FYI, the media thinks this is in poor taste. Your intrepid reporter thinks it’s funny. Go figure.
FYI, the media thinks this is in poor taste. Your intrepid reporter thinks it’s funny. Go figure.
Other people would be so uptight, you wouldn’t be able to pull a pin out of their a** with a tractor (one of my favorite expressions).
Not The Herminator:
At a meet-and-greet event Thursday in Michigan, a man asked Herman Cain if he’d heard the latest news about Anita Hill, who is, of course, known for accusing Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in the 1990s. While the conclusion of the man’s question is muffled, he can be heard saying, “You hear the latest news today? Anita Hill is going to come…”
Cain’s response can be heard loud and clear. The GOP candidate, who has been the target of sexual harassment allegations, cracked, “Is she going to endorse me?” The joke drew uproarious laughter from the crowd.
I suppose there is a scenario where this is monstrous. If he were guilty of sexual assault, this would not be so funny. I acknowledge that. But until he’s proven guilty in a court of law, I will afford him the presumption of innocence, and laugh.
I’m a bit late to the party (as you will see, they’ve been drinking for some time), but let’s try to catch up.
The Daily Caller sent a reporter to a Chris Matthews book launch. (The only Chris Matthews launch I’d attend would be if he had been aboard the space shuttle Challenger. And I’d bring popcorn.) She got overtly-gestured by both Bob Woodward and Ben Bradlee. (Where was Carl Bernstein, who allegedly had a penchant for such behavior?)
But it’s what Bradlee said that really turns stomachs:
2:08 into the clip bradlee (evidently drunk) starts his comments.
At 2:28 he makes the comment that Mr. Cain should “run for the roundhouse”..a direct reference to the place (the roundhouse) in Harpers Ferry that runaway slaves “ran” to in escaping their masters wrath during the abolishionist movement.
This clip needs to be shared far and wide..who are the racists now msm (garafolo, et. al.)…..hmmmm
Jim Treacher, in the comments: I’m looking for a citation on this and can’t find one…
Me too, so the final story may yet be written on this one.
However, in this case I am going to invoke the Left’s First Rule of Political Correctness:
If the listener believes, either legitimately or otherwise, that a statement contains a racist slur, no other proof shall be necessary.
On the topic of rich white liberal men, race, and “inappropriate gestures” that make people “feel uncomfortable”…
I forced myself to watch that video of Michael Moore vs the reporter who dared ask him a challenging question.
Until last night, I had no idea that:
a) the reporter was black, and
b) Michael Moore — as Judge Judy would say — “put his hands on him.”
I can’t find anything about a roadhouse in Harpers Ferry either. Let’s just say that Bradlee, in his drunken stupor (been there myself), was trying to make witty, flirty wordplay with the reporter. He comes up with “roadhouse” in place of “White House”, perhaps a reference to Cain’s experience in the hospitality industry. Not overtly racist (God, I love this new locution!), but certainly overtly elitist about a self-made man.
And I will fight anyone who tries to argue that “he had it coming” is not perfectly synonymous with “he needs to learn his place”.
None of us know the truth of the accusations surrounding Herman Cain, but there are a few things to talk about.
Experience with antisemitism teaches us that there are a few libels that get recycled over time: controlling money, Christ killer, war monger, etc., in no particular order.
What are the libels used against black men? Criminal and sexual predator. The sexual predator thing was used to lynch men in the south well into the 20th century, and, I would argue, that what we have is indeed a journalistic lynching.
In the United States of America, you used to have the right to face your accuser. In the age of Obama, the age of Liberal Fascism, we have lost that right. So Mr. Cain must stand before the mob – the media – day after day and assert that he is not a monster, not a sexual predator, to the drumbeat of vague, vicious charges by nameless, faceless women. This is racism because it conforms to the stereotype.
Here’s an article about how and why the press continues the character destruction while withholding the names of the accusers. (And note, the public likes Cain’s personality best of all aspects of the package we are able to discern from the debates. So, rather than talk about his issues, they go straight for the jugular.)
Since Politico first reported the existence of past sexual harassment accusations against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, that publication — along with every other that claims to have learned the identities of the women involved — has refused to publish them.
Regardless of whether the allegations against Cain are true or false, or whether they land in some nether region or “he said, she said,” the public has yet to hear the accusations directly from those who are making them.
Politico won’t provide a reason why it has not published the names of the women, even though it has claimed from day one that it knows who they are.
Politico executive editor Jim Vandehei and spokeswoman Anna Bacon declined to answer The Daily Caller’s requests for comment on why the news outlet has the accusers’ identities hidden. Politico reporter Ken Vogel, who co-authored the story, however, defended his publication’s decision to protect Cain’s accusers from the sort of close scrutiny Cain has already undergone.
“Well, we have been extremely careful with their identities not to reveal them, both out of concerns for their own privacy as well as out of concerns for the nondisclosure agreements that they signed,” Vogel said on MSNBC Tuesday.
“However, we did in fact view the nondisclosure language as well as some of the specific documented allegations that the woman made against Herman Cain. We reviewed that. That was what was part of what made us comfortable publishing this story as to whether these women are going to decide that they want to come forward and need to come forward, because you can’t forget, Herman Cain in one of these interviews yesterday described one of these women’s performances as not up to par.”
Politico, it should be noted, is not party to the non-disclosure agreement Vogel mentioned, and is not bound by it. Nor did Vogel explain why his publication chose to protect only the accusers’ identities, and not Cain’s.
Vogel seems to believe it was Cain who brought the women accusing him of sexual harassment into the story — not the other way around. “So, he is personally bringing them into the story the way they hadn’t previously been, because we decided to protect them,” Vogel said. “If they decide to come forward, certainly his comments might give them fodder to do so.”
Politico isn’t the only news organization hiding the identities of the women making accusations against Cain. The Associated Press is too, and it hasn’t justified its decision to hide their identities. The AP told The Daily Caller that readers should trust the news organization to make the right decision.
“Decisions by our reporters and editors to release or withhold identities are part of our reportorial process on any given story, particularly an ongoing one,” AP spokesman Jack Stokes told TheDC.
Conservative PJ Media reporter Richard Pollock also has learned the identity of at least one of the women, and told TheDC that it is up to her if she wants to emerge to tell her story.
“I think they should decide for themselves whether or not they want to come forward,” Pollock said. “That’s their responsibility. I don’t think it is our responsibility to ‘out’ them without their explicit permission.”
We don’t know what, if anything, he did. But we do know that he is being accused, tried, convicted, and executed by the media.
Fortunately, my heart (and my head) still belong to Sarah, but I had hoped Herman Cain might be able to carry the banner of conservatism.
I’ve reserved judgement on the charges against him because I just don’t know the truth of them. But I have wondered to myself how he could seem to be so ill-prepared for them. Did no one vet him? Did he not vet himself? Given the behavior of the Democrats, he should be able to survive anything but a dead woman or a live boy (Ted Kennedy survived even the former and Barney Frank the latter). But he should have had a defense ready, if not have revealed the incidents on his own (or as much as he legally could).
Instead, he said this:
Seeking to woo skeptical conservative bloggers during a March 2011 conference call, Herman Cain pushed back hard against the notion that opposition research might turn up skeletons in his closet.
Asked directly about negative information that might arise from opposition research, Cain never revealed the sexual harassment allegations he had known about for more than a decade, instead joking about his golf game — and aggressively insisting there was nothing to worry about.
“I don’t have any of those kind of skeletons in my closet,” he assured the conservative bloggers. “And what I have told people [is] if they come up with something to try to damage my reputation, they will have made it up.”
Hey, maybe they did. But then you don’t accuse someone of leaking a story, you accuse them of making it up.
Cain’s misstatements about policy are less troublesome to me. I think I know where his political instincts lie, even he doesn’t always articulate them correctly the first time. If he seems unprepared or caught off-guard, he’s new at this game. But he should have been better prepared for this.
I’ve voted for philanderers before; if Cain turns out to be one, I suppose I will again. As Rush said today, who are we supposed to look to as a model for handling this kind of scandal, Ted Kennedy? Someone get Herman Cain a neck brace.
The media is trying to destroy him. Coke anyone?
I am not linking to anything because I am sure you’re all aware of it. But I would be interested in your comments.
It comes from the NY Times, so I am suspicious, but on the other hand, the American public overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama.
With Election Day just over a year away, a deep sense of economic anxiety and doubt about the future hangs over the nation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, with Americans’ distrust of government at its highest level ever.
The combustible climate helps explain the volatility of the presidential race and has provided an opening for protest movements like Occupy Wall Street, to highlight grievances about banks, income inequality and a sense that the poor and middle class have been disenfranchised.
Almost half of the public thinks the sentiment at the root of the Occupy movement generally reflects the views of most Americans.
With nearly all Americans remaining fearful that the economy is stagnating or deteriorating further, two-thirds of the public said that wealth should be distributed more evenly in the country. Seven in 10 Americans think the policies of Congressional Republicans favor the rich. Two-thirds object to tax cuts for corporations and a similar number prefer increasing income taxes on millionaires.
On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a new study concluding that income distribution had become much more uneven in the last three decades, a report that could figure prominently in the battle over how to revive the economy and rein in the federal debt.
The poll findings underscore a dissatisfaction and restlessness heading into the election season that has been highlighted through competing voices from the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements, a broad anti-Washington sentiment and the crosscurrents inside both parties about the best way forward.
Not only do 89 percent of Americans say they distrust government to do the right thing, but 74 percent say the country is on the wrong track and 84 percent disapprove of Congress — warnings for Democrats and Republicans alike.
The approval rating for Mr. Obama, 46 percent, appears to be elevated by positions he has taken on foreign affairs. Sixty percent of those questioned said they approve of his handling of Iraq, a question added to the poll after his announcement last Friday that American troops would come home by the end of the year.
But the president, whose disapproval rating is also 46 percent, also faces mixed signals from the public about his latest job-creation proposals. While the poll found substantial support for the plan’s individual components, more than half of the public say he lacks a clear plan for creating jobs, despite his extensive travels around the country over the last six weeks selling his proposals.
With the nation’s unemployment rate at 9.1 percent, income inequality remains a palpable issue for Americans. Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of independents and just over one-third of all Republicans say that the distribution of wealth in the country should be more equitable, even as a majority of Republicans said they think it is fair.
“I don’t want to blanket the whole government that way, but it’s getting scary,” said Jo Waters, 87, a Democrat and a retired hospital administrator from Pleasanton, Calif., speaking in a follow-up telephone interview. “Everything is for the wealthy. This used to be a lovely country, but everything is sliding.”
Only about a quarter of the public said that lowering taxes on large corporations or repealing the entire national health care law was a good idea. But half of the public favors reducing or repealing regulations on businesses in the United States.
A remarkable sense of pessimism and skepticism was apparent in question after question in the survey, which found that Congressional approval has reached a new low at 9 percent. The disapproval toward Congress has risen 22 percentage points since the beginning of the year when Republicans took control of the House.
In February, a CBS News poll found that 27 percent of the public said the views of the Tea Party movement reflected the sentiment of most Americans. In the current poll, 46 percent of the public said the same of the Occupy Wall Street movement. “They do reflect the discontent of most Americans,” said Sheila Shriver, 69, a retired special education teacher and independent voter from Columbus, Ohio. “People are unhappy with the way the country seems to be moving, especially when it comes to lack of jobs. Washington hasn’t even been concerned about that.”
Obama will win reelection by dividing us further. But here’s the rub, guys. He couldn’t do that if the American public bothered to be informed. We are too lazy to care.
All the best people are for it:
House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan says he “loves” presidential candidate Herman Cain’s signature “9-9-9? tax plan.
Ryan told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview that Cain’s plan shows the GOP presidential campaign season has entered into a more advanced stage where ideas — not just personalities — have come to the forefront.
“We need more bold ideas like this because it is specific and credible,” Ryan said. “I’m more of a flat-tax kind of a guy.”
The budget chairman went on to say that ideas like Cain’s plan could help shape the debate over tax reform moving into 2013.
“It’s great to see such bold ideas,” Ryan told TheDC.
“I consider Paul Ryan to be one of the brightest minds in Washington, D.C.,” said Mark Block, Cain’s chief of staff, “and for Congressman Ryan to embrace 9-9-9 shows that he also has the leadership to give the American public bold solutions for our current crisis. Mr. Cain looks forward to sitting down with Congressman Ryan.
“Dr. Art Laffer also wrote a piece praising 9-9-9, so you have two of the most respected people that are dealing with economics in America praising 9-9-9,” Block added. “That … speaks for itself.”
Laffer and Ryan like the plan. Go, Cain, go!
And it’s a pretty significant one:
As businessman Herman Cain surges atop state and national polls and becomes a top-tier presidential contender, his signature “9-9-9″ plan, which calls for a nine percent tax on income, a nine percent national sales tax, and a nine percent corporate income tax, has come under scrutiny from the right and the left.
Famed supply-side economist Art Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS that Cain’s “9-9-9″ plan was a pro-growth plan that would create the proper conditions for America’s economy to grow and thrive again.
“Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy,” Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS in a statement. “The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates.”
Added Laffer: “Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9.”
Laffer also said that “such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment.”
That’s all good. One quibble I have, however, is that an income tax and a sales tax amounts to double taxation on workers. Unless “income” is defined to mean all income and not just wages.
I guess I should just read the plan:
The Phase 1 Enhanced Plan unites Flat Tax supporters with Fair tax supporters.
Achieves the broadest possible tax base along with the lowest possible rate of 9%.
It ends the Payroll Tax completely – a permanent holiday!
Zero capital gains tax
Ends the Death Tax.
Eliminates double taxation of dividends
Business Flat Tax – 9%
Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders.
Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for payroll employed in the zone.
Individual Flat Tax – 9%.
Gross income less charitable deductions.
Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone.
National Sales Tax – 9%.
This gets the Fair Tax off the sidelines and into the game.
No payroll tax, no double-taxation, no death tax, yes to charitable deductions… I think I’m in love!
So, Chris Christie is endorsing Romney:
Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey will endorse Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a Tuesday afternoon event at the Marriott Courtyard in Lebanon, New Hampshire, multiple sources confirmed to CNN.
Christie passed on his own run for the White House last week and suggested he might endorse a candidate in the 2012 race.
Rush and Ed Morrissey have opined that Romney doesn’t want this thing to get away from him, so he pushed for this now. Some may be disappointed in Christie’s choice, but, save for his silhouette, he and Romney share a cut of jib.
Look, I hope Herman Cain gets his chance. I’m listening to Bill O’Reilly on local radio at this very moment saying Cain is a neophyte, a poor choice for the office. But Cain has an unshakable foundation of beliefs, and Romney, like him or loathe him, doesn’t. I’ll vote for him without question in the general election, but in the primary, I want my first choice. If it can’t be Sarah, it’ll be Herman.