Open thread Nov. 9, 2011 Dan Crawford | November 9, 2011 3:14 pm Tags: open thread Comments (9) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
I’ll start the ball rolling with what may seem a wild eyed conspiracy theory idea, but….
In a message to Dan I suggested,
Here’s an idea that I think would be an interesting basis for discussion. I’ve been watching the Herman Cain sexual harassment issue unfold in the media. I’m not all that surprised that some dirt has come out or that the right wing is throwing mud fast and furiously. The media seems to be taking a cautious approach to the issue not coming to any conclusions. What little there is to a left of center presence , MSNBC for example, seems to be relishing this new episode in the sorry story of the Republican presidential nomination process.
So I’m sitting there listening to O’Donnell lay it out. He seems happier than the proverbial pig in shit, but he resists calling for Cain to give it up. Rather
he wonders why the Republican Party hasn’t taken any steps to cut short all the bad PR and ask Cain to step out. I wonder to myself, if the events that
have led to the sexual harassment claims back then were, as described by a few NRA connected people at the time, widely known to people in the NRA
how was it that Cain was not so well vetted by his primary support group before being thrust into the nomination process? Could the leadership of Americans
for Prosperity not have been aware of Cain’s interesting tenure at NRA? If so the implication is that they aren’t very adept at the game of politics. I think otherwise.
What if the people at the helm of AFP knew the truth of Cain’s history? Scenario unfolds: pick a buffoon to run for President in spite of his past indiscretions. Don’t
do too much to polish his presentations. Run a series of political ads that bring new meaning to the concept of theater of the absurd. Remember Mark Block blowing smoke into the camera. Now that the popularity of the newest reality TV star is at its height let the bad news escape. At some point the public begins to see the racial issue emerge. Supporters, the very few that there maybe, call it a bias attack, but the bulk of the far right Republican crowd begin to become leery of the black man in their midst. Call me a cynic, but the next pervasive image that begins to build on the right and into the center is that black men are all the same and they can’t be trusted. A halo effect which then damages support from the uncommitted for Obama. All those black men are alike, aren’t they?
Now this may seem far fetched, but is the candidacy of Herman Cain, not to mention Michelle and Ricky Boy, any less absurd? The only Republican candidate on the podium that even sounds like a potential candidate is Romney, and maybe Houseman. So Obama has to be muddied in some indirect way. Make a black man running for President look to be a fool and a predator and the aura of bad behavior spreads to the dim minds of the voters. Draconian though such a scenario may seem, I don’t see any other explanation for a Herman Cain presidential candidacy.
That would be some cold calculation there. I don’t believe it, though; after all, Cain is POPULAR with Republicans, and he’s not a worse candidate than, say, Michelle Bachmann. And he’s more electable than Gingrich or Paul. As the saying goes, never attribute to malice etc.
Cain is popular with the Rs. Your going into Truther land with this kind of stuff. Batmensch is correct,”Never attribute to malice…”
I think Cain never had a chance anyway. The R’s see a deeply hurt and ineffectual Obama and think they can win. What they don’t want to do is run a Dukakis or Kerry. Cain or Bachmann may be good as VP but my bet is Romney or Huntsman will lead the ticket.
If they lead with Gingrich, Paul or Perry they will probably loose even against Obama. Perry seems to be good on the stump and with people but obviously is atrocous in debate mode.
This election is one for the Rs to lose. Which looking at history they are quite capable of doing.
Islam will change
I don’t doubt the choice of Romney or Huntsman or even a “dark horse” (no not Cain) suddenly out of no where. Whom ever, the choice would have to be someone who at least has a Romney/Huntsman image. They appear to be intelligent and capable of not stepping on their own feet. Granted that Romney might not pass the latter criteria. But look at the potential black politicians that could have been pushed to the fore and, at least to my eye, presented a formidable challenge to Obama given his abandonment of his electoral base in 2008. Rice jumps out to the front having no apparent flaws. Even Powell, though he may seem too principled for Republican politics, would be more than respectable as a candidate for President.
Cain, Perry, Bachmann, etc. are serious candidates only to the fringe element of the Republican Party, the Rush Limbaugh Caucus so to speak. They influence early choices because of their loudness rather than their volume. In a national election the Republican Party majority will, I believe, exercise a greater role in the decision when final decision comes up for a vote, even if not until their convention. The primaries only assign delegates to a winner. Right now it looks like no one will go into the convention with anything close to a majority. Then the hustling of real power comes to the fore.
I think the R primaries may look a lot like the D’s in 2008. Maybe with even more than just two. I think all the debates were a dumb idea since it doesn’t seem to be winnowing the field but rather giveing ammo to the Obama re-election campaign. I agree with you about Cain and Bachman (Palin and some of the other nuts) but Perry would be better than Obama – he just can’t win it. He’s pretty good on the stump just absolutely sucks in a debate. And I don’t think anyone saw that coming. Perry may end up with the VP nod as a sop to the rightwing and would have the same influence as Biden. Biden’s big feature is he knows congress and is loyal – not that it did the Dems much good. VPs can’t cover if the big guy is falling on his face.
I think Powell is just done with politics. I would be after all he’s been through. Rice would be an interesting pick as VP. I don’t remeber any huge gaffes (if the Dems can forgive Hillery for helping get the AUMF passed…). And she might be a way to strip off some of the black vote from Obama. If she could make a 25-75 split (for Obama) in the black vote, Obama would need a landslide to win. Rice is also liked by the R’s rightwing.
I’m not seeing where a dark horse would appear, but then again no one saw Palin coming either. Romney would probably put a good team together and Obama will have a hard time running on his record. I think Huntsman would be a good choice also. The economy is in the tank and its been too long to blame Bush (Obama is no FDR). On foriegn policy he’s been practically a Bush 3rd term. Plus Libya.
The wildcard is how the Tea party works the primariesm what concessions they get. that should be an interesting dynamic. The other is if the OWS melts away or turns into something more violent, resulting in harsh crackdowns by Dem mayors. My bet is they melt away in the cold (with some encouragment like what happened in Chicago and other cities). OWS as a movement needs a R President (like the anti-war movement). Doesn’t work with a Dem in the top spot.
Biggest wildcard – coming implosion in Europe.
of course YMMV,
Islam will change
“…but Perry would be better than Obama…” In what alternative universe would that be true?
“He’s pretty good on the stump just absolutely sucks in a debate.” In English, he’s a good old boy and a good back slapper, but he’s a complete idiot who can’t think on his feet. “Here, sign this Governor. It’s just another of those pesky executions of a probably not guilty but convicted guys. Just sign here Rick. The asses on the Parole Board got you back.” Yeh, Perry really has no skeletons in a closet. They’re all laying out on his lawn.
Your general view of the political scene as it is seems to me to be seriously biased through the lens of an anti Democratic Party emotion. I’m curious to know what it is about the Democrats that so puts you off. And I ask that given your seeming respect for Perry, a complete toad.
What puts me off about the Dem party is its statism. The Dems really act as if they don’t believe in individual liberty. They believe in group rights, they beleive in rascism, they don’t beleive in free speech, and they definitely beleive the central Federal government should grow to run every part of your life.
You see it at AB over and over again. Almost every solution of any problem is always solved by giving more power to the central government. Every time.
The Rs are not much better – but they are better.
And Perry would be better than the fool in charge now in any unoverse.
Islam will change
Your entire first paragraph is so inaccurate as to be wholly appropriate to a Rush Limbaugh script. A true Democrat should be focused on enough government activity to administer a complex, modern society. We call it the United States of America. The government should reflect the interests and needs of a reasonable majority of the people without stepping all over the rights of any of its individual citizens. And yes, business interests should be secondary to individual interests though without a loss of the individual rights of a business owner. That doesn’t mean that I can run a hotel and tell a Jew, Muslim or Asian that they are not welcome in my hotel, or restaurant or school. It’s not a perfect system, but its like pornography. We know right from wrong when we see it. At least we should be able to see the difference. Too many people recognize their individual rights before they do so the rights of others.
Look more closely at your own life. Where has the government interfered with your rights and/or personal interests. Leave the hyperbolic commentary out of the discussion for a moment. What is it about your personal experience that is so op[ressed by the government? I can’t begin to list the number of legitimate functions that the government carries out in a brief comment. A large book would be required. Your rights are protected, for the most part. You need to focus a bit more on the vast advantages given to the interests of the business community and its owners and their entourage.
“And Perry would be better than the fool in charge now in any unoverse.”
I don’t think Obama is my ideal. I find him far too accomodating to conservative ideology and the wealthiest sector our society. He’s hardly a paragon of liberal/progressive politics, but a fool he is not. He was certainly smart enough to convince a great many people that his administration would champion far more progressivfe ideals than it has so far. Tell me clearly and succinctly how Rick Perry would be better. Don’t give me BS about the jobs he didn’t create. Don’t tell me you want to carry your gun were ever you may please or that you want to execute a few more people with complete disregard for any evidence of their probable innocence. The man is a caricature of a political leader, a cartoon that has been laughable as a candidate for national office.
First – I haven’t listened to Rush since I first worked in DC and not much even then. And that was over a decade ago. I will grant you that we need enough government activity to run a complex country – no argument there. Where we disagree is on the definition of ‘enough’ and where some of that responsibility needs to be (state vs. Fed). But given that, to answer your question is more where should I start.
So I’ll give you what happened just going through the college applications for my eldest (who is doing very well BTW). My ancestry can be traced back to the Mayflower – father’s side. Basically white (English-German roots). But it turns out that my mother’s side isn’t as well documented in the ancestry department. The rumor was that my great-great-grandfather was a Native American. This would make my son 1/32 native American. Proving that would have given him automatic acceptance into Univ. of Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan etc. Basically he would get in anywhere he wanted short of Stanford. But the real kicker was that he would get in for free. 4 years at UT will run you $80,000. 4 years at Oklahoma – $85,000. OSU = $100,000. Michigan close to $110,000. All would have let him in free – tuition and lodging – just because he was 1/32 Native American. Same with my other two kids. A potential savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. My family has had no interactions with any tribe at anytime. Heck my oldest was born overseas. Yet, if I could prove this huge benefits would flow my way for no other reason than the color of my great-great grandfather’s skin.
Yet if you tried to remove this obviously racist program it would be the Dems who would scream the loudest.
If you want to help under-privileged/poor kids smart enough to go to college – do it based on $ not skin color. Obama’s kids, as part of the 1%, should not be getting any college subsidies, but they will just because of the color of their skin. Look at California’s admissions process for another example.
(Alas it was not to be, turned out he was a gypsy as best I could find out, but definitely not Native American)
The free speech issues, or basically lack of free speech, elliminated not a few of my kids college choices. Michigan was the worst offender of those we visited, to the point almost any speech that made someone ‘feel bad’ was prohibited. What it teaches is never question authority and keep your head down. You can go to the FIRE website if you want a more in-depth coverage.
But it comes down to what we feel is ‘enough’ government. I think the leviathon is to big, way past to big. The Education dept has a SWAT team? Why? Why do we have a Dept. of Education at all? If we cut 5% across the board from every departments budget from last year, do you really think we would notice? At all? If we laid off 5% of the Federal workforce (including military) do you really think you would actually see a difference?
Obama is not my ideal either. I caucused for Hillary. But you on the left let this con-man with no experience in anything take the nomination and the Presidency. And you see it in the horrible recovery, the Fast-and Furious affair and Solyandra (which is just the tip of cronyism Obama has portrayed.) Look, Perry is not my favorite POL, but he did a better job running Texas than […]