Octopus Overlords

Oh Anita.

Life is hard. Poor dear.

She also suggests that Perry's campaign implosion is a test from God, who really really wants Perry to be president (unlike other GOP candidates, who only think God wants them to be president).

I can't campaign on behalf of any provincial candidate without at least taking leave from my job, because it would be a conflict of interest. Fortunately for me, I have no interest in doing so, but I actually understand why we have these laws.

Nevada folds on caucus date:

Nevada Republicans voted Saturday to move their presidential caucuses to February 4 in a bid to calm a brewing battle between states vying to stage early votes in the 2012 race for the White House.

The Nevada Republican Party's executive committee shifted the contest after New Hampshire warned it would move its primary to December to maintain its first-in-the-nation status if Nevada kept its caucuses on January 14, party executive director David Gallagher told AFP.

hentzau wrote:This Herman Cain campaign video looks like it was shot by Penn and Teller's Bullshit! crew...

Cain quickly capitalized on the boffo box office of "Paranormal Activity 3" to release a "found footage" style campaign advertisement.

Looking forward to the Blair Witch style one in which Santorum snivels into a flashlight under a blanket.

hentzau wrote:This Herman Cain campaign video looks like it was shot by Penn and Teller's Bullshit! crew...

Umm why the smoking at the end? The comments say to show America is free and he is free to smoke... but smoking is one freedom that really pisses me off. My neighbor smokes so much it makes our apartment stink. Thanks to your freedom making me look for a new apartment.

Sorry not to derail just thought the smoking at the end was ridiculous.

I was pleased to find out that there will probably be a third-party candidate I can support next year: Jill Stein is seeking the Green Party nomination. I voted for her in 02 for governor and will probably support her presidential bid (assuming she gets the nod from the Greens).

She's smart, she's articulate, and she's an unapologetic socialist. Maybe she'll siphon enough liberals away from the Dems to spare us another Obama term.

Kraken wrote:She's smart, she's articulate, and she's an unapologetic socialist. Maybe she'll siphon enough liberals away from the Dems to spare us another Obama term.

Do you think the result of this will be policy that you like more or less than current policy?

Little article on the Cain ad.

Block himself emailed this message in response to an inquiry by National Journal/CBS News, “I smoke. It’s a choice.” Speaking in the third person, he added, “It’s Block being Block.”

This is where conservatives lose me with the talk of freedom:

Unhappily for Cain, the ad is a reminder that he once staunchly opposed smoking bans as the chief of the National Restaurant Association. The New York Times reported in a recent story, “Under Mr. Cain's leadership, the restaurant association opposed higher taxes on cigarettes and the use of federal money to prosecute cigarette makers for fraud. ... Cain argued vociferously that the decision about whether to go smoke-free was the province of individual restaurant owners, not the government.”

El Guapo wrote:

Kraken wrote:She's smart, she's articulate, and she's an unapologetic socialist. Maybe she'll siphon enough liberals away from the Dems to spare us another Obama term.

Do you think the result of this will be policy that you like more or less than current policy?

What policy? Obama has become irrelevant.

If the Rep nominee is Romney, domestic policy probably won't change much, but effectiveness will improve (assuming Reps continue to control/impede Congress). I'm basing my expectations on his record as governor of MA rather than what he's saying to get the nomination...Romney will say anything and it means nothing. He's come out with a few zingers lately, though.

If they nominate one of the crazies that changes things somewhat. MA never being a competitive state, it's always been safe to cast a conscience vote in the past, as I would like to resume doing. But I need to know more about how our new delegate apportionment works now that we are no longer winner-take-all.

My hope is that Stein will attract enough attention to push Obama leftward.

The Republican field is too extreme for Pat Robertson

Perry says the problem is that there are too many debates, not that he sucks at them.

"These debates are set up for nothing more than to tear down the candidates," Perry said on Fox News. "It's pretty hard to be able to sit and lay out your ideas and your concepts with a one-minute response."

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Zarathud wrote:Perry says the problem is that there are too many debates, not that he sucks at them.

"These debates are set up for nothing more than to tear down the candidates," Perry said on Fox News. "It's pretty hard to be able to sit and lay out your ideas and your concepts with a one-minute response."

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I agree with Perry here. The debates exist for 30 second to two minute quips where the skill is to fit what you wanted to get across out of what was asked. I hated the format in high school where we were taught to spar and score points over single topics. It's ridiculous when you are talking about "solvable" complex problems and reducing them to sound bites.

If I were in the debates I'd be like "go to my website and check out the details. If my opponent agrees, great."

Kraken wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Kraken wrote:She's smart, she's articulate, and she's an unapologetic socialist. Maybe she'll siphon enough liberals away from the Dems to spare us another Obama term.

Do you think the result of this will be policy that you like more or less than current policy?

What policy? Obama has become irrelevant.

If the Rep nominee is Romney, domestic policy probably won't change much, but effectiveness will improve (assuming Reps continue to control/impede Congress). I'm basing my expectations on his record as governor of MA rather than what he's saying to get the nomination...Romney will say anything and it means nothing. He's come out with a few zingers lately, though.

If they nominate one of the crazies that changes things somewhat. MA never being a competitive state, it's always been safe to cast a conscience vote in the past, as I would like to resume doing. But I need to know more about how our new delegate apportionment works now that we are no longer winner-take-all.

My hope is that Stein will attract enough attention to push Obama leftward.

As a democrat, even if you accept that Obama's not a main driver here, I'd rather have someone keeping policy in neutral than someone who is pushing it the opposite direction. Also I think you're underestimating the conservative tilt that even a Romney administration would bring on policy - don't forget that GWB when elected was viewed as a moderate who reached across the aisle to democrats. In addition, Governor Romney's constituency and advisors were markedly different than what President Romney's constituency and advisors would be.

Also - when did we stop being winner-take all? Are we apportioning delegates by county now or something? Why would state democrats agree to this?

El Guapo wrote:Don't forget that GWB when elected was viewed as a moderate who reached across the aisle to democrats.

I missed that memo entirely. Who viewed him that way?

A new candidate throws his hat into the ring.

Exodor wrote:A new candidate throws his hat into the ring.

When your whole campaign apparatus is a cheap-ass website you already had up anyway, every donation is profit!

According to CNN, the most current polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida and SC all have Romney leading the field in each state. Iowa and SC surprise me, he hasn't campaigned much in Iowa and I thought SC was too conservative. But if this holds, Romney will be the Republican nominee.

LordMortis wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Don't forget that GWB when elected was viewed as a moderate who reached across the aisle to democrats.

I missed that memo entirely. Who viewed him that way?

His branding in the 2000 election was that of a "compassionate conservative". See, e.g., here, here, and here. He touted stuff like his endorsement by the democratic leader of the TX state legislature, boasted about working with him, etc. That's certainly not how he's seen now, or to a lesser degree during the 2004 campaign, but that was then.

El Guapo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Don't forget that GWB when elected was viewed as a moderate who reached across the aisle to democrats.

I missed that memo entirely. Who viewed him that way?

His branding in the 2000 election was that of a "compassionate conservative". See, e.g., here, here, and here. He touted stuff like his endorsement by the democratic leader of the TX state legislature, boasted about working with him, etc. That's certainly not how he's seen now, or to a lesser degree during the 2004 campaign, but that was then.

It might be that I was surrounded by a bunch of Ann Arbor liberals but I remember him being branded as a religious nut and homophobe and part of the neocon movement as destroyer of Texas Education and Medicine and Professional Sports and the attacks on him were pitbullish in nature. They latched on to him as being the worst guy in the field for the primaries. And they worked on me. I would have McCain had he won the primaries but I couldn't (and didn't) vote for Bush even if I didn't want Gore.

El Guapo wrote: Also - when did we stop being winner-take all? Are we apportioning delegates by county now or something? Why would state democrats agree to this?

Actually, it turns out I have it exactly backwards. MA will apportion all 12 of its electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote (rather than winning the state).

However, the intertubes tell me that "The bill would take effect only if enough states adopted the legislation to combine for at least 270 electoral votes, the amount needed to win the presidency. Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland,and Washington have adopted the legislation" as of a year ago.

The idea is to prevent a situation like Bush taking the White House by gaming the electoral college system despite losing the popular vote. Also to force both candidates to campaign here to pump up their popular vote totals.

Kraken wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Also - when did we stop being winner-take all? Are we apportioning delegates by county now or something? Why would state democrats agree to this?

Actually, it turns out I have it exactly backwards. MA will apportion all 12 of its electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote (rather than winning the state).

However, the intertubes tell me that "The bill would take effect only if enough states adopted the legislation to combine for at least 270 electoral votes, the amount needed to win the presidency. Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland,and Washington have adopted the legislation" as of a year ago.

The idea is to prevent a situation like Bush taking the White House by gaming the electoral college system despite losing the popular vote. Also to force both candidates to campaign here to pump up their popular vote totals.

Well I'm all for that. The electoral college is a ridiculous anachronism, and that's probably the most plausible way to effectively get rid of it (as I think we'd otherwise need a constitutional amendment).

Part of the game is keeping your state relevant.

In PA, after the GOP took the whole state government, one of their first Big Ideas was to switch the state from winner-take-all to proportional Electoral College votes, figuring that this would eke out more Republican votes. Eventually they realized that this would only dilute PA's relevance as a "swing state." It's still a live issue, but now many Republicans seem to be joining Dems against the plan.

Ruh-rho! Looks like Romney (or Perry) has done some digging. It's out now that Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment twice while he was head of the National Restaurant Association.

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

According to unsubstantiated reports, Herman Cain is sick of this shit.

Holman wrote:According to unsubstantiated reports, Herman Cain is sick of this shit.

Sick of it already? It just started. In fact, by his reaction, I would say he just dumped fuel on the shit fire. Now the sharks have smelled blood.

I'm thinking that the proper response to "What about those two harassment accusations?" is not "I've had thousands of people working for me, so I'll need more info."

When the shit storm starts, it pours. FOX News asked Cain today about his campaign borrowing funds from a Section 501(c)(3) charity which is prohibited from lending funds to a politician's campaign.

In the months before the former pizza chain executive declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination, Cain racked up thousands in debt to Prosperity USA, a Wisconsin charity that was formed by two of his highest ranking staff members, which paid for iPads and plane travel for the Cain campaign, according to the Journal Sentinel.

Asked about the report Monday morning during an interview with Fox News, Cain at first suggested that he had no knowledge of the report, but then said his staff was reviewing it.

According to the financial documents, Prosperity USA received $65,000 in grants in the first half of 2010 and incurred $150,000 in debt to unnamed people as of February 2010. The balance sheet lists $41,113.65 owed to the group from FOH, or Friends of Herman Cain, Cain’s campaign committee.

While the charity could be in trouble for making the loans, the Cain campaign could be in violation of campaign laws for not reporting the debts incurred by his campaign committee to the Federal Election Commission, even if they were incurred before he officially declared his intention to run for President.

Unless his campaign paid those loans off immediately before he announced his candidacy, Cain is about to have a very, very bad week.

Didn't know if this should go here of the OWS thread or the Obama is working for Main Street while keeping Wall Street in check with his version of Stimulus thread.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama ... -campaign/" target="_blank

Should get interesting with the OWSers I watch who have to this point been tacitly adopted by the democrats as they mainly actively associate WS sleeping with government as a tool of the right.



Or as the Tea Partier's would say, Drill baby, Drill!

Holman wrote:Ruh-rho! Looks like Romney (or Perry) has done some digging. It's out now that Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment twice while he was head of the National Restaurant Association.

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

According to unsubstantiated reports, Herman Cain is sick of this shit.

Sounds like it must not be that much. Off color comment or gesture some crap like that. Hardly any chance of comparing to the Clinton treasure chest of illicit conduct.

Rip wrote:Sounds like it must not be that much. Off color comment or gesture some crap like that. Hardly any chance of comparing to the Clinton treasure chest of illicit conduct.

Ah, the tried and true "the moral standards of our candidate are not worse than those of Clinton" defense.

Yup. I don't recall that Clinton was a Baptist minister running on a moral rectitude platform and fond of breaking into Gospel Hymns at campaign events.

But the troubling thing is that Cain's immediate response to the eruption was to lie about it, then retreat to a series of subsequent lies as each collapsed.

abr wrote:

Rip wrote:Sounds like it must not be that much. Off color comment or gesture some crap like that. Hardly any chance of comparing to the Clinton treasure chest of illicit conduct.

Ah, the tried and true "the moral standards of our candidate are not worse than those of Clinton" defense.

Not just not worse, not even in the same ballpark.

Holman wrote:Yup. I don't recall that Clinton was a Baptist minister running on a moral rectitude platform and fond of breaking into Gospel Hymns at campaign events.

But the troubling thing is that Cain's immediate response to the eruption was to lie about it, then retreat to a series of subsequent lies as each collapsed.

I must have missed the lie part. Please point it out.

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:Yup. I don't recall that Clinton was a Baptist minister running on a moral rectitude platform and fond of breaking into Gospel Hymns at campaign events.

But the troubling thing is that Cain's immediate response to the eruption was to lie about it, then retreat to a series of subsequent lies as each collapsed.

I must have missed the lie part. Please point it out.

This article briefly touches on it but a simple search for Cain and sexual harassment charges should give you links to interviews in which he first says he knows nothing about it, then says the National Restaurant Association settled without his knowledge, then he admits he did know about the settlement after all.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:Yup. I don't recall that Clinton was a Baptist minister running on a moral rectitude platform and fond of breaking into Gospel Hymns at campaign events.

But the troubling thing is that Cain's immediate response to the eruption was to lie about it, then retreat to a series of subsequent lies as each collapsed.

I must have missed the lie part. Please point it out.

This article briefly touches on it but a simple search for Cain and sexual harassment charges should give you links to interviews in which he first says he knows nothing about it, then says the National Restaurant Association settled without his knowledge, then he admits he did know about the settlement after all.

So a politician saying he didn't remember something = a lie. If that is the case they all have done it for as long as I can remember.

Here is what I have picked out of the witch hunt.

Cain also acknowledged remembering one of the woman's accusations against him, saying he stepped close to her to make a reference to her height, and told her she was the same height as his wife.

Cain has repeatedly denied he ever harassed anyone, but has struggled to remain consistent on the details. He first denied remembering the specifics of the complaints, then offered up some details of an incident in which a woman apparently had trouble with a hand gesture he says he used to compare her height to that of his wife, Gloria. He said in interviews that the details had come back to him during an intense day of questioning.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11 ... -her-side/

If that is all it is are all the people taking shots at him going to be as aggressive in going after the people trying to make it sound like a big deal?

Doesn't matter whether or not it's a big deal to you, it does to those who are on the fence or just don't like him to begin with. Just as the Lewinsky issue wasn't a big deal to HIS supporters but was to those who hated him already.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

hepcat wrote:Doesn't matter whether or not it's a big deal to you, it does to those who are on the fence or just don't like him to begin with. Just as the Lewinsky issue wasn't a big deal to HIS supporters but was to those who hated him already.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

I'm not sure it matters to those who don't like him to begin with. That's actually one thing I like about Cain. He'll try to talk to you but once you've decided you are against him, he's not going to spend extra effort to try and court you. Essentially, if your mind is made up to be against him, he's not going to try and change it. Not good for trying to be "a uniter of the people" but from the sound of the last 18 years at least, the people don't want to be united, so we can get back to them later.

The fence, now, that's the problem and quite frankly the problem you want to be dealing with. That's the people who do listen, that's why they're sitting there.

hepcat wrote:Doesn't matter whether or not it's a big deal to you, it does to those who are on the fence or just don't like him to begin with. Just as the Lewinsky issue wasn't a big deal to HIS supporters but was to those who hated him already.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

I don't think many republicans who are at all likely to vote for him in the primary are likely to put any weight into this at this point at all. Just people that already dislike him finding something to put on their signs.

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:Doesn't matter whether or not it's a big deal to you, it does to those who are on the fence or just don't like him to begin with. Just as the Lewinsky issue wasn't a big deal to HIS supporters but was to those who hated him already.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

I don't think many republicans who are at all likely to vote for him in the primary are likely to put any weight into this at this point at all. Just people that already dislike him finding something to put on their signs.

Again, perception is a hell of a thing...

Folks used the same dismissal about Clinton during his scandal and thought they were right.