Herman Cain wins Florida straw poll

More than doubles Perry's vote. I think this is especially interesting, in light of the "RACISM!!!" meme, because Florida is a southern state.

Therefore, racism in Florida doesn't exist.

Herman Cain thinks democrats are all socialists out to raise his taxes.

Hertman Cain thinks Obama is a piece of dog crap.

Herman Cain realizes government regulations and taxes are the only problems with the American economy.

Herman Cain hates effing Mus-lims and A-rabs and gaye soldiers and Hispanic Mexicans and femi-nazis and latte-slurping tree-hugging vegans and uninsured dying people. One only assumes he's not too high on blacks either. It sort of comes as part of a package.

Thus teabaggers can't understand that Herman is black since he is obviously one of them. I.e., he can't be black since they are not black. So what are they going to believe - their gut feelings - or their lying eyes?

It's called "logic".

teabagger logic.

Perry has managed to parley a sudden, powerful lead into quite a mess, losing much of both the right and the middle of the party. He's the Fred Thompson of 2012, and for much the same reason. Scared of a relative moderate (McCain then, Romney now) conservatives are looking for a candidate who's presidential material—that is, not Bachmann, Santorum, Cain or Gingrich. They want an electable conservative so hard they almost will one into being.

Like Thompson, Perry's lead was all projection. He was the sum of everyone's desires, but the actual product disappoints. In Thompson's case it was mostly laziness. Perry's fall has come as the right discovered his moderate stances on immigration and HPV vaccines and the middle heard him making dark jokes about beating up or killing Ben Bernanke and going after the third rail of American politics—social security—both recklessly and badly. He debate performance didn't help—the alleged master of debate somehow made Romney look poised and even funny!

Somewhere out there conservatives are gnashing their teeth. If they can't find one soon, they'll either have a moderate or an unelectable conservative for a candidate.

We've been gnashing our teeth for a long time, waiting to see if there will actually be a conservative candidate.

There hasn't been an actual conservative candidate in the Republican Party for decades...

> 5

I think I see where you're going with this, but I'm curious: Who'd be on your short list for the last "actual conservative candidate in the Republican Party?"

#4 I have never understood the idea that a 'conservative' can't win. Look at the last few elections:

Reagan (The patron Saint of Conservatism) won big twice running as an unapologetic conservative.

Bush 41 ran as a conservative the first time and won easily. Then he turned into a moderate and lost to Clinton.

Bob Dole was an ideal moderate who showed that he could work with the Dems. Clinton easily beat him.

Bush 43 was accused of being an conservative and won election twice. (Don't blame Bush for Florida, blame the Democrats who could not figure out that butterfly ballot.)

McCain = moderate = loser.

Obama has lost his mojo. Any halfway decent canadate can beat him.

>6 ABVR:

Senator Goldwater. Reagan wasn't a conservative; he was a reactionary.

Oh no. Not another libertarian who thinks Goldwater was our last conservative. You and lawecon should join your own club. Actually, on LT I guess you could.

All the Republicans running are conservatives. No, I don't want to get into arguments of definition. I've done that with lawecon and he still doesn't get it. But he's not much of a listener is he?

Obama has lost his mojo. Any halfway decent canadate can beat him.

Right now it doesn't looks like a halfway decent candidate is electable in the Republican primary.

#10 Depends on your point of view. I would not expect one that is left of center to give much credit to any of the canidates.

I think that if Obama does not get a reality check fairly soon, even a mediocre Republican can beat him.

>9 barney67:

No, he's not. However, none of the current crop of Republicans fit my definition of what being a conservative truly means, if that clarification makes things clearer.

Nor am I a libertarian; you could ask PaulFoley and Lunar for confirmation on that point.

I don't think that much of Obama; he may have been an adequate Senator, but he's shown himself to be a poor Chief Executive. 'Republican Lite' isn't quite fair, but it's more accurate than many other descriptions.

The current Republicans candidates are...well, I'm not sure there are any good words for them; at least, any that I would care to use in public. Many of them are openly supporting a religious agenda (which is not an actualy conservative point of view). The most reasonable of them are simply 'Not Obama', which in my mind is insufficient reason to support them.

should have voted for mc cain in 2000

I'm not a registered Republican, so I didn't get that option.

I mean America should have, i am just a stray Australian reading this thread but he was the last Republican candidate i could stomach- the 2000 version, not so much the 2008 one

Therefore, racism in Florida doesn't exist.

It's easy to knock down a straw man, Cody, but bad for your muscle tone in the long run.

Anyway, we know racism in Florida exists, because, according to one of our semi-regulars, Race. Permeates. Everything.

Racism is a factor in many things; but it's not the only factor, and (anymore) not always the most important factor.

It's important to remember that less than 50 years ago, the idea of an elected black President was, literally, unthinkable. Even The Man postulated a black President through ascension due to vacancy; not election.

So, although racism is still extant, and still a problem, progress has been made. We can now consider a racist black candidate for President, for instance.

Cain's win is proof that all the mindless accusations of racism are wrong. It is proof that neither the Republican Party nor the Tea Party is racist. So, logically, all those accusations should stop.

But that's logically…

18> It is not proof it is evidence.

It's a straw poll. If straw polls meant anything, then Ron Paul would surely be a front runner.

As SimonW11 said, it's not proof; it's evidence. But as evidence, it's worthless.

Businessman Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll Saturday, beating Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the GOP presidential frontrunner who just two days earlier delivered a debate performance that was widely panned.

Cain finished with 37 percent of the vote, while Perry trailed with 15 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney followed with 14 percent while former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum drew 11 percent. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul finished with 10.5 percent, while former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman finished with 2 percent....

63 percent of the voters voted against him.

63 percent of the voters voted against him.

I think putting it that way, that they "voted against" Cain, is rather tendentious. It seems more likely that they voted "for" whoever they voted for.

But if one wants to look at it in terms of "against," a similar "against" statement, with a larger number, is true of each of the white candidates.

E.g., Perry, the second-place candidate, got 15% of the vote, so 85% "voted against" Perry. Etc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Looking down today's front page - 10/02/11 - I see at least three stories about Herman:

1. He's playing the race card against Rick Perry

2. He's playing the liberal card against Chris Christie

3. If elected he will change the music to "Hail to the Chief" - something with more of a gospel beat.

Yeah, Herman is The Man.

I liked the forthright way Cain responded to Pres Obama's criticism of Republican candidates not rebuking boos of gay soldier. Cain said ~ "I should have said something. Sometimes it's difficult in heat of the moment to appreciate what people booing (DADT or the gay soldier)."

His 9-9-9 proposal is labelled well--stands out from crowd.

His hair looks more natural than Romney's. (A friend should pry Romney's fingies off the dye pot!)

(JGL53, I also noted Cain's popularity on Huffington Post front page yesterday. The story that really blew me away though, was the one on the Koch Brothers: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-... . Scary that TP and GOP being manipulated by such people!)

> 24

1. If I literally believed in demons from hell the Koch brothers would be easily explicable.

2. I'm surprised that the superstitious fundies of the TP didn't see Herman's 9 9 9 plan as code (i.e., flip it 180).

3. Only an unpatriotic scumbag who hates America and loves terrorists would boo an active duty soldier (ANY active duty soldier).

4. I am going to predict that Herman Munster Mark of Cain will be utterly forgotten soon - and not "soon" as in jesus is coming soon, but actually soon in common parlance.

> 25

Well, I may have to eat my words. It's beginning to look like Herman C. may be the dark horse that will beat the odds.

He could be the only man standing after Rick Parry and Wilber M. Romney get through helicopter-kicking each other in their respective family jewels, e.g. -

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65445.html#ixzz1a8ZnoxoF

If Rick Parry does not agree with his crazy preacher friend's view of mormons as non-christians then that either means he thinks mormons ARE christians - or he is saying that he is not sure. Thus Parry himself can't be christian, under fundie christian rules. Therefore he is disqualified as a choice for fundies since fundies - at least those like Parry's preacher friend - believe only a fellow fundie is qualified to be POTUS.

Or maybe Rick Google Santorum will catch on. I don't see any negatives for him for fundies - as long as he is willing to go on record as being anti-mormon.

Christ, this soap opera is becoming day by day weirder and weirder. It's beginning to remind me of Dark Shadows - e.g., Parry looks sort of like a werewolf and Romney only needs a cape to be effing Dracula.

How on earth do the fundies and the libertarians co-exist over there on the far right? One group believes that there should be no rules and the other believes that everyone should be subject to the rules they like best. How does that work?

Each group thinks it can use the other to gain what they want.

@RidgewayGirl

They co-exist because they share a similar paranoid political style of conspiracy thinking. The content of their beliefs is less significant than the form; or, rather, the form becomes the content.

It's really not that difficult. It's remarkable that the last few commenters don't seem to understand their enemies. No wonder the left loses so consistently--analysis and understanding gives way to an indistinct hatred.

They share a deep suspicion of government and to rapid or complex external change.

While in theory "fundies" could be in favor of state management of the economy, like Iran, in fact virtually all Christian conservatives are economic conservatives, thus agreeing with libertarians on that. When it comes to social policy, libertarians obviously disagree sometimes. But while Christian conservatives have social policy, it's mostly "low touch." They want some things stopped. They want to preserve some things. But their methods tend toward how a libertarian would implement a social policy, if they wanted to. That is they agree with libertarians against the left desire to write long, complicated laws, involving new government departments to create and then monitor whatever social effect is desired.

> 29

Libertarians are anarchists in sheep's clothing and fundies are just pathetic theocratic sheep. They are both lap dogs of the multinationals.

But no one is perfect. Some how all of us, sane and insane, will muddle through. Or maybe not.

Or maybe jesus will come and take the fundies away - with satan simultaneously gathering in the Randroids and libertarians, I suppose.

Or maybe Yellowstone will explode and kill us all.

Or maybe our Galactic Reptilian Overlords will decide to eradicate the vermin human race that's been stinking up the universe and will give the Death Star hiding on the dark side of the moon the go-ahead to hit the red button.

Pray Cthulhu will eat you first.

I just want my MTV.

Is Cain delivering the Kochs' pizza? http://news.yahoo.com/long-ties-koch-brothers-key-cains-campaign-110518961.html

>30 timspalding:

I will stand with my statement; that each group feels that it can use the resources of the other to accomplish their own goals.

The primary difference (other than social policy) is that far-religious Christians genuinely want to impose a soft theocracy on the country. Once they get Christ (their version) into the government, everything will go their way.

On the surface, many of their goals are compatible. But the core beliefs of the two groups differ wildly. But, like the Republicans with the Tea Party, the two recognize that if they cooperate, they can make more progress. Once their primary goals are acheived, of course, the other group can be safely discarded. cf the handling of the Moral Majority under Reagan.

My God, Cain is now leading the Republican race, and even beating Obama in some polls? (See When was the last time a common man without a large bankroll ran for office and was elected president??? Hmm...
) The conservative, anything-but-Romney vote is past desperate. They are also, I think, utterly bankrupt. Though I'm not fond of him, Perry is qualified to be president. So is Gingrich. Santorum was a senator, and that counts. And Bachmann is a Congresswoman--which is thin, but it's something. But Cain--Cain? Seriously? What but a fanatical devotion to ideology could ever justify elevating someone who's never held elective office, and held only third-tier government office, to the highest elective office in the land?

Until moving to brooklyn recently, i spent 5 yrs in the sticks of florida, so i was not at all surprised to hear herman cain did well. I probably heard him an average of once per week. He did a good job of substituting for other rightwing hosts on short notice -- generally managed to squeeze in more content per minute than the older blowhards he genuflected to -- and had a very pleasant voice and accent (the exact opposite of Levine, a ferocious whiny-voiced yet often mean-sounding wing-nut who gave me the creeps). * As most progressives do not know how to argue -- or, feel their opponents are so ignorant they are not worth debating? -- i think Cain might well beat Obama or another smug liberal and pray he does not get the nomination.

* i speak in the past tense as i have heard no rightwing talk radio in nyc in fact, i have no idea what is happening anywhere but here and wherever anyone is following here so it will be reported here . . (i have only listened to free radio and tv for a month and must try to recall how to log in to the nyt)

@keigu

A Cain presidency would be good for late night comedians; for the country less so (an electrified, Mexican-proof fence?).

fyi: WABC (770 AM) is the pre-eminent rightwing talk radio station in NYC.

770, i'll try -- different rooms get different stations -- and the religious and caribean stations prettymuch spill-over into everything here.

Meanwhile the progressive plot after plot conspiracy radio, wbai, is like nothing i ever heard before -- some of the research is good stuff but the patronizing way it is dished out was starting to irk me and then i heard four hours of great cuban music sunday morning (think they said it was usually noon) and a good harpsichord one evening.

Re your first sentence, Electra, did you get me wrong? My concern is that we who don't want the right in power may help them do it by not taking them seriously. What i want to hear on the radio is good debate with good call-ins, but failing that try to listen to left and right.

Why is it that Cain reminds me of this quotation from J.S. Mill:

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
John Stuart Mill, in a Parliamentary debate with the Conservative MP, John Pakington (May 31, 1866);

~8

Well, it apparently isn't just Cain that fits that quotation.

~31

Libertarians are anarchists in sheep's clothing and fundies are just pathetic theocratic sheep. They are both lap dogs of the multinationals.

====================================

And JGL is .............

35> "My God, Cain is now leading the Republican race..."

At least he's putting his temporary popularity to good use:

Cain Spent Campaign Cash to Buy Own Book (Slate).

Cain has used $36,000 in campaign money to buy copies of his book from his consulting company "to give to supporters." I've heard that concerts are a way for musicians to sell albums but I never imagined campaigns being used by politicians to sell books. Maybe I should have been paying more attention when Palin was on tour.

The guy that said this:

“Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks — if you don’t have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!”

is the Republican front-runner.

It would be silly to blame being laid off (with a large number of your co-workers) on corporate greed, the economic crash and the fixation of our politicians with side issues and not on jobs.

We're fixated on the deficit while squandering the hours of labor and skill sitting idle.

Of course, Herbert Hoover said that a man who wasn't a millionaire by thirty wasn't much of a man. And he did so well leading through the Depression.

Hoover was replaced by someone who came from old money, and still had a sense of noblesse oblige (helped on considerably by his wife, to be sure; but it was extant prior to that). Hoover was also a prisoner of his own values and beliefs; he simply couldn't take the actions his successor did, because they were so much at odds with his own training.

I was just thinking about the concept of Noblesse Oblige yesterday.

"Let me tell you that Herman Cain has never sexually harassed anybody, period. End of story," Mr Cain's chief of staff, Mark Block, told MSNBC on Monday morning.

Let's call this...I don't know... "Clason's Law":

If you end a declarative sentence with "period, end of story" you are thereby immunized from all rebuttal.

He should really leave himself more wiggle room. He could, like Clinton, ask the accuser to read out the definition a few times first.

47> He should really leave himself more wiggle room.

Yeah, the response struck me as a little bush-league. The NPR report I pulled the quote from has another interesting comment attributed to "GOP Strategist" Ed Rogers (a big-shot Republican lobbyist): "Cain is a "placeholder" in the polls, Rogers says, a candidate for people waiting to commit to another."

The entrenched Republican elite don't like Cain very much, do they? That's about as dismissive of a candidate as you can be.

>48 steve.clason:

Well, we've seen this a few times now—a huge surge for Bachmann, then Perry, now Cain. There's an element out there that want's a "true conservative"—which largely means not Romney—but is having a hard time finding one they can commit to because, at least as it seems to me, the "true conservatives" in the race now are rather like the apples at the bottom of the barrel. Dismissive or not, I think it's a good model that explains this repeated pattern.

How on earth do the fundies and the libertarians co-exist over there on the far right?

Umm...they don't. There are no libertarians on the far right (or on the right at all). There are self-proclaimed "left libertarians" (some of whom are libertarians, others just like the word), but I've never heard anyone calling themselves "right libertarians". Real libertarians aren't left or right, they're "up".

> 50

Changing the subject for a sec to another goof who will never be elected POTUS, Ron Paul says he is a libertarian. He is either being disingenuous or is confused to an insane degree. Anti-abortionists can't be libertarians, or all these words lose their meanings.

Back to Herman - or as Sister Sarah calls him "Herb" - he obviously has a problem similar to Arnold and Bob Packwood and Bill O'Reilly. The fact that he paid off at least two women - five figures each it is said - to go away and not mention his improper behavior - I think that is smoke that indicates a fire.

The more this info is bandied about by the media - especially if these women turn out to be white - the more the republican primary voters will be put off by poor old Herman (or Herb).

Call me crazy but in the end I think the republican "base" will go with a white guy as the Presidential nominee. Perhaps Wilbur M. Romney - there is no indication to date that he has been anything other than faithful to his wives.

49> "—which largely means not Romney—

Is Perry conservative enough? It doesn't seem to me that his candidacy is damaged beyond recovery and he might actually be able to do the job. I'm no fan of either, but it still feels like it's a race between Perry and Romney, over the long term.

(That's a legitimate question, not bait.)

No, good point. Maybe Perry will pull out of the dive. But so far he's only managed to seem too conservative and not conservative enough at the same time and to the wrong people. And more generally he just seems bad at running for president—a loose canon off the cuff, a terrible debater and an abrasive and petty personality.

Anti-abortionists can't be libertarians, or all these words lose their meanings.

I don't agree with him, but why not? l4l.org

Yeah, abortion is simply a question of who has rights. If a fetus is not a person, obviously the mother has the right to abort. If the fetus is a person, however, that person's right to life should, in normal circumstances according to most people, trump the mother's right. This is, of course, what makes abortion such an insoluble issue—the two sides differ at virtually the root of the question on facts that determine the outcome but can't be solved empirically, so there isn't much to discuss.

Maybe Perry will pull out of the dive.

Watch this, and you'll get the impression that Perry spent the early evening drinking in a dive:

http://gawker.com/5854674/just-how-drunk-is-rick-perry-in-this-video

And, as far as Cain is concerned, can the phrase "high tech lynching" be far behind?

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/1547?ref=fpblg

I presume everyone's seen this?
http://gawker.com/5855097/jon-stewart-cain-is-creepy-perrys-just-drunk

The time has come for Gingrich! (Oh, dear.)

Oh, you beat me to it. Damn. No, I'm not drunk.

It's going to be Romney. The media needs to fill time, create "suspense", report on the horserace, but it will be Romney. Because, really, you just can't take any of the rest of the clowns seriously, and on the biggest issue - the economy - Romney is the only one with anything close to bona fides.

I think it'll probably be Romney too, but it's an odd situation. There's simply no question but that the Tea Party has driven all the passion in the Republican Party recently. And we're not in a normal situation, we're in a desperate one—the perfect time for an outside shot to make it. After Romney gets this one, the right wing might justly ask "if not now, when exactly?" (The answer is surely "When you field some decent candidates.")

#55: Then how do so many people keep getting tangled up in rape and incest? Either way, it should be irrelevant.

>55 timspalding:

Sure there is; the most fundamental question of all; 'Who's paying for it?'

If abortion is illegal because the fetus becomes a citizen with rights at the moment of conception, then every single abortion (including those spontaneous abortions) will have to be investigated as potential homocides. In addition, women who engage in risky behavior (drinking, smoking, drugs, improper nutrition) will have to be arrested and monitored until delivery. After that, the State will have to assume custody of the child, along with all expenses.

So, who's paying for all of that, and what are those who are against abortion willing to sacrifice if there isn't enough money?

>61 BruceCoulson:

Again, however, basic questions of justice prompt us not to look into the question of who pays for murder investigations. To take the pro-life side, yes it's also hard to find, identify and catch cases of infanticide. (It really is. If you're smart about it, you can kill your child and no go to jail.) Yet the state does it. Investigating suspicious cases of crib death haven't brought down our justice system yet.

As for drugs and so forth, the state already gets involved in many states, without a reductio ad absurdum. In some states drug addicts can be prosecuted during the pregnancy, in some only after they give birth to a baby who is permanently damaged by abuse or promptly dies. Some states take custody of such infants upon birth and some don't. Some states consider giving birth to a twitching, brain-damaged infant who will shortly die to be legally just fine—certainly it saves on care down the road. So far as I know, no state has been brought low by the taxes necessary to look into the question.

Your point about spontaneous abortions is absurd. The state doesn't get involved in prosecuting natural disasters either. Again, if you accept that fetuses are people, much follows. If you don't, it doesn't. The same applies to other questions of status. If chimpanzees had moral rights, much would follow. If disabled people with less going on in their brains than a late-stage fetus did, much would follow. If slaves did, much too. There are lots of potential lines out there. You may decide to follow various authorities, from Peter Singer to the Pope. Make your pick.

To me the harder and more interestion question is "How do we resolve this question in a democracy?" One theory would have the issue be so basic and absolute, it should be decided by our top court. Pro-choicers support this notion although, of course, they only really support the result not the method. If the SC were to outlaw all abortions most would change their mind about the validity of such measures rather quickly. I'd rather see a democracy work the question out by constitutional but democratic means, as the better guarantor of legitimacy and justice in the long run. But it's certainly a difficult question all around.

~44

Hoover was replaced by someone who came from old money, and still had a sense of noblesse oblige

========================================

Yept. He was more than happy to give away other peoples' money. Don't recall him being an Andrew Carnegie, however.

Washington Post: Why they defend Cain by Jennifer Rubin ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/why-they-defend-cain/2011/11... )

"The not-Romney candidates are, as one GOP insider put it, beginning to resemble the characters in the “Star Wars” bar scene."

>62 timspalding:

"Again, however, basic questions of justice prompt us not to look into the question of who pays for murder investigations."

Really? Do you actually think as much money is spent investigating a drug-overdose death in the inner city as opposed to a shooting in the better part of town? If so, I fear I have some bad news for you. Like it or not, politics and money influence what gets spent, and how much, even in questions of 'basic justice'.

"As for drugs and so forth, the state already gets involved in many states, without a reductio ad absurdum. In some states drug addicts can be prosecuted during the pregnancy, in some only after they give birth to a baby who is permanently damaged by abuse or promptly dies."

That's because the issue of when life begins, legalLy, is still a grey area. Also, those against abortion don't seem to care that much after the infant is born; human life promptly becomes disposable then.

"Your point about spontaneous abortions is absurd. The state doesn't get involved in prosecuting natural disasters either."

Example: a elderly man dies at home alone, with no sign of forced entry or violence. Is there a police investigation? Yes; simply because common sense indicates the death was from natural causes doesn't eliminate that investigation. So, if life began at birth, would every abortion have to be investigated. Granted, we're not talking a full CSI with multiple detectives involved; but there would be a cost. As for natural disasters, the law is subsumed in reality; it's simply not possible to investigate all the deaths.

"Again, if you accept that fetuses are people, much follows. If you don't, it doesn't."

This is true of most political questions. The Native Americans were considered less than people by both the Spanish and American settlers, with well-known consequences. The worth of the Indians dead was greater than their worth alive. All human life, unborn or elderly, is subject to both political and economic questions of worth.

"To me the harder and more interestion question is "How do we resolve this question in a democracy?" One theory would have the issue be so basic and absolute, it should be decided by our top court. Pro-choicers support this notion although, of course, they only really support the result not the method. If the SC were to outlaw all abortions most would change their mind about the validity of such measures rather quickly. I'd rather see a democracy work the question out by constitutional but democratic means, as the better guarantor of legitimacy and justice in the long run. But it's certainly a difficult question all around."

It's not resolvable; not really. It is, as you've pointed out, an absolute. (At least in a rational world; the reality was and would be much different.) Mos politics is based on compromise, and that's simply not possible here. Someone is going to lose, and if abortion is legal, those against have lost (at least, in their minds) completely.

The reality is that if abortion was made illegal, the wealthy would still have access to abortions, and get them. And despite the sincere wishes of those who feel abortion = murder, there wouldn't be much they could do about it.

> 54

Time to play my age card. I was probably debating the "libertarians for life" wingnuts by snail mail back before you were in long pants.

A libertarian can say he or she is anti-abortion. Sure. But a libertarian cannot be anti-abortion - not because I say so but because I understand what the libertarian ideology is - what it states it is.

The individual is all. No person owes any other person a damn thing. If someone trespasses on your property you have the right to kill them if they refuse to get off. No one has the right, moral or legal, to anyone else's property. One's body is one's ultimate property.

So, then, using the libertarian argument against the so-called libertarians for life, it seems that these so-called "libertarians" are actually socialist libertarians. They must be since they support the right of one entity, person or not, to the use of the property of another - the woman's body - against her will.

(Addressing only one popular fallacy here) the "uniqueness" of the DNA of a blastocyst or embryo or fetus is not a proof of personhood - each of the trillions of cells in my body is unique compared to all others, and each is potentially a person in the future as technology advances. And all the other arguments of anti-abortionists, including those of the pseudo-libertarian LFL wingnuts are likewise flawed. Someone start a anti-abortion thread and I'll be glad to jump in and set any confused person straight. Glad to be of service.

BTW I think the libertarian ideology is basically crap as it takes part of a good idea - individual rights -and then takes it to reductio ad absurdum. The abortion as murder fallacy is a fallacy for scientific and social reasons that have little to do with libertarian utopianism.

Eighty per cent of U.S. citizens consistently are in favor of abortion at least in cases of rape and incest - and for the last forty years, according to polls.

THAT is the big problem for the republicans. Their abortion position is not a winner. Like their support for Darwinian evolution regarding the rich and the poor. And a crapload of other social issues.

As to Herman (Herb?) Cain - I continue to have bad feeling about him. Before all this is over I suspect we may be seeing pubic hairs on coke cans, Long Dong Silver films, the misuse of cigars, and jesus knows what else. ( Menage a pizza?)

A libertarian can certainly be pro-life without any inconsistency. What I would have a hard time with is a libertarian advocating LAWS banning abortion.

> 67

No offense but you sound like Herman Cain here.

You or me or whomever being personally against abortion means nothing to outspoken radical anti-abortion nuts, most of whom seem to be republicans. And that is the point here.

E.g., I personally may be opposed to abortion in terms of my ever participating in any way in an abortion - for whatever personal reason I may have.

The question is: Is a person in favor of anti-libertarianesque laws prohibiting a woman to have an abortion?. If so, then that person is not a libertarian.

Saying one is against abortion "personally" is really changing the subject. Or needlessly confusing apples and potato chips. Like Herman Cain.

Um...that is kinda what I said.

I can see how libertarians might tell their kids not to take drugs, but would oppose drug laws. Same with abortion.

> 69

So then we agree - no confusion here on our part - unlike people such as so-called libertarians for life and Herman Cain.

No need to check with Romney for his position on abortion. This is Tuesday. He'll have a different take on the subject Wednesday.

#61

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/480449/ga_legislator_wants_to_creat...

Really? Do you actually think as much money is spent investigating a drug-overdose death...

So, the murder of black people doesn't get as much police attention as the murder of white people, and this is an injustice. But you are developing the notion that going after abortions would be impossible because it would take up too much police time. My heads spins.

Also, those against abortion don't seem to care that much after the infant is born; human life promptly becomes disposable then.

This is a great attack, but I don't think it has much to say for itself. Mostly anti-abortionists are more conservative. If you simply read "conservative" as being "anti-life," well, fine. But this is a very mean-spirited way of approaching the issue. Assuming for a moment that you are a liberal, I would take your side and object to a socialist saying that you were anti-life because your view of government action was more conservative than theirs. In any case, the historical core of the anti-abortion movement, the Catholic church, has also been really the only serious force opposing capital punishment in the last half century.

So, if life began at birth, would every abortion have to be investigated. Granted, we're not talking a full CSI with multiple detectives involved; but there would be a cost.

Lots of countries have outlawed abortions, and hardly been sunk by the costs of doing so. It's just a silly argument. There is every reason on earth to consider the core question, and perhaps to decide that fetuses are not people. Be my guest! But believing abortion is murder and not doing anything about it because of the police costs? I don't think it passes the laugh test.

The Native Americans were considered less than people by both the Spanish and American settlers, with well-known consequences. The worth of the Indians dead was greater than their worth alive. All human life, unborn or elderly, is subject to both political and economic questions of worth.

This is a pro-choice argument? I've lost track. A better argument would be to cite some law protecting something that isn't a person, and the negative effects of such a law. I'm not sure what you'd pick, though, since the bend of the law has generally been to make more people full "persons," not less--blacks, asians, women, gays, etc. Corporations, perhaps?

It's not resolvable; not really. It is, as you've pointed out, an absolute.

I half agree, but have some hope that the nation does better when it talks through an issue. I do wonder whether you couldn't, absent a SC decision, get agreement on a provision restricting abortion to the first trimester, for example, but legalizing it otherwise. This sort of approach is actually common outside the US, where democracies have chosen positions between "no abortions, ever" and "abortion on demand and without apology."

One answer, simply, is to let democracy act on smaller pieces of the country. There are states where more than 2/3 of the electorate are pro-choice, and the reverse. There are, of course, problems with allowing that too, as you are free to point out.

A libertarian can certainly be pro-life without any inconsistency. What I would have a hard time with is a libertarian advocating LAWS banning abortion.

I think this overstates it. There are no good parallels, bringing abortion into the property rights arena, but consider this one. Imagine you invite someone into your house to stay, and they fall asleep on the couch. It's a special couch which you have specially prepared for them, soaked with super glue. You wanted them there, but now you decide you don't. Unfortunately, the glue is super strong. In some months it will have disintegrated enough to remove the house guest, but until then any attempt to remove the guest would kill them, so deep is the glue worked into their whole body.

It's not entirely clear that a "libertarian" view of the glued-guest would be to allow you to shoot the guest in the head as a trespasser! You invited him in. And even if you didn't—the rape case—libertarians do not believe that any temporary and, as concerns the fetus, unintentional violation of rights occasions to right to kill the violator!

I'd add, by the way, that there is a difference between a small-state libertarian, who believes deeply in natural rights, but supports a state and looks to politicians like Jefferson or even Hoover, and the sort of anarcho-capitalist I think you're imagining

A libertarian can say he or she is anti-abortion. Sure. But a libertarian cannot be anti-abortion - not because I say so but because I understand what the libertarian ideology is - what it states it is.

{followed by insane misunderstanding of libertarianism}

No. It doesn't. And a libertarian who believes abortion is murder (I'm not one of them, FWIW) can be opposed to abortion in exactly the same way a libertarian can be opposed to murder. Do you think libertarians can't be "anti-murder", too?

{insane (and AFAICT, meaningless) ranting about Republicans and coke cans, etc., elided...}

> 74

Oh, I am misrepresenting libertarians? I just don’t know what they are up to or stand for? Well, I used to read libertarian magazines back in the eighties. Many of the writers stated that anyone had a right to kill anyone who trespassed on his property - just like that, no extenuating circumstances considered.

Many libertarians say and believe that the justice system, from cops to courts, should be privatized, and say and believe that the interstate highways, all national parks, and 99 per cent of all government properties should be sold to the highest bidder, i.e., privatized, and the money distributed to the populace who, after all, own such things.

You can deny all you want that many if not libertarians are nuts but I have meet many over the years and talked with or debated many who are indeed N.U.T.S. And I’m not just talking about the Randroids. They are of course their own special type of nut.

But there are some "good" libertarians running around who aren't nuts? Well, that's nice. How many, exactly?

My experience is that most libertarians are anarchists in sheep's clothing who hate government to the same degree as tea-bagging republicans.

All I can say is F.T.S.

See 56 (can the phrase "high tech lynching" be far behind?):

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/ann_coulter_our_blacks_are_so_...

>72 timspalding:

Is abortion murder? This is, as you have noted, the key question.

If it is, then saying, "well, some places have outlawed abortions but don't care about murder if it's done sneakily enough" (which is the net effect of ignoring spontaneous abortions) is clearly wrong, both legally and morally. (Just as inequal distribution of resources in murder investigations is wrong.) So, for those opposed to abortion, my question remains; are you willing to pursue every possible murder that is committed, or are you willing to ignore murder if it's not blatant?

The economic costs (and political costs) are a factor, not an argument. Saying you're against abortion, and are willing to pay any price to stop the murder is consistent. Saying you're against abortion, and someone else must pay the costs, or that there won't be a cost, is incorrect. And saying that you'll have to ignore possible murders because the cost of investigating them is too high is clearly wrong as well. "Lots of countries have outlawed abortions, and hardly been sunk by the costs of doing so..." So, the fact that other countries turn a blind eye to possible murders is a reason for us to do so?

Absolutes are not subject to debate or resolution. Your proposed solution (which isn't bad, actually, although I think you meant making abortions legal in the first trimester), is stating that life begins after three months. (The Puritans stated 5-6 months, which turns out to be the practical limit for live births currently.) That means, from the point of view of those who say that life begins at conception, you're sanctioning the murder of people during those first three months. And by allowing state choice, (as you are aware) means that the wealthy, and even well-off can get easy abortions (or, to use inflammatory language, freely murder children), whereas the poor trapped in anti-choice states are stuck. Again, this is entirely unacceptable to those against abortion, and less than optimum (although probably liveable with) by those in favor of choice; which is why the anti's would oppose it.

Talking/debate is only worthwhile when both parties are willing to agree to some type of compromise. Although those who are pro-choice have (generally) been willing to compromise, by the very nature of their beliefs, those against abortion cannot compromise; because to do means to either openly permit murder (as opposed to merely turning a blind eye to it through selective enforcement) or to acknowledge that their initial ideas were wrong. Either is very unlikely, and usually only happens with a small number in the group.

Would a compromise be to have legal abortions that are rarely performed? Like offering free contraception and more substantial advice than "don't ever do it"? Like making quality child care available to all and improving public education so that everyone can make informed choices?

Ok, enough thread hijacking. How about that Herman Cain? Can he pull out of this mess if he sings Amazing Grace every time he's asked about it?

>78 RidgewayGirl:

That would be my preference. Abortion is an absolute, but it is also an action that takes place a variable number of times. I don't think the US will ever go pro-Life, but if it does it will be decades away. If people against abortion spent the same amount of effort trying to come up with policy answers to lower the rate, and if abortion is murder, a lot of lives could be saved. I want more anti-abortionists stepping up to make it easy to have the baby, personally and politically.

78> "How about that Herman Cain? Can he pull out of this mess if he sings Amazing Grace every time he's asked about it?"

No, I think this is going to do him in. Not the allegations so much as his awful handling of them, and his awful handling of the next allegations that arise out of the increased scrutiny about to come down on him. The right wing of the Republican party will need another placeholder while they try to get over their nausea at the thought of having to support Romney.

Period, end of story. (That was sarcasm.)

We've just heard from the third woman now. Anybody want to bet there will not be a fourth? Ha.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/herman-cain-sexual-harassment_n_1072275...

Herman obviously likes the ladies. He wants them to know he is available for the nasty, even though he has a ball and chain back at the house. Not that this disqualifies him from being POTUS one day - most Presidents had some sort of sex scandal, from Jefferson to Harding to Johnson to Clinton.

I going to guess that this will at some point turn into a Bill Clinton/Tiger Woods kind of thing - in terms of numbers. Not that Herman ever got the action Bill and Tiger did - Herman strikes me as more in the wannabe category.

Herman's losing it. Now he's accusing Rick Perry's campaign of being part of the effort to out poor Herman for being a sex prevert.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/herman-cain-curt-anderson-sexual-harass...

In other news it was reported that Perry has renamed the Perry family's infamous vacation property the "Hermanhead Ranch".

Stay tuned for further breaking updates - I'm all over this like bar-be-que sauce on a brisket.

Cain is finished.

Oh, I am misrepresenting libertarians?

I don't know. "Misrepresenting" implies that you know better and are deliberately lying. That's a possibility; though it's also possible you just don't know what you're talking about, and I rather suspect the latter. You seem to have a rabid hatred of libertarians for some reason.

I used to read libertarian magazines back in the eighties

What "libertarian magazines"? Libertarian Forum? The Freeman? Inquiry? Reason?

government properties should be sold to the highest bidder

That's not very libertarian...it implies they rightfully belong to the government, which they don't -- they should be taken by whoever wants them, not sold.

My experience is that most libertarians are anarchists in sheep's clothing who hate government to the same degree as tea-bagging republicans.

Some of us are anarchists, no "sheep's clothing" to be seen, and my guess is we hate government a hell of a lot more than "tea-bagging republicans" :) Most people who call themselves libertarians, though, aren't anarchists (many aren't even libertarian at all).

they should be taken by whoever wants them, not sold.

I call dibs on the Smithsonian. And Alaska's oil reserves. And the nuclear stockpile.

I've officially converted. Libertarians of the world, unite! And by unite, I mean do whatever you want!

*sigh* Taken into ownership, put to use, not just verbally claimed. (Haven't we been over this several times already?)

You mean I have to use the nukes before I claim ownership?

This gets even better.

I've always had it out for Schenectady. No particular reason, mind you.

Use it or lose it.

Is there a statute of limitations on that one? I mean, if I leave my bike by the lamppost, is it fair game?

I've always had it out for Schenectady. No particular reason, mind you.

HEY!

91> it's fair game. In fact, it's already gone.

Good thing my bike's GPS is cross-networked with my nuclear capability.

argh!

I am about to go so Pee-Wee Herman on your ass...

No problem, Sean Penn has agreed to be my human shield. . .

> 84

(JGL).....government properties should be sold to the highest bidder...

"...That's not very libertarian...it implies they rightfully belong to the government, which they don't -- they should be taken by whoever wants them, not sold...."

(JGL) ...My experience is that most libertarians are anarchists in sheep's clothing who hate government to the same degree as tea-bagging republicans...

"...Some of us are anarchists, no 'sheep's clothing' to be seen, and my guess is we hate government a hell of a lot more than 'tea-bagging republicans'..."

Well, there ya go, folks.

Case closed. End of story.

LOL.

85> don't be silly Alaska's oil reserves belong to some one , Just not an Alaskan, I think its an African.

85> don't be silly Alaska's oil reserves belong to some one , Just not an Alaskan, I think its an African.

82> "Herman's losing it."

But Anne Coulter steps in to save the day: "Our blacks are so much better than their blacks."

It's hard for me to conceive that an adult in the United States today could make a public statement so egregiously racist. And she was trying to help!

101> The key word is "adult".

102> "The key word is "adult"."

Good point. I should have written "...that a public figure...could make a statement...." But then I've made a sexist "figure" reference and my cred drops like a rock. (Rhetorical opening provided intentionally.)

This thread has gotten a lot better lately!

I already have dibs on the oil reserve. Since Wall Street is being occupied, I claim the Merc. (That way I get to see come Cubs games. Hell, I claim the Cubs!)

I'm sure some of Anne Coulter's BFFs are Republican Blacks. As long as they remember to come in through the servant doors, of course...

I'm claiming University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

Well they are BETTER blacks.

"We can rebuild them; we can make them better than they were before. Better, stronger, faster, accepting of being marginalized in society..."

Haven't got that many ambitions but I'd like to put a claim in on Madison Square Garden. That way I could get to see all the hockey games in person and I could book whatever concerts--and there's going to be no more Fleetwood Mac, Grateful Dead or Rolling Stones reunion tours--it's going to be all punk rock and those who don't like it--tough shit. A castle in Ireland would be nice as well--if we can go out of country that is.

Hey Stranger, is the Salty Dog Saloon still out on the end of the spit in Homer? I want that.

"He chose to be rich by making his wants few, and supplying them himself." -- Emerson.

Sorry. I think some libertarian from New Zealand got it. But I am more than willing to fight him for it. I will give you free drinks, if you show up. (Oh, and they changed some of the rules. No dogs allowed. No sawdust. But the bras are still up.)

Q. If an Ann Coulter falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it still make a sound?

A. Who gives a shit.

Q. Does a libertarian have Buddha-nature?

A. Mu.

I call dibs on the National Library. I can't believe no one beat me to it. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. And you call yourselves Librarythingers! Clearly, I'm the only one here who can properly exploit its resources.

#113--you can only read one (or two) at a time and I got all the books I need right now--at least until I need more.

But since you are only using one or two books at a time you'll have to give all the rest of your books away to anyone else who will use them.

The Economist blog Democracy In America sums up some attitudes expressed in this thread, and in this group, so well that it's worth a long quote (emphasis in original):

I find, in other words, that this whole issue keeps directing my attention back towards a fundamental problem: I have to share my polity with large numbers of silly people who are not equipped to make reasonable decisions about political issues. Even after Mr Cain loses the nomination, I must live with the awareness that the people who voted for him are out there, waiting to vote for some even more ridiculous clown down the line. I am aware that they feel the same way about me. However, they are wrong, and I am right. As evidence, I present the fact that they say they support Herman Cain for president.

As that guy said, "Period, end of story."

Or Michelle Bachman. Don't forget her! Or Rick Perry!

What's interesting to me is not so much whether or not something happened, and it seems pretty obvious at this point that something did, but rather the anger from Cain and his supporters that someone had the gall to find out about these improprieties, and bring them forward, and then that the media (that evil, liberal media) would have the audacity to report on them.

In essence, what we're hearing from Cain is "How dare you expose the skeletons in my closet!", rather than denying that the skeletons exist. Cain seems to believe that the voters do not have a right to know about any potentially illegal behavior he may have been party to in the past. Not exactly the sort of understanding of the rules of the game that one would expect for someone running for high office.

A lot of republicans simply do not like Mitt Romney. Some because he's a Mormon but generally I think it's because it's a reach to call him a real conservative--it's hard to classify him at all because he backtracks all the time--he flips and he flops. Cain appeals to some as an anti-Obama--because he's black (an anomaly in the republican party), a Washington outsider (never been elected to anything) and a 'businessman'--disputable on that--he was a corporate figurehead. He has the backing of the Koch brothers and is definitely a spokesman for the 1%. There's an idea in some quarters that only a real 'business' person is capable of turning our economy around. I think it's ludicrous--generally nothing goes forward without political infighting to get it there. Did I say I also think he's the Anti-Perot?

Personally I think all the GOP contenders are a bunch of clowns with maybe the exception of Ron Paul who is consistent in his views, is not likely to be sidetracked by scandals. I do like some of Paul's foreign policy ideas. As far as his domestic libertarian social economic model though--forget it. It's about the most dangerous thing out there.

The republicans need to select not just a candidate that appeals to them but an candidate that appeals to the country, eventually I suppose they will remember this. and the real selection process will begin, if all the candidates have not by that time all sacrificed their wider credibility in an attempt to appeal to the GOP core.

An interesting take on Herman Cain...... it makes sense....especially given his "campaign adds"

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/herman-cain-the-practical-joke-no-one-is-get...

Personally I think all the GOP contenders are a bunch of clowns with maybe the exception of Ron Paul who is consistent in his views...

What's the old saying about a foolish consistency?

Retail politics is most profitable at the red meat counter.

This thread is really quite interesting viewed in light of the views being expressed in the Direct Democracy thread (often by, ah, the same people taking inconsistent positions here). In the Direct Democracy thread the reader is being informed that anyone achieving public office must be intelligent, diligent, virtually omniscient, and should be deferred to as a superior being better able to make collective decisons than the average American. In this thread we are being told that most of those in Congress are goofballs and that the leading contenders for the highest office of the land are probably worse. Could someone explain how these propositions go together?

> 121

Performance art. By a motivational speaker who obviously knows far less about the real world than even I do, just because I read the newspapers every day, instead of just reading a one page summary MOST days. LOL.

Yep - performance art. Passing as reality amongst the unwashed masses who mindlessly vote republican against their own self-interest, i.e., the goobers that are SO not rich.

Well. If there is a god and he or she or it has a sense of humor, then Herman Munster Mark of Cain will be the republican nominee for POTUS in 2012. Perhaps Rick Santorum will be his pick for V.P. - or maybe one of the Koch brothers.

I've been wrong before but I think if Herm gets the nomination nod, and we have three debates, then I would predict that would sound the death knell for the modern republican party.

Or maybe not. Perhaps all observed "reality" is just a dream in the mind of a sleeping Brahma and when he eventually awakes we shall all disappear into absolute nothingness - in the meantime President Cain will be leading us into a glorious future no redneck yahoo could even imagine (e.g., free universal pizza, sexual harassment made legal, black felt hats come in style even for white people, war declared on ubec bec beki stan stan, etc.).

Unless Herm is caught next week in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy. In which case I guess that syrup-loving hysteric from Tex-Ass will arise from the ashes. (subliminal message: NO Mormons.)

#125--they push buttons. Fear that the government will take your squirrel gun away from you. The anti-abortion business. Socialism one step away from communism lurking in a national health care system, the Moslem's are coming to get us, all the anti government business can do anything better horseshit etc. etc. The GOP depends on manure like that to win elections.

Hard to understand the thinking of anyone who punches a time clock whether union or non-union, voting republican. Lots and lots do though. Interesting to see the shock and dismay of some of my co-workers when a GOP congressman puts a bill up to privatize their jobs.
They always saw these guys and gals as 'just like us.' Yeah--bullshit.

>125 JGL53:
Have you seen any of his campaign adds ? They are very very strange and what is the most disturbing is Cain's smile at the end of the add....unless of course you put the whole shee bang in the catagory of a joke.....the smile then makes perfect sense. The whole thing starts to make sense and though a good number of American's have been saying that Herman Cain is a joke, collectively shaking our heads and wondering in dispair what has happened to our political process, we are now free to enjoy the whole thing. It is rather amusing and very clever....
I might add that the group who has hung their hat on Mr. Cain are probably the same individuals who are the least able to laugh at themselves......IF they figure it out....they will be pissed.

119 lriley - a 'businessman'--disputable on that--he was a corporate figurehead

I gotta say. I don't like Cain—at all—but his business career is hardly up for dispute. It was quite long, involved a number of positions, and was certainly successful. He's not qualified to be president, but he was definitely a businessman.

I could probably take a stab against that one. First of all, he participated in an MBO, second of all it wasn't an extremely successful one from what I've heard.

> 129

Cain's experience as a business man dates back about 15 years of so, doesn't it? He's been a motivational speaker like Zig Zigler for a while now and is apparently in the process of punking the republican redneck base. His clown act is actually an actual act. I.e., he is not only in on the joke, he started the joke. The referred site at post #121 lays out the facts that everyone from retard to genius can understand.

Herman is aiming for his own show on faux noise and he should have one. He is strictly entertainment. He redefines, in a downward way, the meaning of "empty suit". He is an empty suit AND an empty felt hat.

>130 JGL53:
Would have to admit that the guy does have talent though.......it would seem that he thought this up on his own and has had the guts to carry it forward......what is more upsetting than Herman Cain are all those who thought he was a good idea in the first place. At least when the jig is up I can say that I knew something was amiss......though someone else had to point out what it was.
He must get a laugh out of being on the top in the polls. Know I would.

#128--I guess it depends on how you look at it. I've just been over to Wikipedia reviewing his bio again. It strikes me that's he's more of a numbers cruncher--a corporate figurehead than a real businessman. He never started or really built his own business--he's always moved in and out of major multinationals. How much business acumen he has is debatable--to me anyway. Moving up the food chain at Coca Cola, Burger King, Godfather's pizza etc. has more to do with infighting other ambitious management wannabes.

The Cain campaign story has gotten so seedy that just reading about it makes me itch, but an opinion piece in the New York Times by a statistician rises above the swill a little to provide this information: nobody has any idea whether or not the allegations of sexual misconduct are hurting the Cain campaign.

It's a short piece here: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/who-believes-herman-cain/?nl=t...

The salient point is that different polls provide conflicting answers to the question. I haven't the slightest idea what that means, except that we shouldn't trust polls all that much.

Well, it's going to get seedier. Cain has stated that there are plenty more women out there who will accuse him of harassment. Of course, he says it's because Washington hates businessmen and he thinks this is all a Democrat plot, although he does admit he has absolutely no more proof than his own gut feeling.

>134 RidgewayGirl:
What is interesting is the fact that it could be Republican's who are doing this to him as well. Not sure, but I don't like it.....neither side of it....obviously he is wealthy and he is in a postion of power....to be abusive to women is ugly . Powerful people will often take advantage of the situation.
On the other hand, there are women who will "come forward" for all types of reasons that may have nothing to do with abuse......(thinking of a woman where I worked, at one time, who insisted that she was be taunted by a man because he had a banana in his lunch everyday, claimed he always ate the banana where she could see him.....turned out he had no clue that his banana was bothering any one)
Nasty stuff, all the way around.
What is so sad is the fact that if one woman comes forward with a bunch of BS.....it calls in to question any real claims.
From watching Cain....I would suspect he can be snarky and forward....Is he stupid enough to sexually harrass someone and then go on a campaign trail...or should I say, is his ego that large ? Not sure ! How much is propaganda and how much is true ?

The whole political process is a circus of giant proportions !!!

Q. How is Herman Cain and a Godfather's pizza alike?

A. They are both hot and steamy and go right to your ass.

Why does Cain remind me of the Michael Scott character from The Office?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=xCpbejy4rUw

At least some of the allegations were already there. Why would some women come forward now?--well he wasn't running for president before--he was just another schmuck. If all of a sudden that schmuck who made unwanted advances towards you years before is heading towards a major party nomination--I would think it would be a bit concerning--just knowing what you knew.

But yeah--there's no way of being absolutely sure--at least at this point in time--like there's no way we can be absolutely sure it's not a Democratic plot or even a plot hatched by Perry and the democrats (since Herman has blamed them both separately--but maybe they were in it together).

I have to say though that Herman smells bad right now. 4 separate cases is quite a lot and who's to say there are not going to be more coming out of the woodwork. Is Romney having the same problem? Santorum? Ron Paul? Herman doesn't seem to be handling it too well--mixing bravado with a lot of contradiction. Not easy to swallow and keep down--for him let alone the public.

For conservatives--they've made a real moral issue out of these kind of adventures in the past. Now some want to give Cain cover just because of a perception that Clinton got away with all kinds of dalliances in his past. I'd say they need to be consistent here--what Clinton did or didn't do shouldn't change a thing or they're guilty of hypocrisy.

139> "Now some want to give Cain cover just because of a perception that Clinton got away with all kinds of dalliances in his past."

Give them another option and conservative Republicans will drop Cain like a hot rock.

Can Pawlenty get back in at this point? I bet he's kicking himself.

Way back when I said Pawlenty was the most electable of the Rs. Then he went and dropped. So now, I will predict he stays out.

I still expect a resurgent Perry. He's got a lot of money, a new campaign staff, and has been out of the spotlight for a while, maybe long enough that he managed to screw his head back on. He's a political veteran and pretty tough, and though he has some policy problems with respect to the right, I think he can take another shot. A good performance tonight and he's back in the race.

And if I'm wrong I'll just deny I ever said it.

#140--it's a piss poor group for sure--but it's a real balancing act keeping both the economic 1% and the religious fundamentalists happy. None of them are really up to the task. The hard right really disdains moderates which pretty much drives away independent voters. Could anyone here see Michele Bachmann trying to appeal to an on the fence independent who leans pro choice?--or Ron Paul or Rick Santorum willing to budge an iota on any part of their respective agendas? Gingrich has too many skeletons in his closet and he's a has been--kind of a republican version of Dick Gephardt. Cain is getting hit from all sides and lashing out blindly. Perry also in self destruct mode. It's not that I can't see Obama being beaten--and I don't think he's done a good job--but not by any of the present contenders. I'm expecting Romney to win the nomination but at least a good half of his party hates him.

Huckabee? Jeb Bush (tarnished by his brother)?

The current republican agenda in any case is way too extreme. Our economic picture looks like shit and all we get out of the republican congress is gridlock. It seems like they want things worse. Don't touch the rich though or the banks. Go after working people--destroy the unions--put them on the street if you can't knock their wages down--like that's going to help.

Have you seen the New Hampshire speech? No good performance in the world can make up for that disaster.

I think most people will forgive a presidential candidate's hitting the bong before a major speech, as long as he doesn't make a habit of it.

>146 steve.clason:
Have you forgotten ???? They nailed Clinton to the wall over the fact that he said he had not inhaled...when in fact he may have inhaled ?

Course, along came Bush who both drank and did a little of the white powder sniffing and they had to loosen up the standards a bit. Obama we know experimented....not that I care cause I don't think it matters unless one is an addict.
Bush was an addict who wasn't working a program....dangerous territory that !

What hasn't changed since the 2000 administration ? May make for a shorter list than trying to name all that has.

>147 faceinbook:
The inhalation or lack there of, took place decades before the Presidential race, I might add. It was a BIG deal !

146, 147> Was joke. I gotta stop doing that.

but it's a real balancing act keeping both the economic 1% and the religious fundamentalists happy

A nice shot, but surely any Democrat who really thinks this is how the Republican party is constructed will lose again and again.

Huckabee? Jeb Bush (tarnished by his brother)?

At this point nobody else can get in because of deadlines and so forth. I proposed Pawlenty because I'm guessing much of that work was already done.

Have you seen the New Hampshire speech? No good performance in the world can make up for that disaster.

A total embarrasment, but very hard to translate into an argument aganst him.

Well, most of what I'm hearing on the webs seem to indicate that Perry is making an ass out of himself on this latest round.

This moment seems to have made a big impression.

twitter feed:

GovernorPerry Rick Perry
Really glad I wore my boots 2nite because I stepped in it out there. I did still name 2 agencies to eliminate. Obama has never done that!

150> "A total embarrasment, but very hard to translate into an argument aganst him."

Interesting observation. I wonder about the relative effects of a rational argument that a candidate is a poor choice and a perception that a candidate is a poor choice. I suspect the latter has a bigger influence but, even with YouTube etc., a smaller reach.

So, a horde of journalists (who we don't trust anyway) saying "Perry looked goofy" might end up looking just mean and petty to those who never clicked on the video link.

While writing this I realized Perry's opponents and their Super-PAC allies are going to make sure EVERYONE sees how goofy he looked. Over and over and over. So, never mind.

While writing this I realized Perry's opponents and their Super-PAC allies are going to make sure EVERYONE sees how goofy he looked

Yeah, but this is largely my point. You don't really get it unless you've seen the whole video, and only 1% of American voters are going to do that. Even if you do, while I dislike Perry intently, I don't think a single drunk dinner speech is grounds to condemn any man absolutely. It would be a lot less damaging, however, if Perry didn't keep screwing up in similar contexts.

When did we get so picky ?? I seem to remember a President who screwed up his thoughts/words almost everytime he spoke. Although, he was good at debating....likable I think was the term used.

The only front runner for the Republican Party who really presents themselves well is Gingrich. That doesn't translate to who would be the best candidate.....

Bachmann, by the way, sounded like a Democrat....she was complaining about the bonuses taken by the bank execs while they, at the same time are asking for more bail out money.....heard that mantra from the Left since the whole house of cards came down AND her idea on taxes.....only 53% of the people pay taxes...everyone should pay.....well, one could say the same about our healthcare system....the less who pay in, the more those who are paying are going to have to shell out....she looked pretty ignorant with that comment....not sure how she can see the issue so clearly in one respect and not the other.

The prize for speech and presentation would be Obama, yet when it comes to doing the same thing on a smaller stage, it would seem that he has problems. Guess I would be reluctant to judge a candidate entirely on public speaking and/or debate.

New Cain campaign ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNhDwc7azg

157

"crazier than a shithouse rat"

My God, that's funny!

Politics imitates comedy.

Perhaps comedy imitates politics? Pearls.

TimSpalding called it at #57: "The time has come for Gingrich! (Oh, dear.)"

"A new CNN poll showed Cain dropping 9 points from a peak of 25% a month ago, and is in third place now behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich."

L.A. Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bialek-boyfriend-cain-20111114,0,2125...

Santorum has to feel like the boy who never gets picked in dodgeball, or whatever.

Gotta say, Gingrich is a smart, interesting guy. He's probably the most "qualified" person there in the literal sense, but he is just not presidential material—he's a half-mad provocateur, not a leader.

NPR: Herman Cain Has Major 'Oops' Moment On Libya
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/14/142319607/herman-cain-has-maj...

#162: Santorum has to feel like the boy who never gets picked in dodgeball, or whatever.

I think Dan Savage successfully destroyed any changes of Santorum had of being president by associating his name with something most of us find disgusting. I don't think Santorum was particularly especially out of line relative to his fellow Republicans, but he pissed off the wrong person on the wrong day.

#163: NPR: Herman Cain Has Major 'Oops' Moment On Libya

There's comments on that post comparing it to Obama's 57 states comment. I don't think the comparison reflects well on Cain. Seriously, "President Obama — supported the uprising, correct?"

>164 prosfilaes:

I think Santorum destroyed his chances of becoming president when he lost his Pennsylvania senate seat by 20 percentage points.

Santorum got destroyed by a pro life democrat. I'm not surprised he's getting no traction though. He's wooden--completely inflexible on whatever issue he's talking about. A religious fundamentalist. The same thing is happening to Bachman. OTOH they don't get caught out as much as some others.

#162--completely agree on Gingrich. I would add he has a lot of skeletons in his closet. Not really a candidate that would have much chance of winning.

Gingrich's comments about the Islamo-fascist secular government shows he can't even be coherent within a single sentence.

It's not so much the skeletons in his closet, but the ones lying around the living room.

Hey! And Herman Cain called me! He wants me to register to vote.

>167 RidgewayGirl:

You're an Iowan?

Hey! And Herman Cain called me! He wants me to register to vote.

If he offers to pick you up and go for drinks afterwards, don't go!

Free pizza. Get with it Ma... uh.. uh.. oops.

Makifat. Yes, that's who I'm talking about right?

South Carolina. First in the South, primary-wise. Without Mississippi, we'd often be last in the south, statistics-wise.

You'd think they'd get better cheat sheets for the calls from candidates that look like calls from pollsters. I was asked yesterday which primary I was voting in, the Republican or the Democratic. We're not holding Democratic primaries this year. I've also been asked if I'm a registered Republican. We don't do party registration down here. You vote in the primary you want to. You do have to pick just one, unfortunately.

I'm going to try to sum things up as we go into the end-game. I'm sure I'm wrong but I like summary narratives.

Romney is the candidate of choice for the Republican establishment and has been from the start. For largely ideological reasons, he is abhorred by many lower-level activists (I don't mean that to be insulting, those activists are important people) on the right and they have, serially, promoted Bachman, Perry, Cain, and now (maybe) Gingrich as ideologically acceptable alternatives. Each of those alternatives has Failed To Appear Sufficiently Presidential at some point (or will, see below) so that although they may poll well they aren't considered "serious candidates" by the people who decide that sort of thing.

{Once the focus is on Gingrich for a while he'll do something off-the-wall and on-the-record (see #162) and besides, he's really vulnerable to an attack on his morals -- "Do you really want a home-wrecker as First Lady?", e.g.}

So, if Romney is the presumptive nominee, is he SO unacceptable to the right-side of the party that they'll write in "Yosemite Sam" or will organize a third-party of some sort? Romney v. Obama is close (the polls say), Romney v. Obama v. Yosemite Sam is a win for Obama. The question, to me, is whether or not the Republican Party has the skills to rally a very disparate membership around the anointed candidate.

This I assure you—Romney picks someone to the right of him as his VP.

173> How about Sarah Palin? She worked so well for them last time!

Yeah, but he'd have to find a replacement two years in and she doesn't exactly work well as a wingman (wingperson?) (see, McCain, John for further details)

Speaking of Gingrich, he's obviously not going to be the Repub nominee, but a chereished leftwing meme about him - that he informed his wife he wanted to divorce her when she was convalescing in a cancer ward - is total BS. The source is Gingrich's daughter, who presumably knows a thing or two about her own family.

I think this urban legend is going to be hard to let go of. The left repeats it with an almost sensual pleasure; they cherish it like their preccciiiiiiousssssssssss.

Money quote: During the hospital visit, "My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested."

Newt is a hypocritical lizard that gives narcissism a bad name.

Is there any new information on this reptilian money-grubbing huckster we need to know that we don't already know? No. The facts are all in.

Just one example of what a lousy rip-off artist Newt is:

http://www.ohmidog.com/2010/12/16/newts-strip-club-vip-card-is-in-the-mail/

The hospital story seemed almost too perfect to be true. The fact is, asking for a divorce is often not a one time deal. There are people who just inform their spouses, but for the most part, and for most people I know, it is a long drawn out discussion.

Unless one of the parties is having an affair.

Palin's ship has sailed, going off course long ago. There's simply no competent, electable far right candidate (to the right of Romney), because to be far right (i.e. a real conservative, not a RINO) means one has to take extreme, quasi-crazy positions, say outrageous things, traffic in advertising slogans (9-9-9) etc. that are not palatable to the vast middle. Romney and Perry have flirted with this far right constituency; Romney, in his "read my lips" moment of guaranteeing that Iran will possess no nukes during his presidency, and Perry, in his zero-based foreign aid musings and plan to abolish 2 (or 3) government agencies.

Gingrich has been fairly docile in debates concerning Romney, so he may be angling for a Vice-Presidential berth. Straight arrow Romney would balance out Newt's moral failings (extra-marital affairs and broken marriages), expensive tastes (Tiffanys), and $300K consultancy with Freddie Mac (Washington "insider").

Or not. Gingrich has bailout baggage.

"In the Clinton administration's spin control on the Mexican meltdown, Nafta had nothing to do with it. Without the treaty, matters would have been worse, the White House says, and now Nafta will help Mexico recover.

The Republican leadership, which shepherded Nafta to ratification, has no interest in countering this argument. They fear being indicted as co-conspirators in the back-door bailout--which they allowed to proceed without even a Congressional vote.

But an anonymous administration official finally spilled the beans to the Washington Post. It was Speaker Newt Gingrich's own Congressional office that first proposed emptying the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund into Mexican banks. Others involved included Republican Senators Trent Lott and Robert Bennett, and Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach."

James Sheehan, "How NAFTA caused the Mexican Bailout" http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=237

Is it too late to write in Alfred E. Neuman?

As to VP qualifications, I think a pulse is required, but not much else. The warm pitcher of spit, and all that.

Now to get elected probably has a different set of qualifications.

#172: "Do you really want a home-wrecker as First Lady?"

Pfft. This didn't seem to much bother the people who voted for Reagan, Dole, or McCain.

Gingrich is too much a symbol of everything that has gone wrong and why it did.

I don't think any SANE person on the Right would want the job. Said this before will say it again.....they ran the country to the edge of the cliff. (had plenty of help for a long time but the last Republican administration put the pedal to the metal) Now they have to be seen as FAR Right to counter balance all that took place from 2000 till....well, they still seem determined to send the country right on over the edge. (the whole "you are with me or you are with the enemy" mindset)

I grew up in a Republican household......often discussed politics with my father, actually feel bad for the REAL Republicans out there. They really do not have anyone who is representing them.
It would seem that the party was split in half by the Tea Party, then split once again by the wealthiest amongst the remaining members, those who are intent on promoting their own ability to monopolize the wealth in this country.....what is left ? A fractured party that can only come up with the sorry list of candidates who are currently throwing their hats into the ring.

As one who believes in balance, I do not, in any way, see this as "good" for our country.

Does anyone really think that any one of the current caucus of clowns, who are debating ad nauseum, can beat Obama ?

>183 AsYouKnow_Bob:
Right ! I think his charge card bill at Tiffany's will be a much bigger problem for him.

#176: a chereished leftwing meme about him - that he informed his wife he wanted to divorce her when she was convalescing in a cancer ward - is total BS.

Great. What does that have to do with anything? No one has mentioned it here.

The source is Gingrich's daughter, who presumably knows a thing or two about her own family.

And who has huge motives to lie about the subject.

...Romney v. Obama v. Yosemite Sam is a win for Obama...

Hey, not so fast there, pardner. I think I'd need to hear more about Mr. Sam's platform first.

"Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement.
The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-at-least-1-6-m...

187> "Hey, not so fast there, pardner."

Obama v. Yosemite Sam is also close, IMO, but two pseudo-right-ish cartoon characters with great hair split the vote.

188> Ouch! So now the guns are turned towards Gingrich -- Dana Milbank at The Washington Post: "His problem... is that he is entirely too moderate in this field — and, therefore, in no position to establish himself as the conservative anti-Mitt Romney."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-newt-gingrich-wont-last/2011/11/15/gI...

Look, every time one of these non-Mitts (Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich) are advanced, people start listening to them, and immediately realize that each carries within himself (or herself, as the case may be) a deep flaw guaranteeing their unelectability. I have to admit to a certain gleeful anticipation as we work down the field to "Man-on-Dog" Santorum and everyone's favorite crazy Grampa, Ron Paul.

To my friends on the right: unless we see Huntsman resurgent*, you're stuck with Romney. Smiling, perfect Romney. Reconcile yourself.

*And even with Huntsman, you've got Romney-lite.

Not that I know much about the man, but from what I saw early in the cycle, Huntsman at least seems sane.

Huntsman's problem is that he has a doppelgänger who's far better known than him.

Well, yeah. And the "sanity" thing probably doesn't work in his favor, either.

(off-topic) What can you tell me about SOPA, Tim?

Well, yeah. And the "sanity" thing probably doesn't work in his favor, either.

Well, it doesn't really appeal to the wide angry base of the conservative food pyramid. Sanity sounds suspiciously close to "intellectualism". Gingrich is about as close to an intellectual as many of these folks want to get...

I'll be interested to see if Reps. Bachmann and Paul sign on to Perry's plan to force members of Congress to work two part-time jobs, one in DC and one at their local Walmart.

>178 Arctic-Stranger: I didn't say he never had an affair; I said the hospital story is BS.

>186 prosfilaes: "a chereished leftwing meme about him - that he informed his wife he wanted to divorce her when she was convalescing in a cancer ward - is total BS."

Great. What does that have to do with anything? No one has mentioned it here.

Er, I just did. And crushing cherished left-wing lies makes me feel warm and good inside.

"The source is Gingrich's daughter, who presumably knows a thing or two about her own family."

And who has huge motives to lie about the subject.

Heh. I think this urban legend is going to be hard to let go of. The left repeats it with an almost sensual pleasure; they cherish it like their preccciiiiiiousssssssssss.

Not really. It's not like that is the ONLY story on the table.

...they cherish it like their preccciiiiiiousssssssssss.

Oh yeah. We cherish it like some of our friends on the right cherish their simmering resentments.

can you tell me about SOPA, Tim

Not much. I haven't been following the issue closely. I don't think what's proposed now will end up passing. But I may be wrong.

Gotcha. Seems to be blowing up in my various feeds at the moment.

#197: Er, I just did.

Exactly. "Hey, look, you guys shouldn't not like this guy for a reason that has nothing to do with the reasons that you don't like this guy" is a non sequitur.

I think this urban legend is going to be hard to let go of.

If you keep bringing it and using silly evidence to argue its falsity, probably.

Just keep bringing it up. That is the best way to make it die.

In any case newt is a sorry excuse for a human being. The record is pretty clear on that.

> 202 non-sequitur

I started this thread, with nothing about Gingrich at all! I'm kicking you all off!

"I think this urban legend is going to be hard to let go of."
If you keep bringing it and using silly evidence to argue its falsity, probably.

Yeah! An assertion by a person who wasn't there is way more credible than one by a person who was there!

I like how even though I put my prediction about the left clinging to this one right out there, certain persons fulfilled my prediction anyway. It's not like I was particularly subtle.

yeah we should talking about how SERVED DIVORCE PAPERS TO HIS WIFE WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL DYING OF CANCER.

That would wrong. We should do everything we can to stop the story that Gingrich SERVED DIVORCE PAPERS TO HIS WIFE WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL DYING OF CANCER.

It is not true. So everyone stop saying that Gingrich SERVED DIVORCE PAPERS TO HIS WIFE WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL DYING OF CANCER.

Is it wrong that I want to encourage this?

Somebody get Arctic some coffee and a bullhorn!

On the other hand...

Newt when asked how he could be unfaithful and give a speech on family values: "It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
Source: John H. Richardson. "Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican."

People who think of themselves as indispensible, irreplacable, and vital to the continued welfare of the country tend to think of others quite differently.

Yeah, and people should stop spreading the rumor that GLEN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A GIRL IN 1990.

If you google GLEN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A GIRL IN 1990 you'll get 11,600 hits.

But there is no good reason to believe - as far as we know - that GLEN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A GIRL IN 1990.

Really. No one has proven - to date - that GLEN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A GIRL IN 1990.

So, please - ignore the rumor that GLEN BECK RAPED AND MURDERED A GIRL IN 1990.

Thank you one and all.

The best way to keep a story going is to keep denying it. Or did you not know that? If you keep saying it is not true, the story just gets bigger.

Is President Obama a Kenyan?

See what I mean? It works!

>211 Carnophile:

According to the Hawaian (err....Kenyan) that I work with, yes.

Interesting that the people who claim to be for smaller, localized governments refuse to accept the declarations of a small, State government.

Herman Cain is now receiving Secret Service protection from women accusing him of sexual harassment. Not a good use of taxpayer money.