I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

Rick Perry is a desperate candidate who will say and do anything to prop up his sinking campaign,”
Romney communications director Gail Gitcho declared
after a new attack ad from TexasGov. Rick Perry’s presidential campaign
linked the former Massachusetts governor to the Democratic president on health care.

“In trying to deflect attention from his liberal in-state tuition policy for illegal immigrants,
he has resorted to repeated dishonesty, distortions, and fabrications about Mitt Romney,”
Gitcho said. “After a mere eight weeks on the trail, Governor Perry is poised to dethrone
his one-time boss Al Gore as the most prolific exaggerator and truth-fumbler in presidential campaign history.”

Speaking live on CNN's "The Situation Room," Jeffress told CNN Political Correspondent Jim Acosta,
"I think Mitt Romney's a good, moral man, but I think those of us who are born-again followers of Christ
should always prefer a competent Christian to a competent non-Christian like Mitt Romney.
So that's why I'm enthusiastic about Rick Perry."

When asked about the #OccupyWallStreet movement:
I don't have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations
are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration.

Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks,
if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!
It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded.

Rep. Ron Paul scored a decisive victory Saturday in a mock presidential election
at the Values Voter Summit, trouncing fellow Texan, Gov. Rick Perry,
but an organizer of the straw poll suggested ballot-stuffing may have skewed the results.

In a press conference following the announcement of the straw poll results
at the annual Washington gathering of social conservatives,
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins all but dismissed the results as irrelevant,
citing 600 people who registered Saturday morning and, he said, "left after Ron Paul spoke."
A total of 1,983 ballots were cast. "You do the math," Perkins said.

More than half the members of the Texas House have signed on as co-authors
of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns.
The Senate passed a similar bill in 2009 and is expected to do so again.
Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs,
has said he's in favor of the idea.

Last week, at a campaign stop in Florida, the former Massachusetts governor said
the demonstrations were “dangerous” and “class warfare.”
But when asked about his comments afterward, the GOP front-runner declined to elaborate,
saying “I’m just trying to get myself to occupy the White House.”

Romney and Cain are part of an ever-expanding circle of Republicans
who have spoken out against the protests, which have spread from lower Manhattan
to dozens of other cities across the country since they began last month.

“I look at what’s happening on Wall Street and my view is,
boy, I understand how those people feel,”
he said at a town hall event in Hopkinton, N.H.
“Because with median income down 10% ... with chronic unemployment,
long-term unemployment worse even than the Great Depression,
the people in this country are upset.

Lamplighter;762557 wrote:

Herman Cain, in an interview with Wall Street Journal

TheMercenary;762790 wrote:

"I don't have a dog in this fight", that right there is horse shit....

GOP debate is wicked
The Republican race has turned into “The Wizard of Oz.”
Rick Perry wants a brain.
Mitt Romney wants a heart.
And any number of candidates are Dorothy,
realizing there is no place like home and they should have stayed there.

Herman Cain is the Cowardly Lion, seeking courage.
He needs the courage to face the fact he is never going to be the Republican nominee
no matter how well he does in the polls.
He needs the courage to settle for something far better than the presidency: His own show on Fox.

They all march down the yellow brick road ...

“Take 9-9-9 and turn it upside down,” Bachmann said. “The devil is in the details.”

Rick Santorum said at one point: “I want to go to war with China.”
He was talking about an economic war. I think.

Dorothy: “How do you talk if you don’t have a brain?”
Scarecrow: “Well, some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don’t they?”

Lamplighter;762479 wrote:

I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

classicman;762860 wrote:

...he'll be fighting the one that wins, so I want the easiest opponent.

Is there really anyone other than Romney?

ZenGum;762881 wrote:

Merc, are you sleep deprived?

Lamplighter;762873 wrote:

It looks that way - follow the $

But it could be a 3-way race, too... that might be a giggle
Maybe even 4-way if the OWS were to get aroused

Herman Cain has the spotlight, but for how long?

The candidate who has risen to the top of the GOP presidential field
is now in greater demand, and he insists he is in the race for the long haul.

Some voters and analysts remain skeptical.
With his poll numbers surging and opponents scrambling to stop him,
the underfunded and understaffed Cain is no longer just a fringe candidate
with a catchy plan for the economy.

Instead he lifted off on his debate performances and specifically his nonstop touting
of the 9-9-9 plan, which would scrap the current federal tax code and
replace it with a 9% tax on corporate and personal income and a 9% national sales tax.
(He says it would simplify a tax system that Americans abhor.
His rivals say it's a simplistic nonstarter that would put his party
on record as supporting a new tax.)

ZenGum;763222 wrote:

If the Rs had one good candidate who would appeal to the American Middle (while still being acceptable to the extreme Rs, and there is the catch) Obama would be in for a heck of a fight.

ZenGum;763222 wrote:

If the Rs had one good candidate who would appeal to the American Middle (wihle still being acceptable to the extreme Rs, and there is the catch) Obama would be in for a heck of a fight.

Alas, the only R who fits that description (that I can see) is Mitch Mitchel, and he has already ruled it out (and if he changes that, he loses his appeal). The rest range from C minus to F.

Taxes:
Cain calls his tax proposals the "999 plan,"
because it would create three flat taxes at a rate of 9 percent.

The first would be a 9 percent business tax,
which would apply to a business's gross income minus investments,
dividends paid to shareholders and purchases from other businesses.

The second would be a 9 percent individual tax on gross income minus charitable contributions.

The third would be a 9 percent national sales tax,
which would pave the way to eventually transition entirely to the "fair tax,"
or a tax on spending rather than income.
This would mean a flat tax rate for everyone, regardless of income,
and it would eliminate payroll taxes and taxes on capital gains.


Entitlement programs:

Entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be eliminated
so that "states, cities, churches, charities and businesses" can
take over the task of helping the elderly, poor and disabled.
Federal programs are inherently problematic because they create a sense of entitlement
to government support and give people an incentive to be dependent.
Welfare takes away individuals' freedom and independence,
but eliminating entitlement programs would empower people.
<snip>

Called a job killer at worst or a detail-free slogan at best,
Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is getting tepid-to-awful reviews
from some of the nation's most-influential business groups.

The National Retail Federation strongly opposes the Republican presidential candidate's plan
because it would institute a first-ever national sales tax of 9 percent that,
the federation says, will dampen consumer spending.

"This will hurt demand and slow the economic recovery," the federation's tax policy expert,
Rachelle Bernstein, said. "You definitely do not want to do this."
<snip>

classicman;763292 wrote:

Huntsman is going to be a very valuable asset within an administration,
but he has ZERO charisma. He just cannot get any traction.

TheMercenary;763635 wrote:

Unfortunately, Huntsman will not be on the final ticket.
I think he would have been a reasonable choice.

(CNN) - Jon Huntsman's presidential campaign is verging on broke
after burning through more than $4 million since the former Utah governor
entered the race for the Republican nomination in June.

The Huntsman campaign, which re-trenched last month by laying off staff
and moving its national quarters to the must-win primary state of New Hampshire,
finished the third fund-raising quarter in September with just
$327,000 in the bank and $890,000 in debt.

classicman;763784 wrote:

Aside from seeing him speak and his past, he has been completely ignored by the media - all of it.

WEST MIFFLIN, Pa. —
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas released a long-promised jobs and energy proposal
Friday that resembles a wish list for the oil and gas industry, ...<snip>

His energy plan has four parts:
-use executive decrees to allow new or additional drilling in Alaska,
....the Gulf of Mexico, and federal lands in the West;
-roll back or weaken environmental regulations;
-dismantle the E.P.A. and replace it with a “scaled-down agency”;
- and reshape subsidies and tax credits for different parts of the energy industry,
in what appears would be a move away from renewable energy.
<snip>

While he promoted the potential of natural gas in the giant rock formation
known as the Marcellus Shaleto create a quarter-million new jobs,
some experts noted that federal researchers recently cut estimates
of undiscovered and technically recoverable gas in the shale formation
by almost 80 percent — calling into question the reliability of any long-range
predictions about the amount of energy available for extraction there.
<snip>
But critics said the plan — much of which tracks a recent
proposal by an oil industry trade group — would make little headway toward either goal,
and they feared that it would imperil drinking water supplies and hurt the environment.

EPA Traced Pollution of Underground Water Supply to Hydraulic Fracturing
The EPA concluded in a 1987 report to Congress that the process contaminated
Parsons' water well with fracturing fluid.

WASHINGTON
Mitt Romney's early success in the Republican presidential race
is challenging the tea party's clout.
Will it continue to pull the GOP sharply right? Will it slowly fade?
Or merge with mainstream Republican elements
in a nod to pragmatism, something it's hardly known for?

On the surface, Romney's strength seems at odds with the tea party's
fiery success in ousting Republicans seen as compromisers,
and in making the House GOP caucus more ideological,
even when its leaders plead for flexibility.

Romney defends the government's 2008 bank bailouts,
plus the mandated health insurance he initiated as Massachusetts governor.
He says he can work with "good Democrats."
Although he later changed, Romney once supported abortion rights,
gun control and gay rights.

These positions run counter to the beliefs and goals of many
tea party activists scattered throughout the country.
Yet Romney is faring better in polls, fundraising and debates
than are contenders with stronger tea party credentials,
including Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry.
<snip>

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has cast himself as the outsider,
the pizza magnate with real-world experience who will bring fresh ideas to the nation’s capital.
But Cain’s economic ideas, support and organization have close ties to two billionaire brothers
who bankroll right-leaning causes through their group Americans for Prosperity.

Cain’s campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity,
or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch,
which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending.
Cain credits a businessman who served on an AFP advisory board with helping devise his “9-9-9” plan
to rewrite the nation’s tax code
And his years of speaking at AFP events have given the businessman and radio host a network of loyal grassroots fans

ZenGum;764555 wrote:

Mitch Mitchell, current governor of New Jersey, straight talking, competent, very overweight, has ruled out running for president in 2012.

DanaC;764737 wrote:

Chris Christie!
I liked him. He seemed a sensible and dare I say it even approaching, well, a normal human being?

DanaC;764773 wrote:

Why not?

DanaC;764868 wrote:

Well, duh. He's a Republican.
there's a lot that's admirable too.
I think mostly I just find him refreshingly sensible for a republican candidate. Which is fucking bizarre really.

These days, politics is like a freak show.

Tea Party favorite Gov. Chris Christie received a severe blow
to his education budget cuts by a Superior court judge:

Gov. Chris Christie's deep cuts to state school aid last year left New Jersey's schools unable
to provide a "thorough and efficient" education to the state's nearly 1.4 million school children,
a Superior Court judge found today.

Judge Peter Doyne, who was appointed as special master
in the long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding case,
today issued an opinion that also found the reductions "fell more heavily
upon our high risk districts and the children educated within those districts."

"Despite spending levels that meet or exceed virtually every state in the country,
and that saw a significant increase in spending levels from 2000 to 2008,
our 'at risk' children are now moving further from proficiency," he said.

Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) -- New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called for an amendment
to the state constitution that would subject judges to a public pension overhaul enacted this year.

Christie, 49, said he&#8217;ll try to get the proposal on the November 2012 ballot.
He spoke to reporters a day after Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg in Mercer County
ruled that members of the judiciary are exempt from a law requiring
higher pension contributions by public workers.
Christie said he will appeal.
&#8220;This is a blatant attempt to exact special treatment for themselves because they have the power,&#8221;
Christie said today in Trenton.
&#8220;Judge Feinberg&#8217;s decision, in addition to legally indefensible, is morally indefensible.
If the courts will not fix this problem,
the Legislature has to give the people the opportunity to fix this problem.&#8221;

Feinberg, who ruled on a claim brought by Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale
in her Trenton court, declined to comment.

Watching Tuesday’s GOP debate in Las Vegas this is what
Republican voters are looking for and have yet to find:
a leader who presents a vision to us – the American people –
of how he or she will reverse a widespread sense of national decline
and then lead an American revival.

<snip>
[a lot about the snipping back and forth between Romney and Perry]
<snip>
[Fox serious questions if Cain and 999 can withstand critics]

Ron Paul continued to say things that previous GOP
presidential candidates would never have had the courage to say –
especially about aid to Israel, closing foreign military bases,
not building a fence on our southern border and the Occupy Wall Street protestors

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were almost invisible in this debate.
They no longer have any impact on the contest --
they have become vanity candidates who stay in the race through Iowa – and then disappear.

Bottom line: not the best debate for the Republican Party overall.
We did not present a Reaganesque, positive, hopeful, visionary face to the American people.

<snip>
Newt Gingrich, suggested that “historically illiterate politicians”
(referring presumably to their illiteracy about history,
not their continuing illiteracy, if you see the difference)
should not be charged with making “a numerical decision about the defense budget.”

“I’m a hawk,” said Gingrich, “but I’m a cheap hawk.
The fact is, to say I’m going to put the security of the United States
up against an arbitrary budget number is suicidally stupid.”

Cain was forced to defend something he had apparently said earlier on CNN,
that he would consider negotiating for the release of an American soldier
in exchange for all the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

Bachmann pronounced that position naive,
but Cain said he does not believe in negotiating with terrorists
and did not recall making that remark to CNN.

Paul, who frequently harps on military spending,
said he did not want to cut “any defense.
There’s a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn’t do anything for our defense.”
Why, he asked, do we have troops in Korea, Japan and German? <snip>

DanaC;764900 wrote:

I imagine it must be seriously frustrating for the average republican voter.

TheMercenary;765291 wrote:

Not really, you just vote for the guy you want to make sure Obama does not get re-elected. --snip

WASHINGTON — Herman Cain, the Republican presidential candidate
with the sharp wit and easy-to-remember tax plan, is a cancer survivor,
radio host and former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza.
On the campaign trail, he talks up his business experience and
casting himself as a “problem solver” and Washington outsider.

But the role that helped propel Mr. Cain into politics was that
of an ultimate Washington insider: industry lobbyist.

From 1996, when he left the pizza company, until 1999,
Mr. Cain ran the National Restaurant Association,
a once-sleepy trade group that he transformed into a lobbying powerhouse.
He allied himself closely with cigarette makers fighting restaurant smoking bans,
spoke out against lowering blood-alcohol limits as a way to prevent drunken driving,
fought an increase in the minimum wage and opposed a patients’ bill of rights —
all in keeping with the interests of the industry he represented.

The [Cain] column claims Jesus as a conservative.
"He helped the poor without one government program.
He healed the sick without a government health care system.
He feed the hungry without food stamps," wrote Cain.
"For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check."

Cain then describes Jesus' death:
But they made Him walk when He was arrested and taken to jail,
and no, He was not read any Miranda Rights.
He was arrested for just being who He was and doing nothing wrong.
And when they tried Him in court, He never said a mumbling word.
He didn’t have a lawyer, nor did He care about who judged Him.&#8232;His judge was a higher power.
The liberal court found Him guilty of false offences and sentenced Him to death,
all because He changed the hearts and minds of men with an army of 12.
@ Huffington Post

Would Romney, he [a man in the crowd] wanted to know,
&#8220;finally give the people of Iowa an alternative to that?&#8221;

This was Romney&#8217;s moment to make the case that he is the substantive one,
the electable one, to tell Republican voters that Michele Bachmann and
Herman Cain and Rick Perry may be the candidates they love
but that Mitt Romney is the president they need.
And that that is why they should love him, too.

But Romney didn&#8217;t. Instead, he queued up his talking points &#8212;
that he will be back again, hopes to win here, but will campaign everywhere.
<snip>
When voters exposed themselves emotionally, Romney offered little empathy.
When they sought his support for their causes, Romney didn&#8217;t show them that he cared.
Romney was scripted when he could have been spontaneous.
He was boardroom cool when he could have been living room warm.

It&#8217;s not for lack of trying. Romney lets his hair breathe,
goes tie-less and travels with a slimmed-down entourage.
He deploys his wife, Ann, to share stories about Mitt the husband and Mitt the father.
He campaigns less as someone looking to fulfill his personal ambition than
as a turnaround specialist whose skills are needed for the nation.
&#8220;I am not in this race for me,&#8221; he says.

Brent Siegrist, a former Iowa House speaker who endorsed Romney in 2008
and plans to do so again. said, Romney still has weaknesses.
&#8220;He&#8217;s almost too perfect &#8212; too good-looking, too successful &#8212; that&#8217;s just what it feels like.
It&#8217;s almost like he&#8217;s Robert Redford in &#8216;The Candidate.&#8217;&#8200;&#8221;

"The Candidate", presidential candidate, Bill McKay,
travels the state, with his liberal statements eroding each day.
His support of abortion rights and gun control fade to mush,
while his stump speech is reduced to the same few clichés
and a new slogan: "For a better way: Bill McKay!"

Lamplighter;766218 wrote:

Just 10 days ago, Classic forecast the imminent demise of Herman Cain's 15 minutes.

classicman;766280 wrote:

I can still hope for a change can't I?

classicman;766280 wrote:

I can still hope for a change can't I?
Perhaps the media fascination of this guy will end soon ... I don't see that happening though. See their coverage of Palin, Bachmann et all as a reference. They seem to be fixated on the extremist positions instead of the more rational ones.
(I [SIZE="4"]don't[/SIZE] wonder why) :eyebrow:

They're looking for someone who is the *most* Republican,
or the most (fill in the important issue here) of all the candidates.
The result is you hear the candidates *competing* to be more _____ than the next one.
This results in a "I'll see your position, and raise you" race to the far end
of the spectrum in a race to be the most appealing.
"I know you are, but I'm MORE." A race to the extreme.

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry
has released an economic plan full of long-held conservative goals,
including personal accounts for Social Security, an optional flat tax,
major spending cuts and a series of tax cuts.

In almost every way, Perry, who is looking to woo tea party conservatives
who have been reluctant to back Romney,
presents policies to the right of the former Massachusetts governor.

Democrats strongly oppose many of Perry&#8217;s ideas,
and they are unlikely to become law, even if Perry is elected president

Unfortunately, this is one area where the Perry flat tax falls a bit short.
His plan gets rid of lots of special favors in the tax code,
but it would retain deductions (for those earning less than $500,000 yearly)
for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest, and state and local taxes.

BigV;766005 wrote:

Holy mackeral.

I never, *ever* thought I'd see the day mercy declared he'd vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016!!!

[ faints ]

Watching Rick Perry’s debate performance Tuesday night,
Decoder (along with many observers in the press) was struck by how
itching-to-get-out-of-there uncomfortable he looked.
It was like watching someone’s half-hearted attempt to engage in polite conversation
at a dinner party he was only attending as a favor to his wife.

And almost by definition, a candidate who jumps in only after some
arm twisting by supporters - as Perry did and Christie did not -
probably doesn’t want it that bad.

In Michigan on November 9, Gov. Rick Perry is confirmed to be
on the debate stage beside his rivals for the GOP nomination.
But after that? "We are going to evaluate each debate as it comes
and take each one on its own merits," his campaign spokesman told the Wall Street Journal.
"The primaries are right around the corner and there is simply more to do than there is time to do it."

Conn Carroll recommended this strategy a couple weeks back:
"Perry has performed poorly in all four of the GOP debates in which he has participated.
Even the candidate himself seems to acknowledge that debates can only hurt his campaign.
So why show up?" he asked.

This announcement is an admission that the Texas governor doesn'teven expect he can improve over time.
Of course, it isn't actually essential that a president be a good debater,
but it is essential that he has a deep grasp of numerous issues,is a quick study,
and can use the bully pulpit to good effect.
As it happens, these are the very things at which Perry is failing miserably.

Perry said he opposed the plan to offer the Texas license plates
with the emblem, which includes the Confederate flag.

"We don't need to be scraping old wounds," Perry said.

Afterward, a spokeswoman clarified the governor's position.
"While the governor believes this is a decision for the DMV board,
he personally does not support the Confederate plate,"
spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said via email.

MANCHESTER, N.H., — At a campaign stop in the Granite State today,
former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney questioned whether President Barack Obama’s decision
to withdraw troops from Iraq entirely by the end of the year was “due to politics or ineptitude.”
<snip>
Having avoided mentioning any of his GOP rivals by name during brief remarks
delivered to the volunteers making calls for his campaign,
Romney was asked by a member of the press if he believes
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has the “intelligence” to be president.
“I do,” quipped Romney. “I believe every single person on the stage
in that last debate would do a better job than President Obama.
If Rick Perry were the nominee I’d be voting for him.
I, of course believe he’s qualified, as are the other people on the stage."

“due to politics or ineptitude or economics.”

Lamplighter;767065 wrote:

Perry opposes Confederate Texas license plate proposal

As Romney proved this week, such local issues can trip up even the most cautious candidate,
causing headaches for their national campaigns while hurting their standings in important states
for both the primary and general elections.

“Fully support that,” Romney said about the Ohio ballot initiative while visiting a local Republican Party office Wednesday in Fairfax, Va.
A day earlier, the former Massachusetts governor visited a site near Cincinnati where volunteers
were making hundreds of phone calls to help Republicans defeat the Issue Two ballot effort.
The question before voters is whether to repeal Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s restrictions on public sector employee bargaining.
But when pressed, Romney took a pass on supporting the measure —
and just as a Quinnipiac University poll indicated that Ohio voters opposed the GOP-backed restrictions 57 percent to 32 percent.

It turned out that Romney had already weighed in, supporting Kasich’s efforts in a June Facebook post.

His shifts on the Ohio unionizing bill have done little to counteract arguments he's a political animal who lacks conviction

In an election where Republican voters want an authentic champion to channel their anger,
Romney hasn't managed to shake the rap that he's the kind of politician
who has to check the record to figure out where he stands on a particular issue.
It was particularly galling to many conservatives that his hesitation came this week on an issue dear to their hearts --
reining in public-sector unions.
<snip>
Romney's slip in Ohio was immediately seized upon by a newly opportunistic Rick Perry campaign.
<snip>
And Perry, appearing on Fox News Tuesday night, twisted the knife: "I think in his own words he says,
'Listen, I need to say whatever I need to say for whatever office I'm running for.'"

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

classicman;767338 wrote:

I'm beginning to think that some Republicans would rather lose the election and bitch about everything Obama does for another 4 years instead.
At least they wouldn't have to be responsible.

classicman;767338 wrote:

I'm beginning to think that some Republicans would rather lose the election and bitch about everything Obama does for another 4 years instead.
At least they wouldn't have to be responsible.

ZenGum;767538 wrote:

I was thinking that when McCain picked Palin.

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association
in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and
senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain,
ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
<snip>
In one case, POLITICO has seen documentation describing the allegations and
showing that the restaurant association formally resolved the matter.
Both women received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

'Nuff said. Herman Cain hopes, maybe even believes,
that he can dispatch troublesome questions about sexual harassment
allegations by refusing to answer them.
The Republican presidential candidate says the charges are "totally false"
and that's all anyone needs to know. Next question.
Sorry, Mr. Cain, but America isn't ready to go back to talking about your 9-9-9 tax plan.
<snip>

Sexual harassment claims are unfortunately not rare.
It's not unusual for them to be resolved without any determination on the merits.
Financial settlements and confidentiality agreements are common.
But Herman Cain didn't sign a no-disclosure agreement —
remember, he didn't even know there was a settlement.
Cain is free to rebut the allegations. If he wants to stay in the race, he will.

The questions aren't going to go away. Answer them.

WASHINGTON*— The sexual harassment allegations engulfing
the candidacy of Republican Herman Cain dominated American politics Tuesday
as prominent conservative voices rallied to his side,
saying he was a victim of a "high-tech lynching."

The forceful early reaction to the Cain firestorm
— fueled by racially charged rhetoric —
suggests the Georgia businessman's attempt to cast himself
as a victim of the news media and liberals is, so far, paying dividends
among his conservative Republican base who will hold considerable
sway in selecting the party's nominee.
<snip>
Supporters were quick to liken Cain's latest troubles to those that
roiled the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
another prominent black conservative, who faced sexual harassment allegations
during his explosive Senate confirmation hearing two decades ago.

The head of the conservative Media Research Center, Brent Bozell
labeled the story a "high-tech lynching," evoking
Thomas' divisive Supreme Court confirmation hearings two decades ago,
where he was confronted with sexual harassment allegations
from a one-time employee, Anita Hill.

'It's outrageous the way liberals treat a black conservative,' fumes cunthead Ann Coulter

A veteran Republican pollster and former NRA employee said Wednesday morning that Herman Cain sexually harassed a woman at an Arlington, Va., restaurant in the late 1990s.

Chris Wilson, now the principal of an Oklahoma-based GOP consulting firm, said in an interview on Oklahoma City's KTOK radio station that the episode took place in the neighborhood where Cain kept an apartment when he headed the restaurant trade group.

"This occurred at a restaurant in Crystal City (Virginia), and everybody was aware of it," Wilson said on the station. "It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left &#8212; everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up."

In an interview with POLITICO, Wilson said he was present for the episode and that it took place in the late '90s.

Wilson declined to say specifically what Cain said or did to the woman, but that the CEO's actions made other individuals at the table uneasy.

"It was very uncomfortable," said the pollster, recalling that other individuals present asked Cain to stop.

Wilson said there were at least three other people at the gathering but wouldn't share the name of the woman for publication.

DanaC;769664 wrote:

Seriously? You're wheeling out Clinton? What's the statute of limitations on that being at all relevant to what's going on now?

Do Republicans get a free pass on outrageous womanising and/or harrassment because a Democrat president got caught out over a decade ago?

DanaC;769668 wrote:

Accused of rape, not convicted of rape.

And I still don't see what any of that has to do with Herman Cain.

TheMercenary;769662 wrote:

Did Herman squirt his DNA on a blue dress while in the White House?

Did he cheat on his high profile wife, currently the Secretary of State?

Did Herman shoot his load on one of his employees?

Is there any duplicity in these attacks?

Did Herman stick a cigar up a woman's vagina?

Did Herman get accused of RAPE?

A former President Bill Clinton did all of that. And he was a Demoncrat.

glatt;769759 wrote:

The funny thing is, it's got nothing to do with the left.
It's right vs. right. I'm a lefty, and I see all this unfolding and I don't care.
Cain looks like an idiot, sure. But they all do.
It wasn't a liberal smear job against Cain, it's the conservatives tearing each other apart.

The big question among Washington hacks and flacks today is this:
Who’s the tattletale?
[QUOTE]Washington Worries Over Who Zapped the GOP Frontrunner,
But They’re Looking in the Wrong Places
“We’ve been able to trace it back to the Perry campaign
that stirred this up in order to discredit me.
The fingerprints of the Rick Perry campaign are all over this, based on our sources.”
-- Herman Cain speaking at a TheTeaParty.net event on Wednesday.

[QUOTE]“My first advice is what he hasn’t done, which is say nothing
until you sit down with your lawyers and with the people who know the facts,” Gingrich said.
“You thoroughly and completely understand them and you go through a period where everybody asks you
— in your team — every possible negative question so you thoroughly understand what will happen.”

glatt;769759 wrote:

The funny thing is, it's got nothing to do with the left. It's right vs. right. I'm a lefty, and I see all this unfolding and I don't care. Cain looks like an idiot, sure. But they all do. It wasn't a liberal smear job against Cain, it's the conservatives tearing each other apart.

BigV;769726 wrote:

None of us know because the settlement contained a non disclosure agreement. Do you know the answer to any of these questions? I think Cain has drawn so much of the worst kind of attention to himself in this imbroglio. He *acts* guilty by the way he's changed his story, by the way he's parsed words "I'm not saying I didn't sign it, I'm saying I don't recall signing any settlement." etc etc. The last time I heard this kind of response was from my eight year old trying to get out of punishment for not taking out the trash. "I am not saying I didn't take it out, I'm saying I don't remember if I took it out."

FFS. You have children. Don't you recognize this voice, this uncomfortable squirming? If he did it, he should man the fuck up and say so. If he did not, he should man the fuck up and say so. He's had ten days BEFORE the story broke to get his shit together. ****THIS**** constitutes his shit being together?

Not good, not good at all.

classicman;769882 wrote:

Absolutely. My conclusion is the guy needs to just go away.
If this is the best plan his team could come up with in 10 days, it just shows how completely incompetent they are.
That is not leadership. Thats Bullship.

The money issue hasn't even started yet. Has anyone else read about the campaign finance issue?

Classicman/Lookout in 2012

TheMercenary;769941 wrote:

Bottom line, Liberals are willing to jump on the band wagon of demonizing Cain over accusations where as they have no defense over a sitting President shooting his DNA on a young professional staffer while in the White House. An accusation is just that, often the expedient thing to do is to arbitrate, and what ever the decision is after that is what happens, you pay them off, you agree to something in private, issue over. It still does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, as Clinton was accuse of (due to his lies on the stand), not to mention his lies to the public, "I did not have sex with that woman". You people become more laughable every day.... :lol:

Joel Bennett, the attorney for one of the women who complained
about Herman Cain at the National Restaurant Association said Friday
that his client's settlement was dated in September of 1999
and signed by the trade group's general counsel but not Cain.
<snip>

The lawyer for one of the woman who received a financial settlement after alleging sexual harassment by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said that the woman stands by her allegations but is choosing not to discuss them publicly. The woman "sees no value in revisiting" the complaint, attorney Joel Bennett said, saying the woman and her husband feel it would be "extremely painful to do so."

The woman has been ambivalent this week about whether to go public and Bennett said she preferred to deal with the matter by reasserting her charges while staying anonymous.

According to a source who is friends with the Cain campaign, not only is the Rick Perry campaign involved but also the Mayor of Chicago and former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is likely involved with the sexual harassment accuser attacks. A friend of the Cain campaign believes a National Restaurant Association (NRA) employee out of the Chicago office leaked the story to the Perry campaign via information and influence from Mayor Rahm Emanuel's office."

Just for the record, accusations of wrongdoing against Republicans are always the result
of an obsessively liberal media, left-wing conspiracy or rank partisanship.

Accusations of wrongdoing against Democrats are always the result of
an objective analysis of the facts. No exceptions.

Just for the record, accusations of wrongdoing against Republicans are always[COLOR="Silver"] the result
of an obsessively liberal media, left-wing conspiracy or rank partisanship. [/COLOR] a waste of energy

Second-tier candidates Santorum and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman were pressed
to explain how long they would extend their candidacies in the face of low poll numbers.

Santorum encouraged voters to remember former surprise victors
Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson from the 2008 election.
He said he could support Romney as the nominee,
but joked he might have to take an "antacid" if the nomination went to Paul.

Huntsman insisted that he'll either win New Hampshire or come in second, saying that voters will respond to his focus on jobs.

He also pushed back against O'Reilly's assertions that he was a moderate,
pointing to his anti-abortion and pro-Second Amendment record.
"Don't confuse moderate attitude with moderate record," he said.

"I don't think it requires us to go negative in the sense of us running a bunch of ads that are false, or character assassinations," Obama said. "It will be based on facts … We may just run clips of the Republican debates verbatim. We won't even comment on them, we'll just run those in a loop on Univision and Telemundo, and people can make up their own minds."

classicman;770444 wrote:

Just for the record, accusations of wrongdoing against Republicans are always the result
of an obsessively liberal media, left-wing conspiracy or rank partisanship.

Accusations of wrongdoing against Democrats are always the result of
an objective analysis of the facts. No exceptions.

[quote]From a friend of mine - sarcasm intended.

The tenth debate of the topsy-turvy Republican campaign
will take place at Wofford College in
Spartanburg, South Carolina on Saturday night.

The theme? Foreign policy and national security,
crucial topics that have largely taken a back seat to economic
concerns throughout the GOP race.

Here are five questions to consider as you prepare for yet another Republican showdown:

Will Perry remember his lines?

Can Newt seize the moment?

How competent is Cain?

Will Huntsman step it up?
.

Penn State's hotly anticipated game against Nebraska also happens to be at noon,
but a hyped match-up between Stanford and Oregon, two top 10 teams,
will take place just as the candidates are debating in Spartanburg.

TheMercenary;772255 wrote:

ANYone but Obama.

classicman;772560 wrote:

For whatever reason the most intelligent and capable man in the race just cannot seem to gain any traction with his party.
Hmmm.... perhaps as VP.

I'm still thinking the best the R's can do is a Romney/Huntsman ticket.

Gloria Cain, wife of GOP candidate Herman Cain,
has given her first televised interview ever, to Greta Van Susteren of Fox News.

The interview is scheduled to air Monday night,
but according to partial transcripts already released,
Mrs. Cain strongly defends her husband against the allegations of sexual harassment.

“You hear the graphic allegations and we know that would have been
something that’s totally disrespectful of her as a woman.
And I know the type of person he is. He totally respects women.”

“I’m thinking he would have to have a split personality
to do the things that were said," according to Mrs. Cain.
<snip>

A Reuters/Ipsos poll last Thursday and Friday found Cain*,
with 20 percent support, was second to former Massachusetts Governor
Mitt Romney, who polled 28 percent, among Republican voters
in the race for the party's presidential nomination.

“If I were president, I would be willing to use waterboarding.”
"I’m on the same side as Vice President Cheney on this issue".

“I don’t see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique,”

"water boarding is torture" and reminding the crowd that
"torture is illegal" under both US and international laws.

"Why would you accept the position of torturing a hundred people because
you know one person might have information?" Paul asked,
“I think it’s uncivilized. It would have no practical advantages
and is really un-American
to accept on principle that we will torture people we will capture.”

"We diminish our standing in the world and the values that we project,
which include liberty, democracy, human rights and open markets, when we torture."

“Very disappointed by statements at SC GOP debate supporting waterboarding.
Waterboarding is torture.”

They’re wrong. *Waterboarding is torture. *It’s contrary to America’s traditions.
It’s contrary to our ideals. *That’s not who we are. *That’s not how we operate.
We don’t need it in order to prosecute the war on terrorism. And we did the right thing by ending that practice.
If we want to lead around the world, part of our leadership is setting a good example.
And anybody who has actually read about and understands the practice of waterboarding
would say that that is torture. *And that’s not something we do, period.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said in an interview
with GQ Monday that one can tell how "manly" a man is by looking at
how many toppings he puts on his pizza.
He also said a pizza covered in vegetables is a "sissy pizza."

"The more toppings a man has on his pizza, I believe the more manly he is," <snip>.

Cain, laughing, then explained that "the more manly man is not afraid of abundance"
before calling into question the manliness of a pizza with vegetables on it.
"A manly man don't want it piled high with vegetables!
He would call that a sissy pizza," Cain said.

Those were not the only food-related comments Cain made in the interview.
Cain has compared himself to black walnut ice cream;
asked what flavor Mitt Romney would be, Cain responded, "just plain vanilla."
He went on to call Rick Perry "rocky road" and deem
Michele Bachmann "tutti-frutti" after initially insisting, when asked about Bachmann,

"I'm not going to say it. I'm not going to say it."
"I know I'm going to get in trouble!," Cain said after deeming Bachmann tutti-frutti.

Undertoad;772836 wrote:

After this weekend's 60 Minutes, hating Pelosi should be some sort of bipartisan thing.

DanaC wrote:

Why? How? WTf is this man doing at the forefront of politics? I mean....I am assuming he isn't as thick as he appears to be (roughly the thickness of two short planks) ... because that really would be scary.

Lamplighter;772843 wrote:

While I still really admire Pelosi, she was a deer in the headlights in that show.

ZenGum;772903 wrote:

I can has explanation plz?

Undertoad;772836 wrote:

After this weekend's 60 Minutes, hating Pelosi should be some sort of bipartisan thing.

ZenGum;772918 wrote:

Thanks LL.

So, she poorly handled a loaded question, but there's no evidence (yet) that she was doing insider trading, is that it?

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain,
in the midst of a Midwestern campaign swing,
stumbled badly Monday when attempting to answer a question
about whether he agreed or disagreed with President Barack Obama's
approach to handling the Libyan crisis.
<snip>

So Newt Gingrich has finally gotten around to mounting the race
for the Oval Office he has coveted for the better part of two decades.
<snip>
On message. According to plan. Yes, that's Newt Gingrich. Cool.
Let’s consider the top-five reasons:

1. GINGRICH REACHED HIS SELL-BY DATE IN 1996:
Born during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third term,
Gingrich would if elected next year assume the presidency on the cusp of his 70th birthday.
And unlike the conservative movement's favorite septuagenarian president, Ronald Reagan,
Gingrich has been a political player for his entire adult life.
Barack Obama was two years old when Gingrich went to work on his first national campaign.

There are natural trajectories for politicians. Gingrich's had him running for president in 1996,
as the dynamic conservative challenger to President Bill Clinton.
That would have been a great race between a pair of similar southerners
-- smart, ambitious rascals with plenty of skeletons in their closets
but also with real differences regarding the direction of the nation
-- but Gingrich deferred to the party bosses (and their corporate overseers)
who preferred the predictability of Bob Dole.

Gingrich blinked. He missed his chance.
The same thing happened to Mario Cuomo, who should have run in 1992.
But at least Cuomo didn’t try to run in 2008.

2. GINGRICH IS A QUITTER:
Stop making fun of Sarah Palin. Sure, she quit in the middle
of her term as governor of Alaska, which was kind of pathetic.
But Gingrich quit as Speaker of the House on the eve of the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Talk about “seduced and abandoned.”
He set his fellow Republicans up for a fool’s mission, then he exited stage right.
But the real reason was that his fellow Republicans had lost faith with him as a leader.
That was a smart choice, rooted in actual experience and sincere concern
about trusting the future of their party to a Gingrich.
Why would Republicans abandon it now.

3. GINGRICH GOT HISTORY A “ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICAN”:
He could have signed on with the “Draft Ronald Reagan” campaign of that year.
That's what a visionary conservative would have done.
He could have worked for Richard Nixon.
That's what a cautious Republican careerist would have done.

But no! Gingrich served as the southern regional coordinator for the campaign of
New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the most liberal Republican in the field

4. GINGRICH KEEPS GOING GREEN ON US:
Environmentalist? Appealing to "liberal Democrats"?
That was the old Newt Gingrich. He's a conservative now.

Well, er, um, he did appear three years ago with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
in an ad for Al Gore's Repower American Campaign, an ad that saw Gingrich declare that,
while he and the liberal Democrat did not agree on many issues,
"we do agree our country must take action to address climate change."

5. GINGRICH CAME UP WITH THE LAMEST EXCUSE EVER FOR CHEATING ON HIS SEVERAL WIVES:
[QUOTE]"There's no question at times in my life,
partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country,
that I worked too hard and things happened in my life
that were not appropriate.

1. He has too many skeletons in his closet
2. Gingrich doesn't have enough cash to compete
3. Newt would never beat Obama
4. Gingrich simply isn't likable
5. He's too moderate for today's GOP
6. The non-Romneys always fade

"Voters came to know him 20 years ago and they hated him."
And today, "the more people get to know him, the less they like him."
[COLOR="Blue"]It's obvious why, Newt is mean.[/COLOR] says Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.
He spends much of the debates scolding the moderators.
Really, "his emotional center of gravity is contemptuous disdain."

[COLOR="Blue"]says "some tool" at Talking Points Memo.[/COLOR]

"It's obvious why, Newt is mean. says Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. "

"Voters came to know him 20 years ago and they hated him."
And today, "the more people get to know him, the less they like him."
[COLOR="Blue"]It's obvious why, says Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.[/COLOR] Newt is mean.
He spends much of the debates scolding the moderators.
Really, "his emotional center of gravity is contemptuous disdain."

classicman;773418 wrote:

meh - you went with TPM to get a shitty quote from some partisan hack.
For that, I am going to post 5 links to some BS from Faux snooze and you can't bitch about it. ;)

classicman;773444 wrote:

In all seriousness, Newt is another waste of time - fodder for the papers.
Does anyone really think he will get the nod?

Happy Monkey;772724 wrote:

If someone changes their name to Nott Romney, they could probably get the nomination.

Spexxvet;773464 wrote:

The republicans have a problem. Anyone who is moderate enough to win the general election is not conservative enough to win the primary.

Gingrich has been married three times.
In 1962 he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, he was 19 and she was 26,
In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.

Six months after the divorce from Battley was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther in 1981

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with congressional staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior.
In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife Ginther.

In 1984 his first wife, told the Washington Post that the divorce was a "complete surprise" to her.
According to Battley, in September 1980 Gingrich and their children visited her
while she was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, and Gingrich
wanted to discuss the terms of their divorce.
Gingrich has disputed that account.<snip>

There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country,
that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.
And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong,
I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them.

I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness.
Not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God.
And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there’s a forgiving God.

He does not think he is smarter than the other presidential candidates,
only that he has spent more years— 53, he says—studying how to best lead the country.
"I don't know of anybody else who is around today who has spent
that much time," thinking about governing, he said.
"Bill and Hillary [Clinton] may be closest in the sheer length that they've thought about it."

At one point during his dalliance with the Democratic establishment,
Gingrich joked that “one can gradually rebuild almost any reputation
if you pander enough to the authorities that write columns and show up on TV.”

classicman;773941 wrote:

He's still an asshole and his past, both public and private will not allow him to get the nomination.

Lamplighter;773610 wrote:

Regardless of the pundits' expectations about Gingrich getting the GOP nomination,
why does his personal life have such a bad reputation ?

TheMercenary;774543 wrote:

If voters cared about a persons personal life they never would have elected Obama and would have run Willie Clinton out of town.

Lamplighter;774560 wrote:

Care to expand on that ?

TheMercenary;774543 wrote:

If voters cared about a persons personal life they never would have elected Obama and would have run Willie Clinton out of town.

Lamplighter;774560 wrote:

Care to expand on that ?

TheMercenary;774567 wrote:

Obama 2006:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Lamplighter;774574 wrote:

[COLOR="Black"]What does this latest have to do with people not electing Obama because of his personal life ?[/COLOR]

Lamplighter;774586 wrote:

Still the same question...

What do these three latest posts have to do with people not electing Obama because of his personal life ?

ZenGum;774737 wrote:

Merc, nothing there is in his "personal" life. Plenty of questionable things in his *political* life, but nothing from his personal life.

Did he break his marriage vows? Has he married and divorced multiple times? Did he screw around in college? (not that this would bother many people). Did he drink or gamble or use drugs? Did he drive drunk (drowning staffers optional)? Was he a juvenile delinquent?

That is what people usually mean by "personal life".

Happy Monkey;774669 wrote:

You're not going to get an answer, Lamplighter.

"By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds.
Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done.
Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

“I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt
an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century,”

“And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane in enforcing the law
without giving them citizenship, but by finding a way to create legality
so that they are not separated from their families.”

"I want to be tough, but I'm not willing to kid people," he said after the debate.
"I can't imagine any serious person in this country that wants
to tear families apart that have been here for 20 years."

"Illegal immigration is Newt's acid test," Scala said,
and tea party conservatives might be "having second thoughts today.
Let's see if he can keep them on board."

"Newt Gingrich is finished!" said William Gheen, president of the anti-immigration group ALIPAC.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of Congress' most outspoken conservatives,
said Gingrich's prescription "is a form of amnesty" that "makes it harder" to consider endorsing him.

Romney offered Gingrich no wiggle room.
While campaigning in Iowa, he said, "People who have come to the country illegally
should not have a special pathway that is preferable to those that
stand in line in their home countries to come to this country."

Romney said Gingrich's plan would not stand scrutiny.
"How about someone who's been here 20 years, how about 12 years, about 10, five, three?"
he said. "How many children do you have to have to apply to this principle?"

"If 2012 were an ordinary election year, Gingrich would be doomed
by his gaffes, three marriages and fleeting alliances with Hillary Clinton on health care
and Nancy Pelosi on global warming," columnist Fred Barnes wrote in the Weekly Standard.
But Republicans are obsessed with ousting President Barack Obama, he said.

"And if that means choosing a candidate with a lurid past and a penchant for self-destruction,"
Barnes said, then Republicans "are likely to swallow hard and nominate Gingrich."

This newspaper endorses Newt Gingrich in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary.

<snip>
We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership
that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing. He did so with the Contract with America.
He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets
and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President.

A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington.
Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again.<snip>

Truth be known, many in the liberal media are belittling the Republican candidates
because they don't want any of them to be taken as a serious challenger to their man, Obama.<snip>

Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate.
But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring
an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running.

She says she was upset by how Herman Cain treated those accusing him of sexual harassment.

In a press conference addressing sexual-harassment allegations three weeks ago,
the GOP presidential candidate hinted that more women might come forward,
saying that "there will probably be others."

On Monday, that proved true.

Mr. Cain appeared with Wolf Blitzer on CNN to preempt the accusations
of a 13-year extramarital affair and dismiss them as false &#8211;
even before the woman spoke on an Atlanta Fox affiliate.

He was unequivocal in his denials when asked directly whether he had
had sex or an affair with the woman, but he admitted that he knew her.
"It is someone that I know who is an acquaintance that I thought was a friend,"

As proof of the affair, White showed her interviewers her cellphone,
which had "Herman Cain" as a contact, and phone bills showing 61 calls or texts
to that number during a four-month period.

When the station texted that number, Cain responded, telling the station
that he knew White, but that her allegations were false,
and that she had his number because he was "trying to help her financially.

And certainly, Cain would hardly be the only candidate with sexual indiscretions in his past.
It's a category that includes Newt Gingrich, the current GOP front-runner,
who is on his third marriage and has had at least two extramarital affairs (with women he later married).

classicman;776290 wrote:

Still don't care about Cain's issues with women. He isn't fit to lead the country.
His ideas are awful. Thats enough for me.

Updated 12:14 p.m. Eastern Time

The Herman Cain campaign is "reassessing" its strategy in the wake of a woman's claim that she and Cain had engaged in a 13-year extramarital relationship, a senior staffer to the campaign told CBS News.

The staffer made the statement following reports that Cain told supporters Tuesday morning that he is reassessing whether to remain in the Republican presidential race.

On a five-minute conference call, Cain told his senior staff that he would make a decision on staying in the race "over the next several days," according to National Review.

And the Des Moines Register reports that Cain said on the call that he needs to decide if the affair allegation creates "too much of a cloud" for him to continue his run.

"If a decision is made, different than we should plow ahead, you all will be the first to know," Cain reportedly said on the 90-person conference call.

Lamplighter;776282 wrote:

The women keep coming

BigV;776441 wrote:

I don't really think that how he conducts his personal affairs is important to his quality as a leader. I *DO* think how he responds to such questions is telling

Lamplighter;776471 wrote:

"Deny, Deny, Deny..."

A Republican U.S. House member known for holding
the most pro-LGBT views in her caucus has endorsed former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in his bid for president.

Ros-Lehtinen’s endorsement of Romney is noteworthy to the LGBT community
because she’s among the most pro-LGBT Republicans in Congress.
In September, she became the first Republican to co-sponsor legislation
to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act
— much to the consternation of social conservatives.
<snip>
Romney, seen as the establishment candidate among GOP presidential hopefuls,
has distinguished himself among other Republicans pursuing the White House
for saying he’s open to the idea of LGBT rights.

Last week, he told the Nashua Telegraph, “I favor gay rights,”
and said he doesn’t “believe in discriminating in employment
or opportunity for gay individuals.”

Still, Romney said he doesn’t support same-sex marriage.

Romney’s biggest challenge is that we don’t know him as a person.
If we knew him, he could easily overcome three big complaints against him:

First, Romney is a Mormon. [QUOTE]Sadly, this is still a handicap in presidential politics,
despite some of America’s top legislators being Mormon,
including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
America is better than this type of silly discrimination.
We proved it by electing Presidents Kennedy and Obama, Catholic and black, respectively. <snip>

Let’s leave aside the fact that Romney has stated
(time and again) that, as president, he would repeal Obamacare.
What Romney did for his state was solve a big problem with strong bipartisan support.
He actually vetoed many expensive parts of the legislation only
to have his vetoes over ridden by the state legislature.
Polls show Massachusetts residents like the law.

Adults know that views do change with age and experience.
More, business leaders often change positions with new facts.

To start, he should talk about certain experiences that shaped his life.
For example, according to Business Week, as a 21-year-old in Paris,
Romney drove a car where his passenger was killed,
and Romney was thought to be dead.<snip>

If Mitt Romney fails to win the U.S. presidency,
he could always take the helm of 14 million-member LDS Church,
speculates one Bloomberg columnist.
<snip>
Too bad Hunt didn’t know that’s not really how it works in the Utah-based faith:
The Mormon presidency is not an elected nor appointed position.

If his campaign falls short, though, Romney could be tapped
as a Mormon mission president, an apostle or other high-ranking official.
Or Romney could serve again on a local level as an LDS stake president,
overseeing a regional group of churches.

He might enjoy the chance to be called “President Romney.”

A shill, plant or stooge is a person who helps a person or organization
without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization.

Plant and stooge more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league
with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually
a part of the organization he or she is planted in.

glatt;776451 wrote:

Lies are not OK. He sleeps around? I don't care. He lies about sleeping around? I do care.

glatt;777076 wrote:

Yes. His lies bothered me too. Although Clinton did eventually come clean after he couldn't deny it any more, and he apologized to the country.

Cain is still telling lies that nobody believes.

infinite monkey;777081 wrote:

Clinton could get away with it 'cause he was a kickass president. And smart. Smart enough to save his fooling around until AFTER he got into office. :lol:

TheMercenary;777088 wrote:

How do you know he is lying?

glatt;777093 wrote:

But Clinton was a good president, and Cain has never held any office, so there's no comparison there.

glatt;777099 wrote:

You actually believe the Clintons had people killed? This is an actual belief you hold?

Chris Rock wrote:

What the fuck did Clinton do? They was charging him with shit l didn't even know was crimes.

''You got her some gifts.''

So what he got her gifts? That's his friend. You can't buy your friend a gift?

''Tried to get her a job." You can't get your friend a job?

Shit, % of the people in this room got their job because a friend recommended them.

lt's against the law to get your friend a job? Shit, she blew him for a couple of months.
The least he could do is give her a recommendation! lt's the least he could do.

See, people...everybody expects this holy behavior
'cause he's the President. Expect him to behave this holy way.

He's just the President. He ain't Rev. Clinton. lt ain't Pastor Clinton. lt ain't Maharajah Clinton.

lt is just Bill Clinton. He's just a man. A man's gonna be a man.

A man is basically as faithful as his options. That's how faithful a man is, no more, no less.

You see all these fat Republican guys going: l would never do such a thing. This is a travesty.

l'm like, ''Nobody's trying to blow you.''

Ain't no 21-year-old girls trying to blow Orrin Hatch.

Ain't nobody trying to give Newt Gingrich some.

l don't give a fuck, you ain't never gonna hear Newt Gingrich go: Man, l wish these hoes
would back up off me. l wish they would just back the fuck up off me.

glatt;777127 wrote:

Clinton didn't get a complete pass. He was impeached.

infinite monkey;777122 wrote:

Come on, this is just funny:



--Chris Rock, 1999

TheMercenary;777133 wrote:

And found not guilty. Impeachment is the process. He was eventually disbarred but not for any sexual misconduct, but for perjury. His perv behavior was never questioned, only his lie under oath. He got a major pass. And as evidenced by of the people who want to through Cain under the bus but still think Clinton was great. Hypocrisy.

glatt;777152 wrote:

That's my whole point. The "perv" behaviour is not the problem. It's the lies about the behaviour that are the problem.

TheMercenary;777118 wrote:

No, that is a pretty far out conspiracy thingy. But there is a body count of affairs and sexual misconduct left in his wake. And when a President of the United States shoots his DNA onto the dress of White House Intern and gets a complete pass compared to a few accusations against someone who wants to unseat Obama we have a major problem with the way people view the [SIZE="3"]Demoncrats[/SIZE] in this nation.

But here&#8217;s the part that really kills me. You&#8217;re kicking me to the curb because I was messing around, and instead you&#8217;re going with&#8230; Newt Gingrich? I repeat: are you fucking kidding me? Oh, I know what you&#8217;re saying: you love Newt because he&#8217;s an &#8220;intellectual.&#8221; Well, Newt Gingrich is the intellectual of the Republican field the way Moe was the intellectual of the Stooges.

richlevy;777394 wrote:

Well, Herman Cain is not long for this race. Which is why this commentator wrote his farewell address for him. Funny!


http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/12/03/a-farewell-from-herman-cain/

:lol2::thumb:

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman is the most "moderate" Republican candidate running for the presidency.

In fact, until recently, with first Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and more recently, Herman Cain
-- to say nothing of Sarah Palin -- hogging the limelight,
Huntsman's quirky and at times bizarre campaign wasn't gaining him much attention.
His poll numbers seemed to hover between 2% and oblivion.
Many voters came away from his town halls and "meet-and-greets" impressed
with his calm and folksy manner, but hardly anyone claimed they'd actually cast a ballot for him.

But take a look at the latest polls coming out of New Hampshire.
After months of barely registering there or anywhere else,
Huntsman's suddenly broken into double-digits.

At 11%, he's nearly tied with libertarian stalwart Ron Paul for third place
behind Mitt Romney, whose candidacy has largely stalled,
and Newt Gingrich, who's surging just about everywhere,
sending the Romney campaign into panic mode
<snip>
Huntsman's plan, which among other things would would restrict bank assets
to a much lower percentage of the GDP and set a hard cap on total borrowing by any single bank,
has won him big kudos from influential conservative scholars at institutions
like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

The race is far from settled. Eleven percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa
are uncommitted to a first choice, and 60% are still willing to change their mind.

One notable finding: The results show Gingrich's ascendancy has the potential to grow,
More respondents choose Gingrich as their second choice than any other candidate.
Together, 43% of likely caucus-goers pick him as first or second.

DanaC;777548 wrote:

That would be a fascinating presidential race. Either outcome could be good for America I think. That'd be a first for a long time: a win-win election :p

wrote:

Jon Huntsman (R-Davos), the darling of Manhattan magazine writers. The Republican uncomfortable with being a Republican. Yet the policies Huntsman advocates, if implemented, would usher in a conservative, free-market, small-government revolution that no Tea Party member could help but applaud. No Thatcherite or Reaganite, either.

In a new 30-second ad his campaign describes as "fun and energetic,"
Ron Paul is taking on his fellow presidential contenders as "sorry politicians"
- who turn in to "whimpering little shih tzus" when it's "showtime."

Griff;777550 wrote:

Huntsman i

"Anyone who is in the hip pocket of Wall Street because of all the donations they are picking up, like Mr. Romney, is in these days not going to be the change agent who is going to fix the too-big-to-fail banking system," Huntsman told an audience Monday night.

wrote:

Because the PAC was based in Utah, there was no limit on the amount that could be contributed. Individual donors gave as much as $250,000, with billionaire cosmetic mogul Ron Perelman giving $100,000 and Nike founder Phil Knight, $25,000.

Television magnate Herbert Seigel, one of the richest Americans, and his wife, Jeanne, gave a total of $400,000 to the PAC and Dallas-based development company, Trammel Crow, forked over $250,000 in one check.

Paul wants to eliminate at least 5 major departments of the federal government, as in this ad.

In 2004 Huntsman supported Utah’s constitutional amendment
outlawing marriage for gays and lesbians, but then later
strongly supported a 2009 initiative to allow civil unions,
despite significant conservative opposition.

wrote:

I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it&#8217;s something I would not be in favor of.

wrote:

The Mormon Church is firm on its position condemning homosexuality as sinful behavior. One of the tenets of Mormon doctrine is the Law of Chastity. It permits sexual relations only between a husband and wife who are legally married. Marriage is a very important part of Mormon doctrine too. In the Mormon temple a couple can be married for eternity. This is part of living worthy to inherit the kingdom of God...

The Mormon Church will not bow to popular opinion that asserts because 'they were born that way', gays and lesbians should be permitted to live a homosexual lifestyle. The Mormon Church does not accept biological determination for same-sex attraction. The factors contributing to attraction are complex; it cannot be pinpointed to solely genetics or environment. But whether it is 'natural' or not, it is written in the Book of Mormon that the natural man is an enemy to God (Mosiah 3:19).

SamIam;778048 wrote:

As a politician, Huntsman takes into account the growing acceptance on the part of the public of the gay life style and supports civil unions. Yet he is against "redefining marriage." Since he is a Mormon, is he is against gay marriage because “marriage is a very important part of Mormon doctrine”? Just how accepting of gays can he really be if he believes the Mormon dogma that gays are “an enemy to God”?

I remain skeptical.

Or, maybe its possible that both candidates are Mormon without allowing the religion to control their beliefs?

Huntsman has called his adherence to Mormon practices “tough to define.’’ He has described himself as more spiritual than religious and as someone who gets “satisfaction from many different types of religions and philosophies.’’

The former Utah governor’s seeming ambivalence has surprised and disappointed many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of whom have questioned whether Huntsman is trying to distance himself from his church for political gain. But others welcome his ambiguity: For them, it highlights a growing debate about whether this relatively new religion can accommodate a more elastic definition of what it means to be Mormon.

Stormieweather;778170 wrote:

I don't think that is possible. The very foundation of religion IS a system of "beliefs". Many of the more extreme religions disallow tolerance, insisting that conversion and obedience to their dogma is the only acceptable way to live.

SamIam;778048 wrote:

Just because he would allow civil unions does not mean Huntsman is a champion for gay rights.

Huntsman takes into account the growing acceptance on the part of the public of the gay life style and supports civil unions. Yet he is against "redefining marriage."

classicman;778201 wrote:

Gah - communication breakdown ...
To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.
Essentially the same, but without that one element. Is it right, fair, just... not the issue.
All I am saying is that some do not view the two as equal with respect to the religious component
and that is a BIG difference to those people.
I am not saying they cannot nor should not have all the same benefits,
just that the two terms have different meanings to some.

classicman;778185 wrote:

Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

So, again, I ask you. What's the difference, from the government's perspective, between marriage and civil union?

I don't have a representative. I'm asking a person who at least twice said that marriage and civil unions were different things.

classicman;778022 wrote:

marriage and civil unions are not considered the same thing by some

classicman;778201 wrote:

To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.
Essentially the same, but without that one element. Is it right, fair, just... not the issue.
All I am saying is that some do not view the two as equal with respect to the religious component
and that is a BIG difference to those people.
I am not saying they cannot nor should not have all the same benefits,
just that the two terms have different meanings to some.

classicman;778306 wrote:

Whoa, back up a sec. You just equated "civil union" with "gay marriage"
Civil marriages are not sanctioned under religious law, marriage is.
Thats the difference I was referring to.
If you have an issue with the government ask your representative.

I don't have a representative.

classicman;778329 wrote:

I never said I personally believed that. I repeatedly said ....

classicman;778185 wrote:

Well said, again marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

classicman;778306 wrote:

Whoa, back up a sec. You just equated "civil union" with "gay marriage"

To some, marriage is a religious contract, a civil union is not.

Bullshit. You live in DC. They're as common as cockroaches.

Happy Monkey;778333 wrote:

Is that not your personal belief?

I should back up from equating them, but you take umbrage when I attribute to you the belief that they are different?

Personally, I think that any union - marriage or whatever between
two humans should have the same legal/governmental rights as all the rest
whether they be gay, straight, bi, trans.It matters not to me PERSONALLY.

ZenGum;778338 wrote:

The way you two are going on ... are you married to EACH OTHER? :D

Happy Monkey;778681 wrote:

Or, as it happens, the Republicans, vis-a-vis Newt, who cheated on his dying wife, and is now the frontrunner.

There was plenty of discussion of how bad Cain was on 999 and foreign policy. More "making fun of" than "attacks", perhaps, because his stupidity with regard to both made it hard to take him seriously enough to "attack".

TheMercenary;778674 wrote:

Maybe he should have just waited for his wife to get breast cancer, beginning a long slow death, and then have an affair outside of his marriage or a baby out of wedlock, then and only then,

classicman;778689 wrote:

maybe .... he could have been more like Newt.

TheMercenary;778674 wrote:

The process is exposed.

No attacks on Cain for his 9-9-9 plan. No attacks on him for his foreign policy. No attacks on him for his mission statements. Only attacks on his past personal behavior.

TheMercenary;778674 wrote:

The process is exposed.

No attacks on Cain for his 9-9-9 plan. No attacks on him for his foreign policy.

TheMercenary;778686 wrote:

Cool! So he is in good company. Did Newt also crank out a baby at the time and then deny it to the press? Or did he just divert campaign money to feed his whore? Oh, wait, that was the other guy. DID Newt squirt his DNA on the dress of his girl friend in the White House and disgrace the office of the president? Nope.

SamIam;778774 wrote:

"A man's dreams should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for." So far, Newt has only managed to disgrace the office of Speaker to the House. He was the first speaker in the history of our nation who has been disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Newt himself admitted that he gave the House ethics committee false information and that he had broken federal tax law through creative financing of a couple of his personal projects. For this, he was given a formal reprimand by the House and ordered to pay a $300,000 fine. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

You can have Newt. The people of the United States certainly don't need him.

[Huntsman] has described himself as more spiritual than religious

ZenGum;779183 wrote:

I've got to the "meh" point about all this crowd.

Griff;779271 wrote:

<snip>
Did you guys see Perry's anti-gay rant passed just passed Rebecca Black for most disliked youtube video of all time.

As debate approaches, Republicans, conservatives target Newt Gingrich
As front-runner in the Republican presidential nominating race,
Newt Gingrich is a natural target for critics. At this point, it's mainly
conservatives and fellow Republicans questioning his character and leadership qualities.

(AP) JERUSALEM — A slew of Palestinian officials reacted with dismay
Saturday to Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich's statement
that the Palestinians are an "invented" people.

[QUOTE]"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state — (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire.
I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs
and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places,"
Gingrich said, according to a video excerpt posted online.

ZenGum;779805 wrote:

Yeah, silly but trivial.

I've finally got around to having a look at Newt.

Holy #&%$ing terrifying shit, Batman. I don't know where to start so I won't bother.

But for a right-wing nutjob he doesn't know his bible history very well, does he?

ZenGum;779499 wrote:

Hey, Mitt! Bet ya ten grand you don't become president! :p:

Friends and associates of the Texas governor who want to support Mitt Romney for president
are living by a certain credo: Don’t mess with Rick Perry.

Major fundraisers for Romney’s campaign in the Lone Star State say that even though Perry
has fallen in national polls since entering the GOP primary, prominent lawmakers,
businesspeople and other Texans are afraid to sign a check for Romney
out of fear that Perry will turn on them when he returns as governor.

For these major donors, say the fundraisers, it’s a waiting game until Perry loses the contest
for the nomination — then they’ll be free to give to Romney without fear of repercussion.<snip>

Leticia Van de Putte, a Democratic state senator, said Perry
has a “solid track record of finding disfavor with those who support his opponents” in elections.

“What is not tolerated, and he does exercise selective enforcement,
is when they give to another candidate who he’s running against,” she said.

The Texas congressman's allies and others say that he drains support from the rising Newt Gingrich,
and, if that turns out to be the case during the Jan. 3 caucuses and Paul manages to triumph here,
the theory is that Romney would benefit in the long-run.

"If Ron Paul can chip away at Gingrich just enough, he could conceivably win the caucuses,
but he doesn't have the longevity of Gingrich" because Paul has trouble expanding his support
beyond his libertarian-leaning base, said Tim Albrecht, an Iowa operative who worked for Romney
during his failed presidential bid four years ago.

Some Republicans say a victory by Paul — who many Republican operatives doubt can win the race
— could help curb the perception of a crushing loss for Romney, who has tried to tamp down expectations
that he'll do well here even as aides operate an under-the-radar Iowa campaign and TV ads
intended to help him are starting to flood the Iowa airwaves.<snip>

"The reality," said Steve Schmidt, who ran Sen. John McCain's campaign in 2008, "is that candidates
who are not going to win the nomination play a very important role in determining who does."
Paul, to be sure, is a factor in the race.

He raised $5 million between July and September, and supporters say Paul will be able to stay in the contest
as long as he wants because of a loyal following that sends him cash when he asks and new GOP rules
that award convention delegates proportionally.

And he's not being shy about trying to bloody his rivals
— particularly Romney's chief challenger.
This week, Paul's on the air with a blistering commercial hitting Gingrich for "serial hypocrisy."

tw;781213 wrote:

Serious nominees are not apparent

In the next few months, we will learn who among that rabble really has integrity.

tw;781213 wrote:

All those polls and public debates were classic examples of money wasted. Serious nominees are not apparent until Iowa and New Hamspire. About that time, we will begin to see who was really running for president. <snip>

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, who has focused his campaign strategy on the New Hampshire primary, received top marks in a scorecard rating the tax plans offered by each of the Republican candidates.

The Tax Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, said Huntsman&#8217;s plan rated a B+ grade for its &#8220;wipe the slate clean&#8221; approach to tax expenditures, which &#8220;knocks out preferential taxation in one fell swoop,&#8221; according to the report, which will be released today.

&#8220;Gov. Huntsman is running on his consistent, conservative record that took Utah to number one in the nation in job creation. He has put forth the most pro-growth tax plan in the field, and it is based on his experience passing the largest tax cut in Utah history,&#8221; campaign spokesman Michael Levoff said when asked about the report card.

Huntsman, who moved his campaign headquarters to New Hampshire, has already been lauded by The Wall Street Journal and several other publications and think tanks for his tax plan.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry received a B for his optional 20 percent flat tax on individuals and proposal for a 20 percent tax rate on corporations. Businessman Herman Cain, who was included in the report card even though he&#8217;s dropped out of the race, received a B- for his 9-9-9 plan for flat taxes on individuals, businesses and sales. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas also received a B- for his plan to cut corporate taxes to 15 percent and eliminate the estate tax and taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Rounding out the report card were former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, with a C+, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota with a C, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with a C- and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania with a D+.

Simplify The Personal Income Tax Code And Lower Rates. Rather than nibble around the edges of the existing tax code,
Gov. Huntsman will introduce a revenue-neutral tax plan that eliminates all deductions and credits in favor of three drastically lower rates
of 8%, 14% and 23%. Eliminating deductions and credits in favor of lower marginal rates will yield a simpler and more efficient tax code,
decreasing the burden on taxpayers.

Eliminate The Alternative Minimum Tax.
Under the new simplified plan, Gov. Huntsman will eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is not indexed for inflation
and is penalizing an increasing number of families and small businesses.

Eliminate The Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends In Order To Eliminate The Double Taxation On Investment.
Capital gains and dividend taxes amount to a double-taxation on individuals who choose to invest. Because dollars invested
had to first be earned, they have already been subject to the income tax. Taxing these same dollars again when capital gains
are realized serves to deter productive and much-needed investment in our economy.

Reduce The Corporate Rate From 35% To 25%.
The United States cannot compete while burdened with the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world;
American companies and our workers deserve a level playing field.
With high unemployment, it is important that we not push corporations and capital overseas.
We need employers to be based in America if they're going to provide jobs to Americans.

Eliminating deductions and credits in favor of lower marginal rates will yield a simpler and more efficient tax code,
decreasing the burden on taxpayers.

Capital gains and dividend taxes amount to a double-taxation on individuals who choose to invest. Because dollars invested
had to first be earned, they have already been subject to the income tax.

Eliminate The Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends In Order To Eliminate The Double Taxation On Investment.
Capital gains and dividend taxes amount to a double-taxation on individuals who choose to invest. Because dollars invested
had to first be earned, they have already been subject to the income tax. Taxing these same dollars again when capital gains
are realized serves to deter productive and much-needed investment in our economy.

The Virginia presidential primary is not until March 6,
but Newt Gingrich is suddenly veering off the campaign trail
and heading there Wednesday with urgent business:
...get on the ballot. The deadline is Thursday.

On Tuesday, he hastily added two events in Virginia to his schedule
&#8212; a rally in Arlington on Wednesday night and a &#8220;meet and greet&#8221;
with volunteers in Richmond on Thursday morning.

He needs at least 10,000 signatures to get on Virginia&#8217;s Republican presidential primary ballot,
but the state has the steepest ballot requirements in the country.
It is not clear how many signatures he has now.

The signature-gathering exercise is where Mr. Gingrich&#8217;s lack of field organization shows;
Mitt Romney has been gathering signatures in the state since the summer and has met the goal.
Mr. Gingrich&#8217;s campaign went dark this summer and is scrambling to catch up.<snip>

In Virginia, candidates face the further hurdle of having to show support
across the whole state, with at least 400 signatures in each of the state&#8217;s 11 Congressional Districts.

Apart from Virginia, other difficult states are: Indiana, which requires 4,500 signatures;
Illinois, which requires 3,000; and Pennsylvania, which requires 2,000.
In Pennsylvania, signatures can come from Republicans only, and only in a three-week period.
The other states require more signatures, but they are open to all registered voters and have a longer collection period.

&#8220;I asked him if he&#8217;s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama,&#8221; said Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University.&#8221;

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses,
he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out
under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report,
the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.
There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.

Some choice quotes:

* "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system,
I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city
are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

* "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

* After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed,
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

* One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer
who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

* Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman
as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign,
Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because
they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content.
Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn't represent his views.

But it is still a serious issue. Jamie Kirchick reported in The New Republic
that Paul made nearly one million dollars in just one year from publishing the newsletters.
Could Paul really not understand the working of such a profitable operation?
<snip>
Winning the Iowa caucuses would change all that instantly.

Undoubtedly the movement that Paul inspired has moved far beyond
the race-baiting it engaged in two decades ago.
Young people from college campuses aren't lining up to hear him speak
because of what appeared in those newsletter about the 1992 L.A. riots
Rand Paul tried his hardest to place Paul-style libertarianism into the context of the Tea Party.
And he will likely carry on the movement without this 1990s baggage.

(Reuters) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has failed to meet the requirements to be in the primary election in his home state of Virginia, the state's Republican Party said.

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives defiantly pledged to run a write-in campaign for the March 6 primary.

Texas Governor Rick Perry also failed to make the ballot for the state's Republican vote. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia vote.

In Virginia, candidates face the further hurdle of having to show support
across the whole state, with at least 400 signatures in each of the state’s 11 Congressional Districts.

Mississippi voters said they thought twice about the proposal when they heard
that it would not only ban virtually all abortions but also some forms of contraception like I.U.D.’s
and morning-after pills, could hamper in-vitro fertilization clinics and could, doctors warned,
discourage critical medical care for pregnant women.

It has also caused a bitter split in the anti-abortion movement, with traditional leaders,
including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, opposed to the idea on strategic grounds,
arguing that it would end in a legal debacle that only strengthens abortion rights.

These considerations have apparently not put off some of the Republican presidential aspirants,
who are polishing and trumpeting their credentials as Christian conservatives
in their efforts to be seen as the leading Not Romney.

This month, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum have all signed
a pledge to support “personhood” at conception that was crafted by Personhood USA,
a Colorado group that has continued to push the idea in several states.

Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum have also agreed to celebrate the personhood concept
in a “Presidential Pro-Life Forum” in Iowa next Tuesday, Dec. 27,
that will be moderated by the conservative radio host Steve Deace
and broadcast live on his syndicated program.

Five GOP presidential candidates — Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry
and more recently, Ron Paul — have signed a pledge drafted by Personhood USA
in which the candidates promise to support a Constitutional amendment
and federal legislation imposing "personhood" laws.

Personhood USA seeks to "glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life
so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and by law."

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The personhood legislation will recognize zygotes as human beings having constitutional rights
and ban assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research,
and "procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings.[/COLOR]"

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!
Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!

-- Newt Gingrich, who says as president he would ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings he dislikes, has plenty of company among Republican candidates in vowing to blow up long-held premises of constitutional law. --

"Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot," Gingrich campaign director Michael Krull said. "Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.

"We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice," Krull said.

But Virginia Code Section 24.2-644(C) rules out write-ins in its first sentence, saying: "At all elections [COLOR="Red"]except primary elections[/COLOR] it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person's name on the official ballot."

(Reuters) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has failed to meet the requirements to be in the primary election in his home state of Virginia, the state's Republican Party said.

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives defiantly pledged to run a write-in campaign for the March 6 primary.

Texas Governor Rick Perry also failed to make the ballot for the state's Republican vote. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia vote.

Despite Gingrich's last-minute effort to submit his petitions by Thursday's deadline, the state party said on its website on Saturday that a verification process showed he had not submitted the 10,000 signatures required to qualify for the primary.

The Virginia state board of elections earlier said Gingrich, among the top three Republican candidates nationally, had made the ballot with 11,050 signatures.

"Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot," Gingrich campaign director Michael Krull said. "Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.

"We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice," Krull said.

After Gingrich staged two campaign events in the state last week, his campaign was confident he had made the ballot even as his last-minute scramble raised concerns about Gingrich's abilities to run a national campaign.

(Reporting By Sam Youngman; Editing by Bill Trott)

(Reuters) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has failed to meet the requirements to be in the presidential primary election in Virginia, where he resides, the state's Republican Party said.

Gingrich had been leading in a poll of Virginia voters and a spokesman for the former speaker of the House of Representatives defiantly pledged to run a write-in campaign for the March 6 vote. However, Virginia does not permit write-ins in primary elections, according to the state code.

The Virginia Republican Party also said Texas Governor Rick Perry's petitions also had failed to qualify him for the ballot. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul qualified.

Three other members of the Republican field trying to unseat Democratic President Barack Obama - former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum - did not meet the Thursday deadline for submitting petitions.

Despite Gingrich's last-minute scramble to submit his petitions by the deadline, the state party said on its website on Saturday that a review process showed he did not have the required 10,000 verifiable signatures.

The Virginia state board of elections earlier had said Gingrich, among the top three Republican candidates nationally, had made the ballot with 11,050 signatures.

"Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot," Gingrich campaign director Michael Krull said. "Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.

"We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice," Krull said.

But Virginia Code Section 24.2-644(C) rules out write-ins in its first sentence, saying: "At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person's name on the official ballot."

A December 22 Quinnipiac poll for Virginia had Gingrich ahead with 30 percent of the vote, compared with 25 percent for Romney and 9 percent for Paul. Virginia is one of 11 states holding a primary or caucus on March 6.

After Gingrich staged two campaign events in the state last week, his campaign had been confident that he had made the ballot even as his last-minute scramble raised concerns about Gingrich's abilities to run a national campaign.

(Reporting By Sam Youngman; Editing by Bill Trott)

BigV;782870 wrote:

um... that write in plan? Looks like someone, myself included, didn't do sufficient research. Because it's against the law. There will be no write in candidacy in the Virginia primary election.

Undertoad;782887 wrote:

fuck that "will of the voters" shit, so overrated!!!

thank goodness it will actually be illegal to vote they way some people want to!!!

sadly there are two candidates left, i was hoping for just one, choice is an illusion!!!

BigV;782936 wrote:

<snip>

Please note that this does not pertain to the general election. Not only may a voter cast their ballot for either *party* ticket, but write-ins are also allowed. This "poison pill" is just for the primaries, so they can decide who can be called the Party's candidate. In WA, this prevented our largely blue state from voting for the most stupid, least likely to win red primary candidate (there's a term for this kind of defensive voting which escapes me at the moment).

I am not in favor of this Party only system for the primary election. I agree, it fucks over the small d-democratic process. I believe a proportional distribution of delegates, and eventually electors will dilute this poison.

glatt;782984 wrote:

When I vote in the special upcoming county board primary next month for the Democrats, I will have to sign an oath that I won't vote for any candidate in the general election other than the party nominee.

tw;783073 wrote:

Its more than unenforceable. It is unconstitutional. Is that a county voting requirement or a VA state wide one?

glatt;783098 wrote:

It's a "caucus," where the party chooses its nominee.

Undertoad;783093 wrote:

It turns out that, in previous elections, the VA Republican Party has not checked the validity of signatures. If a candidate turned in 10,000 signatures it was assumed they were all valid, registered voters, and not forgeries at all.

In other words, theoretically, a team with a list and a bunch of Bics could assemble the 10,000 signatures for Alan Keyes in one pizza night.

If you check the information in ballot access petitions, you will generally be able to nullify a good fifth of them just for being incorrect. Ditto marks are not valid. Illegible signatures are not valid.

If you go further, you can remove another set where people have written their city instead of their polling location, or where they've gotten some aspect of the thing wrong. Go further and you can eliminate people not on the registered voters list, and obvious forgeries and such.

Eventually, if you have a lot of money and work hard at it, you can disallow half of the signatures for various reasons.

The policy for this election was that if you turned in over 15,000 signatures, they would not check them. And that is what Mitt Romney did.

Bonus irony: Rick Perry vetoed legislation to ease Texas's ballot access laws.

Undertoad;783093 wrote:

<snip>

Eventually, if you have a lot of money and work hard at it, you can disallow half of the signatures for various reasons.

The policy for this election was that if you turned in over 15,000 signatures, they would not check them. And that is what Mitt Romney did.

Bonus irony: Rick Perry vetoed legislation to ease Texas's ballot access laws.

but Gingrich CAN NOT constitutionally select a virginian.

classicman;783292 wrote:

Huh?

Ibram;783293 wrote:

Article 2 section 1.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." As in, the President and VP have to be residents of different states.

Gingrich resides in Virginia. Oops.


EDIT: sorry, my bad. The 12th amendment has precedence here. Which reads:

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves..."

so, same deal.

Undertoad;783093 wrote:

It turns out that, in previous elections, the VA Republican Party has not checked the validity of signatures. If a candidate turned in 10,000 signatures it was assumed they were all valid, registered voters, and not forgeries at all.

In other words, theoretically, a team with a list and a bunch of Bics could assemble the 10,000 signatures for Alan Keyes in one pizza night.

Last week his campaign acknowledged they used paid volunteers to scramble to get the required 10,000 signatures but fell short after the former House speaker and Virginia resident boasted his campaign was submitting as many as 12,000-14,000 signatures.

On a campaign stop at an Algona chocolate store, the former House speaker said the "mistake" occurred because one of their workers committed fraud.

"We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. We turned in 11,100 – we needed 10,000 – 1,500 of them were by one guy who frankly committed fraud."

Former GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell announced her endorsement of Mitt Romney
last night and appeared on CNN’s 'American Morning' to discuss his qualifications (video below).

When host Carol Costello noted how Romney has actually “changed his mind”
quite a bit on important issues, O’Donnell replied: “That’s one of the things I like about him,
because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind.”

classicman;784733 wrote:

Here ya go Lamp ...
Candidates lay out plans to trim federal debt

classicman;783988 wrote:

Bwahahahahahahaa!! !!! !!!!

I would pay her NOT to endorse me.
OTOH, CNN lost a few more credibility points having her on and thinking anyone is interested in her opinion.

Lamplighter;784764 wrote:

That link is only what the candidates, themselves, are saying.

No follow up questions or interpretation of impact or feasibility, etc

Tonight's debate in New Hampshire features a candidate who's been missing in action: Rick Perry.
Perry's absence from the campaign trail has not helped him public opinion polls.
He barely registers in New Hampshire surveys.
And three recent polls in South Carolina show Perry at between 2% and 5%.

After sitting out the Iowa caucuses and investing all his hopes in this state,
Huntsman has struggled to find a voice that resonates with voters.
The former Utah governor is proud to announce that he's no longer
"the margin-of-error candidate _ in New Hampshire, at least.

But he'll need to do far better than that for his campaign to continue after Tuesday's primary.

Newt Gingrich faces, to use one of his favorite terms, a transformative question in the next 48 hours:
Can he claw his way back into this race without letting Bad Newt completely out of the box?

Hyperbole is his oxygen, and the man takes a lot of very deep breaths.
The hyperbole is a hoot for Republicans when it’s directed at Obama or, just as good,
at the media in debates in defense of fellow Republicans.
<snip>
But it can be cringe-inducing when it’s aimed at those fellow Republicans instead.

Ari, a fourth-grader at Clark/Wilkins Elementary School,
began asking the question to presidential candidates during
the summer at Amherst’s annual Fourth of July parade
– notorious for attracting Uncle Sams on stilts and campaigning politicians
Dad, Darren [Garnick], recorded it all with a hand-held flip video camera.

Griff;785848 wrote:

<snip> At least we can still buy a Chevy Suburban.:rolleyes:

I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country first.
He criticized me for serving my country in China while he was out raising money.
Like my two sons who are serving in the United States Navy, I want to be very clear:
I will always put my country first.

classicman;787155 wrote:

Not telling eh? thats fine.
At this point, Huntsman would have been my first choice... if he only had some personality. :/

TheMercenary;786975 wrote:

I think Romney can beat him. Not my first choice but...

classicman;787261 wrote:

This is what led to the question ... Who is or was your first choice?

Mr. Colbert, the Comedy Central television host,
has made jokes at the expense of super PACs for months
— forming his own group, soliciting money for it, then running an ad that featured Buddy Roemer,
a long-shot candidate who has criticized the Supreme Court decision that allows
the existence of the free-spending PACs so long as they do not explicitly coordinate with candidates.

On Thursday night’s “Colbert Report,” Mr. Colbert took it a big step further,
handing control of his group to his friend and fellow host Jon Stewart
so that he can legally run for president, or at least pretend to.
Mr. Colbert, who has comically flirted with — and mocked the possibility of
— runs for political office before, said he would form an “exploratory committee
for president of the United States of South Carolina.”
<snip>
“You cannot be a candidate and run a super PAC. That would be coordinating with yourself,”
Trevor Potter, Mr. Colbert’s lawyer and a former chairman
of the Federal Election Commission, told him on Thursday’s show.
But “you could have it run by somebody else,” even a friend or business partner, Mr. Potter said
— illuminating what critics say is an inappropriate loophole in the law.

So Mr. Colbert brought out Mr. Stewart, the host of “The Daily Show,”
who played along with the joke, saying, “I’d be honored to” help.
Sarcastically emphasizing that they would not coordinate Mr. Colbert’s real
or imagined presidential race with Mr. Stewart’s ad spending, Mr. Colbert said
“From now on, I will have to talk about my plans on my TV show.”
Mr. Stewart, whose show immediately precedes Mr. Colbert’s
at 11 p.m., shot back, “I don’t even know when it’s on.”

When Mr. Potter told the two comedians that “being business partners
does not count as coordination, legally,” there were groans of disgust
from some in the studio audience.<snip>

U.S. District Judge John Gibney said in his ruling that Perry
-- along with GOP candidates Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum
who joined in the Texas governor's lawsuit -- waited too long to file
the complaint against the state's ballot requirements.

"They knew the rules in Virginia many months ago.
... In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair,"
Gibney wrote.

Virginia is one of the big prizes among the primaries
being held March 6, on what is known as Super Tuesday.

The singer, who recently welcomed daughter Blue Ivy Carter,
has teamed up with mom Tina Knowles to design a $45 T-shirt
in support of President Obama.

Lamplighter;787734 wrote:

The singer, who recently welcomed daughter Blue Ivy Carter,
has teamed up with mom Tina Knowles to design a $45 T-shirt
in support of President Obama.

classicman;787840 wrote:

[YOUTUBE]34phsb4e6Eg[/YOUTUBE]


Wai what? Oh never mind. something about a broken clock...

Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Rick Santorum won the backing of a group of national religious leaders
who pushed for social conservatives to coalesce behind a single Republican presidential candidate
before the South Carolina primary.<snip>

At a gathering of religious leaders at a ranch near Bleiblerville, Texas,
Santorum received 85 of 114 votes on the third ballot,
defeating former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told reporters
on a conference call today.<snip>

Organizers included Gary Bauer, president of American Values in Washington,
and Donald Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association of Tupelo, Mississippi,
Perkins said. Also attending was Richard Land, president of the Nashville, Tennessee-based
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Perkins declined to name others present at the event, held yesterday and today
at a ranch owned by H. Paul Pressler, a Houston attorney and former Texas Appeals Court judge.
Perkins described the group as “conservative leaders, businessmen and political activists.”<snip>

A group supporting Santorum’s campaign began airing a commercial
that promotes his opposition to abortion and radical Islam.
The ad, sponsored by Red White and Blue Fund, doesn’t mention
any of Santorum’s Republican opponents.<snip>

The Rev. R. Philip Roberts, the president of a Southern Baptist seminary in Kansas City, Mo., is an evangelist with a particular goal: countering Mormon beliefs.<snip>

On the most fundamental issue, traditional Christians believe in the Trinity:
that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all rolled into one.

Mormons reject this as a non-biblical creed that emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries.
They believe that God the Father and Jesus are separate physical beings,
that God has a wife whom they call Heavenly Mother, and that God and Jesus once dwelt on earth as men.<snip>

Many evangelicals have numerous reasons, other than religion, for objecting to Mr. Romney.
But to understand just how hard it is for some to coalesce around his candidacy,
it is important to understand the gravity of their theological qualms.

“I don’t have any concerns about Mitt Romney using his position as either
a candidate or as president of the United States to push Mormonism,” said Mr. Roberts, an author of
“Mormonism Unmasked” and president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
who said he had no plans to travel to South Carolina before the voting.
“[COLOR="DarkRed"]The concern among evangelicals is that the Mormon Church will use his position
around the world as a calling card for legitimizing their church and proselytizing people.[/COLOR]”

&#8220;I don&#8217;t have any concerns about Mitt Romney using his position as either
a candidate or as president of the United States to push Mormonism,&#8221; said Mr. Roberts, an author of
&#8220;Mormonism Unmasked&#8221; and president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Griff;788324 wrote:

I no longer have a dog in this fight.

Griff;788324 wrote:

I no longer have a dog in this fight.

Spexxvet;788354 wrote:

Yay! Another vote for Obama!

Griff;788377 wrote:

Right now it feels more like a skip the voting booth day altogether. If Obama can convince me that he does take the debt seriously, I can overlook his lack of leadership thus far... but we'll see.

Lamplighter;788389 wrote:

Oh ? What if LBJ felt that way...

SamIam;788547 wrote:

... has put forth the idea that low income youth should be assigned some kind of civic employment, ...

classicman;788376 wrote:

well... I f I had one, he would have been it.

SamIam;788547 wrote:

I'm sticking with Newt, the candidate for thinly disguised racism. He calls Obama the "food stamp" president and has put forth the idea that low income youth should be assigned some kind of civic employment, so they can learn about the work ethic, since no one in the projects is available as a role model.

I also heard him saying on NPR this morning that he favors jobs over work stamps. Oh, Newt you job creator, you. Just don't say anything to all the people you laid off at Bain Financial. :eyebrow:

Griff;788644 wrote:

Except that a lot of low income youth don't have any role models who work.

Griff;788644 wrote:

Finding a way to make working more profitable than not working seems a valid goal and Mitt worked for Bain not Newt.

wrote:

&#8226; By the first half of 2010, the unemployment rate for Alaska Natives jumped 6.3 percentage points to 21.3%&#8212;the highest regional unemployment rate for American Indians.

&#8226; Since the start of the recession, American Indians in the Midwest experienced the greatest increase in unemployment, growing by 10.3 percentage points to 19.3%.

&#8226; By the first half of this year, slightly more than half&#8212;51.5%&#8212;of American Indians nationally were working, down from 58.3% in the first half of 2007.

&#8226; In the first half of this year, only 44% of American Indians in the Northern Plains were working, the worst employment rate for Native Americans regionally.

&#8226; The employment situation is the worst for American Indians in some of the same regions where it is best for whites: Alaska and the Northern Plains.

"I'm pleased to designate Jeff Zients to lead the Office of Management and Budget. Since day one, Jeff has demonstrated superb judgment and has provided sound advice on a whole host of issues," Obama said in a statement accompanying the announcement today. Zients previously served as Deputy Director of OMB under Jack Lew, who became Obama's chief of staff with the departure of Bill Daley.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney might also be pleased at Zients' promotion, given that they have a common professional background; Zients worked with Bain & Company as early as 1988, according to the Bain website. Romney worked at Bain & Company, first from 1977-1984, and then again from 1991 and 1992, when he was the Bain & Company chief executive officer.

The Bain name has become politically-charged recently with the rise of Mitt Romney -- not for his work as a Bain & Company executive, but rather his career at Bain Capital. Romney helped found Bain Capital with his Bain and Company colleagues in 1984, and he led the firm until 1990.

Update: Bain & Company says that Zients worked there from August 1988 to June 1990. Romney apparently returned to Bain & Company from Bain Capital in January 1991, so they missed each other by six months.

President Obama's top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, criticized Romney for having a "Bain mentality," just as some of Romney's Republican presidential election rivals have blamed him for layoffs that took place at companies that Bain Capital financed.

ZenGum;788782 wrote:

Sam, if it makes you feel any better, the situation with Australian Aboriginals is even worse. Life expectancy is 15 years less (or more), they're 10 to 12 times more likely to be in prison, etc etc.

Griff wrote:

Look at people not stereotypes. I didn't hear myself say any of the things you said I did. Humans learn best through role modeling, unemployment rates are high and higher in minority communities. The long-term unemployed can not show their children what it looks like to go to work 5 days a week and simultaneously organize a household. Newt was not saying anything that Democrats hadn't said before. I have an aide in my classroom right now who would be better off unemployed because her families' significant health care needs were better met under medicaid. She persists because she wants someday to have a middle-class life, but the cards are stacked against her. Most of Newts solutions are not likely to be helpful, but to dismiss them out of hand because of party bias isn't helpful either.

Griff;788650 wrote:

Yeah, he was describing a younger Americorp. Creating disincentives to work is a Democrat thing, we won't see that in a Republican proposal. Remember that Obama's administration wants to prevent farm kids under 16 from working. Let's call a truce no Republicans in the bedroom and no Democrats in the fields.

glatt;788950 wrote:

*shrug*
It was a long time ago.

Farming is, I believe, the most dangerous job. We had a thread about this a while ago. Maybe it's fisherman.

Undertoad;788937 wrote:

we told the kid twice to keep his hands out of the thresher

As the head of a super political-action committee supporting Stephen Colbert,
Jon Stewart is not allowed to 'coordinate' with Colbert.
But the two are pushing the limits in the name of satire.

Jon Stewart does not want to go to jail. This is understandable &#8211;
the bagels in prison aren&#8217;t fresh, and Wi-Fi access is extremely limited.

So &#8211; as he explained on Tuesday night&#8217;s show &#8211; he is worried about his new position
as head of Stephen Colbert&#8217;s super political-action committee.
He&#8217;s happy with the money, of course, and the power, and so on.
He&#8217;s thinking of buying himself one of Elizabeth Taylor&#8217;s tiaras.
(We&#8217;re not making this up.) But he heard Mitt Romney say on &#8220;Morning Joe&#8221;
that he (Mitt) can&#8217;t coordinate with his own super PAC or he&#8217;ll go the &#8220;big house.&#8221;

&#8220;Which of your big houses do you go to? The beach house or the ski chalet?&#8221;
asked Mr. Stewart, before mugging it up in mock horror at finally getting Mr. Romney&#8217;s joke.
<snip>

But there is a loophole, or, as Colbert called it, a &#8220;loop-chasm.&#8221;
A candidate can talk to his associated super PAC via the media.
And the super PAC can listen, like everybody else.

&#8220;I can&#8217;t tell you [what to do]. But I can tell everyone through television,&#8221;
said Colbert on Stewart&#8217;s Comedy Central Show.
&#8220;And if you happen to be watching, I can&#8217;t prevent that.&#8221;

Stewart then played a clip of Newt Gingrich calling on his super PAC
to scrub ads attacking Mitt Romney for possible inaccuracies.
Stewart and Colbert then talked to elections lawyer Trevor Potter
&#8211; who is the attorney for both Colbert&#8217;s exploratory committee and the super PAC
&#8211; through the same phone. Stewart said he&#8217;d bought air time in South Carolina,
and so on, and Colbert just said he couldn&#8217;t coordinate,
but smiled or frowned, depending on which city the ad time was in.
Columbia, no. Charleston, yes!

Is this all legal, or are these comedians pushing the legal envelope
and in fact risking jail time?

He may be running a fake candidacy, but Stephen Colbert is having
a very real rally in South Carolina — co-hosted by Herman Cain.

The Comedy Central personality announced on his show Wednesday
that he would unite with the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO for the
"Rock Me Like a Herman Cain!" rally to get voters — and fans —
excited for the comedian and Cain's "non-candidacies".<snip>

"On Stephen Colbert's endorsement of himself as Herman Cain,
I find it very clever and humorous, as it should be," Cain said on Fox411.
"Anyone who finds what Mr. Colbert is doing offensive should simply lighten up.
To be perfectly clear, I will not be assuming Stephen Colbert's identity.
We are very different when it comes to the color of our — hair."

ZenGum;789310 wrote:

Ha! The kinda-Mexican Mormon vs the kinda-Kenyan not-Muslim. Who'd a thunk it?

Lamplighter;789113 wrote:

TV talking heads are saying that the "official count" of votes in the Iowa
caucuses was not correct, that Santorum actually won Iowa by 34 votes.

It seems that the "official count" comes from the tally of votes filed on "Form E"
submitted by each of the Iowa precincts, and the forms from 8 precincts are "missing"

Lamplighter;789113 wrote:

Now, did Santorum win or not ? Is the cat in the box alive or dead ?

infinite monkey;789170 wrote:

Ugh, I think they both look like Ken dolls, and I don't mean that in a nice way...they really both look plastic. Like plastic and rubber and painted on hair, and smarm. A lot of smarm.

The Iowa Republican Party on Thursday officially called the state caucus a tie between Santorum and Romney even though Santorum received 34 more votes &#8211; 29,839 to 29,805 for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney was initially declared the winner by a mere 8 votes.

The Iowa Republican Party, however, decided to call the vote a tie because the tally from eight precincts are inexplicably missing. The result: no one really knows who won what was clearly a very close election.

Spexxvet;789443 wrote:

And no genitals.

The sad part came when Colbert made a major announcement.
With a heavy heart and a spastic colon he announced that he would be
re-suspending Herman Cain's suspended campaign, and officially ending
his exploratory committee to run*for President of the United States of South Carolina.

Colbert went on to thank his committee members -- NBC's own Chuck Todd,
Will Smith as Bagger Vance, "Criss Angel: Mind Freak," and affectionately
-- his roll of quarters for the laundry he hasn't done in a month or so.
<snip>
The announcement begged the question -- what will Colbert do now?
Take back the Super PAC, of course!

Unfortunately, it appears Jon Stewart has gone rogue.
Stewart sent this note to The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC supporters,
via The Huffington Post:

[QUOTE]Dear Super PAC Super People,
Hey, it's Jon again. As you know, a while back, I took over this Super PAC
so that my friend and business partner Stephen Colbert could explore possibly
running for President of the United States of America of South Carolina (maybe).

Unfortunately, he never connected with voters, despite nearly a week of part-time campaigning,
culminating in a massive rally at the College of Charleston.<snip>

Today he asked me if he if he could retake control of
The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC.
I told him, with all due respect, to go take a long walk off a short go-f%¢#-yourself.<snip>

glatt;790364 wrote:

Yeah, all that is in the news, but what they don't talk about is where the money came from and how much there is.

Super PACs have even gotten in on the secret money act. While Super PACs are required to disclose their donors,
they can accept contributions from nonprofits that do not disclose their donors and from corporations,
some of which either do not identify their owners or dissolve upon making a large donation.
This has already caused controversy for the Romney-backing Restore Our Future, which received three $1 million contributions
from corporations that appear to do no business, one of which dissolved a few months after making the donation.

classicman;790409 wrote:

Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional PACs.

another sticky wicket ...

"We had 100 percent disclosure for nonprofit spending on electioneering communications in 2004,"
explained Craig Holman, the lobbyist for the watchdog group Public Citizen.
"The FEC changed the disclosure rule in 2007 to only require disclosure for contributors
who earmark their donations for [express advocacy and issue] spending, which no one does.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Now, everyone has figured out that they don't have to disclose at all."[/COLOR]

Sundae;790424 wrote:

Romney's tax records made the news today in the UK.

Am I missing something here?
How is it possible for someone to earn $21 MILLION and only pay $3 million in tax?

7%?

7% if you're on minimum wage feels like an awful lot.
7% of millions is small change. It's money you cannot possibly spend OR EARN rationally.
Especially when you have the money to manage your money.

It seems I know very little about America.
And almost nothing about American politics.
Because I find that appalling.

glatt wrote:

I haven't been following this Colbert Super PAC thing that closely. How much money is there in this Super PAC, and where did it come from? Did viewers send money in? If they did, can Colbert and Stewart keep it for themselves now?

classicman;790465 wrote:

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?
Has it gotten out of hand? Absolutely.
Does something need to change? Definitely.
Romney is a perfect example of that.
Interesting how when you compare Romney's #'s to Obama's #'s, the REAL difference is from where the income is derived.
Heck, I've been saying this for over a year.

Sundae;790424 wrote:

Am I missing something here?
How is it possible for someone to earn $21 MILLION and only pay $3 million in tax?

BigV;790517 wrote:

Seriously?

I fully believe the lower cap on capital gains was established because the people who earn capital gains wanted to pay less in taxes and had the political mojo to make that happen.

Clodfobble;790516 wrote:

Anyway, that's the deal with the SuperPAC. He's going to keep using the money to shed light on the system until the money runs out. But my understanding is that so far, people have liked what he's done and the donations are still coming in.

wrote:

"By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American," Gingrich said.

"I'm prepared to invest the prestige of the presidency in communicating and building a nationwide movement in favor of space," Gingrich said at a meeting of aerospace executives and community leaders after the rally.

"If we do it right, it'll be wild and it will be just the most fun you've ever seen," he said.

BigV;790763 wrote:

so... what's capital gains got to do with savings? Can you please connect those two dots for me?

A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.

Griff;790772 wrote:

Democrats need to be careful about all their gloom and doom scenarios, people don't want to vote for that and don't want water cooler talk to be dominated by it.

Lamplighter;790979 wrote:

I have just heard the dumbest question ever asked during a Republican debate...

Wolff Blizter asked of all four candidates: "Whose wife would make the best 1st Lady" :headshake

If Gingrich thought Romney's wife would be the best, is he supposed to say so ?
If Paul thought Santorum's wife would be better because she is younger, is he supposed to say so.

I could get a whole lot nastier about each of the women, but I leave those titillations to the Reader.


Wolff, go sit in the dunce-corner for the next two weeks :dunce:

Spexxvett wrote:

Is Laura Bush the only first lady who killed someone?

Spexxvet;791130 wrote:

No - their hands are clean.

classicman;791288 wrote:

If the owner of the house had made a principled stand on that, would there be a few more employed citizens? :bolt:

ZenGum;790990 wrote:

Gingrich's answer should have been: "Mine ... whichever one! and if she isn't, I'll upgrade. Again."

Romney: "Mine ... all of them!"

<snip>
It's part of the campaign circus - candidates and their surrogates slinging mud to sway voters.
But Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus took the bashing to a new level
in comparing Mr. Obama to the captain of the capsized Costa Concordia cruise ship,
in speaking with Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"In the end, in a few months, this is all going to be ancient history
and we're going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino,
which is President Obama who is abandoning the ship here in the United States.
He's more interested in campaigning than doing his job as President," Priebus said.

classicman;790465 wrote:

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?

wrote:

This {the lower cap on capitol gains} is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax.

SamIam;791666 wrote:

A rather belated reply, but as I was reading back over this thread, I saw your statement and wondered if it was true. According to Wikipedia, you are [strike]in[/strike]correct.

intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax.

SamIam;791684 wrote:

It is my feeling that comparing capitol gains to saving makes it sound like people just tucking away what they can in their savings accounts down at the local bank. There is simply no comparison between the two.

classicman;791696 wrote:

Actually they are the same thing.
Almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset.
Including your home, household furnishings, stocks and bonds even your personal savings account.

It’s hard to know what the most pitiful part was:
That a presidential candidate was whiling away the night at a hotel bar
(it was his second visit to the journalists’ table that evening)?
That he felt the need to do his own spinning?
That the survey he was spinning was a “robo-poll” done by machines?
Or that the pollster who did it used to work for Gingrich?

In fact, real polls were showing the opposite — a new Quinnipiac poll
had Mitt Romney with a 14-point lead over Gingrich in Florida.
If such a drubbing occurs in the state’s primary on Tuesday,
that would, for all intents and purposes, end Gingrich’s campaign.

But Gingrich is going down in his own style, leaving fabrications,
insults and scorched earth all the way from Miami to Pensacola.

That giant sucking sound you hear from Gingrich is him
draining the last bit of relevance the GOP had left.

classicman;791696 wrote:

Almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset.

tw;791827 wrote:

When I eat pâté, that is a capital gain. In the bathroom, it is a capital loss. Can I write that off?

Now I will need receipts. Paperwork.

infinite monkey;791902 wrote:

Go with Charmin. The bears say it leaves nothing behind.

In a decision that is inflaming passions on both sides of the abortion debate,
the world&#8217;s largest breast cancer organization, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Susan G. Komen for the Cure,
is cutting off its financing of breast cancer screening and education programs
run by Planned Parenthood affiliates[/COLOR].

The move will halt financing to 19 of Planned Parenthood&#8217;s 83 affiliates,
which received nearly $700,000 from the Komen foundation last year
and have been receiving similar grants since at least 2005.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Ms. Richards said all of Planned Parenthood&#8217;s affiliates provided around 770,000 women
with breast examinations and paid for mammograms and ultrasounds for those
who needed and could not afford further diagnostic services.[/COLOR]

She said she received the news from the Komen foundation in late December
and had requested a meeting with officials there to discuss the matter but was rebuffed.
<snip>
Anti-abortion advocates and Web sites have criticized the Komen foundation&#8217;s
financing of Planned Parenthood for years. And in December, LifeWay Christian Resources,
which is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, said it was recalling
a pink Bible it was selling at Walmart and other stores because a dollar per copy
was going to the Komen foundation and the foundation supported Planned Parenthood.
<snip>

piercehawkeye45;791825 wrote:

Palin, Limbaugh, and others have endorsed Gingrich. I feel he will go down swinging.

Why they chose him over Santorum is beyond me...

[QUOTE]<snip>“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.”<snip>

Lamplighter;792815 wrote:

It's reminiscent of Gerald Ford trying to explain SNL.

Watching the Republican Party struggling to agree on a presidential candidate,
one wonders whether the GOP shouldn't just sit this election out - just give 2012 a pass.

You know how in Scrabble sometimes you look at your seven letters and you've got only vowels that spell nothing?
What do you do? You go back to the pile. You throw your letters back and hope to pick up better ones to work with.
That's what Republican primary voters seem to be doing.
They just keep going back to the pile but still coming up with only vowels that spell nothing.

There's a reason for that: Their pile is out of date.
The party has let itself become the captive of conflicting ideological bases:
anti-abortion advocates, anti-immigration activists, social conservatives worried
about the sanctity of marriage, libertarians who want to shrink government,
and anti-tax advocates who want to drown government in a bathtub.

Sorry, but you can't address the great challenges America faces today with that incoherent mix of hardened positions.
I've argued that maybe we need a third party to break open our political system.
But that's a long shot. What we definitely and urgently need is a second party
- a coherent Republican opposition that is offering constructive conservative proposals
on the key issues and is ready for strategic compromises to advance its interests and those of the country.

Without that, the best of the Democrats - who have been willing to compromise
- have no partners and the worst have a free pass for their own magical thinking.
Since such a transformed Republican Party is highly unlikely,
maybe the best thing would be for it to get crushed in this election and forced into a fundamental rethink.

Because when I look at America's three greatest challenges today,
I don't see the Republican candidates offering realistic answers to any of them.<snip>

Until the GOP stops being radical and returns to being conservative,
it won't provide what the country needs most now - competition -
competition with Democrats on the issues that will determine whether we thrive in the 21st century.
We need to hear conservative fiscal policies, energy policies, immigration policies
and public-private partnership concepts - not radical ones.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Would somebody please restore our second party?
The country is starved for a grown-up debate.[/COLOR]

How did American conservatism end up so detached from,
indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus.
After all, that health reform Mr. Romney wants us to forget
followed a blueprint originally laid out at the Heritage Foundation !

My short answer is that the long-running con game of economic
conservatives and the wealthy supporters they serve finally went bad.
For decades the G.O.P. has won elections by appealing to social and racial divisions,
only to turn after each victory to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy
&#8212; a process that reached its epitome when George W. Bush won re-election
by posing as America&#8217;s defender against gay married terrorists,
then announced that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security.
Over time, however, this strategy created a base that really believed in all the hokum
&#8212; and now the party elite has lost control.

Mitt Romney has a gift for words &#8212; self-destructive words.
On Friday he did it again, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference
that he was a &#8220;severely conservative governor.&#8221;

A general election disaster could give the GOP reason to rethink its message

THE BATTLE for the soul of the Republican Party comes to a head in
Michigan and Arizona this Tuesday and on Super Tuesday just a week later.
The moderate home of John McCain, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and even Ronald Reagan
is under a withering assault from Tea Partiers and Bible Belters.
The conservative marauders are not only at the gates, but it looks like they may take over.<snip>

Maybe it would be best if they did.

So let the GOP nominate a Santorum or a Gingrich and get it out of its system.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Let the GOP have, if you will, its George McGovern moment.[/COLOR]

These days, abortion opponents can&#8217;t seem to decide whether
to discourage pre-natal testing because it might lead some women to consider abortion,
as Rick Santorum has suggested on the campaign trail,
or to require it, as the Virginia legislature has sought to do
in order to persuade pregnant women that the fetus has a beating heart.

Both initiatives, in seeking to promote the rights of fetuses, intrude on women&#8217;s rights.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The GOP is searching for smaller government, small enough to fit in a woman's vagina.[/COLOR]

Sundae wrote:

The woman I was there with would not have been swayed in her decision (due to individual circumstances) but would have been too embarrassed and proud to say anything, and instead gone along with the role of prospective mother, and died a bit inside otherwise.

Sundae wrote:

Perhaps seeing a foetal heartbeat would be an excellent means to prevent a termination.

Sundae;797765 wrote:

Of course every life counts. Goodness me, only a monster would murder an unborn child.
Whereas only a pinko commie would want to educate the damn drain on money once it's been squeezed out. Let the 16 year old harlot rhome school it!
It could end up being President after all.

ETA
Sorry. Crossness.

Santorum was mired in a residence controversy after stating that he spent only "maybe a month a year" at his Pennsylvania home.[94] Critics pointed out that Santorum himself had once denounced his former opponent U.S. Representative Doug Walgren for living away from his House district.[95] Critics also complained that Pennsylvania taxpayers were paying 80% of the tuition for five of Santorum's children to attend an online "cyber school"&#8211;a benefit available only to Pennsylvania residents.[96] After the Penn Hills school district challenged the Santorum's residency and billed Santorum $73,000, he withdrew the children from the cyber school, and suggested they were being used as political pawns by his opponents.[96]

Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to change the rules of how our votes
will be counted in the 2012 Presidential election. As the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote,
“state Republicans are trying to rig the nation’s antiquated election system to their advantage.”

This is nothing short of an effort to steal the Presidency and disenfranchise the people of Pennsylvania –
and we need your help to fight back.

Instead of awarding Pennsylvania’s electoral votes as a unified state, Republicans want to localize
the electoral votes by Congressional District. This will guarantee that Republicans get
a significant number of electoral votes from Pennsylvania and sacrifice our Commonwealth’s
power as a swing state.

Enough! Use the form to the right to stand with Pennsylvania Democrats against this
historic power grab and assert your right to be counted in Presidential election.

classicman;798110 wrote:

It'd be a heck of a lot more fun watching the totals on election night.

glatt;798146 wrote:

But the will of the people would be more accurately reflected.

Maybe the benefits outweigh the problems it would cause.

The Republicans, would finally have to STFU about the alleged mandates they have.

According to the PPP statement, self-identified Democrats were a major factor
in the apparent swing to Santorum. "Romney leads with actual Republican voters, 43-38,"
PPP reported, "but Santorum's up 47-10 with Democratic voters." The number of self-identified
Democrats increased significantly as a percentage of PPP's sample as the survey progressed.

classicman;798327 wrote:

Perhaps, but some states already
allocate their electoral votes in the same manner.
The winner-take-all for the larger states seems rather outdated.
Actually this method might even REDUCE lawsuits because there
will not be such a large number of electoral votes in question.

Except in closely fought swing states, voter turnout is largely insignificant
due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College
decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters
to turn out, except in those swing states. If the presidential election were decided by a
national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive
to work to increase turnout everywhere.
Individuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to
persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote.
The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states
under the current electoral college system suggest that
replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely
increase turnout and participation significantly.

In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors
generally decreases the importance of minor parties.

Ibram;798542 wrote:

Speaking of voting...

Lamplighter;798544 wrote:

or or...

Lamplighter;798569 wrote:

Classic, it a matter of the devil you know vs the one you don't (gerrymandering).

if the Republicans want it ~snip~ I'm ag'in !

Ibram;798578 wrote:

What's wrong with the system exactly, on a national scale, classic?

classicman;798588 wrote:

Ok. I was looking for a little more, but I can appreciate your opinion.
thanks

Mitt Romney may have won the popular vote in the Michigan primary on Tuesday,
but Mr. Santorum’s campaign says that he has won just as many delegates as Mr. Romney.
As of Wednesday morning, the Santorum campaign said,
both candidates had won seven delegates, out of possible 30, which John Brabender,
Mr Santorum’s senior strategist, cast as “disaster” for Mr. Romney,
considering that Mr. Romney grew up in Michigan and outspent Mr. Santorum on television ads.

On a conference call with reporters, Mr. Brabender first said that the Michigan secretary of state
had determined the tie, but upon questioning, he stepped back a bit and said,
“I am basing this on anecdotal and empirical data.”
He said he would not vouch for the accuracy of it, but added,
“It’s highly likely that Michigan will end up being in a tie,
based upon the data as we know it right now.”