too, which is he wouldn’t allow torture, but he doesn’t think waterboarding is torture.

● Romney: Romney offered many platitudes. He believes in sanctions against Iran. . . and war, though he won’t call it that and he won’t say when it would become an option.

● Perry: Perry wasn’t drunk or drugged, but he made it clear he still doesn’t understand the difference between Texas and Washington -- his answer to how he would make decisions was that he knows good people in Texas. He had a great applause line about zeroing out foreign aid, BUT he actually backtracked immediately and said each country could then explain why they needed aid. . . so “zero” is actually “no change.”

● Bachmann: Bachmann tried to bury us with minutia by listing lots of troop numbers. Yawn. She also said the US has nowhere to put people it captures in the field, which is laughably stupid.

● Santorum: Santorum exposed yet another serious flaw in his thinking when he said he would only hire people who think like he does. Those are called “yes men,” and Santorum sounds increasingly like someone who should never be trusted with power. He also continues to whine that if all those evil Republicans in Washington hadn’t opposed him over and over, the world would be nearly perfect today.

● Paul: Paul didn’t promise to disarm. To the contrary he said that if we need to go to war, then he would go to Congress, get the authority and win it and get it over with.

● Huntsman: I’m going to say something nice about Huntsman, though it pains me. Huntsman was more honest than the others. On instances like how to handle China to the elimination of foreign aid, the other candidates said things to rile up the pitchfork crowd, but always quietly reversed that in the small print. Huntsman was the only one to be honest about these issues and went straight to the small print. For that, he deserves credit. Unfortunately, his foreign policy sounds a lot like Obama’s.

Debate Wrap Up: 89 Seconds And Counting

View Detail

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

Another debate is in the books. We learned little. CNBC made fools of themselves. One candidate imploded spectacularly. A couple impressed. And the rest were there too!

●Epic Loser: Rick Perry. Do you remember the “agony of defeat” guy from Wide World of Sports? Rick Perry just topped him. For the first half of the night, Perry proved he doesn’t realize that being President won’t be like being Governor of Texas where even the Democrats are solid conservatives. Then it happened. Perry proudly claimed he would eliminate three departments if elected. He named two. . . and then he froze. For about a minute, he was unable to tell us which agency he passionately wanted to eliminate, and he couldn’t think of a way to end his sentence either. He just stood there stunned like Wiley Coyote with his arm pointed at Ron Paul and two fingers stuck up in the air. Finally, he said, “Oops.” Then someone suggested “the EPA” and he heartily agreed, only to admit a moment later that wasn’t the agency and he still couldn’t think of the name of his nemesis. Rick. . . quit.

●Winner: Newt Gingrich. Newt was the big winner, just edging out Cain. Newt was on fire. He was calm and brilliant. He showed both the breadth and depth of his knowledge and he took down the CNBC hacks with devastating wit:

● He took down Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer with: “it’s sad the media doesn’t report accurately on how the economy works.” Both Cramer and Bartiromo had shown a lot of economic ignorance, like when Cramer demanded from each candidate: “do you really believe a company can make a profit and create jobs at the same time!!!” Uh. You pretty much have to Jim or you fail and all the jobs go away.

● Or when he blasted Maria’s ridiculous question asking the candidates to tell her in 30 seconds how they would fix health care (18% of the economy): “My colleagues have done a terrific job of answering an absurd question!!” Maria didn’t like that.

● Or when he crushed a sleazy question by John King on what Gingrich told Fannie and Freddie (King wrongly implied Gingrich was paid $300,000 by Fannie and Freddie to act as their lobbyist): “I gave them advice which they absolutely didn’t follow.”

Ultimately, Gingrich won because he gave the strongest performance. This will continue to solidify him as the alternative to Cain for conservatives, which will keep him in the race and may let him overtake Cain when Perry/Bachman/Paul and Santorum start quitting. Don’t be surprised if he draws neck and neck with Cain soon.

●Winner: Herman Cain. Everyone wanted to know how Cain would handle THE question. He was brilliant. He tossed it away by pointing out the public wants to hear about important matters and said America deserves better than character assassination. An upset Maria Bartiromo immediately tried to assassinate his character with the sleazy tactic of asking Romney if he would hire Cain given Cain’s answer. The audience booed her. This is significant because it tells us Republican primary voters despise the gotcha game the media is playing with Cain and want to move on.

Beyond that, Cain explained why his 9-9-9 plan works: (1) it eliminates $430 billion Americans waste manipulating the tax code each year, (2) it eliminates hidden taxes, and (3) it gets Washington out of the game of picking winners and losers. He argued it would make America more competitive against China: “the tax code is what sends jobs overseas.” He also shot down the argument it would result in higher rates by first questioning the stupidity of the idea that this was a unique problem to his plan (this argument can be used against any plan) and then by saying the transparency of his plan would make it harder for politicians to get away with raising rates -- an argument against the tax code tinkerers.

Cain was jovial and knowledgeable -- something which tells us he’s not affected by the harassment issue. My one criticism is he needs to speak more broadly than just his 9-9-9 plan or it will start to sound like snake oil... it can’t cure everything.

●Winner: Ron Paul. Ron Paul was excellent. He made the great point that the areas where we have problems (housing bubble, student loans, stock market bubbles, health care) are all the direct result of government intervention and government money. And when the government helps one group it often hurts another, such as when the government keeps interest rates low to help banks, it cheats the elderly who rely on interest for income. The CNBC crew were oddly stunned to hear this. Call it a teachable moment.

●Draw: Romney. On one hand, Romney’s a clear winner because he continues to come across as acceptable. But I suspect he’s actually a loser. His current strategy is like a prevent defense in football: rather than trying to win the nomination, he’s just trying to survive while the others all lose the nomination. The problem with this strategy is he’s letting others decide his fate for him. Right now, that works because people haven’t made up their minds -- so 25% support keeps him tied for the lead. But once the other 75% begin to settle on one or two candidates, 25% won’t be enough and he will have blown his chances to win people over.

This strategy also confirms the fear conservatives have that Romney has no leadership skills. You see this whenever he gets criticized because he starts to dance because he’s afraid to defend his beliefs. He had no response when CNBC pointed out that his tax plan accepts the Democratic premise that progressive taxes are good and the implicit class warfare arguments. At one point, he firmly agreed with Ron Paul about health care, only to turn to Jello moments later when he was asked if that means he no longer believes there’s a role for government to provide insurance to the uninsured.

His answer to the Cain question also demonstrates the problem. Bartiromo sleazily asked him to attack Cain (“would you hire Cain as a CEO given his answers”). A leader would have seized the moment: “I don’t know what Herm did or not, BUT I think it’s obscene the way the media.....” Romney didn’t do that. Instead, he said it wasn’t his place to comment. If he doesn’t think it’s his place to comment when an American citizen is being slandered by the media, then why would we want him as a our leader?

Last night, it struck me for the first time that this prevent defense wasn’t working anymore. Romney seemed a lot less relevant than before. So I suspect he may eventually look back on last night as the moment his candidacy started to slip away.

●Loser: Maria Bartiromo/CNBC. CNBC sells itself as a no-nonsense pro-business channel. Their claim is based on having more knowledgeable reporters and deeper analysis than others. Last night was full of nonsense “gotcha” questions, cheap shots, and whiny, abusive and shrill comments. Maria and Jim Cramer were particularly rude and proved they don’t actually understand economics.

●Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann continues to talk about her tax plan, which doesn’t exist. If you ask her any question, she whines her way through all of her talking points, always in the same order, and she’s never seemed less relevant than last night.

●Loser: Rick Santorum. Rick can’t win the nomination. So presumably, he’s playing to raise his profile for fundraising purposes. But Rick is not helping himself. In the last couple debates he was simply obnoxious, talking over people and making unfair attacks. Last night, he smugly fell in love with himself. Then he declared himself an advocate of the poor by throwing the Republican Party under the bus. He didn’t understand what “picking winners and losers” means or why it’s bad. He also chastised the others for wanting to cause problems with China, after saying last time he wanted to start a trade war with them. He also promises subsidies to his favored industries while saying his plan (which also doesn’t exist) would eliminate subsidies. And yet, Mr. Inconsistent attacks the others for not being consistent in unspecified ways.

●Loser: CNBC. Finally, CNBC gets a thumbs down for not streaming this over the net.

Another debate is in the books. We learned little. CNBC made fools of themselves. One candidate imploded spectacularly. A couple impressed. And the rest were there too!

●Epic Loser: Rick Perry. Do you remember the “agony of defeat” guy from Wide World of Sports? Rick Perry just topped him. For the first half of the night, Perry proved he doesn’t realize that being President won’t be like being Governor of Texas where even the Democrats are solid conservatives. Then it happened. Perry proudly claimed he would eliminate three departments if elected. He named two. . . and then he froze. For about a minute, he was unable to tell us which agency he passionately wanted to eliminate, and he couldn’t think of a way to end his sentence either. He just stood there stunned like Wiley Coyote with his arm pointed at Ron Paul and two fingers stuck up in the air. Finally, he said, “Oops.” Then someone suggested “the EPA” and he heartily agreed, only to admit a moment later that wasn’t the agency and he still couldn’t think of the name of his nemesis. Rick. . . quit.

●Winner: Newt Gingrich. Newt was the big winner, just edging out Cain. Newt was on fire. He was calm and brilliant. He showed both the breadth and depth of his knowledge and he took down the CNBC hacks with devastating wit:

● He took down Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer with: “it’s sad the media doesn’t report accurately on how the economy works.” Both Cramer and Bartiromo had shown a lot of economic ignorance, like when Cramer demanded from each candidate: “do you really believe a company can make a profit and create jobs at the same time!!!” Uh. You pretty much have to Jim or you fail and all the jobs go away.

● Or when he blasted Maria’s ridiculous question asking the candidates to tell her in 30 seconds how they would fix health care (18% of the economy): “My colleagues have done a terrific job of answering an absurd question!!” Maria didn’t like that.

● Or when he crushed a sleazy question by John King on what Gingrich told Fannie and Freddie (King wrongly implied Gingrich was paid $300,000 by Fannie and Freddie to act as their lobbyist): “I gave them advice which they absolutely didn’t follow.”

Ultimately, Gingrich won because he gave the strongest performance. This will continue to solidify him as the alternative to Cain for conservatives, which will keep him in the race and may let him overtake Cain when Perry/Bachman/Paul and Santorum start quitting. Don’t be surprised if he draws neck and neck with Cain soon.

●Winner: Herman Cain. Everyone wanted to know how Cain would handle THE question. He was brilliant. He tossed it away by pointing out the public wants to hear about important matters and said America deserves better than character assassination. An upset Maria Bartiromo immediately tried to assassinate his character with the sleazy tactic of asking Romney if he would hire Cain given Cain’s answer. The audience booed her. This is significant because it tells us Republican primary voters despise the gotcha game the media is playing with Cain and want to move on.

Beyond that, Cain explained why his 9-9-9 plan works: (1) it eliminates $430 billion Americans waste manipulating the tax code each year, (2) it eliminates hidden taxes, and (3) it gets Washington out of the game of picking winners and losers. He argued it would make America more competitive against China: “the tax code is what sends jobs overseas.” He also shot down the argument it would result in higher rates by first questioning the stupidity of the idea that this was a unique problem to his plan (this argument can be used against any plan) and then by saying the transparency of his plan would make it harder for politicians to get away with raising rates -- an argument against the tax code tinkerers.

Cain was jovial and knowledgeable -- something which tells us he’s not affected by the harassment issue. My one criticism is he needs to speak more broadly than just his 9-9-9 plan or it will start to sound like snake oil... it can’t cure everything.

●Winner: Ron Paul. Ron Paul was excellent. He made the great point that the areas where we have problems (housing bubble, student loans, stock market bubbles, health care) are all the direct result of government intervention and government money. And when the government helps one group it often hurts another, such as when the government keeps interest rates low to help banks, it cheats the elderly who rely on interest for income. The CNBC crew were oddly stunned to hear this. Call it a teachable moment.

●Draw: Romney. On one hand, Romney’s a clear winner because he continues to come across as acceptable. But I suspect he’s actually a loser. His current strategy is like a prevent defense in football: rather than trying to win the nomination, he’s just trying to survive while the others all lose the nomination. The problem with this strategy is he’s letting others decide his fate for him. Right now, that works because people haven’t made up their minds -- so 25% support keeps him tied for the lead. But once the other 75% begin to settle on one or two candidates, 25% won’t be enough and he will have blown his chances to win people over.

This strategy also confirms the fear conservatives have that Romney has no leadership skills. You see this whenever he gets criticized because he starts to dance because he’s afraid to defend his beliefs. He had no response when CNBC pointed out that his tax plan accepts the Democratic premise that progressive taxes are good and the implicit class warfare arguments. At one point, he firmly agreed with Ron Paul about health care, only to turn to Jello moments later when he was asked if that means he no longer believes there’s a role for government to provide insurance to the uninsured.

His answer to the Cain question also demonstrates the problem. Bartiromo sleazily asked him to attack Cain (“would you hire Cain as a CEO given his answers”). A leader would have seized the moment: “I don’t know what Herm did or not, BUT I think it’s obscene the way the media.....” Romney didn’t do that. Instead, he said it wasn’t his place to comment. If he doesn’t think it’s his place to comment when an American citizen is being slandered by the media, then why would we want him as a our leader?

Last night, it struck me for the first time that this prevent defense wasn’t working anymore. Romney seemed a lot less relevant than before. So I suspect he may eventually look back on last night as the moment his candidacy started to slip away.

●Loser: Maria Bartiromo/CNBC. CNBC sells itself as a no-nonsense pro-business channel. Their claim is based on having more knowledgeable reporters and deeper analysis than others. Last night was full of nonsense “gotcha” questions, cheap shots, and whiny, abusive and shrill comments. Maria and Jim Cramer were particularly rude and proved they don’t actually understand economics.

●Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann continues to talk about her tax plan, which doesn’t exist. If you ask her any question, she whines her way through all of her talking points, always in the same order, and she’s never seemed less relevant than last night.

●Loser: Rick Santorum. Rick can’t win the nomination. So presumably, he’s playing to raise his profile for fundraising purposes. But Rick is not helping himself. In the last couple debates he was simply obnoxious, talking over people and making unfair attacks. Last night, he smugly fell in love with himself. Then he declared himself an advocate of the poor by throwing the Republican Party under the bus. He didn’t understand what “picking winners and losers” means or why it’s bad. He also chastised the others for wanting to cause problems with China, after saying last time he wanted to start a trade war with them. He also promises subsidies to his favored industries while saying his plan (which also doesn’t exist) would eliminate subsidies. And yet, Mr. Inconsistent attacks the others for not being consistent in unspecified ways.

●Loser: CNBC. Finally, CNBC gets a thumbs down for not streaming this over the net.

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

View Detail

Cain Update: Meet The Accuser

Cain Update: Meet The Accuser

A picture is emerging of Cain’s newest harasser Sharon Bailek. It’s an ugly picture of a liar and “a gold digger” with serious financial problems who is seeking celebrity.

Would you hug your rapist?

Let’s start with the most obvious. At the presser, Bailek broke down in tears about the harassment she claims. What she describes is actually felony sexual assault. Yet, last month, Bailek went to see Cain speak at a Tea Party function in Chicago. Bailek first claims she didn’t know he would be there. Then she said she confronted him: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”

Yet, radio host Amy Jacobson said that everyone knew Cain would be there. And it’s inconceivable Bailek could go to a Tea Party conference where the front-running candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency was scheduled to speak and somehow not know he was coming.

Jacobson also said Bailek told her at the time she was anxious to meet Cain again and “had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago.” Jacobson also confirmed that Bailek “never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.” As for the encounter itself, Jacobson said: “It looked sort of flirtatious. I mean they were hugging.” That’s confirmed by the photo where Bailek poses with her supposed attempted-rapist (see update below).

Her story makes no sense.

Now let’s look at her story. It’s nonsense. Bailek claims she called Cain to see if he would rehire her after she had been laid off. Her boyfriend got her a hotel room. Cain upgraded the room to a huge suite. She went to dinner with Cain. He asked her why she was there. She told him to get rehired. They left dinner and got into the car, where Cain put his hand on her skirt and tried to force her head toward his crotch. She refused. Cain said, “you want a job, don't you?” She refused. The end.

Now let me ask some questions.

1. How did Cain know where she was staying to upgrade her?

2. Assume you are a businesswoman who has just been laid off and you want to beg the boss for your job back. The boss says “ok, get a hotel room and we’ll meet over dinner.” Does this sound like something a businesswoman would agree to? No.

3. Why does Cain ask her at dinner why they are there? Presumably, he would know before he agreed to the dinner? (Reason: this is poorly written fiction.)

4. What happened in the gap between him asking why they are at dinner and them getting in the car? Presumably, there was a lengthy discussion about her job and Cain must have said something like “sure” or “no way”? Or did he just twirl his moustache and say, “I’ll tell you in the car, sexy.” Again, this is poorly written fiction with a poorly thought-through timeline.

5. If Cain is the sexual predator they claim, and he did reach up her skirt and push her head toward his crotch against her will, why would he suddenly stop when she told him no?

This is fiction. Moreover, what she is describing is a date, not a business meeting. It sounds like she was trying to sleep her way back into the job.

But I think there’s something else going on her. This sounds like a set up. The boyfriend getting her the room, the plan to meet Cain for a sexy dinner at an Italian restaurant.... it all sounds like Bailek and her boyfriend planned to blackmail Cain or the NRA. Don’t forget, its likely she knew about the rumors of the first settlement, so it’s hardly a stretch to see someone like Bailek trying to get her own settlement. What do I mean “someone like Bailek”? Read on.

But she’s a respectable woman, right?

According to her celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Sharon Bailek is a respectable single-mother from Chicago who has spent her life working in marketing. Here are some facts she forgot to mention. Specifically, Bailek is a deadbeat.

A friend described Bailek thusly to the New York Post: “the reality of her situation is she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about money.” The friend continues:

“This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.”

The friend added that she is running from bill collectors, even as she lives in a posh suburb, and that she’s been fired from most of her jobs. Is there any support for this? Yes.

● She’s had 9 jobs in 17 years.
● She filed bankruptcy in 1991.
● She filed bankruptcy in 2001, claiming only $5,000 in assets.
● She has a long history of tax evasion and missed credit card payments.
● In 2009, the IRS filed a tax lien against her for $5,200.
● In August 2011, the Illinois Dept. of Revenue placed a lien against her for $4,300 going all the way back to 2004.
● Other creditors have taken legal action against her including one suit in Cook County, where a $3,000 judgment was gotten against her.
● She has also brought a paternity suit against the father of her child.

I’ve had many sleazeball and malingering clients, but even they rarely have this much financial carnage in wake. And I have no doubt her claims are about obtaining celebrity and getting a book deal or a film deal or a television show to get rich.

Serial Harasser or Serial Harassment Claimer?

One of problem with the allegations against Cain is that they paint the picture of Cain as a serial harasser. If you believe the unsupported and undetailed MSM version, then you will believe that Cain “harassed” four women, with each one increasing in intensity until you get to the point of the sexual assault Bailek describes. Yet, strangely, there are no allegations from other jobs or other people in Cain’s life. These allegations make Cain out as a sexual predator for a period of a couple months and then he suddenly never does it again. That’s nonsense -- especially given the Snidely Whiplash way they’ve described Cain.

But here’s something interesting about Bailek. She accused a former boyfriend of harassing her when he demanded back $4,500 she loaned him. Thus, she has a history of making harassment allegations when it suits her financial interests.

But she said this before she had a motive, right?

Allred claims she has affidavits from two friends who claim Bailek told them about this harassment at the time. Thus, we’re supposed to believe her allegations are real because she apparently mentioned them before she had a motive. But. . .

First, never trust evidence from friends or family that supports a witness. People lie for their friends. That’s why no sane jury believes those people.

Secondly, if this was true, then why didn’t she tell her father or her fiancé of several years until this week? Maybe she only shared this “hurtful” incident with her closest girlfriends? Well, no. The first “friend” is her boyfriend at the time, i.e. her co-conspirator. The second friend is a “businessman friend.”

Moreover, why didn’t she tell her father or fiancé when Cain first ran for president or any time over the last year? And why didn’t she tell them before, during or after the Chicago meeting. . . where she hugged and flirted with Cain? She claims now that she went to confront him to see if he was man enough to admit what he’d done. Yet, we’re supposed to believe she didn’t tell her fiancé what she did? That’s bullsh*t.

Finally, let’s dispel this idea that she had no motive at the time. If it was a set up against Cain or the NRA, then she had plenty of motive to tell people at the time -- particularly her co-conspirator boyfriend. And if it was a date rebuffed, then she still had a motive to tell the boyfriend, to keep him from getting upset at her trying to jump ship to Cain. And even if truly was a business meeting, then she has a motive to save face.

This woman is a fraud.

** Update: I've been told the women in the photo above might actually be Amy Jacobson. I can't say either way, but it actually changes nothing in the analysis. Jacobson (who supports Bailek) has confirmed that Bailek flirted with and hugged Cain. The lack of photographic evidence (if that's the case) doesn't change that.

** Update 2: For a fascinating take on the David Axelrod connection, check out this article by Ann Coulter: LINK.

A picture is emerging of Cain’s newest harasser Sharon Bailek. It’s an ugly picture of a liar and “a gold digger” with serious financial problems who is seeking celebrity.

Would you hug your rapist?

Let’s start with the most obvious. At the presser, Bailek broke down in tears about the harassment she claims. What she describes is actually felony sexual assault. Yet, last month, Bailek went to see Cain speak at a Tea Party function in Chicago. Bailek first claims she didn’t know he would be there. Then she said she confronted him: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”

Yet, radio host Amy Jacobson said that everyone knew Cain would be there. And it’s inconceivable Bailek could go to a Tea Party conference where the front-running candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency was scheduled to speak and somehow not know he was coming.

Jacobson also said Bailek told her at the time she was anxious to meet Cain again and “had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago.” Jacobson also confirmed that Bailek “never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.” As for the encounter itself, Jacobson said: “It looked sort of flirtatious. I mean they were hugging.” That’s confirmed by the photo where Bailek poses with her supposed attempted-rapist (see update below).

Her story makes no sense.

Now let’s look at her story. It’s nonsense. Bailek claims she called Cain to see if he would rehire her after she had been laid off. Her boyfriend got her a hotel room. Cain upgraded the room to a huge suite. She went to dinner with Cain. He asked her why she was there. She told him to get rehired. They left dinner and got into the car, where Cain put his hand on her skirt and tried to force her head toward his crotch. She refused. Cain said, “you want a job, don't you?” She refused. The end.

Now let me ask some questions.

1. How did Cain know where she was staying to upgrade her?

2. Assume you are a businesswoman who has just been laid off and you want to beg the boss for your job back. The boss says “ok, get a hotel room and we’ll meet over dinner.” Does this sound like something a businesswoman would agree to? No.

3. Why does Cain ask her at dinner why they are there? Presumably, he would know before he agreed to the dinner? (Reason: this is poorly written fiction.)

4. What happened in the gap between him asking why they are at dinner and them getting in the car? Presumably, there was a lengthy discussion about her job and Cain must have said something like “sure” or “no way”? Or did he just twirl his moustache and say, “I’ll tell you in the car, sexy.” Again, this is poorly written fiction with a poorly thought-through timeline.

5. If Cain is the sexual predator they claim, and he did reach up her skirt and push her head toward his crotch against her will, why would he suddenly stop when she told him no?

This is fiction. Moreover, what she is describing is a date, not a business meeting. It sounds like she was trying to sleep her way back into the job.

But I think there’s something else going on her. This sounds like a set up. The boyfriend getting her the room, the plan to meet Cain for a sexy dinner at an Italian restaurant.... it all sounds like Bailek and her boyfriend planned to blackmail Cain or the NRA. Don’t forget, its likely she knew about the rumors of the first settlement, so it’s hardly a stretch to see someone like Bailek trying to get her own settlement. What do I mean “someone like Bailek”? Read on.

But she’s a respectable woman, right?

According to her celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Sharon Bailek is a respectable single-mother from Chicago who has spent her life working in marketing. Here are some facts she forgot to mention. Specifically, Bailek is a deadbeat.

A friend described Bailek thusly to the New York Post: “the reality of her situation is she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about money.” The friend continues:

“This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.”

The friend added that she is running from bill collectors, even as she lives in a posh suburb, and that she’s been fired from most of her jobs. Is there any support for this? Yes.

● She’s had 9 jobs in 17 years.
● She filed bankruptcy in 1991.
● She filed bankruptcy in 2001, claiming only $5,000 in assets.
● She has a long history of tax evasion and missed credit card payments.
● In 2009, the IRS filed a tax lien against her for $5,200.
● In August 2011, the Illinois Dept. of Revenue placed a lien against her for $4,300 going all the way back to 2004.
● Other creditors have taken legal action against her including one suit in Cook County, where a $3,000 judgment was gotten against her.
● She has also brought a paternity suit against the father of her child.

I’ve had many sleazeball and malingering clients, but even they rarely have this much financial carnage in wake. And I have no doubt her claims are about obtaining celebrity and getting a book deal or a film deal or a television show to get rich.

Serial Harasser or Serial Harassment Claimer?

One of problem with the allegations against Cain is that they paint the picture of Cain as a serial harasser. If you believe the unsupported and undetailed MSM version, then you will believe that Cain “harassed” four women, with each one increasing in intensity until you get to the point of the sexual assault Bailek describes. Yet, strangely, there are no allegations from other jobs or other people in Cain’s life. These allegations make Cain out as a sexual predator for a period of a couple months and then he suddenly never does it again. That’s nonsense -- especially given the Snidely Whiplash way they’ve described Cain.

But here’s something interesting about Bailek. She accused a former boyfriend of harassing her when he demanded back $4,500 she loaned him. Thus, she has a history of making harassment allegations when it suits her financial interests.

But she said this before she had a motive, right?

Allred claims she has affidavits from two friends who claim Bailek told them about this harassment at the time. Thus, we’re supposed to believe her allegations are real because she apparently mentioned them before she had a motive. But. . .

First, never trust evidence from friends or family that supports a witness. People lie for their friends. That’s why no sane jury believes those people.

Secondly, if this was true, then why didn’t she tell her father or her fiancé of several years until this week? Maybe she only shared this “hurtful” incident with her closest girlfriends? Well, no. The first “friend” is her boyfriend at the time, i.e. her co-conspirator. The second friend is a “businessman friend.”

Moreover, why didn’t she tell her father or fiancé when Cain first ran for president or any time over the last year? And why didn’t she tell them before, during or after the Chicago meeting. . . where she hugged and flirted with Cain? She claims now that she went to confront him to see if he was man enough to admit what he’d done. Yet, we’re supposed to believe she didn’t tell her fiancé what she did? That’s bullsh*t.

Finally, let’s dispel this idea that she had no motive at the time. If it was a set up against Cain or the NRA, then she had plenty of motive to tell people at the time -- particularly her co-conspirator boyfriend. And if it was a date rebuffed, then she still had a motive to tell the boyfriend, to keep him from getting upset at her trying to jump ship to Cain. And even if truly was a business meeting, then she has a motive to save face.

This woman is a fraud.

** Update: I've been told the women in the photo above might actually be Amy Jacobson. I can't say either way, but it actually changes nothing in the analysis. Jacobson (who supports Bailek) has confirmed that Bailek flirted with and hugged Cain. The lack of photographic evidence (if that's the case) doesn't change that.

** Update 2: For a fascinating take on the David Axelrod connection, check out this article by Ann Coulter: LINK.

Cain Update: Meet The Accuser

View Detail

Anatomy Of A Smear (redux)

Anatomy Of A Smear (redux)

It’s been interesting watching the MSM bloviate itself to near-orgasm in their attempts to destroy the uppity-black man named Herman Cain. But now the scandal appears dead, and the MSM is left with mud on its hands.

Item One: Called Bluffs and Smears. As pointed out last week (LINK), this was always a smear. The accusers remained anonymous to avoid questions, and they refuse to say what Cain supposedly did, so the public can’t see how ridiculous their allegations really are. And they’ve lied to get around the problems with their stories:

● First, how many accusers are there? We're told three, but there's only evidence of one.

● The only known accuser claimed she can’t come forward because the confidentiality agreement prevented her. But she violated that agreement when it suited her, so hiding behind it was disingenuous. When this was pointed out, she suddenly claimed she couldn't come forward because she “feared” for her current job. But she works for the federal government and it is literally impossible for her to be fired or punished for coming forward.

● On Friday, the Restaurant Association (NRA) released her from the confidentiality provision. In effect, the NRA called her bluff. And bluff it was. Rather than come forward, she sent her lawyer to claim the allegations were suddenly “too painful to relive.” Yeah, right. Apparently it wasn’t painful to offer the allegations to the media, it's just painful to defend them. The other supposed accuser has since vanished. The third accuser never existed -- she was a creation of Rick Perry’s pollster.

● We now know more of what is really alleged. The woman claims Cain approached her at a function and made a single suggestive comment or invite. She claims she immediately went to the NRA and complained. However, as the NRA timeline revealed, she didn't make the allegation until after Cain left the job.

● Meanwhile, her lawyer tried to smear Cain on the way out. At his press conference, he implied that something physical happened between Cain and the accuser -- something no one has said before -- and he tried to verbally turn a single incident into a series of incidents. He did this by using hypothetical verbiage: “whatever happened, physical or verbal or otherwise.” That's slander.

Item Two: The Evolution of Rape-Rape. Mid-week an allegation arose that Cain raped one of these women (assuming there is more than one). The story started with the claim that a witness saw Cain take a drunken employ to his apartment, from which she emerged and claimed he had molested her. Then the witness denied seeing anything. Then the story changed to “drunken woman wakes up at Cain’s apartment and felt uncomfortable” before it changed to “Cain invited woman to his apartment and she declined.” Each of these revisions was reported as true without confirmation or mention that the story kept evolving. No witness to this has ever come forward.

Item Three: Media Smears. The media has been in full-on smear mode. Politico ran an incredible 95 stories in the first five days. The networks ran 50 stories on this in the same time. By comparison, during the same time period of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the networks ran a grand total of 3 stories. Moreover, they reported every rumor as true, inserted every rumor into each article, and omitted key facts. For example, Politico:

● Never mentioned that no one admitted liability in the settlements.

● Never mentioned that these claims were made after Cain left. To the contrary, they actually accused him of lying when he said he wasn’t there when the allegations were made.

● They attacked Cain for refusing to release the woman from the confidentiality provision even though they knew Cain wasn’t a party to the release and had no such powers.

● They never questioned other NRA employees, who have since come forward and said they don't believe the woman.

They also skewed their coverage to boost the allegations:

● They ran headlines saying “The Accuser Speaks” and included this line in all stories starting Friday, even though the accuser refused to speak, and they attributed quotes from her attorney to her as if she said them.

● They attacked Cain for refusing to answer questions, even as he answered questions. And Politico never reported his threat to sue them. They also kept saying Cain never denied the allegations, even after he emphatically denied them.

Now they're attacking his wife to try to keep the scandal alive.

Item Four: Dirty Polling. Reuters reporter Steve Holland has been running his own smear campaign. He’s written dozens of stories on this and repeatedly makes distortions. For example, he describes the number of accusers as “at least three” and describes the allegations as both “physical and verbal” and as a “series” or pattern of behavior -- none of which is true.

Saturday, he wrote an article about a poll which claims “Cain has lost 9% support due to the harassment.” But.... this wasn't a scientific poll, it was an internet poll. That makes it pure junk. Yet, Holland incredibly writes that had it been a scientific poll, it would have had a margin of error of +/- 4%. This is statistical bullsh*t.

Also, there’s a huge problem with his numbers. Cain loses 9% among Republicans in his poll (down from 66% to 57%). But his total support only goes down 4%. If we assume that’s true, then somehow Cain’s support among Democrats and Independents WENT UP during this period! Does that make sense to you? The poll and the accompanying story are lies. Multiple real polls show Cain's support actually went up last week. Somehow, neither Holland nor Politico mention those polls, but they DO mention the fake internet poll and treat it like it's real.

Item Five: Handling. Finally, a word on how Cain has handled this issue. A lot of people are upset that his handling hasn’t been slick and perfect. But let me point out a few things:

● There is no slick way to respond to ephemeral, evolving anonymous allegations that have never been detailed. It's a trap no matter how you respond or don't.

● Cain is a businessman, not a politician, and having a slick Bill Clinton-like response would be disconcerting to his image. In fact, articles are now being written that the MSM overplayed their hand and Cain's "amateurishness became almost endearing" by comparison.

● Barring something real, the scandal appears dead. For Cain to kill this off in five days is truly a phenomenal performance. Give the man credit.

It’s been interesting watching the MSM bloviate itself to near-orgasm in their attempts to destroy the uppity-black man named Herman Cain. But now the scandal appears dead, and the MSM is left with mud on its hands.

Item One: Called Bluffs and Smears. As pointed out last week (LINK), this was always a smear. The accusers remained anonymous to avoid questions, and they refuse to say what Cain supposedly did, so the public can’t see how ridiculous their allegations really are. And they’ve lied to get around the problems with their stories:

● First, how many accusers are there? We're told three, but there's only evidence of one.

● The only known accuser claimed she can’t come forward because the confidentiality agreement prevented her. But she violated that agreement when it suited her, so hiding behind it was disingenuous. When this was pointed out, she suddenly claimed she couldn't come forward because she “feared” for her current job. But she works for the federal government and it is literally impossible for her to be fired or punished for coming forward.

● On Friday, the Restaurant Association (NRA) released her from the confidentiality provision. In effect, the NRA called her bluff. And bluff it was. Rather than come forward, she sent her lawyer to claim the allegations were suddenly “too painful to relive.” Yeah, right. Apparently it wasn’t painful to offer the allegations to the media, it's just painful to defend them. The other supposed accuser has since vanished. The third accuser never existed -- she was a creation of Rick Perry’s pollster.

● We now know more of what is really alleged. The woman claims Cain approached her at a function and made a single suggestive comment or invite. She claims she immediately went to the NRA and complained. However, as the NRA timeline revealed, she didn't make the allegation until after Cain left the job.

● Meanwhile, her lawyer tried to smear Cain on the way out. At his press conference, he implied that something physical happened between Cain and the accuser -- something no one has said before -- and he tried to verbally turn a single incident into a series of incidents. He did this by using hypothetical verbiage: “whatever happened, physical or verbal or otherwise.” That's slander.

Item Two: The Evolution of Rape-Rape. Mid-week an allegation arose that Cain raped one of these women (assuming there is more than one). The story started with the claim that a witness saw Cain take a drunken employ to his apartment, from which she emerged and claimed he had molested her. Then the witness denied seeing anything. Then the story changed to “drunken woman wakes up at Cain’s apartment and felt uncomfortable” before it changed to “Cain invited woman to his apartment and she declined.” Each of these revisions was reported as true without confirmation or mention that the story kept evolving. No witness to this has ever come forward.

Item Three: Media Smears. The media has been in full-on smear mode. Politico ran an incredible 95 stories in the first five days. The networks ran 50 stories on this in the same time. By comparison, during the same time period of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the networks ran a grand total of 3 stories. Moreover, they reported every rumor as true, inserted every rumor into each article, and omitted key facts. For example, Politico:

● Never mentioned that no one admitted liability in the settlements.

● Never mentioned that these claims were made after Cain left. To the contrary, they actually accused him of lying when he said he wasn’t there when the allegations were made.

● They attacked Cain for refusing to release the woman from the confidentiality provision even though they knew Cain wasn’t a party to the release and had no such powers.

● They never questioned other NRA employees, who have since come forward and said they don't believe the woman.

They also skewed their coverage to boost the allegations:

● They ran headlines saying “The Accuser Speaks” and included this line in all stories starting Friday, even though the accuser refused to speak, and they attributed quotes from her attorney to her as if she said them.

● They attacked Cain for refusing to answer questions, even as he answered questions. And Politico never reported his threat to sue them. They also kept saying Cain never denied the allegations, even after he emphatically denied them.

Now they're attacking his wife to try to keep the scandal alive.

Item Four: Dirty Polling. Reuters reporter Steve Holland has been running his own smear campaign. He’s written dozens of stories on this and repeatedly makes distortions. For example, he describes the number of accusers as “at least three” and describes the allegations as both “physical and verbal” and as a “series” or pattern of behavior -- none of which is true.

Saturday, he wrote an article about a poll which claims “Cain has lost 9% support due to the harassment.” But.... this wasn't a scientific poll, it was an internet poll. That makes it pure junk. Yet, Holland incredibly writes that had it been a scientific poll, it would have had a margin of error of +/- 4%. This is statistical bullsh*t.

Also, there’s a huge problem with his numbers. Cain loses 9% among Republicans in his poll (down from 66% to 57%). But his total support only goes down 4%. If we assume that’s true, then somehow Cain’s support among Democrats and Independents WENT UP during this period! Does that make sense to you? The poll and the accompanying story are lies. Multiple real polls show Cain's support actually went up last week. Somehow, neither Holland nor Politico mention those polls, but they DO mention the fake internet poll and treat it like it's real.

Item Five: Handling. Finally, a word on how Cain has handled this issue. A lot of people are upset that his handling hasn’t been slick and perfect. But let me point out a few things:

● There is no slick way to respond to ephemeral, evolving anonymous allegations that have never been detailed. It's a trap no matter how you respond or don't.

● Cain is a businessman, not a politician, and having a slick Bill Clinton-like response would be disconcerting to his image. In fact, articles are now being written that the MSM overplayed their hand and Cain's "amateurishness became almost endearing" by comparison.

● Barring something real, the scandal appears dead. For Cain to kill this off in five days is truly a phenomenal performance. Give the man credit.

Anatomy Of A Smear (redux)

View Detail

More Leftist Stupidity And Scandals

More Leftist Stupidity And Scandals

This has been an interesting week full to the brim with leftist/Democratic stupidity. Of course, the MSM hasn’t noticed because. . . well, they refuse to notice. Plus, they found something else to entertain themselves, lynching Herman Cain. Let’s discuss!

● Item One: Cain Non-Fallout. Despite the MSM’s best efforts, this whole Cain scandal doesn’t appear to be hurting him. To the contrary, it seems to be making his support more entrenched and it brought out the support of people like Ann Coulter and Rush. Also, the day after the scandal, Cain had his biggest fundraising day ever online. That means average people are voting with their dollars and they want to show their support. That’s what happens when you slander someone. . . you make them more popular.

● Item Two: StupidStudent Loans. Obama suddenly wants to rescue college kids. Now let me say up front, there is a huge problem in this country with the cost of education. It is ridiculous what college students are being charged and it is hurting our economy by making people less mobile. Something needs to be done.

What I am not in favor of doing, however, is increasing the amount of student loan money available. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. Colleges have been able to jack up their costs precisely because Uncle Sam handed out student loans to cover the costs. That was a subsidy to fat, rich schools paid on the backs of young professionals.

So what does Obama want to do to fix this problem? Increase the availability of student loans. Jerk.

To trick students into thinking they aren’t getting the shaft, Obama is promising to reduce the minimum monthly payment from 15% to 10%. . . so you pay longer. He also promises to let you consolidate your loans. . . so you pay longer. And as anyone who has ever taken out a loan knows, this will dramatically increase the amount the students repay. I guess being a community organizer didn’t include lessons on credit management.

But never fear, Obama wants to reduce the time before loan forgiveness kicks in from 25 years to 20. So if you graduate from college at the age of 25, your college loan slavery will now end at 45 instead of 50, and you can then start saving for your retirement. . . 20 years behind the curve. Bravo President AAAhole, bravo.

● Item Three: Where’s Waldo’s Money. With Solyndra waiting in the wings, a new scandal has emerged. This time the company is called MF Global. MF Global is a commodities trading company that just went belly up. The man who ran MF Global is none other than Jon Corzine, former New Jersey Senator/Governor (lost to Christie), former chief of Goldman Sachs and MAJOR Barack Obama fundraiser. Since April 2011, for example, Corzine has raised more than $500,000 for Obama’s re-election.

But it’s not the fact the company went bankrupt that is the problem. What’s interesting is that $700 million of client money is “missing.” Right now, it’s believe that as the firm began suffering losses, it used its customers’ money to cover its own trades, which of course violates trading regulations which require brokers to keep their own funds separate from their customers’ funds. If any of this proves true, look for jail time to come out of this one. I wonder how much of the $500,000 Corzine raised for Obama came from MF Global customers?

● Item: Celebrity Weirdoes. Hollywood is stumbling back into Obama’s arms as we knew they would. Scarlett Johansson, who is famous primarily for keeping naked pictures of herself on her cell phone, plans to support Obama: “My heart belongs to Barack.” Yeah, and your brain belongs to Low-Grade Brain Rental. Others are lining up as well to offer their best Lewinskies.

Meanwhile, unfunny adult-bed-wetter (yes, that’s true) Sarah Silverman is attacking Rick Perry. She’s upset the “N*ggerhead Scandal” had no effect, so she’s determined to try to keep it alive until someone cares. Personally, I think like many liberals she just likes using the N-word while pretending she’s actually outraged. . . ditto with her prior use of “chink.”

And from the land of the absurd, Michael Moore is trying to fit in with the OWS Movement. Sadly for Michael, who has net worth of $50 million (but value of only $1.25), he’s more of a 0.99%er than a 99%er. On the plus side, he’s got the right level of stupid and hypocrite to fit right in!

● Item: OWS Irony of the Week. Finally, there is a rumor making the rounds that OWS is now trying to copyright their name. Capitalist pigs.

This has been an interesting week full to the brim with leftist/Democratic stupidity. Of course, the MSM hasn’t noticed because. . . well, they refuse to notice. Plus, they found something else to entertain themselves, lynching Herman Cain. Let’s discuss!

● Item One: Cain Non-Fallout. Despite the MSM’s best efforts, this whole Cain scandal doesn’t appear to be hurting him. To the contrary, it seems to be making his support more entrenched and it brought out the support of people like Ann Coulter and Rush. Also, the day after the scandal, Cain had his biggest fundraising day ever online. That means average people are voting with their dollars and they want to show their support. That’s what happens when you slander someone. . . you make them more popular.

● Item Two: StupidStudent Loans. Obama suddenly wants to rescue college kids. Now let me say up front, there is a huge problem in this country with the cost of education. It is ridiculous what college students are being charged and it is hurting our economy by making people less mobile. Something needs to be done.

What I am not in favor of doing, however, is increasing the amount of student loan money available. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. Colleges have been able to jack up their costs precisely because Uncle Sam handed out student loans to cover the costs. That was a subsidy to fat, rich schools paid on the backs of young professionals.

So what does Obama want to do to fix this problem? Increase the availability of student loans. Jerk.

To trick students into thinking they aren’t getting the shaft, Obama is promising to reduce the minimum monthly payment from 15% to 10%. . . so you pay longer. He also promises to let you consolidate your loans. . . so you pay longer. And as anyone who has ever taken out a loan knows, this will dramatically increase the amount the students repay. I guess being a community organizer didn’t include lessons on credit management.

But never fear, Obama wants to reduce the time before loan forgiveness kicks in from 25 years to 20. So if you graduate from college at the age of 25, your college loan slavery will now end at 45 instead of 50, and you can then start saving for your retirement. . . 20 years behind the curve. Bravo President AAAhole, bravo.

● Item Three: Where’s Waldo’s Money. With Solyndra waiting in the wings, a new scandal has emerged. This time the company is called MF Global. MF Global is a commodities trading company that just went belly up. The man who ran MF Global is none other than Jon Corzine, former New Jersey Senator/Governor (lost to Christie), former chief of Goldman Sachs and MAJOR Barack Obama fundraiser. Since April 2011, for example, Corzine has raised more than $500,000 for Obama’s re-election.

But it’s not the fact the company went bankrupt that is the problem. What’s interesting is that $700 million of client money is “missing.” Right now, it’s believe that as the firm began suffering losses, it used its customers’ money to cover its own trades, which of course violates trading regulations which require brokers to keep their own funds separate from their customers’ funds. If any of this proves true, look for jail time to come out of this one. I wonder how much of the $500,000 Corzine raised for Obama came from MF Global customers?

● Item: Celebrity Weirdoes. Hollywood is stumbling back into Obama’s arms as we knew they would. Scarlett Johansson, who is famous primarily for keeping naked pictures of herself on her cell phone, plans to support Obama: “My heart belongs to Barack.” Yeah, and your brain belongs to Low-Grade Brain Rental. Others are lining up as well to offer their best Lewinskies.

Meanwhile, unfunny adult-bed-wetter (yes, that’s true) Sarah Silverman is attacking Rick Perry. She’s upset the “N*ggerhead Scandal” had no effect, so she’s determined to try to keep it alive until someone cares. Personally, I think like many liberals she just likes using the N-word while pretending she’s actually outraged. . . ditto with her prior use of “chink.”

And from the land of the absurd, Michael Moore is trying to fit in with the OWS Movement. Sadly for Michael, who has net worth of $50 million (but value of only $1.25), he’s more of a 0.99%er than a 99%er. On the plus side, he’s got the right level of stupid and hypocrite to fit right in!

● Item: OWS Irony of the Week. Finally, there is a rumor making the rounds that OWS is now trying to copyright their name. Capitalist pigs.

More Leftist Stupidity And Scandals

View Detail

Herman Cain: The Sexual Harassment Smear

Herman Cain: The Sexual Harassment Smear

By now you’ve probably heard Politico is alleging that two women claim Herman Cain harassed them in the 1990s when he was head of the Restaurant Association. This is a classic smear. Journalists with left wing sympathies dig up anonymous sources who claim a rising Republican is guilty of some nebulous crime. They provide no details and won’t reveal the names of the accusers. They imply guilt by saying Cain bought them off. Now they heap scorn upon him, not for the supposed crime, of which they presume he is guilty, but his failure to defend himself to their satisfaction.

This is, pardon my French, bullshit.

Let’s look at the elements. First, we have the nature of the allegations. Politico accuses Cain of sexual harassment. But sexual harassment is an extremely broad category of conduct that can run all the way up to rape. Thus, it is vital to identify the exact conduct. Of course they don’t. Why don’t they? They claim they can’t because of settlement agreements, but that’s a lie as I’ll discuss. The real reason they don’t state the allegations is because there are no worthwhile allegations here and they are hoping the public will think the worst.

These events (assuming they even happened) happened in the 1990s, the heyday of the fake sexual harassment claim. Spurred on by Anita Hill’s own fantasy claims, the 1990s saw spurious well-after-the-fact claims made for things like: telling dirty jokes, asking out on dates, complimenting clothing, excluding from lunches and outside activities with male colleagues, having a racy calendar, looking at the “victim” in ways the victim felt were inappropriate, etc. Also, keep in mind, this was the same time feminists were claiming that “all sex is rape,” that most women had been date-raped, and that women should be allowed to say “no” after the fact. Thus, a reputable journalist not looking to smear a candidate would say more than “harassment” because they would not want to give a false impression.

And let’s look at the reason they claim they can’t say more: the settlement agreement.

First, a five figure settlement is a joke. In fact, it means the claims were baseless because it means the association settled just to avoid the attorneys fees. And again, let me note that we don’t know what the settlement actually is because Politico wants you to think the worst. Rather than hearing “it was $10,000” (the amount grocery stores pay fake slip and fall fraudsters to go away) you’re supposed to think it’s up to $100,000.

Secondly, in the law you hear a phrase all the time: “sword and shield.” What this means is that the law does not allow a person to use the law to attack another person and then to turn around and hide behind that same law when the person counterattacks. This smear is a classic example of such an abuse. What I mean is this: on the one hand, Politico refuses to release the names of the accusers, the details of their allegations or the settlement amount. Thus, they have in effect made it impossible to verify the truth of these allegations by hiding behind the settlement confidentiality provision. But then they turn around and lynch Cain for failing to explain away these allegations, i.e. for failing to violate the same confidentiality provision behind which they are hiding. That is a smear.

Moreover, Politico is lying. These agreements not only require confidentiality of the terms and the allegations made therein, but they also require confidentiality of the agreement itself. When Politico’s unidentified witnesses mentioned the agreement, mentioned the type of allegations, mentioned that there was a settlement, and mentioned that it was five-figure settlement, they violated that agreement. In other words, they have broken the agreement already and hiding behind the idea that they can’t say more without breaking the agreement is a lie. . . and Politico knows that.

Not to mention, I have yet to see Politico mention that the Restaurant Association will have denied any liability in the settlement. Which I can guarantee you they did. Not mentioning that, but instead saying that the Association has refused to comment (as they should) is another smear.

Let’s be clear here. The MSM and left hate and fear strong, smart, capable, conservative blacks. They will do and say whatever it takes to destroy them. And their favorite method is to scream “sexual harassment” because it plays into the racist stereotype of black males as sexual predators. This is usually followed by accusing them of lying about their education, before they start a whisper campaign that this particular black man “likes white women.” That is the bigoted pattern and that is what Politico has started here.

And as you would expect, the usual suspects are already at work. Women’s groups who plucked out their own eyes to avoid seeing Clinton’s constant harassment are demanding blood. Leftist journalists who spent last week telling us that Republican support for Cain proved we are racists because we want a black man “who knows his place” (MSNBC), are now in a feeding frenzy about the out of control sexual predator. And establishment types like Karl Rove are trying to tear Cain down by claiming Cain has refused to answer whether or not this is true. For the record, here is Cain's “evasion”:

“It is totally baseless and totally false. Never have I ever committed any kind of sexual harassment.”

I guess Rove lacks comprehension skills. . . or integrity.

This is a smear and should make you angry, even if you aren’t a Cain supporter. This is exactly the kind of smear the right needs to stand up to and reject. This is shameful.

By now you’ve probably heard Politico is alleging that two women claim Herman Cain harassed them in the 1990s when he was head of the Restaurant Association. This is a classic smear. Journalists with left wing sympathies dig up anonymous sources who claim a rising Republican is guilty of some nebulous crime. They provide no details and won’t reveal the names of the accusers. They imply guilt by saying Cain bought them off. Now they heap scorn upon him, not for the supposed crime, of which they presume he is guilty, but his failure to defend himself to their satisfaction.

This is, pardon my French, bullshit.

Let’s look at the elements. First, we have the nature of the allegations. Politico accuses Cain of sexual harassment. But sexual harassment is an extremely broad category of conduct that can run all the way up to rape. Thus, it is vital to identify the exact conduct. Of course they don’t. Why don’t they? They claim they can’t because of settlement agreements, but that’s a lie as I’ll discuss. The real reason they don’t state the allegations is because there are no worthwhile allegations here and they are hoping the public will think the worst.

These events (assuming they even happened) happened in the 1990s, the heyday of the fake sexual harassment claim. Spurred on by Anita Hill’s own fantasy claims, the 1990s saw spurious well-after-the-fact claims made for things like: telling dirty jokes, asking out on dates, complimenting clothing, excluding from lunches and outside activities with male colleagues, having a racy calendar, looking at the “victim” in ways the victim felt were inappropriate, etc. Also, keep in mind, this was the same time feminists were claiming that “all sex is rape,” that most women had been date-raped, and that women should be allowed to say “no” after the fact. Thus, a reputable journalist not looking to smear a candidate would say more than “harassment” because they would not want to give a false impression.

And let’s look at the reason they claim they can’t say more: the settlement agreement.

First, a five figure settlement is a joke. In fact, it means the claims were baseless because it means the association settled just to avoid the attorneys fees. And again, let me note that we don’t know what the settlement actually is because Politico wants you to think the worst. Rather than hearing “it was $10,000” (the amount grocery stores pay fake slip and fall fraudsters to go away) you’re supposed to think it’s up to $100,000.

Secondly, in the law you hear a phrase all the time: “sword and shield.” What this means is that the law does not allow a person to use the law to attack another person and then to turn around and hide behind that same law when the person counterattacks. This smear is a classic example of such an abuse. What I mean is this: on the one hand, Politico refuses to release the names of the accusers, the details of their allegations or the settlement amount. Thus, they have in effect made it impossible to verify the truth of these allegations by hiding behind the settlement confidentiality provision. But then they turn around and lynch Cain for failing to explain away these allegations, i.e. for failing to violate the same confidentiality provision behind which they are hiding. That is a smear.

Moreover, Politico is lying. These agreements not only require confidentiality of the terms and the allegations made therein, but they also require confidentiality of the agreement itself. When Politico’s unidentified witnesses mentioned the agreement, mentioned the type of allegations, mentioned that there was a settlement, and mentioned that it was five-figure settlement, they violated that agreement. In other words, they have broken the agreement already and hiding behind the idea that they can’t say more without breaking the agreement is a lie. . . and Politico knows that.

Not to mention, I have yet to see Politico mention that the Restaurant Association will have denied any liability in the settlement. Which I can guarantee you they did. Not mentioning that, but instead saying that the Association has refused to comment (as they should) is another smear.

Let’s be clear here. The MSM and left hate and fear strong, smart, capable, conservative blacks. They will do and say whatever it takes to destroy them. And their favorite method is to scream “sexual harassment” because it plays into the racist stereotype of black males as sexual predators. This is usually followed by accusing them of lying about their education, before they start a whisper campaign that this particular black man “likes white women.” That is the bigoted pattern and that is what Politico has started here.

And as you would expect, the usual suspects are already at work. Women’s groups who plucked out their own eyes to avoid seeing Clinton’s constant harassment are demanding blood. Leftist journalists who spent last week telling us that Republican support for Cain proved we are racists because we want a black man “who knows his place” (MSNBC), are now in a feeding frenzy about the out of control sexual predator. And establishment types like Karl Rove are trying to tear Cain down by claiming Cain has refused to answer whether or not this is true. For the record, here is Cain's “evasion”:

“It is totally baseless and totally false. Never have I ever committed any kind of sexual harassment.”

I guess Rove lacks comprehension skills. . . or integrity.

This is a smear and should make you angry, even if you aren’t a Cain supporter. This is exactly the kind of smear the right needs to stand up to and reject. This is shameful.

Herman Cain: The Sexual Harassment Smear

View Detail

2012 Campaign Weekly Round Up!

2012 Campaign Weekly Round Up!

Lots of interesting news this week from the 2012 Campaign, one item in particular has me truly fascinated. . . a debate! Then there’s the other stuff. Bachmann continues to implode. Perry offers a plan to entrench liberalism. Santorum has indigestion. And George Will slapped Mitt Romney. Read on. . .

● Item One: Lincoln Douglas II (electric boogaloo)! The big COOL news is this: Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain have agreed to engage in a “modified Lincoln-Douglas debate” in Texas on November 5.

Bill O’Sullivan, the treasurer of the Texas Tea Party Patriots explains that: “We initially wanted a forum with all of the candidates. But when we heard Gingrich say he wanted a more serious debate, like the Lincoln–Douglas debates, we wanted to do that, especially since watching the recent superficial debates has been frustrating.”

The debate will involve both men going back and forth, “in a respectful way,” with no moderator. Sadly, no network has agreed to broadcast this debate (HINT: INTERNET BILL!!!), but I would LOVE to see this.

● Item Two: Flatsnake Oil Rick Perry. Last week Rick Perry told us he wants a flat tax. This week he finally released the rate. Who knows what next week's fortune cookie might bring?! His plan apparently calls for a 20% flat tax with a $12,500 deduction per individual OR household (plus all the usual deductions). This is a HORRIBLE idea:

○ 1) This makes the problem of 47% of Americans not paying any taxes much worse. This plan takes at least another 48 million people off the tax roles, which increases the number who pay no taxes to 62%. Way to entrench liberalism Rick!

○ 2) This doesn’t produce anywhere near the income needed. Hence, it is fantasy meant to dazzle you only. Do not take internally.

○ 3) This creates a massive marriage penalty, something Republicans worked for decades to fix.

○ 4) Perry's deductions only apply if you aren't rich, which he defines as making $500,000 a year. In other words, Perry plays right into the Democrats' class warfare strategy.

○ 5) Ricky also doesn't address what constitutes income or valid deductions, which is where people with lobbyist blood (like Perry) make sure their friends like GE pay no taxes.

Somebody drag Rick back to Texas before he hurts himself.

● Item Three: Irritable Bowel. Ricky Santorum says a Ron Paul nomination would “give me indigestion.” Ironically, that’s how I feel about Santorum. . . only the pain would be lower and involves too many tacos. In fact, I would prefer the rollercoaster of a Paul presidency and his attempts to dismantle the government to the stifling idiocy of a Santorum presidency and his Jihad against the scary, essence-sapping homosexuals in our midsts.

● Item : Mutiny On The Bachmann. For months now, Bachmann has been experiencing a steady flow of staffers quitting her campaign. Many have taken the highly-unusual step of calling her a liar on the way out. Indeed, I recall one of her senior Congressional staffers very politely explaining that he still supported her, but he just got sick of trying to explain away her constant lies and fictions to the press.

Now Bachmann’s entire New Hampshire staff has quit on her and badmouthed her in the process. She promptly went on the radio and denied this had happened and tried to blame other campaigns for smearing her, going so far as to say that she had “called the New Hampshire staff” and they “said that isn't true.” This was yet another lie. So yesterday, the ex-staff released a letter in which they describe the campaign as “rude, unprofessional, dishonest, and at times cruel.”

● Item : Duller Than Dirt Squared. George F. Will has always struck me as the dullest man alive. In fact, I’m pretty sure the first question doctors ask about coma patients is “were they listening to Will?” So when the Willster tells you someone else is dull, you should listen. You’ve probably stumbled upon the essence of dull, or at least dull extract. Will just slammed Mitt Romney by describing him as the GOP’s own Michael Dukakis: “[Cain] is rising as more and more Republicans come to the conclusion that the Republican Party has found its Michael Dukakis -- a technocratic Massachusetts governor running on competence, not ideology.” Ouch! Careful George, Mitt might strongly disagree with your premise in a very stern letter.

● Item : Rolling In The Mud. I can't tell you how little I respect Karl Rove. If he gives you an opinion, you can put money on it being wrong. He’s now after Herman Cain because that's how Rove stays relevant. To that end, he’s declaring Cain “finished” because of five “gaffes” Cain supposedly made. Three of these involve foreign policy minutia, which doesn’t resonate with people. And the other two are Rove’s interpretation of Cain’s statements and require you to assume Cain doesn’t know the difference between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and doesn’t understand his own 9-9-9 plan. Obviously, this is bull.

However, Herm is making a mistake: he’s letting the establishment’s yammering heads get him frustrated and he’s shooting back. Cain needs to ignore them and stay positive -- counterattacking should be done by Cain's friends, not Cain. When the candidate gets dragged down into the mud, they cannot win no matter what they say. So let the pigs like Rove wallow . . . no one listens to them anyway.

Lots of interesting news this week from the 2012 Campaign, one item in particular has me truly fascinated. . . a debate! Then there’s the other stuff. Bachmann continues to implode. Perry offers a plan to entrench liberalism. Santorum has indigestion. And George Will slapped Mitt Romney. Read on. . .

● Item One: Lincoln Douglas II (electric boogaloo)! The big COOL news is this: Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain have agreed to engage in a “modified Lincoln-Douglas debate” in Texas on November 5.

Bill O’Sullivan, the treasurer of the Texas Tea Party Patriots explains that: “We initially wanted a forum with all of the candidates. But when we heard Gingrich say he wanted a more serious debate, like the Lincoln–Douglas debates, we wanted to do that, especially since watching the recent superficial debates has been frustrating.”

The debate will involve both men going back and forth, “in a respectful way,” with no moderator. Sadly, no network has agreed to broadcast this debate (HINT: INTERNET BILL!!!), but I would LOVE to see this.

● Item Two: Flatsnake Oil Rick Perry. Last week Rick Perry told us he wants a flat tax. This week he finally released the rate. Who knows what next week's fortune cookie might bring?! His plan apparently calls for a 20% flat tax with a $12,500 deduction per individual OR household (plus all the usual deductions). This is a HORRIBLE idea:

○ 1) This makes the problem of 47% of Americans not paying any taxes much worse. This plan takes at least another 48 million people off the tax roles, which increases the number who pay no taxes to 62%. Way to entrench liberalism Rick!

○ 2) This doesn’t produce anywhere near the income needed. Hence, it is fantasy meant to dazzle you only. Do not take internally.

○ 3) This creates a massive marriage penalty, something Republicans worked for decades to fix.

○ 4) Perry's deductions only apply if you aren't rich, which he defines as making $500,000 a year. In other words, Perry plays right into the Democrats' class warfare strategy.

○ 5) Ricky also doesn't address what constitutes income or valid deductions, which is where people with lobbyist blood (like Perry) make sure their friends like GE pay no taxes.

Somebody drag Rick back to Texas before he hurts himself.

● Item Three: Irritable Bowel. Ricky Santorum says a Ron Paul nomination would “give me indigestion.” Ironically, that’s how I feel about Santorum. . . only the pain would be lower and involves too many tacos. In fact, I would prefer the rollercoaster of a Paul presidency and his attempts to dismantle the government to the stifling idiocy of a Santorum presidency and his Jihad against the scary, essence-sapping homosexuals in our midsts.

● Item : Mutiny On The Bachmann. For months now, Bachmann has been experiencing a steady flow of staffers quitting her campaign. Many have taken the highly-unusual step of calling her a liar on the way out. Indeed, I recall one of her senior Congressional staffers very politely explaining that he still supported her, but he just got sick of trying to explain away her constant lies and fictions to the press.

Now Bachmann’s entire New Hampshire staff has quit on her and badmouthed her in the process. She promptly went on the radio and denied this had happened and tried to blame other campaigns for smearing her, going so far as to say that she had “called the New Hampshire staff” and they “said that isn't true.” This was yet another lie. So yesterday, the ex-staff released a letter in which they describe the campaign as “rude, unprofessional, dishonest, and at times cruel.”

● Item : Duller Than Dirt Squared. George F. Will has always struck me as the dullest man alive. In fact, I’m pretty sure the first question doctors ask about coma patients is “were they listening to Will?” So when the Willster tells you someone else is dull, you should listen. You’ve probably stumbled upon the essence of dull, or at least dull extract. Will just slammed Mitt Romney by describing him as the GOP’s own Michael Dukakis: “[Cain] is rising as more and more Republicans come to the conclusion that the Republican Party has found its Michael Dukakis -- a technocratic Massachusetts governor running on competence, not ideology.” Ouch! Careful George, Mitt might strongly disagree with your premise in a very stern letter.

● Item : Rolling In The Mud. I can't tell you how little I respect Karl Rove. If he gives you an opinion, you can put money on it being wrong. He’s now after Herman Cain because that's how Rove stays relevant. To that end, he’s declaring Cain “finished” because of five “gaffes” Cain supposedly made. Three of these involve foreign policy minutia, which doesn’t resonate with people. And the other two are Rove’s interpretation of Cain’s statements and require you to assume Cain doesn’t know the difference between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and doesn’t understand his own 9-9-9 plan. Obviously, this is bull.

However, Herm is making a mistake: he’s letting the establishment’s yammering heads get him frustrated and he’s shooting back. Cain needs to ignore them and stay positive -- counterattacking should be done by Cain's friends, not Cain. When the candidate gets dragged down into the mud, they cannot win no matter what they say. So let the pigs like Rove wallow . . . no one listens to them anyway.

2012 Campaign Weekly Round Up!

View Detail

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

Last night’s debate was a disgrace. Newt tried to blame CNN at the end for using a back and forth format that encouraged bickering. He’s wrong. CNN had nothing to do with it. Several candidates (including Newt) made conscious decisions to act like jackasses. They acted disgracefully and honestly need to drop out.

● Winner: Obama. The big winner last night was Obama as the Republicans as a group came across like liars, fools and angry children. Also, our biggest idiots (Santorum, Bachmann) both fell for Obama’s Iran-Mexico diversion even as everyone else on the planet has decided Holder made it up. Bravo.

● Not Loser: Mitt Romney. If you look at Romney in isolation, he came across as knowledgeable and well-briefed, and defended himself well. On the minus side, I don’t recall anything he said and he never came across as conservative. But the real problem last night was the nastiness of the entire debate. This was a debate filled with cheap shots, lies, unprofessional conduct and childish behavior. Even though his performance was solid, Romney gets downgraded for guilt by association because no one looked good. I do, however, give Romney a slight win over Cain because Romney seemed more in control.

● Not Loser: Herman Cain. Cain was smart, knowledgeable and relentlessly positive. He defended himself well and always remained a gentleman. He displayed his sense of humor about electrifying the fence to Mexico and during the unfair attacks on his 9-9-9 plan. He proposed a real healthcare solution (not just “repeal ObamaCare”), i.e. allowing insurance across state borders, loser pays laws, and allowing patients and doctors to make decisions. And he refused to apologize for telling the OccupyWallStreet kids that it’s their own fault they don’t have jobs -- he said they should blame Obama, not bankers.

But the mud was too thick last night. Each of the others used numbers from a leftist think tank and liberal arguments to attack his 9-9-9 plan. It was bizarre to hear conservative Ron Paul defend progressive tax rates. Bachmann and Santorum falsely claimed Cain’s sales tax is a VAT. Newt pretended it was hopelessly complex. And Romney and Perry tried to mix in state taxes to confuse the plan. Essentially, seven supposed conservatives either knowingly lied or used the liberal ideas they have themselves criticized to attack a solidly conservative plan. Even worse, these attacks were done in smarmy, condescending ways. It was shameful. I thought the pile-on effect hurt Cain, though CNN's Gloria Borger thought Cain defended himself extremely well.

A bigger problem came when he suggested he would negotiate with terrorists. He actually said he would consider a hostage trade for a captured American soldier depending on the circumstances -- and the truth is every leader negotiates with terrorists. But since this was hypocrite night, the others jumped on this even though they would do the exact same thing. Cain backpedaled. He should have stood his ground. The public can accept views with which they disagree, but they don’t like backpedaling. Cain also seemed to backpedal on the TARP issue. He says he supported the concept, but not the execution. Personally, I don’t think that plays well for a man who is known as a straight shooter.

● Ron Paul: Not much new to report here. Paul wants to bring the troops home from Korea and Japan, causing an arms race in Asia. Other than that, he was mostly right all night, but still 10% insane. Last night’s secret word was “inflation.”

● Loser: Newt. Newt reminded us why people don’t like or trust him. He claims to be an outsider, yet he attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and then advocated “targeted” tinkering with the current code instead. Welcome back to K Street Newt, we missed you.

Then he got caught lying about supporting the individual mandate for health insurance when he attacked Romney for including such a mandate in RomneyCare. Romney shot back saying he got the idea from Newt. Newt acted outraged and called that “a lie.” Except it wasn’t. Newt danced for a while and then had to admit he did in fact support and advocate the idea. And he tried to explain his lie away by saying Romney had falsely said “Newt” came up with the idea when it was really “Newt AND the Heritage Foundation.” Only a corrupt politician would think that’s a valid distinction.

Newt also pandered to the Religious Right by saying he wouldn’t trust anyone who doesn’t pray. . . though he didn’t specify how many minutes of prayer are required. Finally, he tried to blame Anderson Cooper for his own misbehavior and that of the other children.

● Total Loser: Rick Perry. Perry’s performance was pathetic. He interrupted and spoke over people. He took nasty cheap shots all night and even went back to the same ones after they were discredited. He got booed repeatedly. He kept talking about his “plan,” which he apparently released last week or might release next week, depending on which Perry you believe. The only economic idea he could mention was drilling for oil. He tried to attack Romney for hiring illegal aliens, which turned out to be a contracted lawn service and then tried to leverage this into making himself sound tough on illegal immigration -- until Romney pointed out that Perry wrote an editorial supporting amnesty. Perry also got caught lying about supporting TARP. He tried to blame all of Texas’ problems on the federal government, but offered no solutions. He smugly tried to redefine conservatism to fit him. And he tried to go toe to toe with Romney in verbal gotcha and got destroyed. The boy is stoopid. Rick needs to find an exit strategy pronto.

● Total Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is proving to be a politician in the worst sense. She's a clueless hypocrite who doesn't understand the Constitution. She's incapable of answering direct questions. Her whole platform depends on emotional appeals based on irrelevancies. And worst of all, she speaks in disingenuous generalities and then attacks anyone who won’t ante up to her pandering. Here are some examples.

She attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too extreme and then proposed eliminating the entire tax code. Huh? And as usual, she gave no hint what she would replace it with. Why? Two reasons. First, she doesn’t have a clue. Secondly, the only thing it could be replaced with is a sales tax. . . like the one she keeps slamming Herman Cain for proposing. Also, despite being a former attorney for the IRS (which actually means nothing -- she was just a debt collector), she doesn’t understand the difference between corporate income tax, a sales tax and a value added tax. And after attacking Cain's 9-9-9 plan for “raising taxes on millions of people,” she then said she wants 100% of Americans to pay taxes -- which would raise taxes on at least 145 million people. Also note that she hasn't proposed even a hint of a plan how she would do this.

Bachmann jumped on Cain for the supposed “negotiate with terrorists” thing even after he clarified his statement and denied that’s what he meant. Then she tried to one-up herself by stupidly claiming she’s so tough she wants to demand “reimbursement” from Iraq and Libya for what it cost us to invade both countries -- that's how World War II started.

She also dubiously claimed she will ban immigrants from getting “any government benefits” (which would violate the Constitution) and she equally dubiously claimed she could fix the “anchor baby” problem through legislation without changing the 14th Amendment.

● Total Loser: Rick Santorum. Santorum is a disgrace. He's a whiny fake who tries to disrupt the other candidates by talking over them, by mischaracterizing their statements and plans, by hitting them with liberal talking points, and by making illogical, disingenuous, contradictory and hypocritical attacks. All he’s done is poison the debates. And for the record, while Rick claims he’s the only one ever to win in a swing state (cough cough Romney and Bachmann) and he claims he did better than Bush, let me remind you how his last election went: 2006 Bob Casey 59%, Rick Santorum 41%. Get bent Rick.

Conclusion

What really struck me last night was the difference between the professional politicians and the businessmen. The businessmen kept trying to promote their ideas and tried to stay positive, though Cain succeeded more than Romney at that. The professionals (excluding Paul) used gotcha questions, false logic, cynical emotional appeals, lies, distortions and distinctions so fine they were nonexistent. They were angry. They offered nothing but the same old, same old. And frankly, it made me sick watching them. Am I wrong?

Last night’s debate was a disgrace. Newt tried to blame CNN at the end for using a back and forth format that encouraged bickering. He’s wrong. CNN had nothing to do with it. Several candidates (including Newt) made conscious decisions to act like jackasses. They acted disgracefully and honestly need to drop out.

● Winner: Obama. The big winner last night was Obama as the Republicans as a group came across like liars, fools and angry children. Also, our biggest idiots (Santorum, Bachmann) both fell for Obama’s Iran-Mexico diversion even as everyone else on the planet has decided Holder made it up. Bravo.

● Not Loser: Mitt Romney. If you look at Romney in isolation, he came across as knowledgeable and well-briefed, and defended himself well. On the minus side, I don’t recall anything he said and he never came across as conservative. But the real problem last night was the nastiness of the entire debate. This was a debate filled with cheap shots, lies, unprofessional conduct and childish behavior. Even though his performance was solid, Romney gets downgraded for guilt by association because no one looked good. I do, however, give Romney a slight win over Cain because Romney seemed more in control.

● Not Loser: Herman Cain. Cain was smart, knowledgeable and relentlessly positive. He defended himself well and always remained a gentleman. He displayed his sense of humor about electrifying the fence to Mexico and during the unfair attacks on his 9-9-9 plan. He proposed a real healthcare solution (not just “repeal ObamaCare”), i.e. allowing insurance across state borders, loser pays laws, and allowing patients and doctors to make decisions. And he refused to apologize for telling the OccupyWallStreet kids that it’s their own fault they don’t have jobs -- he said they should blame Obama, not bankers.

But the mud was too thick last night. Each of the others used numbers from a leftist think tank and liberal arguments to attack his 9-9-9 plan. It was bizarre to hear conservative Ron Paul defend progressive tax rates. Bachmann and Santorum falsely claimed Cain’s sales tax is a VAT. Newt pretended it was hopelessly complex. And Romney and Perry tried to mix in state taxes to confuse the plan. Essentially, seven supposed conservatives either knowingly lied or used the liberal ideas they have themselves criticized to attack a solidly conservative plan. Even worse, these attacks were done in smarmy, condescending ways. It was shameful. I thought the pile-on effect hurt Cain, though CNN's Gloria Borger thought Cain defended himself extremely well.

A bigger problem came when he suggested he would negotiate with terrorists. He actually said he would consider a hostage trade for a captured American soldier depending on the circumstances -- and the truth is every leader negotiates with terrorists. But since this was hypocrite night, the others jumped on this even though they would do the exact same thing. Cain backpedaled. He should have stood his ground. The public can accept views with which they disagree, but they don’t like backpedaling. Cain also seemed to backpedal on the TARP issue. He says he supported the concept, but not the execution. Personally, I don’t think that plays well for a man who is known as a straight shooter.

● Ron Paul: Not much new to report here. Paul wants to bring the troops home from Korea and Japan, causing an arms race in Asia. Other than that, he was mostly right all night, but still 10% insane. Last night’s secret word was “inflation.”

● Loser: Newt. Newt reminded us why people don’t like or trust him. He claims to be an outsider, yet he attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and then advocated “targeted” tinkering with the current code instead. Welcome back to K Street Newt, we missed you.

Then he got caught lying about supporting the individual mandate for health insurance when he attacked Romney for including such a mandate in RomneyCare. Romney shot back saying he got the idea from Newt. Newt acted outraged and called that “a lie.” Except it wasn’t. Newt danced for a while and then had to admit he did in fact support and advocate the idea. And he tried to explain his lie away by saying Romney had falsely said “Newt” came up with the idea when it was really “Newt AND the Heritage Foundation.” Only a corrupt politician would think that’s a valid distinction.

Newt also pandered to the Religious Right by saying he wouldn’t trust anyone who doesn’t pray. . . though he didn’t specify how many minutes of prayer are required. Finally, he tried to blame Anderson Cooper for his own misbehavior and that of the other children.

● Total Loser: Rick Perry. Perry’s performance was pathetic. He interrupted and spoke over people. He took nasty cheap shots all night and even went back to the same ones after they were discredited. He got booed repeatedly. He kept talking about his “plan,” which he apparently released last week or might release next week, depending on which Perry you believe. The only economic idea he could mention was drilling for oil. He tried to attack Romney for hiring illegal aliens, which turned out to be a contracted lawn service and then tried to leverage this into making himself sound tough on illegal immigration -- until Romney pointed out that Perry wrote an editorial supporting amnesty. Perry also got caught lying about supporting TARP. He tried to blame all of Texas’ problems on the federal government, but offered no solutions. He smugly tried to redefine conservatism to fit him. And he tried to go toe to toe with Romney in verbal gotcha and got destroyed. The boy is stoopid. Rick needs to find an exit strategy pronto.

● Total Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is proving to be a politician in the worst sense. She's a clueless hypocrite who doesn't understand the Constitution. She's incapable of answering direct questions. Her whole platform depends on emotional appeals based on irrelevancies. And worst of all, she speaks in disingenuous generalities and then attacks anyone who won’t ante up to her pandering. Here are some examples.

She attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too extreme and then proposed eliminating the entire tax code. Huh? And as usual, she gave no hint what she would replace it with. Why? Two reasons. First, she doesn’t have a clue. Secondly, the only thing it could be replaced with is a sales tax. . . like the one she keeps slamming Herman Cain for proposing. Also, despite being a former attorney for the IRS (which actually means nothing -- she was just a debt collector), she doesn’t understand the difference between corporate income tax, a sales tax and a value added tax. And after attacking Cain's 9-9-9 plan for “raising taxes on millions of people,” she then said she wants 100% of Americans to pay taxes -- which would raise taxes on at least 145 million people. Also note that she hasn't proposed even a hint of a plan how she would do this.

Bachmann jumped on Cain for the supposed “negotiate with terrorists” thing even after he clarified his statement and denied that’s what he meant. Then she tried to one-up herself by stupidly claiming she’s so tough she wants to demand “reimbursement” from Iraq and Libya for what it cost us to invade both countries -- that's how World War II started.

She also dubiously claimed she will ban immigrants from getting “any government benefits” (which would violate the Constitution) and she equally dubiously claimed she could fix the “anchor baby” problem through legislation without changing the 14th Amendment.

● Total Loser: Rick Santorum. Santorum is a disgrace. He's a whiny fake who tries to disrupt the other candidates by talking over them, by mischaracterizing their statements and plans, by hitting them with liberal talking points, and by making illogical, disingenuous, contradictory and hypocritical attacks. All he’s done is poison the debates. And for the record, while Rick claims he’s the only one ever to win in a swing state (cough cough Romney and Bachmann) and he claims he did better than Bush, let me remind you how his last election went: 2006 Bob Casey 59%, Rick Santorum 41%. Get bent Rick.

Conclusion

What really struck me last night was the difference between the professional politicians and the businessmen. The businessmen kept trying to promote their ideas and tried to stay positive, though Cain succeeded more than Romney at that. The professionals (excluding Paul) used gotcha questions, false logic, cynical emotional appeals, lies, distortions and distinctions so fine they were nonexistent. They were angry. They offered nothing but the same old, same old. And frankly, it made me sick watching them. Am I wrong?

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

View Detail

Analysis: Cain's 9-9-9 Plan

Analysis: Cain's 9-9-9 Plan

A couple of you have asked that we provide more detail on Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. With another debate tonight (join us for another play by play), now is a good time to discuss the Hermanator’s plan.

Here’s how the plan works:

● Businesses would pay a flat 9.1% tax on gross income less purchases from other US located businesses, capital investment and net exports.

● Individuals would pay a flat 9.1% tax on income, less charitable deductions.

● A 9.1% national sales tax would be created to make up lost revenue.

Here are the reasons this is a good plan:

● The elimination of deductions ends the incestuous relationship between Big Business and government where Big Business buys politicians who insert deductions into the tax code to allow companies like GE to declare record profits and yet pay $0 in tax.

● This plan ends the economic misallocations caused by the current code because it eliminates the deductions which encourage people to hide their income. It does not give preferences to savings or consumption, capital or labor, or dividends verses income growth. In effect, the government gets out of the business of telling people how to structure their economic lives.

● It reduces the disincentive to work because it lowers payroll taxes. And it boosts the incentive to work, hire and buy new equipment because it lowers the overall tax rates for those activities.

● It encourages spending on American goods and services as only those can be deducted. And it encourages exports.

● This forces everyone to pay taxes, i.e. it broadens the tax base. Right now 47% of the public pays no tax, but gets government benefits. That needs to change to change the incentive these people have to keep demanding bigger government. Making them pay taxes goes a long way toward that.

Here are the arguments against:

● This will create a hidden Value Added Tax! Europe uses the VAT because VATs can be raised without people knowing. But this isn’t a VAT. This is a sales tax and would only apply to the sale of new goods or services to end users. In other words, whereas a VAT gets added at each level, a sale tax only gets added once. Moreover, you would see this tax on your receipts -- something you don’t get with a VAT.

● This weekend Cain admitted that some people will pay more under his plan. So what? Finding a plan under which no one pays more but revenues remain about the same is an impossibility.

● Idiot liberal: “Poor people will pay more!!” Idiot progressive: “The evil rich will pay less!!” A lot of information is being produced to claim this plan shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, but that's all fake -- it's based on unreal assumptions about what the rich and poor pay now (like assuming GE actually pays taxes) and it assumes neither rich nor poor will change their behavior in response to the plan. The truth is the 47% of people who currently pay no taxes will pay more. The others (the productive 53%) will pay less. And frankly, that doesn't bother me in the least.

● Grover Norquist: “This raises taxes!!” Grover is again equating the elimination of all those deductions with tax hikes. But if we accept Grover’s logic, then we are trapped in the current tax code forever. What a tool.

● The plan doesn’t raise enough money! Opponents scored the plan and claim it will only raise $2 trillion, not $2.2 trillion as Cain claims. Frankly, that’s more accurate than anything else proposed by Congress. But more to the point, this is standard static scoring where they just take current spending/ income and apply the new rates. They did not determine whether people would work more once they can keep more of their income (they would) or whether people would spend more once they have more income to spend (they would). (They did the same thing to criticize Reaganomics.) No one knows what this plan would actually bring in, but if the critics are claiming $2 trillion, expect it to do much better in reality.

But there is one more problem with the plan. . . this plan ain’t happenin. Our government is specifically designed to prevent radical ideas from being implemented and this plan is deeply radical. This plan would require a complete change in the way Washington works, and that will upset too many vested interest. For example:

● K Street will lose most of its business with the end of the deductions in the tax code.

● The poverty lobby will lose its cherished progressive tax.

● Most tax attorneys and tax accountants would lose their jobs.

● All the people who currently use deductions (everything from home owners to GE) will try to save their own deductions.

● Businesses will whine about the sales tax hurting their sales.

● Foreign countries will complain about “predatory taxation” designed to steal businesses.

That’s too much opposition for Congress to do something this radical. The Democrats will cling like grim death to the old system, as will many Republicans. Still, this plan tells us a lot about Cain and his goals and it is a worthwhile goal.


P.S. Check out Herman Cain singing about pizza: Not, I'm not kidding

A couple of you have asked that we provide more detail on Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. With another debate tonight (join us for another play by play), now is a good time to discuss the Hermanator’s plan.

Here’s how the plan works:

● Businesses would pay a flat 9.1% tax on gross income less purchases from other US located businesses, capital investment and net exports.

● Individuals would pay a flat 9.1% tax on income, less charitable deductions.

● A 9.1% national sales tax would be created to make up lost revenue.

Here are the reasons this is a good plan:

● The elimination of deductions ends the incestuous relationship between Big Business and government where Big Business buys politicians who insert deductions into the tax code to allow companies like GE to declare record profits and yet pay $0 in tax.

● This plan ends the economic misallocations caused by the current code because it eliminates the deductions which encourage people to hide their income. It does not give preferences to savings or consumption, capital or labor, or dividends verses income growth. In effect, the government gets out of the business of telling people how to structure their economic lives.

● It reduces the disincentive to work because it lowers payroll taxes. And it boosts the incentive to work, hire and buy new equipment because it lowers the overall tax rates for those activities.

● It encourages spending on American goods and services as only those can be deducted. And it encourages exports.

● This forces everyone to pay taxes, i.e. it broadens the tax base. Right now 47% of the public pays no tax, but gets government benefits. That needs to change to change the incentive these people have to keep demanding bigger government. Making them pay taxes goes a long way toward that.

Here are the arguments against:

● This will create a hidden Value Added Tax! Europe uses the VAT because VATs can be raised without people knowing. But this isn’t a VAT. This is a sales tax and would only apply to the sale of new goods or services to end users. In other words, whereas a VAT gets added at each level, a sale tax only gets added once. Moreover, you would see this tax on your receipts -- something you don’t get with a VAT.

● This weekend Cain admitted that some people will pay more under his plan. So what? Finding a plan under which no one pays more but revenues remain about the same is an impossibility.

● Idiot liberal: “Poor people will pay more!!” Idiot progressive: “The evil rich will pay less!!” A lot of information is being produced to claim this plan shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, but that's all fake -- it's based on unreal assumptions about what the rich and poor pay now (like assuming GE actually pays taxes) and it assumes neither rich nor poor will change their behavior in response to the plan. The truth is the 47% of people who currently pay no taxes will pay more. The others (the productive 53%) will pay less. And frankly, that doesn't bother me in the least.

● Grover Norquist: “This raises taxes!!” Grover is again equating the elimination of all those deductions with tax hikes. But if we accept Grover’s logic, then we are trapped in the current tax code forever. What a tool.

● The plan doesn’t raise enough money! Opponents scored the plan and claim it will only raise $2 trillion, not $2.2 trillion as Cain claims. Frankly, that’s more accurate than anything else proposed by Congress. But more to the point, this is standard static scoring where they just take current spending/ income and apply the new rates. They did not determine whether people would work more once they can keep more of their income (they would) or whether people would spend more once they have more income to spend (they would). (They did the same thing to criticize Reaganomics.) No one knows what this plan would actually bring in, but if the critics are claiming $2 trillion, expect it to do much better in reality.

But there is one more problem with the plan. . . this plan ain’t happenin. Our government is specifically designed to prevent radical ideas from being implemented and this plan is deeply radical. This plan would require a complete change in the way Washington works, and that will upset too many vested interest. For example:

● K Street will lose most of its business with the end of the deductions in the tax code.

● The poverty lobby will lose its cherished progressive tax.

● Most tax attorneys and tax accountants would lose their jobs.

● All the people who currently use deductions (everything from home owners to GE) will try to save their own deductions.

● Businesses will whine about the sales tax hurting their sales.

● Foreign countries will complain about “predatory taxation” designed to steal businesses.

That’s too much opposition for Congress to do something this radical. The Democrats will cling like grim death to the old system, as will many Republicans. Still, this plan tells us a lot about Cain and his goals and it is a worthwhile goal.


P.S. Check out Herman Cain singing about pizza: Not, I'm not kidding

Analysis: Cain's 9-9-9 Plan

View Detail

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

Last night saw yet another fascinating Republican debate. Most of the attacks were on Cain or Romney. Perry attacked Romney as did Bachmann. Paul and Santorum attacked Cain. Huntsman focused on Perry. Gingrich focused on the Fed. Romney focused on Obama. Cain focused on his own plans. And the moderators attacked Romney, Cain and Perry. In the end, I think Cain was a huge winner, even though that may not be immediately apparent, and the race is now between Romney and Cain.

● Cain: Cain needed to show he could take the pressure of being number two. He did. At no point did he fall flat on his face or lack for answers. His two worst moments came:

● When a moderator asked why he told the unemployed it was their own fault they didn't have jobs. This mischaracterized Cain’s comment, which was aimed at the idiots squatting on Wall Street, but it still sounded bad and his explanation wasn’t particularly strong.

● When Ron Paul attacked him for being on the Kansas City Fed, Cain gave an ok (not great) answer that the Fed didn’t act then like it does now. That won’t satisfy Fed-deniers.

Cain defended other attacks quite nicely, such as:

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for raising only $2 trillion in revenues instead of the $2.2 trillion claimed, Cain shot back with one of the best lines of the night: “The problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect.”

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being “regressive” and making “food and milk and beer” more expensive, Cain made the solid point that eliminating the payroll tax would more than offset that. I like that he didn't apologize for imposing a “regressive” tax.

● When Romney attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too simple and claiming simple is not good, Cain turned this on Romney by asking him if he knows all 59 points in his own plan. Romney didn’t and instead came up with the “7 pillars” of his plan and thereby proved that simple is better.

● Several of the underlings jumped on the idea Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would give Congress a new source of revenue by creating a national sale tax, but this only emphasized how deeply entrenched in the system their mindsets are. Following their logic, we shouldn't try anything.

Cain had a brilliant line too: “The capital gains tax is a wall that stands between people with ideas and people with money.”

Cain didn’t blow anybody away, but he did show solid skills and he proved he won't trip himself up. He also did such a masterful job of selling his 9-9-9 plan that every other candidate talked about it constantly, as did the moderators, and it even came up in questions that didn’t involve him. He made his 9-9-9 plan THE take away from this debate and that will prove to be a huge win, even if it isn’t immediately obvious.

● Romney: Romney just needed to be smooth and for the most part he succeeded. BUT the problem with Romney was on full display again last night. He would say something great and then he would keep talking until he backtracked out of it. He also imploded during the TARP question because he danced so long around whether he would do another Wall Street bailout that it became clear not only that he would do another bailout, but it was also clear he was trying to lie to us.

Newt also had a solid hit on Romney by pointing out that “on page 47” of his plan (a slap at Romney’s inability to describe his 59 point plan) Romney plays into Obama’s class warfare argument by promising capital gains tax cuts “to people who don’t have capital gains.” Romney missed Newt’s point and tried to defend this by saying he favors the middle class because the rich can take care of themselves. . . conceding Obama's case.

In the plus category, Perry took a shot at Romney over RomneyCare being like ObamaCare, but Romney’s defense was even better this time than last: (1) we didn’t raise taxes like Obama does, (2) we only insured poor people, we didn’t try to force everyone onto it, (3) this is a state issue, and (4) Massholes like the system 3-1. Whether those are true points or not, they remained un-refuted and made this a dead issue.

Romney also had a great shot at Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman when he said, “I would not be in this race if I had spent my whole life in government.” He then detailed some of the companies he founded.

● Perry: Perry really needed to shine to stop his nosedive. He failed. He barely spoke last night and when he did it was all generic. In particular, he mishandled his pending economic plan. He didn’t seem to know what’s in it and he just kept promising that he would release it soon as if he didn’t want to spoil the surprise. When it was pointed out that he should be able to tell us what’s in it, he responded with a very bad answer, claiming he’d only had eight weeks to work on it, whereas Romney’s had six years. Frankly a candidate who understands what they believe can detail an economic plan off the top of their head.

The moderators also smacked Perry by saying that the way Texas develops business is similar to Solyndra. Perry’s response was basically “everybody’s doin’ it,” which will only add more fire to the cronyism charge.

● Paul: Ron Paul had another bad debate. He had little to say as Newt stole his thunder. When he spoke, he made good points, but they weren’t memorable.

● Gingrich: Newt was the most interesting last night. He repeatedly tried to win over Paul supporters with angry broadside attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Fed, and he tried to win over Palin supporters by defending her even though no one else had mentioned her. Neither group are traditionally Newt people, so he’s clearly trying to branch out. Paul seemed a little stunned by this.

● Santorum: Santorum needs to go. He kept interrupting and he bizarrely continues to paint himself as an outsider. He also did things like blast everyone at the table as insiders and then (in the same sentence) attacked Cain for his lack of experience. Huh? Also, after blasting all the horrible insiders, he bragged how his years as an insider would let him pass his plan. . . whatever that plan actually is. Then he said he wanted to go to war with China, though I think he meant he wanted to fight a trade war, which isn’t much smarter. And his economic plan seems to be to make people get married.

● Bachmann: Bachmann and Santorum came across as lifer politicians with bland platitudes and repeatedly using candidate speak, e.g. “I just spoke to a man who told me blah blah blah.” This is something annoying people do when they've been in politics too long. Bachmann also needs to stop telling us she has 5 biological kids and 24 foster kids and that she was an attorney for the I.R.S. It's become like Al Bundy talking about scoring 4 touchdowns in one game.

Bachmann's attack on Cain's plan also struck me as a negative. She said if you turn Cain’s 9-9-9 plan around, “the devil is in the details.” Ha ha ha. First, that's trite and she has no comedic timing. Secondly, how does that make sense? The beauty of Cain’s plan is the lack of hidden details, it’s the tinker-with-the-current-system advocates who are playing with details. Third, what does she know of details as her “plan” (a term I use loosely) has none -- it's pure platitude. She should join Santorum on the short bus back home.

● Huntsman: Huntsman remains a sniveling jerk. He takes hypocritical cheap shots and radiates smugness, and he continues to adopt Democratic rhetoric to attack the candidates. Last night he said Cain’s 9-9-9 plan sounded like a pizza price, which is a standard attack you’ll find in the leftist blog world.

● Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP.

Thanks to everyone who participated last night and thanks to T-Rav and his sockpuppets!

Last night saw yet another fascinating Republican debate. Most of the attacks were on Cain or Romney. Perry attacked Romney as did Bachmann. Paul and Santorum attacked Cain. Huntsman focused on Perry. Gingrich focused on the Fed. Romney focused on Obama. Cain focused on his own plans. And the moderators attacked Romney, Cain and Perry. In the end, I think Cain was a huge winner, even though that may not be immediately apparent, and the race is now between Romney and Cain.

● Cain: Cain needed to show he could take the pressure of being number two. He did. At no point did he fall flat on his face or lack for answers. His two worst moments came:

● When a moderator asked why he told the unemployed it was their own fault they didn't have jobs. This mischaracterized Cain’s comment, which was aimed at the idiots squatting on Wall Street, but it still sounded bad and his explanation wasn’t particularly strong.

● When Ron Paul attacked him for being on the Kansas City Fed, Cain gave an ok (not great) answer that the Fed didn’t act then like it does now. That won’t satisfy Fed-deniers.

Cain defended other attacks quite nicely, such as:

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for raising only $2 trillion in revenues instead of the $2.2 trillion claimed, Cain shot back with one of the best lines of the night: “The problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect.”

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being “regressive” and making “food and milk and beer” more expensive, Cain made the solid point that eliminating the payroll tax would more than offset that. I like that he didn't apologize for imposing a “regressive” tax.

● When Romney attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too simple and claiming simple is not good, Cain turned this on Romney by asking him if he knows all 59 points in his own plan. Romney didn’t and instead came up with the “7 pillars” of his plan and thereby proved that simple is better.

● Several of the underlings jumped on the idea Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would give Congress a new source of revenue by creating a national sale tax, but this only emphasized how deeply entrenched in the system their mindsets are. Following their logic, we shouldn't try anything.

Cain had a brilliant line too: “The capital gains tax is a wall that stands between people with ideas and people with money.”

Cain didn’t blow anybody away, but he did show solid skills and he proved he won't trip himself up. He also did such a masterful job of selling his 9-9-9 plan that every other candidate talked about it constantly, as did the moderators, and it even came up in questions that didn’t involve him. He made his 9-9-9 plan THE take away from this debate and that will prove to be a huge win, even if it isn’t immediately obvious.

● Romney: Romney just needed to be smooth and for the most part he succeeded. BUT the problem with Romney was on full display again last night. He would say something great and then he would keep talking until he backtracked out of it. He also imploded during the TARP question because he danced so long around whether he would do another Wall Street bailout that it became clear not only that he would do another bailout, but it was also clear he was trying to lie to us.

Newt also had a solid hit on Romney by pointing out that “on page 47” of his plan (a slap at Romney’s inability to describe his 59 point plan) Romney plays into Obama’s class warfare argument by promising capital gains tax cuts “to people who don’t have capital gains.” Romney missed Newt’s point and tried to defend this by saying he favors the middle class because the rich can take care of themselves. . . conceding Obama's case.

In the plus category, Perry took a shot at Romney over RomneyCare being like ObamaCare, but Romney’s defense was even better this time than last: (1) we didn’t raise taxes like Obama does, (2) we only insured poor people, we didn’t try to force everyone onto it, (3) this is a state issue, and (4) Massholes like the system 3-1. Whether those are true points or not, they remained un-refuted and made this a dead issue.

Romney also had a great shot at Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman when he said, “I would not be in this race if I had spent my whole life in government.” He then detailed some of the companies he founded.

● Perry: Perry really needed to shine to stop his nosedive. He failed. He barely spoke last night and when he did it was all generic. In particular, he mishandled his pending economic plan. He didn’t seem to know what’s in it and he just kept promising that he would release it soon as if he didn’t want to spoil the surprise. When it was pointed out that he should be able to tell us what’s in it, he responded with a very bad answer, claiming he’d only had eight weeks to work on it, whereas Romney’s had six years. Frankly a candidate who understands what they believe can detail an economic plan off the top of their head.

The moderators also smacked Perry by saying that the way Texas develops business is similar to Solyndra. Perry’s response was basically “everybody’s doin’ it,” which will only add more fire to the cronyism charge.

● Paul: Ron Paul had another bad debate. He had little to say as Newt stole his thunder. When he spoke, he made good points, but they weren’t memorable.

● Gingrich: Newt was the most interesting last night. He repeatedly tried to win over Paul supporters with angry broadside attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Fed, and he tried to win over Palin supporters by defending her even though no one else had mentioned her. Neither group are traditionally Newt people, so he’s clearly trying to branch out. Paul seemed a little stunned by this.

● Santorum: Santorum needs to go. He kept interrupting and he bizarrely continues to paint himself as an outsider. He also did things like blast everyone at the table as insiders and then (in the same sentence) attacked Cain for his lack of experience. Huh? Also, after blasting all the horrible insiders, he bragged how his years as an insider would let him pass his plan. . . whatever that plan actually is. Then he said he wanted to go to war with China, though I think he meant he wanted to fight a trade war, which isn’t much smarter. And his economic plan seems to be to make people get married.

● Bachmann: Bachmann and Santorum came across as lifer politicians with bland platitudes and repeatedly using candidate speak, e.g. “I just spoke to a man who told me blah blah blah.” This is something annoying people do when they've been in politics too long. Bachmann also needs to stop telling us she has 5 biological kids and 24 foster kids and that she was an attorney for the I.R.S. It's become like Al Bundy talking about scoring 4 touchdowns in one game.

Bachmann's attack on Cain's plan also struck me as a negative. She said if you turn Cain’s 9-9-9 plan around, “the devil is in the details.” Ha ha ha. First, that's trite and she has no comedic timing. Secondly, how does that make sense? The beauty of Cain’s plan is the lack of hidden details, it’s the tinker-with-the-current-system advocates who are playing with details. Third, what does she know of details as her “plan” (a term I use loosely) has none -- it's pure platitude. She should join Santorum on the short bus back home.

● Huntsman: Huntsman remains a sniveling jerk. He takes hypocritical cheap shots and radiates smugness, and he continues to adopt Democratic rhetoric to attack the candidates. Last night he said Cain’s 9-9-9 plan sounded like a pizza price, which is a standard attack you’ll find in the leftist blog world.

● Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP.

Thanks to everyone who participated last night and thanks to T-Rav and his sockpuppets!

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

View Detail