Category: Election 2012

Santorum Arrogance Will Be His Downfall – Again

Santorum Arrogance Will Be His Downfall – Again

By Chris Freind

The deceased had been incredibly beloved:
successful businessman, political activist, philanthropist and the
ultimate family man. Friends and colleagues from far and wide came to
pay their respects to one who had touched their lives.

Predictably,
the line at the viewing was long that night — more than two hours.
But hundreds dutifully stood, passing the time as best they could under
the circumstances. Millionaire CEO’s conversed with blue collar workers,
reunited grade school friends embraced, and many reminisced of good
memories with their mutual friend.

Standing for hours while
barely moving is tough for anyone, but especially the elderly, as many
were. And yet all persevered, because that is what’s required when
paying final respects to a good friend.

Well, almost everyone.

Turns
out one person didn’t feel like waiting in line like everyone else. A
person who thought of himself as above the “masses,” someone in a class
by himself. Someone to whom the rules didn’t apply.

That person? Rick Santorum.

Instead
of honoring his friend by waiting in line, he glad-handed some
“politically connected” people in the vestibule while ignoring others
who, for some reason, were enthralled to see an ex-senator. After
wrapping up his political agenda at that “event,” Santorum proceeded to
walk right down the center aisle to greet the widow and her family —
completely bypassing the line snaking all the way around the Church.

Incredibly,
to the astonishment of those watching, he then turned around and strode
away, winking and waving to those poor souls stuck in line. Total time
in and out: less than 15 minutes.

Good thing too, for he had to
fly back to Washington to vote on the all-important appropriations bill
and defense budget and… oh wait. That couldn’t have been it, since he
had lost his senate re-election by a whopping 18 points several years
prior.

Santorum’s behavior offered more insight into his true
character than any vote could provide. His selfish actions disrespected
every person in that Church, but most of all the deceased, who, despite
being a big Santorum supporter, apparently wasn’t worth two hours of
Rick’s time.



So why would Santorum deliberately
thumb his nose at the hundreds in line, many of whom had been his
biggest financial and grassroots supporters? The same people, by the
way, that he would later court for his presidential run.

Arrogance.
Plain and simple. (That’s the second unofficial definition of
“Santorum,” and given the vulgarity of the first, we’ll leave it at
that.)

In large part, Santorum’s arrogance led to his shellacking in 2006, yet, as we will see, it was a lesson lost.

It
was arrogance that led him to publish his book before that election,
despite advisors begging him to wait until later, since many parts, they
warned, would be taken out of context by his opponent (which they
were).

It was arrogance that led him to become a big-spending,
big-government Republican while labeling himself a fiscal
“conservative.”

It was arrogance to claim he was a “Pennsylvania”
senator while effectively living year-round — with his family — in
Virginia.

And most damaging, it was arrogance which led Santorum
to endorse liberal Republican Arlen Specter over conservative icon Pat
Toomey late in the 2004 primary election— which many Pennsylvania
Republicans credit as the final push that delivered Specter his razor
thin victory.

For those who claim Santorum had to make that
glowing endorsement because of his Leadership position, think again.
True leaders actually lead because they are following a vision; simply
doing the bidding of others makes one a Leader in name only.

More
significantly, it was Santorum’s portrayal of himself — contrasted
with his subsequent actions — that eventually became a sticking point
for so many of his supporters. He asked people to believe in him,
selling them on the idea that he was not a typical politician, but
instead a man of integrity, for whom principle always came before Party.

Since
political backbone is extremely rare, it’s no surprise that most
politicians do exactly what their Party tells them to do. But Santorum
represented himself as something different. As a result, his repeated
failures as a leader — coming up small when he was needed most — run
deep, and can be attributed more than anything to an arrogance that
playing both sides is a winning strategy.



Nothing has changed.

Fast
forward to 2012. Lost in the media spotlight of the Iowa Caucuses is
the fact that Santorum sold his soul right out of the gate, playing both
sides on one of the most important issues to Iowans — ethanol
mandates.

Santorum voted against the subsidies his entire
legislative career, which included four years as a congressman. Yet
because he felt that he needed the Iowa “corn vote” to be viable, he
changed his tune and pathetically pandered to the ethanol crowd in the
Hawkeye State.

Forget the fact that corn-based ethanol as a fuel
is an unmitigated disaster that has led to higher fuel costs,
skyrocketing food prices, inflation, and hunger, since a staggering 40
percent of America’s corn crop is used for ethanol production. And
disregard the fact that, primarily because of ethanol mandates, the
price of corn hit an all-time high just a few months ago. And ignore
the painfully obvious fact that natural gas — from the virtually
limitless Marcellus Shale under Santorum’s now-adopted home state of
Pennsylvania — is the single biggest key to solving America’s foreign
energy dependence problem.

The biggest red flag for candidate
Santorum is not a policy issue but a question of character. No one held a
gun to Santorum’s head to run for President, nor to compete in Iowa. So
when he made the decision to run, and campaigned as a man of principle,
the very least voters should have expected was a campaign of conviction
— not a politically-calculated flip-flop right from the get-go on the
single-most important issue of our time.

Rather than speaking
the truth and advocating a principled stand — which, ironically, are
what voters are thirsting for more than anything — Santorum chose the
easy way out by becoming that which he claims to abhor. And once one
opens the door of political expediency, rationalizing that it’s the only
way to achieve the next level, the door never shuts, and the slope
becomes too slippery to ever regain one’s footing.

Rick Santorum
worked as hard as any of the GOP candidates in Iowa, but much of his
“success” in that state’s archaic caucuses was based on a false premise
— that he has the character necessary to be a President of true
leadership.

Santorum’s sound bite line after the Iowa results was
“game on.” But as America learns about the real Rick, it will soon be
“Game Over.”

And that’s no corn.

 

 

Santorum Arrogance Will Be His Downfall – Again

Pennsylvanian For President

Pennsylvanian For President — Congratulations Rick Santorum. Considering the puff coverage, establishment support and personal fortune of your main opponent, a second place Iowa finish eight votes back of Mitt Romney can count as a win. Especially taking into account that if it were a two-man race it would have been a landslide for you.

Also, it is very nice that Newt Gingrich seems to be staying in the race for the sole purpose of torturing Romney, whose first name which he never uses just happens to be Willard.

Yes, just like the movie.

Anyway, if you should end up as the nominee you will have no problem beating Barack “The People Are Unemployed? Let Them Eat Arugula” Obama.

Two would be the lucky number. You would be the second Pennsylvanian — OK  you were born in Virgina — and the second Catholic to hold the office of the presidency.

 

Pennsylvanian For President

Regarding The 2011 Pa. GOP Senate Primary

Regarding The 2011 Pa. GOP Senate Primary

By Bob Guzzardi
(Bob is a Tea Party activist from Montgomery County)


The Republican/Democrat Establishment Insiders, apparently, have concluded Pennsylvania’s incumbent U.S. Senator Bob “98%” Casey cannot be defeated because he is so likeable and guileless; they ignore the ObamaCasey fiscally-reckless policy agenda.  Therefore, below are presented policy issues that move Voters; in PART-II, the major Republican Candidates for US Senate 2012 are introduced, for your consideration. Remember, Sen. Bob Casey almost always votes with President Barack Obama.

Judging from public debates held during December, the Pennsylvania Republican Senatorial Primary race will be “positive.”  Competition for the Republican Establishment Endorsement [with no Big Government Establishment “favorite” having yet emerged] and the Primary Race [which some competitors are planning, regardless of whether they are endorsed] will be fiercely contested on issues but not personalities, since no candidate has any major “negative.”

In clear contrast to an anticipated effort of CaseyObama, they all eschew Big Government Command-and-Control Socialism, Centralized and Concentrated in the Federal Government; this will contrast with the self-interested and self-centered Corporatist/Lobbyist Political Network in Washington, D.C.  The focus of all Republican  Senatorial candidates will, likely, be to  contrast their Free Market Constitutional Limited Government positions with that of ObamaCasey on JOBS, ENERGY, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, DEBT AND DEFICIT, and FOREIGN POLICY.

Recommended Reading for these candidates are two key resources on policy issues:   Rick Perry’s “Fed Up!” articulates an intellectually rigorous federalism platform, and Pat Toomey’s “Road to Prosperity” invokes a set of Free Market CATO Institute economic principles.

For independent, intellectually honest and scholarly commentary on Middle East Issues and Israel, Daniel Pipes, President of the Middle East Forum, www.danielpipes.org and www.meforum.org is reliable and comprehensive. For a broader, academic view and topical commentary based on his background in American History and Middle East Studies, see Barry Rubin’s GLORIA CENTER at the Interdisciplinary College in Herzliya and Barry Rubin in PJMedia; he incisively critiques the Obama Administration’s dangerous policies.

Vote-Moving Issues of US Senate 2012 Election
To win an election, a candidate needs to support ideas and policies that move voters to vote for him/her. This is condensed to “the message.”  The core issues in 2012 are, in my opinion:
1)    JOBS, THE ECONOMY and ENERGY, that is, energy exploration and development in the USA and in Pennsylvania.  Energy, Marcellus Shale, and coal create productive, family-sustaining jobs, grow the economy, and raise the standard-of-living for all by providing affordable energy. Energy policy is inextricably linked to jobs, our standard of living, and national security.

2)    ENTITLEMENT REFORM, DEBT AND DEFICIT, GOVERNMENT SPENDING are essential to prevent further devaluation and debasement of the currency that impoverishes all but Government Apparatchiks and self-serving bureaucrats and corporatists feeding off taxpayer financed subsidies . Until the central government, and even state governments, cease siphoning off the productivity of the productive Tax Makers. Restraining the Leviathan’s inexorable growth is tied to creating meaningful and productive jobs which raise the standard of living for all of us. Included in this is the perniciousness of Unions in Pennsylvania and, particularly, PSEA and other public sector unions who are drivers of Alinsky Class Warfare of Have Nots v. Haves. Free Market Republicans represent the Tax Makers and the Union Financed Collectivist Democrats represent the Tax Takers who want money without working or producing;

3)    ISLAMIST THREAT AND NUCLEAR IRAN ARE EXISTENTIAL THREATS.  Islamism is a radical interpretation of Islam. Islamism is a totalitarian, violent, expansionist and fanatical ideology that is implacably, and unappeasably, opposed to American Liberty and Constitutional Limited Government.  Iran is Islamism with Nuclear Weapons. And it is an existential threat to the USA like Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan and NAZI Germany. Islamism, probably, most resembles, in its fanaticism, Imperial Japan;

4) Specifically regarding the funding of abortions and of organizations that advocate and perform abortions, compare the Pro Life viewpoint and Bob Casey’s record on Abortion, elaborated upon here and here.  Most citizens—even those not considered to be Pro-Life by the standards of the Pro-Life movement—are repelled when made aware that the Forgotten Taxpayer is forced to fund a BILLION dollar “nonprofit”; note the PPA’s Annual Reports  through June 30, 2009  which show corporate profits accrued from performing abortions and that salaries for individuals are generous, including that of Cecile Richards [$400K]

Embraceable You
Here is You-Know-Whom with Cecile Richards and Sen. Bob “98%” Casey, Jr.

The Values Vote and Abortion:  Abortion on Demand is unlikely to be an overtly pivotal issue because it is highly unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned for another generation, if then. The Abortion issue, itself, is simply overwhelmed by the Economy, Jobs and Fiscal Instability of the Federal government and Nuclear Iran.

Like every election this is  a Values Election,  a choice between two competing world views:  Secular Humanist European Welfare Socialist State vs. an American Constitutionally Limited State built on American Exceptionalism and the principle that every life has a value endowed by Our Creator and that every life is a life worth living. The choice is between alternative value systems:  the Biblical (Torah) Worldview vs. the bloody and soulless Secular Humanism, Scientific Materialism, and Historical Determinism with the stultifying uniformity of the Leviathan Socialist State.

Fiscally, it amazes me that we, the Forgotten Taxpayer, are forced to fund a BILLION dollar “nonprofit” and PPA’s Annual Reports  through June 30, 2009)  from which some profit rather well and here(2010 CNS) Cecile Richards $400k   Note salaries paid.
(FYI:  I would not be considered to be Pro-Life by the standards of the Pro-Life movement.)

Second-Tier Issues
Restraining the Government Leviathan I would like to see Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce and the Export Import bank eliminated and their legitimate fact finding functions consolidated with, or merged into, other departments. These Departments and the Export–Import  Bank, in addition, to their functions of compiling statistics, are conduits  for massive amounts of taxpayer financed subsidies to the biggest American Corporations, corporatists all, corrupting both economic and political decisions for the benefit  of a few. Ethanol and Farm Subsidies come to mind; Boeing is prime beneficiary of Export-Import Bank guarantees, the centralization of education by the Carter Created Department of Education into a regulatory octopus that has not reduced cost or improved student learning.

TAX CODE and REGULATORY REFORM. Related to job creation and a growing, productive economy is restraining the kudzu growth of endless and incomprehensibly complicated Tax Code and business regulation.  Billions of hours of energy and work to comply with a nonproductive code would be re
leased to build and grow real, productive jobs and grow our standard of living.

BELLING THE CAT
BELLING THE CAT is mandatory.  Message and policies are not enough, for political campaigns (like businesses) are won by competently-executed plans employing quality personnel. The campaigns necessarily need  to create a statewide organization and to raise money (along with personal funds).  The challenges of money and fundraising are unrealistically ignored by TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Movement activists, who sometimes become fixated on policy rather than the reification of those policies.
The US Senate campaign for 2012 will likely require the Republican candidate to raise $20,000,000. Sen. Bob “98%” Casey, Jr. will have the support of every Pennsylvania and National Union who justifiably look upon him as one of their own.

From what I know, only Steve Welch and Tom Smith, and maybe Tim Burns (although Ray Zabourney is a huge drag) have the financial resources to create a state wide organization and raise the money to be competitive with Sen. Bob “99%” Casey’s financial tsunami.
Steve Welch’s campaign team, in addition to the competent Peter Towey, includes the very Establishment and very expensive BrabenderCox, which produced SEPARATED AT BIRTH video, the best I have seen, and Rick Santorum’s former fundraiser and well oiled insider Rob Bickart

Sam Rohrer has many loyal supporters but those supporters do not write checks and do not seem to coalesce into a coherent organization to deliver the message and to get out the vote. The Primary is 24 April and we will know a lot more by then.

Sam Rohrer has wide appeal and an organization but, as was shown in 2010 gubernatorial race, cannot raise the money to run a competitive race nor recruit an effective organization. Sam Rohrer’s messaging skills are exemplary and compelling.

Tim Burns is dragged down by the feckless but connected Ray Zabourney, a spawn of Self-Serving Senate Team of Jubelirer-Brightbill-Long-Nyquist-Crompton
It does not appear that Dave Christian, Laureen Cummings, John Kensinger have the financial or organizational resources or organization to run a primary.

The Candidates

It seems only Tom Smith, Steve Welch and [perhaps] Tim Burns have the financial resources to create a statewide organization and to raise the money to be competitive with the financial tsunami which will be mustered by  Casey.  Sam Rohrer must prove he can match these two criteria.

Opinion

Tom Smith is My Guy. “Independent of Leadership”; “No Squish” on policies and principles and has the resources to run a Primary.

Steve Welch is working hard and his “Separated At Birth” is a gem, maybe the best political ad I have seen.

Tim Burns is highly accomplished and solid.

Sam Rohrer brings very positive name-recognition with an ability to center the discussion on the Constitution and Limited Government and the underlying values of self-government.

John Vernon personified the excellence of our military, but has dropped-out.

Laureen Cummings has been at candidate debate forums and has been well received from media reports.

I have not gotten anything from Dave Christian or John Kensinger and don’t know them nor do I know anyone who does.

I have met with Steve Welch and am very impressed. Steve is building a solid campaign organization with Peter Towey, formerly of the Toomey campaign, and advised by Wayne Woodman, the talented and independent chair of Lehigh County Republicans. Steve is meeting with all the committee people around the state in a well organized effort to obtain the Republican State Committee endorsement and, in my opinion, is the candidate most likely to get the Republican Endorsement.

Tom Smith is unlikely to get the endorsement and has committed to running a primary against the endorsed candidate. Tom Smith as the resources and is building a state wide organization to do that. Steve Welch, also, has the resources and organization and will have to run a primary even with the Republican State Committee Endorsement.

I don’t know if Tim Burns intends to run a primary if he doesn’t get the endorsement. By hiring Harrisburg Republican Insiders, Ray Zabourney and Jan Holman, he is positioning himself to try for the endorsement. I haven’t met Tim Burns, personally, but my sense is his bio mirrors Steve Welch’s as an entrepreneurial, productive job creator.

The Candidates, Alphabetically

Tim Burns is highly-accomplished and solid, an entrepreneurial, productive job creator.  I haven’t met Tim Burns, but my sense is that his bio mirrors that of Steve Welch. By hiring Harrisburg Republican Insiders [Ray Zabourney (and fund raiser Jan Holman)], he is positioning himself to seek the endorsement.  Yet, some feel that he is dragged down by the feckless-but-connected Ray Zabourney, a spawn of the Self-Serving Senate Team of Jubelirer-Brightbill-Long-Nyquist-Crompton.  I don’t know if he intends to run a primary if he doesn’t get the endorsement. Tim Burns has high and positive name recognition in the Southwest and good relations with Rob Gleason, the chair of the State Republican Party.

Dave Christian is from Bucks County, but I have never met him. He has served our country well and is to be honored for that service, defending American security and freedom.
Skip Salveson at Lehigh Ramblings: Christian, a veteran’s advocate and Philadelphia businessman, has worked with various federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Labor, under four U.S. Presidential Administrations in Washington D.C.  He is especially proud of his work in developing jobs, outreach programs and assisting returning war veterans in transitioning back to civilian life. Christian has consistently demonstrated his commitment to veterans. He was responsible for drafting some of the first Agent Orange legislation and for founding assistance programs which established Pennsylvania as the first and only state in compliance with federal regulations with respect to serving employment needs combat veterans.
From Dave Christian’s web site:  In his civilian life, he has owned and operated a number of business ventures. He established DAC Consulting Firm which focuses on developing relationships between American and foreign companies for investment opportunities. He is the president of a defense manufacturing company located in Northeast Philadelphia which builds ground support equipment for US Navy Aircraft Carriers.
Tom Fitzgerald, The Inquirer, Big Tent, writes on 11 July 2011:  He said his exploration “is going to be short and sweet,” and that whether he can raise enough money would be the most important consideration. Christian said he would put some of his own money into a campaign as well as raise contributions from others.

Laureen Cummings—  I have never met her; I’m told she is exceptionally articulate and knowledgeable. She is “TEA [Taxed Enough Already”] Party”-oriented and, thus, committed to Constitutional Limited Government, Economic Freedom and Personal Responsibility.  Competition and choice are keys to quality and, thus, she merits a serious hearing.  Her Communications Director [@ 570-291-5658] notes that she had 20-plus years of business administration experience before starting her own business adding that, during the three years after she had started and grown her business, she was
•    awarded Businesswoman of the Year by the NRCC Business Advisory Council
•    nominated and served 2 years as Secretary on the Board of the Greater NE Chamber of Commerce
•    nominated to Who’s Who among Woman.
She is a tea party activist and the Founder of the Scranton Tea Party but she is much more.
She is currently serving as Republican Committeewoman, Old Forge Ward 3-0. Laureen recently testified in Harrisburg at the Right to Work hearing giving voice to the many wives of Union men that feel enslaved by the very system that provides their financial security.

She is a small business owner in the field of health care. As a nurse and a business owner in the healthcare field, she has personally seen the effect of the government on her business and the lives of her patients. She knows better than any of the other candidates how important it is to repeal “ObamaCare.”

She has worked with multiple campaigns and helped with her precinct, tea parties, at rallies and marches all the way to D.C., and has a history of fighting for the rights of the people as well as educating the people of their rights.

John Kensinger — I know nothing at all about this Bedford County pharmacist. The website suggests his campaign is thinly-funded.

Robert Allen Mansfield –I have met Robert several times and he is engaging, transparently decent and patriotic with a compelling biography and message; all good but not enough. Money and Organization are fatally missing.

Sam Rohrer —   is well-known as a conserver of Constitutional principles.  He brings very positive name-recognition with ability to center discussion on the Constitution and Limited Government and the underlying values of self-government; his messaging skills are exemplary and compelling.   He has many loyal supporters who, alas, do not write checks, as was shown in 2010 gubernatorial race; he must show that he can raise the money to recruit a coherent organization that will effectively deliver his message and get out his vote in a competitive race.

Marc Scaringi —  I have met him and he is polished without being slick. Like Laureen Cummings, he does not seem to have executive experience. He is an energetic and committed candidate, but his financial resources are limited; he seems to lack an organization that would enable him to run a statewide primary.

Tom Smith —  is My Guy. I want biases to be candid. He has extensive financial resources to run a very competitive primary against the Establishment’s Endorsed Candidate. Not only has he built a multi-million-dollar energy business [evidencing strong entrepreneurial and executive ability], he is solidly committed to Tea Party principles. In my opinion, energy, particularly, Marcellus Shale is the key to productive jobs that raise our standard of living; Tom Smith has real world experience in creating energy jobs.  Tom Smith on Energy: There is no quicker path to American jobs than American energy. Tom knows we need an energy policy that brings all options to the table to reduce costs and reduce our dependence on foreign sources. The Marcellus Shale, American oil, and clean coal are tremendous opportunities to bring the cost of energy down and create jobs.

Steve Welch — is working hard; I have met with him and I am very impressed.  He is building a solid campaign organization, led by Peter Towey [formerly of the Toomey campaign] and advised by Wayne Woodman [the talented and independent chair of Lehigh County Republicans]; it includes Rob Bickart [Rick Santorum’s former fundraiser and well-oiled insider]. Also assisting is the very Establishment and very expensive BrabenderCox, which produced the “Separated At Birth” video that is a gem, perhaps one of the best political ads ever created.   He is meeting with state Committee-People throughout the Commonwealth, promoting a well-organized effort to obtain the Republican State Committee endorsement.  Thus, he may be the candidate most likely to receive the Republican Endorsement.  If he does not receive it, he still has sufficient resources and organization to run a primary.

John Vernon – announced he was dropping  out  on Dec. 13.

Feinberg RINO Hunt May Get Some Big Guns

The young man primarying the more-liberal-than-he-should-be Republican representing the 18th Congressional District outside of Pittsburgh may be getting some high-caliber endorsements.

PoliticsPa is reporting that senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma are considering supporting Evan Feinberg, who served as an aide to both men, over long-time fellow party member  Timothy F. Murphy.

Murphy has a history of supporting Democrats and other big-spenders on budget-busting votes.

Hat tip Bob Guzzardi.

Mansions Of Mitt

Mansions Of Mitt — Tea Party activist Bob Guzzardi informs us that GOP presidential nominee hopeful Mitt Romney is a man of many mansions.

Bob points out that Mitt has a townhouse in Belmont, Mass.; a $10 million home Wolfboro, N.H.; an 11-acre ski estate in Park, Utah; and $12 million home in La Jolla, Calif.

Man of the mansion does not equal man of the people.

 

Mansions Of Mitt

Sam Rohrer Unofficially Enters Senate Race

Sam Rohrer Unofficially Enters Senate Race — Sam Rohrer, the statesman who gave Tom Corbett a scare in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, will officially announce on Nov. 21 his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Little Bobby Casey (D) according to an email blast sent by Nathan Rohrer, his son and campaign advisor.

The announcement will be made 4 p.m. in the Governor’s Ballroom of the Camp Hill Radisson, 1150 Camp Hill Bypass.

If you can’t get to Camp Hill to meet the man, Rohrer will be among the GOP senate hopefuls appearing before the Delaware County Patriots Tea Party group, 7 p.m., Thursday, Nov. 17 at  the Knights of Columbus Mater Dei Hall, 327 N. Newtown St. Road, Newtown Square.

The others schedule to appear are Steve Welch, Marc Scaringi, and John Kensinger. Moderator will be Kevin Kelly of the Loyal Opposition, a Philadelphia-based Tea Party group.

Seating is limited. To reserve a seat call 610-572-3442.

 

Sam Rohrer Unofficially Enters Senate Race

Larry Sinclair Or Some Crazy Accusations More Equal Than Others

Larry Sinclair Or  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 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.

Larry Sinclair Or Some Crazy Accusations More Equal Than Others

Larry Sinclair Or 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