November 8-10, 2011
Nov 08 12:02 Imagine Nov 08 15:43 Kos Questions Clark's (In)Consistencies Nov 08 19:11 Newt dazzles Special Report panel Nov 09 02:17 Sauk Rapids, Rice voters reject school 2 levy questions Nov 09 08:43 The face of the Cain campaign Nov 09 13:51 Newt: the reliable growth stock? Nov 10 09:46 Debate Notes Nov 10 13:11 About one trick ponies and incompetents Nov 10 16:47 The NLRB must be dismantled
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Imagine
Imagine if, during the 2008 Democratic Party's primaries, then-Sen. Obama said that he didn't know anything about the Palestinians' right of return. Wouldn't conservative talk show hosts like Sean Hannity justifiably take then-Sen. Obama to the policy woodshed?
Imagine if the Democratic Party's nominee said that he'd consider releasing a Gitmo prisoner to obtain the release of an American hostage. Wouldn't Mark Levin have taken the Democrats' candidate to the woodshed? Wouldn't he have ample opportunity to belittle the candidate?
Imagine if the Democrats' nominee said that he was "personally pro-life" but that he thinks the decision should be left to the woman and her family. Actually, that isn't a hypothetical situation. John Kerry actually said that. Nobody thought for a split second that Sen. Kerry isn't pro-choice.
Didn't conservatives ridicule Sen. Kerry for that statement?
It's shameful that some of the biggest voices in talk radio have defended Mr. Cain without pointing out his shortcomings. If Republicans want to have any credibility with independent voters, they can't play these types of political games.
Independents won't be impressed with that type of intellectual duplicity. To earn independents' votes, conservatives need to apply the same principles with conservatives as they apply with progressives. Thus far, they've failed that test badly.
In 2008, conservatives, especially Mr. Hannity, complained that people didn't vet then-Sen. Obama. Less than 3 years later, Mssrs. Hannity, Levin and Limbaugh are refusing to vet Mr. Cain because 'he's one of ours.' That type of thinking must end ASAP.
The job of these 'great pontificators' is to offer insight, partisan though it may be, into the strengths and weaknesses of the GOP presidential candidates. They don't have to pick sides. It's their responsibility to do the research and provide the insight.
That isn't too much to ask.
Posted Tuesday, November 8, 2011 3:34 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 08-Nov-11 12:18 PM
Cain's biggest problem is his politics, and ties to the Koch brothers. That makes him unfit. It moots questions about who he groped or talked to inappropriately in the past. In the present, he's unfit by the company he keeps. Plus there is that money thing the Milwaukee paper uncovered, Cain and his campaign manager, juggling.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-11 03:07 PM
You're saying that associations matter? Should President Obama's patronizing of the rapists, anarchists, Marxists & arsonists of the OWS movement disqualify him from running a 2nd term? for that matter, should Obama's attending a bigoted church that thinks America is a downright evil nation disqualify him from running for a 2nd term? Most importantly, shouldn't his close contacts with an admitted domestic terrorist disqualify him from a 2nd term?
After all, there's proof that there's a connection between Obama & these despicable people. You don't have proof that the Koch Brothers are tied up in anything nefarious. You just disagree with their policies. That's a far cry from the evil that OWS, Jeremiah Wright & Bill Ayers have done.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 08-Nov-11 09:56 PM
You're still complaining about something of a double standard. The MSM will never expose the most glaring failures of Leftists like Obama; it is left to conservative media to do that job. But conservative media do not have to point out even the most minor failings of our candidates, because the MSM will pound those stories (and lies) into the ground, endlessly. It falls to conservative media to defend our people to the degree it is possible, or at minimum to point out MSM perfidy and the double standard.
Kos Questions Clark's (In)Consistencies
This Kos post questions a) whether Tarryl Clark is liberal enough and b)whether she's pro-union enough. To read this post is personally delightful.
It is shocking, then, to watch DFLer Tarryl Clark tap dance around the issue during this St Cloud Chamber of Commerce debate with Michele Bachmann and Bob Anderson in 2010:
I've always had good working relationship with our business community and with labor. I want to work with both sides to be sure we have a level playing field for business and for our employees...a much bigger issue right now for our businesses and our employees is this continual outsourcing of our jobs...this is not the big issue in front of us, what the big issue is, is how we're going to get back to creating jobs.
I attended that debate. It was apparent to everyone in the room that Tarryl was finished if she answered that question honestly. I said that Tarryl hasn't stood up to the unions :
Tarryl denied that she'd vote for EFCA, aka Card Check. She's been endorsed by every alphabet union imaginable. Ditto with organizations like EdMinn and the Teamsters.
Should I believe that the biggest item on the unions' priority list isn't a priority anymore? Should I believe that Tarryl told a great big whopper? It isn't that she's stood up to the unions before.
Whatever the CD-8 DFL decides is up to them. Whatever Kos wants to do is up to him. Saying that Tarryl isn't pro-union enough, though, is utterly laughable. Days after Tarryl's website appeared, it was filled with union endorsements :
Here's a comprehensive list of the unions that have endorsed her:
Greater Minnesota AFSCME, Council 65
Teamsters Joint Council 32
Minnesota Nurses Association
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees
SEIU Minnesota State Council
Minnesota AFL-CIO
AFSCME Council 5
Education Minnesota
That list makes this part of the Kos post that much more delicious:
Clark's refusal to take a stand on the Employee Free Choice Act is inexcusable and unacceptable. Indeed, Trumka makes it quite clear there is no equivocating on this issue; if you are not with us, you are against us:
When it comes to politics, we're looking for real champions of working women and men. And I have a message for some of our "friends." It doesn't matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside - the outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren't blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families' interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be - now, in 2012 and beyond.
That's right, Mr. Trumka. You can't trust Tarryl, especially on union issues. It's time to throw her under the bus for a true hardline union supporting candidate for Congress.
Seriously, it's a hoot for conservatives like me who've followed Tarryl for 5 years getting called too wishy-washy by hardline progressives. It's positively delicious.
Posted Tuesday, November 8, 2011 3:43 PM
No comments.
Newt dazzles Special Report panel
Tonight was Newt's turn to sit in Special Report's Center Seat as part of their series of interviewing and questioning the GOP presidential candidates.
The broadcast portion of Special Report was illuminating in several ways. The most newsworthy portion of the broadcast came after Steve Hayes played Newt's commercial with Nancy Pelosi. Steve Hayes then essentially asked Newt to explain or justify his actions. Newt didn't take the bait, instead saying that he'd made a major mistake.
Another newsworthy moment came when Newt was asked about Mitt Romney throwing it in his face that, at one time, he and the Heritage Foundation supported the individual mandate. He said that, at the time, Hillarycare was being debated. Newt then said that he, along with the Heritage Foundation, agreed that the individual mandate was "less destructive" than Hillarycare.
Newt then said that they came to understand that the individual mandate wasn't workable. Newt then showed his sharp political elbows, saying "If I can admit that I'm wrong, why can't Mitt admit that he's wrong."
The other thing that jumped out during the broadcast was Juan Williams' question about Drill Here, Drill Now. Juan asked "considering the bad environmental track record" of fossil fuel pipelines, did Newt regret his support for Drill Here, Drill Now?
Newt immediate attacked the premise that there's "a bad environmental track record" with fossil fuel pipelines. Juan immediately countered with the spill in the Gulf and the Alaskan pipeline.
First, Juan didn't have his facts straight. There's never been a spill connected with the Alaskan pipeline. Second, the spill in the Gulf wasn't pipeline-related. Third, as Newt correctly highlighted, "it's amazing how much oil and natural gas gets sent through pipelines" without incident.
He then addressed the environmentalists' trumped up allegations that the Keystone XL Pipeline could potentially harm a major aquifer, saying that the allegations are phony.
On the issue of Iran, Newt said that it's time for America to quit pretending that there's common ground between the mullahs and our nation. He said that people have operating from that premise "since 1979" and it hasn't worked. He also said that his administration would take the stance that President Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II took in destroying the Soviet empire.
That means taking out Iran's refinery, supporting "every dissident group" with communications capabilities so they could lead the overthrow of the mullahs. Newt said that covert operations would be an important part of his administration's policies, too.
Apart from policy matters, Newt told the panel that he'd "raised $2,000,000 in the last 5 weeks" and that the "fundraising pace was accelerating." He then said that he's opening new offices in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Newt then said that he already "has a number of offices open in Georgia and Florida."
He noted that most of his fundraising is coming from online contributions, a sign that he's generating enthusiasm as well as contributions.
During the online show, Newt fielded more questions about health care. Right before wrapping up, Newt asked if he could "get a consensus from the panel that I'm still alive." Charles' witty reply was that, since he's a doctor, "Get me a stethoscope." Both men's one-liners drew hearty laughter from the rest of the panel.
It was a strong performance by Newt, partially because he didn't hesitate in admitting that he'd made a mistake on the individual mandate and with making the global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi. His were the answers of a confident man, carrying with them the attitude that everyone makes mistakes so it's foolish denying making a mistake.
At the end of the day, Newt's understanding of the most important issues of the day is reassuring to voters. His willingness to admit that he's made mistakes, along with his penchant for praising other GOP presidential candidates, is endearing himself to the people.
This race isn't finished. This race is just getting started. Things will get more interesting from here on out. It's what political junkies like me live for.
Posted Tuesday, November 8, 2011 7:11 PM
Comment 1 by Duke Powell at 10-Nov-11 08:44 AM
Gary, you are a very wise man. Excellent post. Given the present field, I'm leaning Newt.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-11 09:57 AM
Thanks Duke. It's important to remember that Newt's been the subject of withering attacks from the Clinton War Room. Despite the personal attacks, Newt emerged victorious, getting 8 of the 10 items on the Contract With America signed into law.
The Obama attack machine won't frighten or intimidate Newt. It's that simple.
Sauk Rapids, Rice voters reject school 2 levy questions
Voters from Sauk Rapids and Rice didn't find it difficult to say no to the SRR school board's request for more of their money. Dave Aikens' article provides the details on Tuesday night's results:
The first question, which would have raised $944,000 a year for 10 years, failed 2,430 to 1,996. The second question, which would have improved technology in the schools, went down 2,549 to 1,881.
SRR voters rejected the first question by a 55-45% margin. That should get their attention, especially considering the fact that that was the closest of the questions. The second question was defeated by a 57.5-42.5% margin.
The biggest message sent by voters Tuesday night was that they weren't willing to raise their taxes to support a school system that's failing their children. The reality is that the SRR system needs to change ASAP. It doesn't need a little tinkering here and there. SRR needs a substantial transformation.
The question that didn't get answered tonight was whether Superintendent Bittman and the SRR school board will listen to the voice of the people. It isn't a given that they'll hear the warning that voters sent them tonight. If they don't start paying attention, they'll be the next to get the boot.
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 2:17 AM
Comment 1 by Tammy Quist at 07-Nov-12 02:19 AM
I am a parent of a student who has attended Sauk Rapids schools for five years. My son is getting a great education, so not really tracking with your comments...
Why not try being a part of the solution instead of a part of the problem??? You seem to feel comfortable slamming the school and threatening the administrators and school board. How about identifying the problems you see and suggesting solutions?
People like you do not help move us forward. If you can't work collectively to solve our problems, shut the **** up!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-12 04:20 AM
Since when is higher taxes & worse results "moving forward"? The school board treats parents like nuisances, not partners. How's that help move people forward? Pull your head out of your ass & realize that you're buying pretty-sounding spin instead of finding real solutions.
The face of the Cain campaign
Katrina Trinko's post at the Corner proves that Mark Block, aka Smoking Dude, won't hesitate in making reckless accusations:
On Fox News' Hannity tonight, Cain chief of staff Mark Block said that Karen Kraushaar, who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment during his time at the NRA, was the mother of a Politico reporter. But while there is a reporter named Josh Kraushaar, he denied on Twitter tonight that he is any relation to Karen Kraushaar. Josh Kraushaar did used to work for Politico, but is now at National Journal.
When Hannity inquired if Block was certain about this, Block replied, 'We have confirmed that he does indeed work at Politico and that is his mother, yes.'
Last week, Block told FNC's Brett Baier that the Perry campaign had leaked the NRA story. His proof? A guy that worked with Cain on his Senate campaign had gone to work for Perry's campaign.
This week's accusation is that one of Politico's reporters is the son of one of Cain's accusers. His proof? They both have the same last name.
In 2008, people got the impression that President Obama could run the country because they ran a great campaign. I didn't buy into that argument but it's a plausible argument to make.
Based on the senior staff that Cain pulled together, it isn't a stretch to think that a Cain administration would be filled with incompetents like Mark Block. We certainly don't have proof that Cain's potential administration would be competent, much less be topnotch.
The Cain campaign is imploding before our eyes. His support is starting to disappear. I'm betting that he won't be a factor in the Iowa caucuses.
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 8:43 AM
Comment 1 by edthurston at 09-Nov-11 11:20 PM
Mark Block, you think like the person you are endorsing for presidency. You don't watch whatever words that comes out of your mouth. When you are a public figure and much so if you want your endorsed candidate to be voted, you need to give out factual information and this has to be verified a thousand times because when yo are proven wrong all of it will back fire to you. You are bringing this campaign down. (related post: http://HermanCainsTaxPlan.com)
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Nov-11 11:32 PM
Let's be fair about this. Mark Block is terrible but so is Cain. His answer for everything is his bold 9-9-9 plan.
He was asked about student loans, which Maria Bartiromo rightly said had nothing to do with his signature plan & Cain still worked his bold 9-9-9 plan into his reply.
His 9-9-9 plan hides the fact that, apart from tax policy, the guy is a blithering idiot. He's clearly unschooled on foreign policy/national security. He couldn't explain the need for regulatory relief if his political life depended on it. He's ok on banking but, even there, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul & Mitt all outshine him.
Cain can decide for himself if he wants to continue but his campaign is history.
Newt: the reliable growth stock?
With the drumbeat of positive Gingrich articles continuing, even increasing, it wasn't difficult to predict that Newt's stock would rise. This article verifies Newt's rise:
GOP presidential candidate and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich's stock is up on the Iowa Electronic Markets, a real money futures market operated by the University of Iowa's Tippie College of Business.
Gingrich has seen a spike in the price of his stock, which started out near $0 but is now nearing $.40. That means traders think Gingrich has a 40 percent chance of finishing in the top two in the Iowa Caucuses.
To be accurate, Mitt's stock is trading at $.75. Still, if Newt's debate performances continue, which is likely, Newt's stock will continue its rise.
That isn't just my opinion. Dorothy Rabinowitz thinks Newt's got a shot , too:
"Substance" is too cold a word, perhaps, for the intense feeling that candidate Gingrich delivers so coolly in debates. Too cold too, no doubt, to describe the reactions of his listeners, visible on the faces of the crowds attending these forums, in their expressions, caught on C-SPAN's cameras, in the speed with which their desultory politeness disappears once a Gingrich talk begins. Their disengagement, the tendency to look around the room, chat with their neighbors, vanishes. The room is on high alert.
That type of visceral reaction is something that Mitt Romney can't do. Making personal connections with voters is what Newt's about. The Contract With America forged that connection with voters in 1994. Prior to 2010, that was the high water mark in terms of net seats gained in the midterm elections.
For all the talk about Mitt's electability, the reality is that Newt's plethora of compelling solutions to America's biggest problems will appeal to independents. Most independents are conservative-leaning. It isn't a stretch to think that compelling solutions will appeal to the solutions-starved masses.
People instinctively know that DC's regulations are crushing the American economy. Likewise, they know that robust domestic energy production will lead to more jobs, thereby solving two crises with one policy change. Most importantly, people know that we're on the wrong path.
They've rejected President Obama's policies. The most formidable anti-Obama is Speaker Gingrich. During a TV interview with Hannity, Frank Luntz stated that Newt would win the nomination if people started picturing Speaker Gingrich debating President Obama.
I agree with that.
I'd further add to that this insight. I remember the passing of the Contract With America in their first 100 days. I remember watching Bill Clinton sign into law 8 of the 10 Contract items. I remember that the only things that didn't pass were the constitutional amendments.
Most importantly, I remember that those policies lead to 4 straight surpluses and 11,000,000 new jobs being created and ending welfare as we knew it.
How good would it be to elect someone who's created federal surpluses, created millions of new jobs and who's reformed federal entitlematients? It isn't like President Obama's plans would lead the nation there.
That's why more people are seeing Newt as the best growth stock on the market.
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 1:51 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Nov-11 09:46 PM
You seem to have made up your mind! :-)
I'm still hoping for an inconclusive primary process (maybe they wouldn't keep getting so ridiculously early) and a GOP convention in August that goes more than one ballot. Apparently we haven't had one since 1948. It's not nostalgia, either, but a matter of forcing Democrats to run their screechingly negative campaign on multiple fronts, cutting down their war chest against our eventual nominee. I prefer Newt for that slot, too, but I'm trying to "hold my fire" as long as possible.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Nov-11 11:34 PM
A convention that went in without the nominee picked would be terrible. The divisions within the party would be pronounced. They'd hand the election to the Democrats.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 10-Nov-11 08:37 AM
You are no doubt correct. Since the start of televised conventions, party divisions, even amicable ones, have been (at least assumed to be) the kiss of death for a presidential candidate. Of course, we haven't had a brokered convention, or even a convention go beyond the first ballot, since 1948. Would it really be fatal to have it go TWO ballots followed by the Great Unity Show?
Again, I'm trying to avoid the great media piling-on that will occur the moment we have a single nominee, or ANY candidate that pokes their polls up too high. They have destroyed Perry, Bachmann and Cain already, and I don't want Newt to be next. If all it takes is a few completely unfounded allegations about sexual harassment to take down a front-runner, I can guarantee you Newt is the next order of toast.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-11 09:54 AM
'The Barrage' is coming for whichever GOP candidate emerges so that's already 'baked in the cake'.
I'm betting, though, that Newt's gravitas, as opposed to Cain's poor grasp of the issues & Mitt's flip-flops & liberalness, will shine through.
Cain is a one-trick pony. Even when he was asked about student loans, he essentially skipped the question to talk about 9-9-9.
Bit-by-bit, people are noticing that he's clueless about anything beyond 9-9-9.
The media didn't destroy Perry, Bachmann & Cain. Those candidates destroyed themselves, if, indeed, they're destroyed.
Perry & Michele can talk with authority about health care, energy policy, regulatory reform and national security.
I cringe anytime Cain is asked foreign policy/national security questions.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 11-Nov-11 10:29 AM
While I don't disagree entirely, I think the MSM has certainly aided and abetted the "fall" of these other "not-Romney" candidates. Bachmann tried to climb to the Big Stage and play with the Big Boys before knowing how the game is played. She was able to handle the MSM, always has and her talent is somewhat needed among the GOP in general, but she didn't understand how to run the big campaign. Perry was the opposite, in that he knew campaigning and fundraising but didn't have the fire for the job nor the time to prepare an extensive, positive agenda on which to campaign (whether he COULD is another matter. And Cain, I think you are right, suffers from both the Bachmann and Perry problems.
Newt has spent years developing his proposals, studying campaigns (and Obama's weaknesses) and has high name recognition nationwide, all positives. He has shown an ability to handle the MSM in Bachmann style during the debates, and he plans to release his huge "Contract" on Sept. 27th, which should keep the MSM bogged down in its details until election day, leaving them little time for their usual personal-character "ambushes" like they have done with Mr. Cain.
Debate Notes
This morning, the networks are buzzing about Rick Perry's inability to remember the third cabinet office he'd close. While that certainly is buzzworthy, it isn't the only thing that's buzzworthy.
The thing that's newsworthy (rather than just being buzzworthy) was the revelation of the fact that Herman Cain is a 1-trick pony. That was clearly illustrated when Maria Bartiromo prefaced her question on student loans by saying her question had nothing to do with the main talking point of his campaign.
Despite that shot across his bow, Cain still worked 9-9-9 into his reply. In fact, he didn't actually address the subject of Ms. Bartiromo's question.
Initially, 9-9-9 got him noticed. It's worthless policy but it's wonderfully packaged worthless policy. The bad thing about wonderfully packaged worthless policies is that they have a limited shelf life. The bad thing for Mr. Cain is that people won't elect someone who isn't qualified to talk about anything other than tax policy.
Another website said that Mitt was "cute grumpy" and that the rest of the candidates were just grumpy. That's BS or it's projection or it's both. I'm leaning towards both. Newt got testy with Ms. Bartiromo when she gave the candidates 30 seconds to explain what they'd do if they got Obamacare repealed.
Newt's reply that 30 seconds to talk about an issue as complex as health care wasn't doing the question justice. Nonetheless, Newt finally replied and gave a pretty good answer.
Again, Mitt went unchallenged. Republican primary voters need to remember that Mitt doesn't handle criticism well. Newt, on the other hand, responds to it well.
Finally, what's apparent is that Newt's understanding of the entire range of issues that presidents must have an understanding of is extensive and impressive.
Most impressive is that his solutions are unquestionably conservative and innovative.
Posted Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:46 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 10-Nov-11 10:45 AM
Dropping the Tea Party favorite over unfounded allegations and smears in favor of the guy whose adultery is not only documented but admitted will only make things worse.
I'll grant you Gingrich is a great thinker. But he's a link to the failed past, he's an insider, and he's not electable due to his past baggage. No thanks.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-11 01:13 PM
Newt isn't an insider. He's worked in DC but that doesn't make him an insider.
It makes him a skilled politician but that's what's required of presidents.
PS- creating 11,000,000 jobs & running 4 straight surpluses isn't "the failed past." It's a glimpse into an exceptionally bright future.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 11-Nov-11 10:12 AM
Just visited Newt's website again, and the ideas-- the "21st century Contract" are detailed and spot on target, as well as "innovative" in the sense of the obvious truth that no one in DC dares speak.
That said, as the other commenter says, Newt DOES have "baggage" and the negative campaign Obama must run, in conjunction with the MSM's many long knives, will make it difficult for Newt to be successful.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 11-Nov-11 10:42 AM
That these candidates have baggage is a given. Whether it's Rick Perry's signing the DREAM Act or Cain's scandal allegations or Newt's personal baggage or Mitt's flip-flop-itis, baggage has been baked into my cake since mid-summer.
I've given Obama's looming negative campaign this nickname: "The Barrage."
Let's remember that Newt was the subject of a whithering personal attack by the Clinton War Room as Speaker. He didn't just survive that attack. He got all 8 legislative initiatives of the Contract With America signed into law.
Can you picture Mitt standing up to the withering attack that's heading his way? I can't.
Finally, it's worth noting that the American people will turn against nasty personal attacks. Newt's rise has been the result of his statesmanship & his policies.
If President Obama wants to go negative early & often, it's likely to backfire.
About one trick ponies and incompetents
Ed's post about Mark Block's incompetence and Mr. Cain's refusal to fire a person as incompetent and gaffe-prone as Block is spot on. It's what I've been writing about for a week. Here's what Ed said:
Loyalty is an admirable quality, but flat-out incompetence and the failure to correct it is not, especially in an executive. Herman Cain may very well be innocent of these accusations, but Mark Block offered two unsubstantiated accusations in less than a week, both of which the campaign had to retract, in response to the allegations. If Block went off the reservation to do that, the proper remedy for an executive would be to replace him immediately, especially after Block's pompous declaration that he had 'confirmed' that Josh Kraushaar worked for Politico and that he was Karen Kraushaar's son. Not only were neither true, a simple Google search would have shown that Josh Kraushaar works for National Journal, a competing publication, and has since 2010.
I've steered clear of the sexual harassment charges because I don't know what happened. I've been critical of Mr. Cain, as has Ed, because Mr. Cain's response to the accusations was pathetic. Inept is too timid a word to describe their response.
The heart of that response was Mr. Block making wild accusations that he's since had to retract. Mr. Block didn't do this once, either. He's made wild, unsubstantiated accusations twice within a week of each other. In both instances, the accusations were refuted within hours.
A high-priced CEO with a reputation for cleaning up other people's messes shouldn't have hired someone as inept as Mr. Block. He certainly shouldn't keep him around once it's proven that he's inept.
Once a CEO proves that he isn't willing to clean up messes that are dropped in his lap, his reputation is damaged. Which leads to my other point.
Herman Cain is a one-trick pony. During his debate with Newt Gingrich, he was asked what the difference was between a defined benefit plan and premium support systems. He had as big of a deer-in-the-headlights moment that night as Rick Perry had last night.
He finally said that he was giving the question to Newt. Take him away from his 9-9-9 security blanket and he's utterly unqualified. Need proof? Try this:
- Cain didn't know what the Palestinian right of return was.
- Cain talked about China acquiring nuclear technology, technology that they've had for half a century.
- Cain said he'd release Gitmo prisoners in exchange for an American hostage "depending on the situation."
- Cain said that he's personally pro-life but that he doesn't think politicians should get involved in those decisions.
John Kerry gave the exact same answer as Mr. Cain on the life issue. John Kerry's never been thought of as pro-life. Never. Mssrs. Hannity, Levin and El Rushbo have defended him against Politico's despicable hit piece and rightfully so. If this were just a debate about whether the Politico article was a hit piece, it'd be easy to jump on that bandwagon.
When the final chapter is written, this won't be about the Politico hit piece. It's about whether Herman Cain is qualified to be the next leader of the free world. Based on his overreliance on his 9-9-9 security blanket, it's becoming apparent that he's anything but qualified to be the next leader of the free world.
Posted Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:11 PM
Comment 1 by edthurston at 10-Nov-11 11:57 PM
I do agree that incompetent staff members should be fired out because instead of easing up the controversy Block made it worse by giving false information. If you want to be in the White House your staff should perform excellently. ( related posts at: http://HermanCainsTaxPlan.com )
Comment 2 by eric z. at 11-Nov-11 07:45 AM
The term "blockhead" comes to mind.
Digby has a thing on Cain. It is short, worth reading.
Crooks and Liars too, dated Nov. 10.
The NLRB must be dismantled
Judicial Watch's persistence in getting the NLRB's internal emails released via their FOIA Act requests illustrates perfectly why the NLRB must be dismantled :
- On April 22, 2011, Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon sent an email to Wilma Liebman, outgoing Chairwoman of the NLRB, 'The article gave me a new idea. You go to geneva [Switzerland] and I get a job with airbus [French company]. We .' Solomon's comment was in response to an article published in French on the European Planet Labor website noting the devastating potential economic impact on South Carolina if the plant were to be scuttled: 'Two billion dollars were invested in Charleston, 1,000 employees were recruited, and the site was supposed to open in July: until the NLRB meddled in.'
- On April 22, 2011, NLRB attorney Debra Willen received an email , in which Republican Sen. James DeMint of South Carolina is ridiculed as 'Sen. Dement.'
- On May 12, 2011, NLRB Deputy Assistant General Counsel Joseph Baniszewski emailed a political cartoon to Deputy Assistant General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo mocking the state of South Carolina with regard to Boeing Corporation's decision to locate its manufacturing facility in that state.
- On April 28, 2011, Miriam Szapiro sent an email to NLRB attorney Debra Willen commenting on an article in The Economist expressing some support for the Boeing lawsuit: 'Exactly; it just shows you how incredibly reactionary the US is, that the conservative Economist thinks we're Neanderthal.'
- On April 20, 2011, Mara-Louise Anzalone, counsel for Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon, took exception to U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) statement, 'As Senator, I will do everything in my power, including introducing legislation cutting off funding for this wide goose chase, to stop the NLRB's frivolous complaint [against Boeing].' In an email to NLRB regional attorney Anne Pomerantz, Anzalone writes, 'Awesome. Sounds like they're just going to furlough you and me.'
The disregard for the American economy is frightening. That hardline progressives, specifically Lafe Solomon, would brag about "screw[ing] up the us economy", then express a desire to "tackle europe" is disgusting. These corrupt ideologues should be terminated ASAP. Then the NLRB should be totally dismantled. It's important to remember that the NLRB isn't truly independent of this administration. President Obama filled the NLRB with Big Labor's cronies to kill right-to-work construction projects. Whether you're talking about Craig Becker or Lafe Solomon, you're really talking about pro-union extremists. Mssrs. Becker and Solomon are so extreme that they couldn't get confirmed in the Democratic Senate :
Craig Becker (pictured) and Lafe Solomon were both recess-appointed to the NLRB and, in Becker's case, all 41 Republican senators wrote Obama to urge him not to make Becker's recess appointment after the Senate rejected his nomination the first time around. Solomon has not yet appeared before the Senate for confirmation.
President Obama wanted to pack the NLRB with the most extremist pro-union thugs possible. That's the only conclusion you can make considering the fact that neither Craig Becker or Lafe Solomon could get confirmed in the Senate when Democrats only needed to win over 1 Republican to get Mssrs. Becker and Solomon confirmed. The lawsuit isn't a serious lawsuit. It'll cost Boeing and American citizens millions of dollars but it isn't a serious lawsuit based on the merits. The minute it hits a serious court, the NLRB's lawsuit will get pitched. The disrespect the NLRB showed toward 2 U.S. senators is disturbing, too.
These emails prove that the NLRB is a rogue operation with little respect for elected politicians or for their authority granted by the National Labor Relations Act. The thought that the NLRB's Interim General Counsel is talking about screwing up the U.S. economy, then going to Europe and tanking their economy, is distressing. In addition to this being a perfect reason for dismantling the NLRB, it's also the perfect reason for ending President Obama's administration.
The NLRB didn't get packed with hardline progressive ideologues magically. They were installed via recess appointments by President Obama. Solomon and Becker are his hand-picked guys.
It's time to rid this country of this commune of lawless radicals. That's the only solution.
Posted Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:47 PM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 11-Nov-11 08:57 AM
You cut off the first quote there Gar. It should be "You go to geneva [Switzerland] and I get a job with airbus [French company]. We screwed up the us economy and now we can tackle europe.'
That said - does this person not know how to CAPITALIZE proper names for heavens sake?
LL
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Nov-11 09:05 AM
I copied it straight from the article. If there's a spelling mistake, it's Judicial Watch's, not mine.
