Some Crazy Accusations More Equal Than Others

Some Crazy Accusations More Equal Than Others — Herman Cain, the black businessman seeking the Republican nomination for president who was subject to anonymous and unspecific allegations regarding sexual misconduct finally got to face an accuser, Nov. 7, when Sharon Bialek, a Chicago resident with a past history of irresponsible behavior,  held a press conference with her lawyer at her side. Yes, she went into specifics. No corroboration, but there were certainly specifics.

The old, dying but still dangerous, dinosaur old media haven’t stopped talking about it since. Rest assured, though, they will quiet when Cain’s poll numbers drop to a level they deem safe.

Barack Obama, the black senator from Illinois seeking the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, was subject to anonymous allegations regarding sexual misconduct and even murder.  On June 18 of that year, Larry Sinclair, a  Chicago resident with a past history of irresponsible behavior,  held a press conference with his lawyer at his side in which he went into specifics. No corroboration. but certainly specifics.

Did the old dinosaurs discuss it for weeks? Don’t be silly. Some crazy, unprovable allegations are just more equal than others.

If you are interested in a fair comparison:

The Sharon Bialek press conference from Nov. 7, 2011.

The Larry Sinclair press conference from June 18, 2008.

Some Crazy Accusations More Equal Than Others

Herman Cain’s Presidency vs Accuser Babes

Well,let’s step back from the media frenzy surrounding the  growing list of women accusing Herman Cain of….??  “GU”:Generating Uncomfortableness,”GG”(Groping Genitals),
“ACC”(attempted confidentiality coitus), whatever  ,AND calmly think this through.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321187/cain-accuser-filed-complaint-at-next-job/

1)Do I personally think Herman Cain is guilty of  ,at minimum,of occassionally trying to hit on attractive  women ??Yes
2)Do I think he is lying on at least some of this story? Yes

DO I CARE.??NO!

But ,IMO the larger question iso I believe HC would make a good president??ABSOLUTLY ,YES!

To those readers who think my conclusion is ridiculous or demented,let me briefly explain.

1)All politcians lie IMO.Start at the top with Bill Clinton,Hilliary Clinton(“those records  just appeared out of no where on a table in the White House”,FDR, and go all the way down to the local state politican.Start with major “heroes”..Mac Arthur( read”The Coldest Winter” by David Halberstam),Much Decorated :John Kerry.
We would need  many hours just to type in the names of just the politicians.

2)We need a president who has “cajones”.The way HC has faced all the allegations and has not backed down ,surely means he has some big-time…er,ER….courage.To want to become president of the USA,when your father was a chaffeur take unbelievable courage !!Remember the new president will make some tough calls on Iran,North Korea,China’s trade policies.I like  a president with a potential excess of testosteron.

3)We need a president who is really smart!!!HC is VERY SMART.
A degree in mathematics;an advanced degree in Computer Science from a real school(Purdue University).Need I say more?

4)We need a president who knows how to run a business!!HC has met a weekly payroll more times than all the other candidates combined.He  has actually run several businesses(GodFathers Pizza e.g.).The presidency is too important a job for OJT,as we  have learned:a union organizer does not run “a business” enterprise.

5)We need a president who knows the limits of his knowledge.HC has publically admitted that he is no expert on foreign affairs.This is refreshing when we see so many politicians”bluffing” their way through answers to difficult questions(e.g.certain recorded “town hall” meeting held last year)

6)We need a president who has “seen the ghost”.To survive a major cancer scare means that HC has faced the real possibility of dying.This is  a great advantage to a Commander in Chief who realizes his actions will  likely result in the death of US soldiers.Plus:having to over- come a major illness provides remarkable insight  when discussing Health Care Reform issues.

7)The Republican Party needs a major elected black offical to  help under score the failure of the Democrat Party’s “welfare statism”.HC represents acheivment through hard work (prior to “quotas”).While he may not cause a major switch in the monolithic black vote for Democrats,he surely will cause some switching.Along with several other rising Black and Hispanic stars in the Republican party, a brake on the strong hold the Democrat Party has on the Black and Hispanic vote is a must for the future of the Republican Party

I don’t even want to go ,in detail,through the obvious “evidence” about some (or perhaps all of the accusers):financial difficulties,pior records of trying to game the system(e.g. the latest accuser),trying to have an easy “score”( a years salary for “feeling uncomfortable”.,etc).
OH….I forgot ,having Gloria Alred as an attorney(remember the Big Surprise?? Alred  and the weeping  illegal she represented that killed Meg Whitman’s candidaacy in California?)

I say the issues before the country or too huge to get the DEBATE side tracked with this Media Frenzy

Could A Pennsylvanian Be President?

Could A Pennsylvanian Be President? — Pennsylvania is known as the Keystone State and for most of America’s history it was the second most populous one. Yet, it has produced just one president, James Buchanan, who by all accounts was rather bad. In fact, most consider him the worst.

Yes, even worse than Obama, he was that bad.

Well, among those on that Las Vegas stage, Oct. 18, vying for the Republican nomination were two native-born Pennsylvanians — Ron Paul who was born in Pittsburgh and Newt Gingrich who was born in Harrisburg.

Granted, Paul is now a long-time congressman from the 14th District of Texas while Gingrich made his fame as a congressman from the 6th District of Georgia and now lives in McLean, Va. in the Washington Beltway.

And Rick Santorum? Pennsylvania’s former senator was born in Winchester, Va., albeit he would be the only candidate who would list Pennsylvania as his residence if he should win the nomination.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who represents Minnesota’s 6th District, also has a Pennsylvania connection in that she credits former Pennsylvania State Rep. Sam Rohrer with inspiring her to get involved in politics.

And Georgia businessman Herman Cain made his first mark in business by turning around the Philadelphia region’s Burger King franchises, although he made his home in Moorestown, N. J. while doing it.

With regard to Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, it is pretty hard to find a connection to the land of coal, steel and the Liberty Bell regardless of how hard one stretches.

Same would be true of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman who declined to appear in Vegas but remains technically in the race.

There is a caveat to Buchanan being the only Pennsylvanian to be president. Dwight Eisenhower, a native-born Texan who grew up in Kansas, ran as a Pennsylvanian in 1956 to win a second term. He ran as a New Yorker four years earlier. Ike would retire to Gettysburg after leaving the White House.

Ike was a pretty good president.

 

 

Could A Pennsylvanian Be President?

Romney Must Address His Mormonism Now

Romney Must Address His Mormonism Now

He is Republican, pro-defense and hawkish on the War. He is also an unabashed Christian, although his particular sect is viewed with suspicion and prejudice. Oh, and he’s running for president. Based on the recent firestorm that erupted when a pastor called a presidential candidate’s religion a “cult,” it seems clear that we’re talking about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith. But we’re not. The above description referred to none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower–a Jehovah’s Witness for most of his life.

Eight years later, it was John F. Kennedy defending his Catholicism.

Now, it’s Romney’s turn. But he is taking a “leap of faith” by deliberately avoiding discussion about how his Mormonism influences his values, and how he views the relationship between religion and government.

During the last presidential campaign, Romney made a strategic mistake on the religion issue. It wasn’t that he didn’t address his Mormonism, because he did. The problem was his timing. And he seems about to make the same mistake.

*****

In the run up to the 2008 primaries, there was an intense battle inside Romney’s camp over whether Mitt should address the Mormon issue head-on. That the debate even took place demonstrated political naivete on Romney’s part, as well as a lack of historical knowledge.

Romney and some of his advisers actually thought they could avoid discussing his Mormonism. Since he was the frontrunner, how could they have believed that the “Mormon issue” would disappear?

Romney finally made his Mormon speech, but it was too late. Had it been delivered three months earlier, he would have been ahead of the curve, proactively talking about Mormonism on his terms. But that didn’t happen.

Instead, it looked like an act of desperation.

Romney, who had been leading in the early states (in both money and polls) suddenly found himself trailing the surging Mike Huckabee in Iowa, who was also breathing down his neck in New Hampshire and South Carolina. It was only after losing momentum that Mitt decided to address the questions that had long been swirling about his faith. The result was that he looked desperate and disorganized.

Apparently, Romney’s staff thought they could put the issue to rest by emulating Kennedy’s famous Texas speech to Protestant ministers, where he adamantly stated that he would not be taking orders from the Pope. That was a miscalculation on several counts. First, common perception is that Kennedy ended concerns about his Catholicism after that speech. Wrong. JFK felt obliged to address the issue on several other occasions.

More importantly, Catholicism was the largest single religion in the nation, and Catholics made up a substantial and powerful voting bloc in many key states. Conversely, Mormons make up just a fraction of the electorate, and a significant number of voters, especially evangelical Christians, view Mormonism as a non-Christian “cult.”

Romney’s unexpected slip in the polls four years ago was his first major crisis, and how he reacted–some say over-reacted–led to questions about the candidate. Were people put off by a potential commander-in-chief who seemed to panic at the first sign of trouble? Could America afford a president who was seen as indecisive? And just how much of Mitt Romney’s “strong faith” was believable, since his former positions on abortion and gay rights stood in contradiction to the tenets of his religion?

As we know, Romney failed to win the nomination that many experts said was his to lose. Now he’s back in the same frontrunner position, yet is again choosing to remain silent on the Mormon issue.

He sidestepped Rev. Robert Jeffress’s cult remark made at the Values Voter Summit, and failed to directly address another evangelical leader who questioned whether Mormonism was even a Christian faith. A Romney spokesman said he would not address the Mormon issue because he did so four years ago.

Given that the memory span of the average voter is about three months, that’s ridiculous. Failure to act quickly on this matter will undoubtedly cause history to repeat itself.

Like all religions, Mormonism has some tenets that seem quirky to non-adherents. As the primaries draw near, expect those aspects to become front and center on the national stage, both directly and indirectly. With all of Romney’s crisis-management experience in business, he ought to know that it’s always better to take the bull by the horns to define a difficult issue–and being the first to do so. If you allow the issue–or your opponents–to define you, you’re always playing catch-up.

By refusing to address an issue that clearly isn’t going away, Romney is playing with fire. No one remembers his speech from four years ago, but even if they did, he should innately understand that addressing an issue–any issue–just once is meaningless. In the same way that he hammers home his economic plan time and again, so too should he proudly discuss both Mormonism and his personal thoughts on how it affects his life. Not doing so only raises more questions and, by default, gives credence to unsubstantiated hearsay about “strange” Mormon beliefs.

Interestingly, but not unpredictably, several of Romney’s GOP competitors had the opportunity to state that Mormonism was a Christian religion. They took a pass. Why? Because they believe they’ll lose part of their evangelical base, some of whom view Mormonism with animosity.

That’s proof-positive that this issue isn’t going away. All the more reason for Romney to address it, and turn the tables on his competition.

Romney would be wise to study how Kennedy handled the religion issue. By consistently hammering away, JFK made it seem that voting against a Catholic was bigotry, plain and simple. Kennedy smashed a religious barrier that many said would never be broken, not by remaining silent and taking the high road, but with a take-no-prisoners approach in his quest to become America’s leader.

As both Eisenhower and Kennedy proved, it’s the man, not the religion, who will carry the day. But that distinction doesn’t come from rolling over. It is earned. Time will soon tell whether Romney understands that lesson.

 

Romney Must Address His Mormonism Now

Religion In Politics Or How Things Change In 4 Years

Religion In Politics Or How Things Change In 4 Years — A supporter of Texas Gov. Rick Perry said something nasty about the religion of Republican presidential primary opponent Mitt Romney, namely that it was a cult.

Romney, along with fellow moderate Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman, are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. The institution is often called the Mormon Church.

The church uses the acronym LDS when required albeit not as its proper name.

The supporter who said the nasty thing was Robert Jeffress, the pastor of  the 10,000-member First Baptist Church of Dallas, while he was introducing Perry at a convention.

The old media has taken an unusual interest in theological matters and began writing about it and grilling other candidates regarding Jeffress claim.

Perry, who does not attend Jeffress’ church, has said he does not think Romney’s church is a cult.

Now, just suppose Perry, or any of the other candidates regularly attended a church at which the pastor said things like:

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.
The government lied

And

We have supported state terrorism against the
Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because
the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own
front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
 
You think they would mention it? I dunno. Four years ago they didn’t think it was a big deal.

On a lighter note, did you hear about the Occupy Philadelphia protestor who became a Mormon? He was dyslexic.

Hopes High For Successful Pittsburgh RINO Hunt

Tea Party activist Bob Guzzardi is enthused about Evan Feinberg’s chances to unseat go-along-to-get-along, establishment-Republican Congressman Tim Murphy in the  primary election looming for April 24.

Murphy has represented the 18th District, which is near Pittsburgh, since 2003.  RedState.org points out that he has voted for just about every big spending bill that has come his way, and has consistently opposed reforms to combat waste and fraud.

Guzzardi notes that the  district voted 65 percent for Pat Toomey and “is a plus 6 or plus 8, that is, tends ‘conservative’.”

Feinberg told Guzzardi this morning, Oct. 4,   that he will be able to tap into national money to challenge Murphy.

“Evan Feinberg has filed his FEC papers and will be opening a bank account tomorrow,” Guzzardi says. “His website will be up in a few days.”

Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP

Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP


Here’s a message to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: Take care of
business or get off the pot. The “Is he running for president?” story
has to end, right now.

Your indecision is hurting the Republican Party, and, ironically, giving
Barack Obama a much needed reprieve. The time for games is over. It’s
in or out.

Christie is a firebrand, an extremely effective governor who has done
what few thought possible: reform bloated pensions, institute
public-sector union reforms, and balance the budget without raising
taxes. And all that was accomplished with a Democratic legislature. It
doesn’t get any more bipartisan, and miraculous, than that.

But more than anything, Christie’s hallmark is his brusque,
straightforward style. He tells it like it is, from state finances (“the
state is going to go broke” without reform) to yelling at people to
“get the hell off the beach” before an impending hurricane.

Sure, some view him as “in-your-face,” but Christie is far from rude. He
simply expresses himself in a concise, matter-of-fact way. And in
politics, that is rare.

Most endearing is that Christie speaks from the heart — no teleprompters
or note cards. His passion and sometimes aggressive style belies a very
articulate leader, one whose charisma has won over more than a few
adversaries.

People may not agree with Christie, but they always know where he
stands. As a result, he has achieved national status because he embodies
what Americans crave: a leader refusing to dance the Political Two-Step
to avoid tough issues.

Until now.

The governor made a speech this week which was covered by the national
media. It provided the golden opportunity to end speculation about
ambitions for 2012.

In one fell swoop, Christie could have revealed his intentions, and in
that unmistakable Christie way, put an exclamation point on his decision
so that questions would cease.

But he didn’t. Instead, he left the door wide open.

In doing so, for the first time, he looked political. Dare we say it,
but it almost seemed like he was doing the Trenton Shuffle.

And that’s not the Chris Christie we know.

His past statements that he is not running are meaningless. All
politicians say such things, and it was too early for even Christie to
be wholly believed. But it’s a different ballgame now. The primaries
begin in four months, which is barely enough time to organize a
campaign.

Could Christie overcome such obstacles? Absolutely, but only if he
announces within days. Should he ultimately not run, however, the
problem with his nondecision is that it’s hurting the only two viable
Republicans: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Because of the Christie factor, significant uncertainty remains among
Republican powerbrokers, donors, elected officials, and the grass roots.
Instead of a clear-cut race, the battle lines remain blurred, so many
of these folks are sitting on the sidelines, withholding money, effort
and endorsements until Christie makes a decision.

As a result, the front-runners have lost momentum as donations and
support stagnate, and they have been taken off message. Because of the
Christie buzz, anything Perry and Romney say is simply white noise.

Most damaging, however, is that Barack Obama has been given a reprieve.
As president, he is driving the ship, which is listing badly. So any
opportunity that takes the political focus off of himself is greatly
welcomed.

Until the Christie rumor mill is shut down, the president will be able
to regroup and attempt to stabilize his situation. It’s not a panacea,
but it certainly helps.

While that was not Christie’s intention, it is reality.

One of several things is true:

1. Christie has no intention of running, but is badly underestimating how closely people are hanging on his every word.

2. Christie is definitely running, taking advantage of millions in free
media coverage. While a brilliant strategy, its shelf life is measured
in days, and will backfire if played too long. One cannot run a stealth
campaign for president.

3. He really hasn’t made up his mind yet.

The last scenario is most troubling, because if a candidate’s heart is
not in a race, but he chooses to run anyway, it will be a total failure.
The American people can sense such insincerity immediately.

Need proof? Ask Fred Thompson. (And conversely, a tip of the hat to Mike
Huckabee and Mitch Daniels, who both admitted they were lacking the
fire in the belly in deciding not to run).

I have been fortunate to have had a front row seat covering some of Gov.
Christie’s triumphs, seeing firsthand the progress one man can make. It
would be a shame to see that legacy tarnished by indecision.

So with all due respect, Mr. Christie, given the impending political
hurricane, let me paraphrase a popular governor by saying, “Get the hell
in or out of the race!

 Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP

Pa GOP Tea Party Trouble

Pa GOP Tea Party Trouble — Pennsylvania’s Republican establishment has a Tea Party problem.

As indicated in an earlier post, establishment fav Steve Welch is not warming the hearts of those whose votes he needs.

Now, Paula Stiles of the Chester County Patriots is sounding the call for the common folk to attend the General Republican Meeting of the State Committee, which is 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Sept. 17, at Harrisburg Hilton, 1 N. 2nd St., Harrisburg.

“We are asking constituents from every county in Pennsylvania to attend. . . and personally experience the disdain that PA GOP leadership has for their fellow Republicans,” she says. “Please understand, the”leadership” is not elected.”

She says she already has at least one van-full of those attending this rather inconveniently scheduled event.

She asks that those planning to attend to RSVP at terminatorgop@hushmail.com.

 

Pa GOP Tea Party Trouble

 

Pa GOP Tea Party Trouble

 

 

Guzzardi Says Say No To Welch

Guzzardi Says Say No To Welch — Montco Tea Party activist Bob Guzzardi has come out swinging against businessman Steve Welch as a GOP candidate to take on Little Bobby Casey in the 2012 Senate race.

“Steve Welch is a businessman, not a constitutional limited government advocate, (and is) supported by the business-as-usual establishment insiders getting rich from government,” said Guzzardi, who further described him as a “self-funding establishment insider suck up.”

So how do you really feel about him, Bob?

Guzzardi notes that Welch has not been seen at any Tea Party events but has been seen courting the GOP chairman of the counties surrounding Philadelphia.

“Only leftists and liberals equate ‘businessman’ with ‘free market conservative,'” says Guzzardi.

Better-vetted names have been floated as potential challengers to Little Bobby including Bucks County war hero and news commentator David Christian  and, my favorite, former state rep Sam Rohrer.

We certainly don’t need any more I-think-I’m-smarter-than-you types in government.

 

Guzzardi Says Say No To Welch