Cain's Ridiculous Lefty Conspiracy Theory
Herman Cain is, if he can be believed, convinced that a conspiracy from the Left is responsible for the accusations of sexual harassment against him. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.
In Cain's eyes (and in Cain's supporters' eyes), a grand conspiracy of the Left and those faithful minions of the Left, the Liberal Media, are undermining him because he is a strong black conservative. The Left can't stand strong black conservatives, this thinking goes, and so must do everything in its power to attack and destroy his chances of becoming president.
As I said, this is just patently ridiculous, because of one simple fact: the Left would dearly love to see Cain as the Republican nominee next year. Beating Cain would be a lot easier for President Obama than beating Romney. Polls have consistently shown the truth of this -- Obama polls much much better against Cain than against Romney. This was true before the sexual harassment charges were made, by the way. So why would the Left want Cain gone? Why would the Left choose a harder route to keeping the White House? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Cain feels persecuted right now, and it's easy to see why. The media have indeed been in feeding-frenzy mode ever since the story broke. But this is just par for this particular course. The media, collectively, have roughly the attitude of a junior-high-school boy when it comes to matters sexual. They titter and giggle, they slobber over the details, they endlessly beat the issue to death -- whenever any politician is caught in a sex scandal. Think back over the past few years -- has any politician gotten a free pass on a sex scandal? Not that I can remember. There have been numerous such scandals recently, and quite a few Democrats have been raked over exactly the same coals Cain now finds himself upon.
To put it another way: it's not that Cain is conservative. It is not because he is black. It is not because he is a Republican. It's because sex is involved. The media goes into full carnival mode whenever sex enters the political scene -- they just can't help themselves.
Now, Cain's strategy of blaming both the Left and the media isn't going to do him any harm among the Republican base, I'll fully admit that. It's probably a reasonable strategy for him to be following. The Republican base, after all, has long loathed the media as a whole, so Cain is feeding a mindset that already exists among the primary voters.
But that doesn't make his logic any less silly. A quick tour around the media universe shows plainly that the ones who fear a Cain nomination are actually the commenters on the Right, not on the Left. It's his fellow conservatives who fear Cain winning, not liberals. It was a former member of the Cain campaign who said that if you just let Cain talk long enough, he'll contradict himself, after all. From where I sit, commenters on the Left are actually taking Cain a lot more seriously than those on the Right -- who almost universally have predicted that Cain's sharp rise in the polls "isn't real" and "will be followed by a crash -- soon." Cain is being written off by his fellow Righties, not the Left, to put it another way.
When the scandal broke, Cain's campaign initially pointed the finger of blame at the Perry campaign. While they had not a shred of proof, this actually made a lot more sense. Perry was the one hurt most by Cain's rise in the polls. Perry is also known for some forceful campaign tactics, down in Texas. It's pretty easy to see Perry's possible motivation if Cain's accusation was the truth.
But however the story got to Politico, one thing is fairly certain -- it didn't come from some Lefty cabal. Because, as I said, the Left has simply no motivation to "take down" Cain. The Left would love to see Cain beat Romney for the Republican nomination. The Left would gleefully enjoy watching a Cain/Obama debate. The Left would feel a lot more confident going in to next November running against a Cain campaign.
So while Cain blaming the media makes perfect sense, both to his base and beyond, his blaming the Left is simply ludicrous outside of the core Republican base.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I'll refrain from pointing out that the Right is not the sole province for ridiculous conspiracy theories because everyone already knows this.. :D
As to the Left not wanting Cain as the nominee, I think you are wrong there..
Re-election wise, Obama's in trouble.
There is absolutely NO ARGUMENT about that..
There is also no doubt that the biggest reason that Obama's in trouble is his massive loss of Independents and NPAs like me...
The ONE group that Obama can count on is the Black vote....
Phil: "Com'on, we have to support your mother! Like that movie BLIND SIDE. Ya know, that movie with the big black kid that played Tight End??"
Alex: "Offensive Line..."
Phil: "Oh sorry. African American kid..."
-MODERN FAMILY
:D
Anyways, where was I??
Oh yes. So the ONE group that Obama has a lock on is the Black vote.
Now, what if there are TWO Black men running??
Now we have a whole new ball game. Now the Black vote won't automatically go to the Democrat. Black people will actually LOOK at the issues and actually LOOK at the candidates with absolutely NO CONSIDERATION for race.
Now, it's possible (I'll even give you likely) that the majority of Black people will still vote Democrat.
But with a Cain, it's not assured. And even if Obama loses 20% of the black vote, even 10%, THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING...
The ONLY thing that would save Obama is if enough Independents and NPAs are turned off by Cain to make up for the loss of the Black vote.
But I don't think that will happen. Because, whether ya'all like it or not, I am fairly representative of your average Independent or NPA.. The vast majority of us are so turned off by Obama, so pissed at being lied to and made a fool of, that we're going with the ABO vote. Anyone But Obama.
To sum up. A Cain candidacy will lose very little of the Independent/NPA vote and would likely gain a significant portion of the Black vote..
The Left looking at a Cain candidacy with glee?? Maybe the "Professional Left" (absolutely no offense meant whatsoever, CW.. We all know you don't fit that category. Unless you want to.. Then you do.. :D)
But the Obama campaign is terrified, absolutely TERRIFIED of a Cain candidacy.....
Hmmmmm... I wonder if that makes Cain a terrorist?? :D (Just kidding.... Couldn't resist...) :D
Michale......
Chris, this is dead-on. I was CHEERING for a Cain nomination to PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE happen -- as 2012 would be Alan Keyes vs Obama all over again, and we know how that went.
On a completely unrelated note...
It's going to be an interesting time at a little after 11am today...
11-11-11 11:11:11
I think I will be a batch of lottery tickets at that exact moment, just for sheets and greens...
:D
Michale......
The far right is under no obligation to assume that the left proceeds based solely on rational analysis of the current election. Of course a Herman Keyes candidacy would be easier for Obama to beat. No one honestly doubts that.
But what about longer-term electoral advantage? Democrats in general depend on strong Black support. If Keyes were as wonderful as his supporters try to tell themselves, nominating him would make Blacks vote mostly Republican in every election forever.
And then there's just plain irrationality: we regard them as irrational, so why would we doubt that they can regard us as irrational? We're so attached to our vision of Black victimhood, in their imagination, that we'll abandon any thought of electoral advantage to suppress the kind of Black hero who would lead his people to Galthood.
Yes, it's ridiculous. But no more so than the Right already was.
we regard them as irrational, so why would we doubt that they can regard us as irrational?
Truer words were never spoken... :D
Michale....
To be quite honest, since this first came out in Politico, my guess would be that one of the Republican challengers first fed the story to Politico.
For the record, I will say that this is pure speculation. Anyone can call me on facts on this one and I'd have to agree with you. Completely a guess based on who'd benefit most at this time (primary season).
-David
@dsws- Galthood ... Haven't heard that before. Well played
Chris, this is dead-on. I was CHEERING for a Cain nomination to PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE happen -- as 2012 would be Alan Keyes vs Obama all over again, and we know how that went.
As I said... The "Professional Left" AKA The Hysterical Left... :D
Michale.....
My apologies Chris, but while I think this article to be fairly accurate, it is in essence utterly rediculous.
Our own resident troll said it best: "But the Obama campaign is terrified, absolutely TERRIFIED of a Cain candidacy....." and no amount of logic or polls or good sense is going to make him change his mind.
This is the current state of the right in this country. Confusing them with considered reflection based upon current polls and expert opinion is simply, well, confusing them.
Of course, [9] is prefaced on the assumption that Michale actually MEANS what he is barking out. I'm not so sure of that, but he still does fine as a strawman for the tin hat types.
DF,
Weren't you the one decrying name-calling just last night??
But I have to hand it to you.. Name-Calling AND Bigotry all wrapped up in one post...
Impressive.. Even for you...
Michale....
Our own resident troll said it best
Lemme guess... Yer gonna "ignore" me by calling me "Chris" all the time, right???
hehehehehehehehehe
You guys crack me up... :D
Michale......
Our own resident troll said it best
Tell ya what DF..
If you can find a definition of Internet Troll that is Pre-2005 and applies to me and NO ONE ELSE here, then I will PayPal to you $100...
That's the same bet I made with Osborne and he hasn't collected on it.. :D
Now, if you CAN'T find a definition that fits the specified parameters, then you publicly rescind the name-calling and apologize for it...
Wanna take the bet?? :D
Michale.....
Now, Cain's strategy of blaming both the Left and the media isn't going to do him any harm among the Republican base, I'll fully admit that. It's probably a reasonable strategy for him to be following. The Republican base, after all, has long loathed the media as a whole, so Cain is feeding a mindset that already exists among the primary voters.
per his campaign's earlier statements, i think cain knows very well it came from a republican, but in a republican primary with republican voters, it's much more politically apt to blame the left.
Michale -
A few points. One, 77% of independents love Obama's plan to get us out of Iraq by 1/1/12. So you may not be as representative of this group as you think. I'm just sayin'...
Two, the White House was indeed terrified of one GOP candidate: Huntsman. They were so scared of him, they made him Ambassador to China in a pre-emptive move to co-opt him. This, it appears, has largely worked. Huntsman regularly polls in the 0-3% range (and even that's being charitable, mostly he polls in the 1-2% range).
Three, just on semantics alone, I have to say that:
Maybe the "Professional Left" (absolutely no offense meant whatsoever, CW.. We all know you don't fit that category. Unless you want to.. Then you do.. :D)
is a mind bending sentence and logic construct. I'm still chuckling over that one.
:-)
The White House right now is, intelligently, worried most about Romney. A Cain win for them would be a guarantee of an easier path to a second term, and they full well know it. So why should they attack him? I stand by what I wrote.
-CW
nypoet22 [14] -
That's a good point. They sure did pivot fast off the "blame Perry" thing. Sure, they had no proof, but that one passes the "smell test" better than some cabal of Lefties.
-CW
The White House right now is, intelligently, worried most about Romney. A Cain win for them would be a guarantee of an easier path to a second term, and they full well know it. So why should they attack him? I stand by what I wrote.
That's kewl.. I just disagree...
An Obama v Cain election will pull the Black community out of their complacency and force them to look beyond race...
Even if the majority does still vote Obama, there could be enough of a migration to tip the scales to Cain..
You further suppose that Obama will have the same lock on Independents and NPAs that he had in 2008.
There is little evidence to support that and much evidence to support the conclusion that with Independents and NPAs, it's an ABO vote..
Witness the recent elections in Virginia....
Obama will have a MUCH harder time holding on to the Black vote, if Cain is his opponent...
The dynamic is going to be fascinating...
Maybe the "Professional Left" (absolutely no offense meant whatsoever, CW.. We all know you don't fit that category. Unless you want to.. Then you do.. :D)
is a mind bending sentence and logic construct. I'm still chuckling over that one.
hehehehehehe Yea, I equate the Professional Left with the Hysterical Left...
I know you don't belong in that category... Not many people in here do...
Michale.....
Also keep in mind that the vast majority in the Black community will identify more with Cain's scrappy rags to riches upbringing than they will with Obama's elitist and privileged upbringing...
Michale.....
Michale -
One thing we see eye to eye on: the dynamics of a Cain/Obama race would indeed be fascinating and historic.
But you better check Cain's numbers -- he's cratering with women, who are a much bigger group, demographically, among voters, and among independents.
-CW
I think this is another example of the fault lines within the republican party. The institutional party, Karl Rove et al want Romney to get the nomination (I agree that they would have liked Huntsmen even better but, failing him, Romney is the favored one). Several of the candidates represent various factions within the remains of the party (Ron Paul for the hard core LIbertarians, Santorum, Bachman for the extreme christianists, Perry a bit of both, etc.), and all of them are kissing up to the Tea Party wing as best they can. Karl Rove and his ilk don't want the Tea Party's favorites to win. The Tea Party has gone past being useful and are now too unmanageable and too unreasonable and too unpleasant to the rest of the electorate. In contrast, Romney looks the part so he's not a total embarrassment, and, this is the key, he is as 1% as you can get. He gets it: the job of a Republican president is to be the vehicle for 1% interests while having enough visual and verbal ability to appear on the world stage credibly.
Unlike the rest of the field, Cain and Gingrich don't really represent specific factions within the party. They're running because running heightens their profile and helps them stay prominent on the right wing speaker's circuit and increases their chances of FOX appearances, etc. They represent a "threat" to Romney's crowning simply because neither Romney nor any other candidate has been able to pull the party together. It may be that Michale would LOVE Cain to be nominated, but Karl Rove (and those he leads/represents) most certainly does not. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if it turns out that Rove is behind the leaks. But that, too is speculation.
I think Chris is perfectly correct in believing that blaming anyone on the Left is ludicrous. Of course, since Cain appears to be a serial harasser, I'm glad it has come out. From a strategic point of view, it could have been even better if Cain HAD gotten the nomination and it came out after that. But the point is that I would welcome a Cain nomination with open arms. I think he's a joke as a candidate and I'd bet money the broad electorate would agree. I think Obama could beat Cain without breaking a sweat. I think Obama can beat Gingrich without breaking a sweat. The ideal ticket would be Gingrich/Cain, or Cain/Gingrich! Or possibly Perry/Cain or Cain/Perry. Or any other combo of Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Bachman, Santorum, Paul. I think Obama will/would beat Huntsman or Romney, but he will have to work a bit harder. With the rest he could practically phone his campaign in.
But blaming the left is SOP on the right. It's just one of their rote routines.
CW,
One thing we see eye to eye on: the dynamics of a Cain/Obama race would indeed be fascinating and historic.
Yea it would..
But you better check Cain's numbers -- he's cratering with women, who are a much bigger group, demographically, among voters, and among independents.
Likely a temporary glitch, due to all the BS about alleged sexual harassment..
Paula,
Of course, since Cain appears to be a serial harasser, I'm glad it has come out.
What do you base that on??
Besides wishful thinking, I mean???
I would also be REAL interested in knowing if you put Clinton in that category as well..
Probably not..
But blaming the left is SOP on the right. It's just one of their rote routines.
Just as blaming the Right is SOP on the Left...
Michale.....
Michale:
I said Cain "appears" to be a serial harasser because multiple women have accused him of this behavior and have been paid compensation. These cases occurred long before his presidential run and were brought by women who had no political axe to grind. People refer to the initial Politico story as a "leak" not as a "plant": the first would mean that something true but hidden had been exposed; the second would mean that something untrue was being disseminated.
Re: Clinton, whether Clinton was or wasn't a "harasser" in no way excuses Cain being a harasser. There IS a difference, btw, between being an adulterer, which Clinton indisputably was, and being a harasser, which Cain appears to be. Monica Lewinsky WANTED to fool around with Bill. Paula Jones's case was basically dismissed for not meeting the criteria needed to substantiate a case. Katherine Wylie's case was investigated and found to be not credible and so was Juanita Broderick's. When Clinton was in office, please remember, the entire Press Corp spent it's days and nights investigating every allegation made against him.
I don't KNOW what went on between Clinton and these women and neither do you. I do know that Clinton did not have to pay compensation to any of them and that wasn't because they didn't try.
Separately, Clinton's behavior doesn't excuse Cain's.
Paula,
I said Cain "appears" to be a serial harasser
Fair enough.. I stand corrected..
because multiple women have accused him of this behavior and have been paid compensation.
But one also has to look at the history and the motivations of the accusers..
One has a history of filing work complaints. The other has a history of financial difficulties and was seen with Cain less than 2 months ago and, according to this eyewitness, this woman was all over Cain.. Didn't look like the alleged sexual harassment was a problem then..
Re: Clinton, whether Clinton was or wasn't a "harasser" in no way excuses Cain being a harasser.
Again, agreed...
However my goal was to determine if you were being fair or if Cain's REAL "crime" was simply being a conservative..
Paula Jones's case was basically dismissed for not meeting the criteria needed to substantiate a case.
Yet she was paid almost a million dollars to settle the case. According to your criteria for Cain, if "compensation" is paid, then guilt is "apparent"..
Your words...
Katherine Wylie's case was investigated and found to be not credible
For the same reasons that Biadek's claims don't appear credible. A certain amount of familiarity and friendliness between the time of the assault and the time of the complaint..
and so was Juanita Broderick's.
Broderick's case was never investigated because her original affidavit denying anything happened stood. However, when she recanted, she claimed she didn't want to have to relive being raped.. As an LEO with much experience dealing with and helping rape victims, I can attest to such claims as being valid..
There is also Gennifer Flowers to consider as well..
The evidence against Clinton is much more substantial and substantiated than it is against Cain..
But, apparently, when it's a conservative as the accusee, the accusations are enough...
Separately, Clinton's behavior doesn't excuse Cain's.
Completely and 1000% in agreement..
My goal was to determine whether you sincerely cared about all sexual harassment victims in general regardless of whether or not the predator is a Democrat or a Republican.
Apparently, I have my answer...
Michale.....
There is also Gennifer Flowers to consider as well..
I stand corrected..
Flowers was not an example of sexual harassment, but rather the lengths that Clinton had gone to, to silence and discredit Flowers..
My bust...
Michale.....
It's going to be an interesting time at a little after 11am today...
11-11-11 11:11:11
I think I will be a batch of lottery tickets at that exact moment, just for sheets and greens...
Follow-up on the "unrelated note"...
I bought 11 tickets at exactly 11:11:11 on 11-11-11
I won 30 bucks!!! :D
Woot!!! Can't wait for 12-12-12 at 12:12:12
Michale.....
Michale:
You are correct and I was wrong that Paula Jones did receive a payoff. It was stipulated that it was not an admission of guilt by Clinton but that's quibbling. You are right that that means saying that Cain had to pay could mean the exact same thing: that he paid them off to make them go away as opposed to paying them off because he was guilty.
So I cannot claim 100% ability to consider Cain guilty or Clinton innocent.
I believe Cain IS guilty. You believe Clinton was. There we are.
I think Cain is a joke entirely separately from these allegations. The allegations move him from being a kind of funny joke to a more malicious joke, but joke he is. He is a joke because he hasn't done a lick of real work to justify his being considered for the most challenging job in the world. He's another Palin -- he doesn't want to DO the job, he wants the job as an ego-statement.
"You WOULD BE right that that means saying that Cain had to pay could mean the exact same thing: that he paid them off to make them go away as opposed to paying them off because he was guilt." is more accurate.
Paula,
Fair enough....
I am more than willing to concede the points as you have laid them out...
Michale.....
Michale: (28)
Acknowledged :-)
I think if the White House is most worried about Romney they might be making a mistake. And Romney may be counting his chickens before they've hatched.
Conservatives are inspired by Cain. Cain also has a likability factor that Mitt Romney doesn't. Has anyone watched Cain in the debates? I even find myself liking this guy and chuckling at some of the things he says. (NOTE: FTR, I do not agree with any of his policies, but he's likable, and likable goes a long ways.)
Remember George W. Bush? People didn't think he was very smart either. But he had that likability factor. (Again, I wasn't the biggest fan, but many people liked him. I can't deny that.)
Cain has this same type of energy.
Romney is liked about as much as John McCain. And he inspires people about just as much.
Romney is also Mormon. This wouldn't mean anything except that he's going to struggle with an evangelical base that doesn't believe in Mormonism.
I think Cain is going to surprise in the primary. I'm basing this solely on the passion my conservative friends have demonstrated towards Cain over Romney.
It has been a very surprising primary though. I would never have guessed Perry would have self-destructed. Or, that it's coming down to such an ideological battle within the Republican primary.
-David
I think Cain is going to surprise in the primary. I'm basing this solely on the passion my conservative friends have demonstrated towards Cain over Romney.
Which is why I think that Cain might win over Obama..
With voters, it's usually never about reality and policy and the like.
If it was, we never would have had a President Obama..
With voters, it's usually about who they LIKE better as President...
And, let's face the facts. Most Americans these days just don't LIKE Obama, the leader much.
Sure, Obama's personal popularity hasn't dropped like an anchor the way his other numbers have...
But there is a big difference between liking someone and willing to follow someone.
Most Americans like Obama. But the vast majority of Americans aren't willing to follow him anymore.
And that is what's going to be reflected in the vote..
Again, a lot can change in a year... But it would have to be come really mind-numbing change for Obama to be able to win the election.
Michale.....
CW,
A few points. One, 77% of independents love Obama's plan to get us out of Iraq by 1/1/12.
Ahem.... As you have stated, that was Bush's plan... :D
Or, more accurately Malaki's and Bush's plan...
I'm just sayin'...
:D
Michale.....
Michael [32] -
Heh. OK, touché. You are right.
Everyone else -
I'm going to try to get to answering these late-night tonight, or possibly tomorrow. Sorry I don't have time now, didn't want people to think I was skipping over everything just to banter with Michale...
Here's something for everyone to ponder:
"The annals of political warfare may be ransacked in vain, for a parallel to the present recklessness and infuriated opposition -- an opposition in whose eyes nothing appears or will appear good that [the President] has done or can do."
Sound familiar? It shouldn't. It appeared in a newspaper (the Richmond Enquirer) on August 6, 1832. The bit I cut out read "General Jackson".
The more things change, eh?
-CW
Ok 4 ladies have claimed that Cain harassed them. All during one brief period of his life.
No charges from his time Pilsbury (Burger King), Coca Cola, Godfathers Pizza, The Fed Chairman in KC, Nabisco, Whirlpool, Reader's Digest, and AGCO, Inc etc
Just his brief time at the Restaurant association.
3 of the ladies have not come forward. One did. She filed bankruptcy twice, and has financial difficulties, has a high profile lawyer that specializes in attacking Republicans and by sheer co-incidence lives in the same Apt building as David Axlerod.
And what did this woman alleged? That while not in Cain's employ, she called him up and asked to meet him. She did not meet him during business hours. She told him what hotel she was staying at and agreed to meet him in the Lobby.
After meeting this man she never met before in a hotel lobby, she went to dinner with him and had a few drinks. She then agreed to go to an empty building with him after hours. According to her he then made a pass at her. She said no! and he drove her back to the hotel and dropped her off.
Wow, how shocking, a woman calls a man, flies to see him, tells him what hotel she in, the man takes her out for dinner and drinks, makes a pass at her and she says no, and he takes her back to the hotel and leaves. Stop the PRESSES. That is unheard of and atrocious behavior!! I have rarely heard something so shameful!!
She was so deeply harassed by this, she went to see him at a campaign stop of his years later and gets photographed close to him.
He sounds like a real creep.
tinsldr2,
Regarding Cain's "harassment", that about sums things up perfectly.
I might also add that ALL of the accusers hail from Chicago...
Which is not a big thing, in and of itself. If I recall correctly this Restaurant Association thingy is also in Chicago...
But the fact that all these women are based out of Chicago and there has been NO OTHER complaints at any of Cain's other job, as you point out....
Well, I think we all know where this is leading...
Based on the evidence, I am guessing that Team Obama is more worried about Cain then they are letting on...
As for Bliadek's actions??
Yea, she sounds like an innocent victim in all this...
NOT...........
Like I said, I MIGHT read about her when she does her Playboy spread...
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
"might also add that ALL of the accusers hail from Chicago...
Which is not a big thing, in and of itself. If I recall correctly this Restaurant Association thingy is also in Chicago..."
Well actually he was working in the Washington DC office of the Restaurant Association and he never lived in Chicago.
But I think the two women whose claims were arbitrated by the Association were working in his DC office at that time.
I am more concerned with his views and ideas on a range of issues and I was slightly disappointed with him there.
In the Jobs/Economy debate last week I expected MORE from a former Regional Fed Chair and CEO then a focus on just 9-9-9
I missed this weekends debate because I was doing volunteer work (yes it shocks libs that a Conservative volunteers to go out and clean remote beaches and parks at his own expense)but will catch up on the transcript tonight.
Oh and I think this media focus on accusations Hurts ALL Republicans running.
Instead of focusing on the things said, the focus is shifted to Perrys collapse and Cain's alleged conduct. No focus on the attacks on Obama from the Campaigns.
Further, they love To cry racism. So if an attack shows a blonde was harnessed by a Black man, and then the black man's popularity with Conservatives drops, the left will say racism played a part in that drop in my opinion.
Then they will use that charge of racism against the winner of the nominations followers and the candidate himself by extension. (again my opinion of what the left will do)
If they keep supporting Cain however, they will say Conservatives dont care about women (in my opinion)
If I was a Dem operative I couldnt come up with a BETTER win win situation.
I dont believe Conspiracy theories but I know people like to pile stuff on and this case could be some of that.
I missed this weekends debate because I was doing volunteer work (yes it shocks libs that a Conservative volunteers to go out and clean remote beaches and parks at his own expense)but will catch up on the transcript tonight.
I'm curious as to why you would make this statement? I did not realize volunteer work has a political bias...
I did not realize volunteer work has a political bias...
I guess it would depend on the volunteer work that's being done, eh?? :D
I think what Tins is referring to is the common concept from the Left that any conservative is not interested in helping anyone but themselves.... :D
Michale
Common concept? Never heard of it before. At most I might think someone from the left would be more likely to volunteer in a more eco area and a conservative in something more church based but that's more a stereotype than what I would consider reality or have first hand knowledge of.
OK, I'm going to answer these all at once.
Michale [18] -
In what universe did Obama have an "elitist" upbringing? He earned what he got, starting from "rags" as you put it.
Paula [20] -
Now there's an idea -- Rove behind the leaks. Sounds plausible, as does the rest of your comment...
I think you'll like today's column...
:-)
Michale -
Just a general question, because I'm curious. Who do you want to see nominated on the GOP side? Or maybe, give a list of your top three choices or something. I'm truly curious, at this point.
David [30] -
I totally agree on the charisma quotient. Cain's got it, and almost none of the others even move the needle on the scale. This is what made me fear Huckabee more than any of the other GOP candidates in 2008, if truth be told. I bet Huckabee's still kicking himself for not jumping in this time around. Charisma wins a LOT of votes, on either side of the political aisle.
Michale [35] -
Allow me to make your point for you (heh): "It's Rahm Emanuel's fault!"
Now THAT one, even lefties could believe. Heh.
tinsldr2 -
Saw this on your HuffPost comments as well, and I'd like to personally thank and congratulate you for your efforts to clean up beaches. I live very near a coast, and beach cleanups are to be commended no matter what the politics of the people involved. I agree with you 100% on that one. Just had to say that.
-CW
BashiBazouk wrote:
Common concept? Never heard of it before.
............
I am constantly told how much the left loves Eco-friendly things and the Right is a bunch of people wanting to pollute rivers, and kill people to earn a buck.
I can quote multiple comments to me on Huffpo to that effect.
now of course that is not ALL lefties, but it is not an uncommon assumption.
The difference is more in thought patterns though. A lib sees a dirty barrier island and thinks the Gov needs to do something to clean it up,prevent litter, pass laws etc and a Conservative sees a dirty beach, gets together with some like minded folks, volunteer our time effort and money and clean it up.
Ok that is an OVER generalization also but again it is one I see over and over.
Look at the Obamaville camps and trash after their protests vs Tea Party protests. A clear difference.
The bit I cut out read "General Jackson".
There's a bit of a gap between Obamacare and the Trail of Tears. I almost agree with them about Jackson.
dsws -
Yeah, but that was just one example. The amount of times throughout American history which our Congress has been in absolute gridlock may in fact outnumber the times when it has been able to get anything done. And the "out" party ALWAYS tries to stop whoever's president.
-CW
Bashi,
Common concept? Never heard of it before.
Then it's unlikely you read any of the Leftist ra....er... blogs like HuffPo, DailyKos or any of the BanterLine blogs (sans CW.COM, of course)
CW,
In what universe did Obama have an "elitist" upbringing? He earned what he got, starting from "rags" as you put it.
How many kids get to travel all over the world?? But I was actually referring to his college years..
"Annapolis... Five patrols on Fast Attacks... Two on Boomers... One as XO... War College.... Excuse me.. 'Harvard'??"
-Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE
:D
Just a general question, because I'm curious. Who do you want to see nominated on the GOP side? Or maybe, give a list of your top three choices or something. I'm truly curious, at this point.
In order of preference...
Jack Ryan
John McClane
David Akadjian
:D
Of the current candidates, I honestly don't know. I want someone who will beat Obama, but I really don't think that's going to be as hard as ya'all hope for. I want the one who is best for the country, but I'll be damned if I can figure out which one..
My track record for picking great presidents kinda sucks.. I voted for Obama...
Allow me to make your point for you (heh): "It's Rahm Emanuel's fault!"
I'de be more inclined to blame Rahm over Rove...
Wait a tic.. Has anyone ever seen Rahm and Rove in the same room??? :D
"Surgeon does good work."
-Jadzia Dax, DEEP SPACE NINE Trials And Tribble-lations
:D
Tins,
The difference is more in thought patterns though. A lib sees a dirty barrier island and thinks the Gov needs to do something to clean it up,prevent litter, pass laws etc and a Conservative sees a dirty beach, gets together with some like minded folks, volunteer our time effort and money and clean it up.
Well said.... And dead on ballz accurate to boot.. :D
Ok that is an OVER generalization also but again it is one I see over and over.
What most people don't understand is that, usually, stereotypes ARE stereotypes for a very good reason... Because, more often than not, they are accurate..
CW,
And the "out" party ALWAYS tries to stop whoever's president.
Which is why my panties get all up in a bunch when ya'all bash the GOP for obstructionism...
It's what the Minority Party does, regardless of WHO the Minority Party is...
Ya'all are just pissed because the GOP does it better... :D
Michale...
Look at the Obamaville camps and trash after their protests vs Tea Party protests. A clear difference.
You know what has hit me as the BIGGEST difference between Oowzer Protests and Tea Party Protests??
I have never, ever, not ONCE seen a "Female Safe Area" in any Tea Party Protest..
I mean, to me, that says a LOT about the Oowzer Protests that they would need to have an area set aside as a "Female Safe Area"....
That brings things perfectly into focus.... For me, anyways...
Michale.....
CW,
In what universe did Obama have an "elitist" upbringing? He earned what he got, starting from "rags" as you put it.
I would also point to Obama's childhood in Hawaii going to expensive private schools as "elitest"...
As far as Obama earning his wealth?? What REAL jobs has Obama held?? For the record, I don't count "politician" as a "real" job.. Let's face it... "Politician" and "Con Artist" are often interchangable... :D
But let's put that aside for the moment..
Many other rich people have "earned" their wealth as well..
Why are they constantly demonized and accused of not paying "their fair share"???
Michael Moore talks are the Oowzer rallies like he is one of them.. And the Oowzers eat it up...
Michael Moore is as much of the 1% as any corporate CEO is....
Yet he is given a pass... Why??
Because he talks the talk...
THAT is one of the things that really disgusts me about the Oowzers.. (Well that, and they can't control their bodily excrements in public) They rail and attack the 1%, but when a 1%'er moves amongst them and "talks the talk" they swoon and faint like little girls at a Michael Jackson concert...
It's been my experience that that really applies to the Left in general.. As long as you can talk the talk, you pretty much get a pass for anything you want to do..
Recent history is replete with examples..
Michale.....
The amount of times throughout American history which our Congress has been in absolute gridlock may in fact outnumber the times when it has been able to get anything done. And the "out" party ALWAYS tries to stop whoever's president.
There's always been obstructionism. But I wouldn't say absolute gridlock. A lot of time the president's party has had control of Congress. Filibusters didn't normally succeed prior to the 1970s change to the "two-track" system. They were a tactic the opposition might choose to try, but they came with some major drawbacks. Now they're not a tactic: the Senate just has a simple 60-vote threshold for passing anything. They count the votes and if it's 59 yes to 41 no, the leadership just doesn't bring it to a vote, killing it without the opponents having to do anything.