Reactions to the CNN – Heritage Foundation Debate

Last night the Republican candidates met for a debate on National Security in our nation's capital. First and foremost, I'm going to give props to a network that I usually lambast: CNN did a good job of moderating a very fair and balanced debate. They did a nice job of spreading out the questions to all candidates and they didn't play "gotcha." As many questions came from members of the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups were asked as questions from Wolf Blitzer. Also, although Blitzer tends to lean left, that's better than falling directly to their left side like most in the Drive-By Media. Also, Blitzer reminds me a combination of my favorite college professor, the late Dr. Billy Reed (a teacher who I remember very fondly) and Mr. Feeney from Boy Meets World. Oh, and also he reminds me of the guy in the Men's Warehouse commercials (you're going to like the way you look…I guarantee it.)

So let's play a round of everyone's favorite post-debate analysis game: Buy, Hold, Sell, or Sell All.

Michelle Bachmann – Sell (Sell):


Bachmann had a great debate. She said some great things. For example, "President Obama is letting the ACLU to run the CIA." That being said, it's going to take an awful lot for Congresswoman Bachmann to get back into this race at this point.

Again, Congresswoman Bachmann had some great moments. She had a great exchange with Governor Rick Perry on the subject of Pakistan. Her debate performances keep going up…but her poll numbers don't. I think Congresswoman Bachmann might be a good Vice Presidential nominee, I also think if, as expected, Speaker of the House John Boehner faces a Tea Party primary challenge, and if he loses, Bachmann would make a fine Speaker of the House. But right now I do not see her rebounding.

Herman Cain – Hold (Buy):

Herman Cain is still hanging in there. He's winning most national polls still and, despite the Drive-By Media's best efforts, this sexual harassment scandal is not forcing Cain out of the race, even given the stories that the Drive-Bys are ignoring (more on that later this week). This debate was out of Cain's wheelhouse, at least on paper. His strength is in the area of jobs and the economy. Yet he came off as more knowledgeable than I expected. Clearly Cain has done his homework and has good people advising him on the subject, because it's not as important to be knowledgeable on your own but rather to surround yourself with knowledgeable people. Cain did get tripped up some on the "torture" question. However, I do trust him to surround himself with the right people, and ultimately, that's what matters. As my good friend and fellow blogger the JC Freak said to me after the debate, Cain's strategy is to "not be Hitler and assume that he is a military genius who micromanage everything, but instead listen to his generals."

Foreign Policy is not Cain's strong suit. He spent a whole lot of time obfuscating in this debate. He gave a lot of safe answers that didn't have a lot of substance. He's also dropped to 3^rd place in many polls.

Now to give you a shocker: I don't think it has a whole lot to do with the Drive-By Media hit job with the unfounded claims of sexual harassment. I think why Cain is dropping is due to the very issue last night's debate handled: National Security. Conservatives, including yours truly, is becoming concerned about Cain's ability to be Commander-in-Chief and his lack of knowledge on National Security. He had one great line, "Enforce the laws we already have…we don't need new laws!" I couldn't agree more. The laws we have are enough, now enforce them! Great moments aside, though, I have serious doubts that Mr. Cain is ready to be the Commander in Chief.

Now I can tell you what a great job to learn those issues would be for Mr. Cain: Vice President of the United States. Seriously….as the #2 man behind Newt Gingrich or (sigh) Mitt Romney, Cain would get the experience he needs and have the opportunity to step up to the proverbial big chair in eight years.

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):

Newt has now pulled into a 2^nd place tie with Mitt Romney and within the margin of error of frontrunner Herman Cain. He's for real in this race. I said for a long time that if Gingrich showed me he could win, I'd love to back him. Well here we are…and I'm leaning toward backing him.
What I love about Gingrich most of all is the looks that he gives the moderators when they ask really stupid questions…a look that says "are you REALLY that stupid?" before he answers it. He nailed it agreeing with Rick Perry about starting at $0 in foreign aid and then requiring them to prove why we should support them with foreign aid.

 Newt had so many great lines, however my favorites included:

 "There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran and there are relatively few ways to be dumb, and the (Obama) Administration skipped all the ways to be smart."

 And when asked if he wanted to comment on his statement that Mitt Romney was a "competent manager" but not able to make real changes in Washington, Newt simply said "No," then proceeded to reiterate that ANY of the people on this stage would be better than Barrack Obama, which is so very true.

 Gingrich again showed that he is, in my opinion, the single most knowledgeable candidate on pretty much every issue in these debates. He understands reality and understands how to solve problems. (Yes, I'm becoming a Newt man, if you didn't pick that up.) He understands that developing our domestic energy supplies, namely oil, will solve a whole lot of problems in our national security by removing our dependence on many foreign nations for those supplies. And yes, Newt is right, if we are serious, we can change the face of the oil market by drilling for our own oil in a serious manner.

Newt did a good job, although I do think he was hurt by CNN spreading out the questions evenly because, by other debates have given the frontrunner more questions, and that frontrunner, friends, is Newt Gingrich.

 Jon Huntsman – Not In Attendance (Sold):

 Rather than wasting time talking about Jon Huntsman and his magenta tie, I've decided to provide a link to a video of Abbott and Costello doing their classic routine "Who's On First."

Well, a pig flew by tonight because I agreed with Huntsman on one statement: We do need term limits for Congress. Then he proceeded to drive me so crazy through the debate that I felt I couldn't just make a fun joke about Governor Huntsman. I've seen pieces of wet one-ply toilet paper with more tensile strength than John Huntsman's spine. He's a wimp, and we've already got a wimp in the White House.

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):

You know that 15% of policies where I completely disagree with Ron Paul? This debate highlighted those differences. (For example, I still do not believe that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction based on simple logic, specifically that dictators don't give up easily. I do agree that President's shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war from Congress.)

Ron Paul's issue on foreign policy is that he lives with his Magic Imagination Hat on where every ideal can be realized. I, on the other hand, live in the Real World.

When Paul talked about our spending problems, I stood up and cheered. Yes, I agree that our spending problem is one of our biggest national security issues. That being said, in a few places, Paul also showed a whole lot of the reasons why I can't support him…on the subject of National Security, Congressman Paul sleeps with his Happy Imagination Hat on. I, on the other hand, live in the Real World. Honestly, I do not believe that we can just play the isolationist game in this modern world…we just can't. I'm sorry, but that's the reality. To paraphrase a favorite television show, there's a time and a place for everything, including idealism and it's called college. It's not called the White House.

Overall, however, Paul focused on the 85% of issues I agree with, and stayed away from a lot of the issues where I do agree with Cain, starting with really dealing with our real problem, which again is not revenue, it's spending.

Congressman Paul really fascinates me, because he has a condo up the street from me in the Real World that he lives in 11 months a year, but then decides to take out his Happy Imagination Hat and live at his time share in Happy Imagination Land when it comes to foreign policy. I just don't get it. How can one man be so realistic when it comes to the economy and so unrealistic when it comes to foreign policy?

Rick Perry – Hold (Hold):     

Perry got better this time. Again, he has gotten stronger in the debates. He's learning to communicate his message more effectively. I think perhaps he's doing debate prep and practicing. I say it all the time, real conservatism wins whenever it's effectively communicated. Perry's issue is not being a real conservative, thus far it's been effectively communicating it. I think it was very wise for Perry to join the joke and laugh at his own gaffe in the last debate. Self-deprecating humor was one of the things that made his former boss and our former President, George W. Bush, so approachable and why Bush won two elections against people who were, on paper, stronger debaters.

 My favorite Perry quote was "The foreign budget for any nation in my administration will start at $0," and then we would consider increasing it if a nation proves they are supporting us.

Perry is giving me hope that he might rebound. As I've said, on paper, he's the candidate that best represents my values. I think Perry could be someone who ends up being a frontrunner someday, but not this election. I think being a 2^nd time Presidential candidate in eight years could be a big difference for Perry, much like Mitt Romney is much improved since 2008.

Perry maintained his gains from the last debate. He's begun to pick up a few points in the polls. I really like his plans, I like his Flat Tax, I like his Balanced Budget Amendment, I especially like the idea of making Congress part-time. That being said, I don't really think he's going to rebound THIS ELECTION. I do think you could see Perry be a very strong candidate in eight years as a second time Presidential candidate. So many candidates are better the second time around. Look at Mitt Romney. Also, look at Ronald Reagan. I'm not writing Perry off yet, because his numbers are climbing, but I don't know if there's enough time to climb back to the top.

I also want to give a quick reality check to Governor Perry: Just because you were able to work with Democrats in Texas, doesn't mean you can work together in the same manner with Democrats in the United States Congress. The man Governor Perry served under as Lieutenant Governor of Texas, former President George W. Bush had the same expectation and it didn't pan out…and that's because a Democrat in Texas is often more conservative by a fair margin than a Republican in say, Connecticut or New York.
I think Perry did well tonight, just based on debate performance. I think he stood strong and did pretty well.

Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):

 Foreign policy is a good topic for Mitt. I have my issues with him on domestic policy because I question whether or not he's conservative ENOUGH on taxes, on the economy, etc. But like I said for eight years under George W. Bush, I do trust him to keep us safe.

 I thought Mitt came out strong at several times, including his clear statement against Barrack Obama for believing that his personal charisma would make the difference in a world filled with evil people (I'm paraphrasing here) and that the President thinks of this country as just another nation. I agree with Mitt, America is not just another nation. America is the great, shining city on a hill.
 Tonight's debate gave me reasons that, if Romney is our nominee, I could get behind Mitt and support him. I still hope for better, but I will get behind him if I need to in the general election.

 "What you have is a President who has a priority of spending us into bankruptcy, but he's not just spending us into bankruptcy, he's spending the money foolishly." Amen, Mitt, amen. Once again, foreign policy is a good place for Mitt. I genuinely would trust him to keep ups safe if he became President, just like I trusted George W. Bush to keep us safe. That's the big reason why I could live with Mitt as President. I still want better, though.

Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):

 Santorum bumbled a lot on Saturday. When he said "Pakistan MUST be our friend" to me was a stupid statement. Yes, Pakistan is a nuclear power. So is North Korea. The idea that because someone is a bully that it's better to befriend the bully out of fear that the bully might attack us next, even though we KNOW we would clean said bully's clock in a fight. The better thing to do is to let the bully know that we will take the bully out if they try to pick on any of the other kids.

 Honestly, I'm getting annoyed with Santorum. He's so busy showing he can play the same lame compromise game (I promise I wasn't trying to do a Dr. Seuss impression) that has caused the problems we have in Washington. Democrats want Republicans to compromise when the GOP is in power, and then tells us "elections have consequences, and we won" when Democrats are in power. We do not need to compromise with Democrats. We need to defeat them. Santorum wants to play the same Washington insider game, and we don't have time for that game.


Debate Winner(s): Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul

Please note: My debate winners have zero to do with chances to win the Republican Nomination.

As it sits now, the race for my personal vote looks like this:

1. Newt Gingrich
2. Rick Perry
3. Herman Cain

How about you? Let me know in the comment section, on Twitter (@UpstateMetFan) or on the Biblical Conservatism Fan Page on Facebook!

Cain Drops in Polls, Harassment Stories Disappear?

Obviously, friends, that question mark in the title is dripping with sarcasm. I told you when the story first broke that this was nothing more than a media hit job.  Now that Herman Cain has dropped out of the top two candidates in most polls, all of a sudden, the News Media couldn't care less about Herman Cain or allegations of sexual harassment.

I told you when this story broke that it was nothing but a high-tech lynching of Herman Cain. Now that the Drive-By Media thinks they've succeeded, they've moved on. If it was really about a search for the truth, do you think it would've stopped?  Of course not.  They'd continue to hammer this story until justice was done.  Yet this story has been pushed aside in favor of going after the newest conservative on the rise, Newt Gingrich.

The Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations, which by the way would never have stood up in court, are now old news.  Don't be fooled, my friends, if Herman Cain starts rising int he polls again they will come back out.  And if that happens, I want you to remember today, when it's a nonstory again (as it always should have been).

The truth stands:  The Drive-By Media doesn't want a conservative as the Republican nominee because that will give a real choice between Barack Obama and the GOP nominee.  They definitely don't want a black conservative, because that eliminates the vote with your guilt types who voted for Obama to prove they weren't racist.  That was always what the allegations directed at Herman Cain were about.  The fact that those allegations went away as soon as Cain dropped in the polls proves it.

Finally, to you who prefer someone other than Cain and thus jumped on this bandwagon, once again I guarantee you that your guy will get the same treatment if he or she becomes the top candidate.  If your favorite is Mitt Romney, be certain it will not happen in the primaries, but if and when he's nominated, but rest assured it will happen.

Media bias is proven once again.  Who's shocked?

Here Comes Newt Gingrich

I spent many months in my post-debate analysis posts saying that if Newt Gingrich ever became a real contender in the Republican Primary race, I'd be excited to get behind him.  Over the last two weeks, Gingrich has moved into first or second place in many polls of registered Republican voters and has even taken over first place in the Public Policy Polling Institute's most recent poll. 

For those of us who remember the 1994 Republican Revolution, this change is not surprising.  Many of us thought then that Gingrich could be a transformational, Ronald Reagan type conservative for the next generation.  Now it seems like Newt is getting his shot to do just that.

Why I absolutely love the idea of Gingrich being our nominee is twofold:  One, he is the real architect of the mid to late 90s booming economy (not Bill Clinton, regardless of what liberals tell you); and two, he would hand Barack Obama his own...errr...hindquarters...in the debates in October of 2012.

Now I know the Drive-By Media is going to try to tear him down.  They're going to repeat the old narrative that Gingrich "divorced his first wife (in 1980) while she was on her death bed."  Now, for the record, this woman is STILL ALIVE 30 years later, so clearly she wasn't on her death bed, and Newt's daughter Jackie has officially set the record straight about what happened between her father and mother.

For the record, the divorce was already in progress, and it was Jackie Battley Gingrich, NOT Newt, who requested the divorce.  But hey, when has the truth ever slowed the Drive-By Media?  Just look at what's been done to Herman Cain...shaded claims by nameless individuals and one person who had a history of claiming sexual harassment whenever she didn't get her way have been treated as gospel truth. I guarantee you the Drive-By Media hits on Newt Gingrich that have already begun will get worse.

The Drive-By Media doesn't want strong conservatives. They want Diet Coke Party Republicans who will play the "compromise" game whenever they are in power then accept Democrat rule when Democrats are in power. So they will come after any conservative...anyone really who is remotely conservative...and Newt qualifies.  Be prepared for unnamed sources and "the seriousness of the charge is more important than the nature of the evidence."

That being said, Newt is emerging now and he is picking up support from the Tea Party and other conservatives.  I'm not surprised.  Newt was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.   He lead Congress to four straight balanced budgets as Speaker of the House.  Despite what some might think about the Tea Party, specifically that we're only going to back "our own people," we don't really care where you're from if you support conservatism, small government, and personal responsibility. (See: Michelle Bachmann, who is a Tea Party conservative who was in office before the Tea Party came into being.)

Newt's 21st Century Contract with America is packed with great conservative principles, including repealing Obamacare, cutting the Corporate Tax to 12.5% to encourage businesses to stay in America and return, a 15% Flat Tax, and repealing Obamacare (if the Supreme Court doesn't do that first) and other burdensome regulations. (For those of you who have asked, yes, I will do a post with an in-depth analysis of the 21st Century Contract with America as soon as I have time to properly do the research.)

Newt Gingrich is the new conservative who is rising.  I think he might be the best conservative in the race, and I know he's the one candidate who, above all, can beat Obama soundly in debates.  Just be prepared:  we're going to have to defend him against false claims, semi-true claims, and rehashes of stories from 10 or more years ago about a man who has been repentant of his past sins.  Be ready, my friends, but here comes Newt Gingrich.

Seriously, PETA? Mario Brothers?

Today we take a look at mybox filled with stories so very silly that I feel the need to comment on them just to deal with how headache inducingly silly they are:  PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is now complaining about Mario, the video game plumber who gave me hours of joy in childhood, is complaining about Mario's use of the "Tanooki Suit" in his latest game,  Super Mario 3D Land (1). 

Aside from being in the category "you can't make this stuff up" right next to the Jerry Sandusky ice cream flavor at the Penn State Creamery, this is one of those stories that explains just how crazy some on the Left genuinely can be.  Let's start with the basics:  PETA, you are aware that this is a video game, and that Mario is wearing the ultimate in faux fur...it's digital animation!  Also, I'm pretty sure actual tanuki racoon dog doesn't receive it's fur or skin from eating a magical leaf.

The specifics of PETA's claim is that the Tanooki suit "encourages wearing fur."  Even if we're assuming that adults who can afford real fur coats are taking fashion advice from a video game plumber (a silly leap of logic but what the heck this whole story is silly), PETA still misses the big point: We don't care.  Despite PETA's attempts to claim that all fur coats are obtained by using inhumane means, in America animals used for food or clothing are humanely slaughtered.  To those who say "would you want someone wearing YOUR skin?" my response is no, but then again I'm a human being.  I have greater value than an animal. 

I am created in the image of Almighty God, as are all human beings. That's why both the Bible and secular governments recognize significantly different penalties for killing a human and killing an animal.  Killing a human, outside of war, self defense, execution for a crime, etc, is punishable by death or life imprisonment.  Killing an animal is usually punished with a fine, and certainly not with the death penalty or life imprisonment.  This is the reason why I continue to fight to see abortion of unborn humans erradicated from our nation but enjoy a plate of eggs every Saturday for breakfast...an unborn human is a person with rights.  An unborn chicken is just an animal, and whether I'm choosing to eat that chicken in egg form or as chicken, it's food.

Honestly, why is PETA choosing right now to bring this up anyway?  Were you concerned that another group of Leftwing Radicals were taking your place as the craziest group in America?  I mean, the Tanooki Suit first appeared in a game 21 years ago (2) and you're just now getting around to complaining?  For crying out loud, Super Mario Brothers 3 was one of the most popular games on the original Nintendo Entertainment System...did you not have a Nintendo or something?  What took you so long?

Seriously, this is one of the silliest stories I've read in a while, even from PETA.  When I Leftwing group makes Obama's policies seem sane by comparison, you know they're bad. 
--------------------------------------------------

(1) PETA goes after Mario and his Tanooki suit

(2) Super Mario Bros. 3

Understanding the Supreme Court Obamacare Review

The news came down earlier this week:  the Supreme Court will take up President Obama's signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, during this current session, meaning a ruling can be expected by summer of 2012.  (1) Conservatives are celebrating, and for some odd reason so is the Obama Administration. 

The former I understand, the latter I do not, save for one possibility: Obama knows Obamacare is bad for his re-election, and hopes it is overturned so he can get credit for trying without experiencing the bad effects of having the law pinned to him.  When Obamacare is brought up he can simply say "it's a dead issue, the Supreme Court overturned it, but hey, we tried."  It's classic liberalism: compassion of intent matters, compassion of result does not.

How this will play out is an interesting question.  I believe we can expect Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to vote Obamacare as Unconstitutional and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Steven Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan ((hopefully she’ll recuse herself due to her previous involvement with the law) to vote that Obamacare is Constitutional.  So the swing vote is Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Personally, I expect Kennedy to join his fellow Republican appointees in striking down Obamacare.  First and foremost, Kennedy has a strong history of being in favor of states' rights and individual liberty.  So this bodes well for those of us who want to see Obamacare struck down. Although Kennedy has had moments of breaking with the conservative movement, but these are on issues centered around personal liberty over traditional conservative morality.  Honestly, I would be very surprised to see Kennedy vote to uphold Obamacare based on his history. 

There are multiple discussions scheduled for this review.  I think Kennedy is likely to vote against the law on three of the four, meaning the law is overturned. From SCOTUSBlog.com, here are the Writs of Certiorari to be reviewed:

* The issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health & Human Services [11-400]).
For those of you from Palm Beach County, this means judging whether or not the Individual Mandate, which requires all Americans to buy health insurance, is required for the law to exist.

Gun to my head I'd predict that Kennedy will join the other Justices who were appointed by Republicans to see that, without the individual mandate, the law is basically useless based upon it's own intentions, but I cannot predict that with certainty.

* The constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida, et al.)

For those of you from Palm Beach County, that means, regardless of whether or not the Individual Mandate is "severable" from the law, whether or not government can force people to purchase ANYTHING.

Given Justice Kennedy's history of supporting individual liberty over all else, I doubt he will consider this Constitutional.  For those who are still wondering why government can "require" us to purchase auto insurance, please understand this is a requirement to use the public roads, just like a driver's license is also required to use the public roads.  This is very different from requiring a purchase to live in the country.  As so many have said before, you might as well mandate purchase of a house to solve the homelessness problem.

Whether the lawsuit brought by the states challenging the insurance mandate is barred by the (Tax) Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398), one hour of oral argument.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act says that Federal Courts may not stop collection of a tax by either Federal or State governments that were duly passed by Congress or the legislatures of the States. Of course, the President repeatedly stated when attempting to pass the law that Obamacare was not a tax, yet now they are arguing that the individual mandate is within the Congressional authority to levy taxes.  But it is not a tax, they said so themselves, stating that it was just like requiring people to purchase auto insurance. 

I expect Kennedy to vote this part of the law down again, citing the President's own statements on the law, thus meaning the Tax Anti Injunction Act has zero bearing on the case.

Finally,

Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services case, 11-400).

The specific challenge here is whether or not the Federal government has the authority to require states to expand Medicaid.  Again, given Kennedy's long history of supporting states' rights, I do not see him voting it Constitutional at all.

In short, I expect Justice Kennedy to join Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and Chief Justice Roberts in voting three of the four Writs of Certiorari as Unconstitutional, and as for the fourth, if the law is Unconstitutional, who cares if the Individual Mandate is severable?

Long story short, I believe Obamacare's days are numbered.  Thank God.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) ObamaCare reaches the Supreme Court

Just because a business has money, doesn’t mean they should hire…

It’s a catchphrase the Left has been using for a while: “Business owners have money, but they aren’t hiring…they’re hoarding their money.” This mentality explains the fundamental flaw in the way President Obama and the Left sees the purpose of business and the purpose of jobs.


My friends, individuals do not open businesses to give you a job or to give you benefits. Individuals open businesses because they believe that by investing their money in a venture they can create a product or offer a service and sell that product or service for more money than it costs to produce. That extra money made beyond the total cost of production; which includes costs of labor (that’s “workers” for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL), raw materials (for Palm Beach, that’s “stuff you make other stuff out of”), overhead (for Palm Beachers, that’s “building where you make stuff at”), fixed expenses like electricity and insurance on your property, and machinery (that’s “machines” for those of you in Palm Beach), and also taxes, employee benefits, and so forth; the money left over all that is called a profit. That is why people open businesses…they risk losing all the money they pay for all that stuff I just mentioned so that they can turn that investment into more money. That is why people start businesses.

As for employees, the reason a business would hire another employee is if they have so many orders for products or so much demand for the services that business offers that the current number of employees cannot keep up with that demand, it’s time to make the investment to hire new people so that you can make more of the product. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, that’s “we can’t keep up with all this work, we need more workers.”) The result of that is business owners are making a BIGGER investment in hopes for a larger net profit. They take a bigger risk because that bigger risk could bring a bigger gain.

Here’s the reality the Left does not understand: Businesses don’t hire because you can afford to hire any more than you would hire a babysitter because you can afford it if you don’t have a child. I could afford a babysitter for a few hours on a Friday night. I have no need for a babysitter, because I don’t have children! What would the babysitter do…keep an eye on my cat? (I can assure you that Benny the cat is perfectly capable of taking care of himself for an evening, thank you very much.)

This is where liberals fail to understand how businesses work…and it’s not surprising, since most of them have never run a business. Rather, they expect businesses to hire because they have profitable businesses. The reality is that if there are no customers, there’s no need to increase production and thus no need to hire new employees.

I can hear at least one of my regular readers asking me “but aren’t you a committed Supply-Side economics adherent, Chris? Isn’t supply supposed to create its own demand?” To a point, yes, supply does create its own demand, in that having a good product to put to market that is either necessary or desirable will create its own demand, and yes competition to fill that demand creates lower prices that continues to create increased demand. There is a positive cycle created by new products in the marketplace. However, you don’t just simply start churning out new products so that people will buy them and expect that to work. That’s not how economics work, and it’s not how Supply Side Economics is intended to work. Supply of a NEW product creates a demand. Increasing supply of a current product doesn’t create demand, it just causes businesses to go under because they’re now making more than they can sell.

In short, my friends, it’s not access to capital that will cause businesses to thrive and thus hire. What will cause businesses to thrive and thus hire and thus cause unemployment to fall is individuals having more money left over after their paycheck buys necessities. That means we need reduced inflation so that paychecks stop being eaten up by gas and food and heat and electric and clothing and all the other necessities that we all must purchase before we consider buying a new computer or iPod or hockey jersey or tickets to a concert. The second thing we need to do is reduce the overall tax burden so that we’re all seeing more of our income in our paychecks. Then and only then can we expect unemployment to improve.

I close with a paraphrase of Ronald Reagan: Recession is when your neighbor loses his job, Depression is when you lose your job, and Recovery is when Barrack Obama loses his job. Obama’s policies will not increase jobs. Government can’t create jobs. All it can do is cost jobs, and so far that’s all Obama has done. So please remember the principles I’ve discussed today, because there is nothing government can do to assist job creations, save for get out of the way.

What the Media ISN'T Telling You in the Cain Scandal

It's now been two weeks since the Herman Cain sexual harassment claims first surfaced.  A lot of "news" has come out about the story, but what is more telling is what the Drive-By Media ISN'T saying.  There are pockets of details that are being ignored by the Media that make this a completely different story.  So today, I'll be doing my impression of Weasel Zippers or the Drudge Report and bring you two stories the Media ISN'T reporting.

Using high tech lie-detector software, Private Investigator TJ Ward has concluded that Herman Cain was not lying in his press conference.  Shown on video (below) you can see that Cain was not lying at any point during his press conference last week but that Sharon Bialek's story was highly questionable.  For those clamoring for Cain to take a polygraph test...this test is as accurate if not more accurate than a polygraph.



Pat Dollard - Report: Cain Accuser Sharon Bialek Fired From NRA For False Accusations Of Sexual Assault

Summary:  Accuser Sharon Bialek, who has accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment, apparently has a history of making false accusations of...sexual harassment.  Yep, Sharon Bialek has a history of making such claims, and was even fired from the National Restaurant Association for making false claims.  From the report: 

I remember (Bialek) as a time-waster, and rabble-rouser. If she didn’t get her way she cried about sexual harassment”. A former co-worker, a female no less, emailed me. “She was trouble with a capital “T”.

Kind of puts a shadow on this claim of sexual harassment, no? 

Combine these two stories, and all of a sudden claims of a "high tech lynching" of Cain that have come from everyone from national conservative talk hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to lowly Internet bloggers like yours truly start to hold water.  According to Dollard in the above article:

The fact that (Bialek) waited 13 years and never said a word not even during Cain’s earlier forays into politics. She only now magically appears because Cain is leading in some polls and proving a threat to Barack Obama?

Same can be said about anonymous claims and other claims that weren't even sexual harassment but just Cain asking a woman to join him for dinner at a networking event because "I know what he was thinking."  Uhuh. 

The Drive-By Media won't let this go away.  But it's still an unfounded, libelous claim.

Reactions to the CBS-National Journal Debate

Saturday night, the Republican Presidential Candidates met in South Carolina for a debate, televised on CBS. The moderators weren't as bad as the CNBC crowd last week, but they really annoyed me by once again trying to participate. What I find hilarious is that these moderators kept trying to debate with Newt Gingrich, which consistently ends up being just as useful as attempting to take down a brick wall using only your head.

Today, and moving forward, I'm adding two new features to my debate reactions: My current Top 3 Contenders for my vote in the New York State Republican primary and the person or people I felt won the debate. So let's play a round of our favorite post debate stock market analogy: Buy, Hold, Sell or Sell All:

Michelle Bachmann – Sell (Sell):

Bachmann had good moments, but her place in the polls has tanked. I like what she said about everyone paying taxes, even if it's $10 a year. I agree. When the Left talks about someone "not paying their fair share," but they ignore that 47% of Americans pay zero taxes and then consumes more than half of the government welfare. So 47% of people pay no taxes and use all the tax money.

At one point Congresswoman Bachmann was my top choice. Right now I don't feel she's got a chance, and I'm not wasting my vote on idealism. Maybe she can be Vice President, but not President.

Bachmann had a great debate. She said some great things. For example, "President Obama is letting the ACLU to run the CIA." That being said, it's going to take an awful lot for Congresswoman Bachmann to get back into this race at this point.

Herman Cain – Buy (Buy):

Cain has had a rough couple of weeks. Early on, the moderators tried to play gotcha with Cain. It didn't work. He came off as genuine in his response. I will say this over and over, when Cain denies these charges, deep down in places I don't talk about at parties, I believe him. Cain is an honest man. The best phrase to describe him is "what you see is what you get." He really answered well.
Then he got back on message. He talked about 9-9-9. He talked about making taxes fairer and transparent. He really got back on topic today. I believe if Cain can stay on message he'll get past this propped up, made up scandal and continue to succeed.

Herman Cain is still hanging in there. He's winning most national polls still and, despite the Drive-By Media's best efforts, this sexual harassment scandal is not forcing Cain out of the race, even given the stories that the Drive-Bys are ignoring (more on that later this week).

This debate was out of Cain's wheelhouse, at least on paper. His strength is in the area of jobs and the economy. Yet he came off as more knowledgeable than I expected. Clearly Cain has done his homework and has good people advising him on the subject, because it's not as important to be knowledgeable on your own but rather to surround yourself with knowledgeable people. Cain did get tripped up some on the "torture" question. However, I do trust him to surround himself with the right people, and ultimately, that's what matters. As my good friend and fellow blogger the JC Freak said to me after the debate, Cain's strategy is to "not be Hitler and assume that he is a military genius who micromanage everything, but instead listen to his generals."

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):

In debates, Newt is the man. He tells it like it is and does it in a way that people can digest. I loved when he said that there were two points in our history of rapid economic growth, the Reagan Years and the Contract with America (bad news, Clinton fans, it wasn't Clinton who caused the 90s Boom, it was the Contract with America). Both of those eras had one huge similarity: Lower taxes and let people keep their own money, because private citizens do better with their money than government ever can. Newt is on the rise, and I think he has a chance. I'm seriously considering voting for him now. He was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. I'm glad to see his rise.

Newt has now pulled into a 2^nd place tie with Mitt Romney and within the margin of error of frontrunner Herman Cain. He's for real in this race. I said for a long time that if Gingrich showed me he could win, I'd love to back him. Well here we are…and I'm leaning toward backing him.
What I love about Gingrich most of all is the looks that he gives the moderators when they ask really stupid questions…a look that says "are you REALLY that stupid?" before he answers it. He nailed it agreeing with Rick Perry about starting at $0 in foreign aid and then requiring them to prove why we should support them with foreign aid.

Newt had so many great lines, however my favorites included:

"There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran and there are relatively few ways to be dumb, and the (Obama) Administration skipped all the ways to be smart."

And when asked if he wanted to comment on his statement that Mitt Romney was a "competent manager" but not able to make real changes in Washington, Newt simply said "No," then proceeded to reiterate that ANY of the people on this stage would be better than Barrack Obama, which is so very true.

Jon Huntsman – Sold (Sold):

I'm kind of glad Huntsman is in these debates. It gives me a chance to use the bathroom or make a sandwich.

Rather than wasting time talking about Jon Huntsman and his magenta tie, I've decided to provide a link to a video of Abbott and Costello doing their classic routine "Who's On First."

Gary Johnson – Not in Attendance (Sold):

Johnson showed up at what, one debate? Is he still running? Does anybody care?
I'm going to start leaving Johnson off these things. He isn't even showing at debates.

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):

I like some of Paul's plans, namely cutting $1 Trillion from the budget in year one. Unfortunately there's still that 15% where I can't agree with him.

You know that 15% of policies where I completely disagree with Ron Paul? This debate highlighted those differences. (For example, I still do not believe that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction based on simple logic, specifically that dictators don't give up easily. I do agree that President's shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war from Congress.)

Ron Paul's issue on foreign policy is that he lives with his Magic Imagination Hat on where every ideal can be realized. I, on the other hand, live in the Real World. This is why Paul can't win the GOP nomination, most of the party doesn't vote with their Magic Imagination Hats on.

Rick Perry – Hold (Hold):  

Perry got better in this debate before he got worse. At first he was figuring out how to properly present conservatism. As I've said recently, I like his Flat Tax. I like his plan to remove all regulations added by the Obama administration based on one critera, "if it costs jobs, get rid of it." My other favorite Perry statement tonight was "If you're too big to fail, you're too big." And then the gaffes happened. 

 At one point I thought that Perry was back on the rise, and I was glad, because I think he's one of the conservative powerhouses in this race and if he can prove he can win I'd love to back him. Then he couldn't complete answering a question and looked like a bumbling fool. Once again I continue to stay that real conservatism wins every single time it's effectively communicated. The problem is I still doubt if Perry can effectively communicate it.

Perry got better this time. Again, he has gotten stronger in the debates. He's learning to communicate his message more effectively. I think perhaps he's doing debate prep and practicing. I say it all the time, real conservatism wins whenever it's effectively communicated. Perry's issue isn't not being a real conservative, thus far it's been effectively communicating it. I think it was very wise for Perry to join the joke and laugh at his own gaffe in the last debate. Self-deprecating humor was one of the things that made his former boss and our former President, George W. Bush, so approachable and why Bush won two elections against people who were, on paper, stronger debaters.

My favorite Perry quote was "The foreign budget for any nation in my administration will start at $0," and then we would consider increasing it if a nation proves they are supporting us.

Perry is giving me hope that he might rebound. As I've said, on paper, he's the candidate that best represents my values. I think Perry could be someone who ends up being a frontrunner someday, but not this election. I think being a 2^nd time Presidential candidate in eight years could be a big difference for Perry, much like Mitt Romney is much improved since 2008.

Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):

Mitt had good moments and bad. One of his best moments was explaining the definition of profits. He got out of his robotic mode and got excited and showed emotion about capitalism. He had a rough moment early on when he was being questioned about his flip flops. What it really comes down to is that Romney would be okay, but we can do better. We've got, by my count, five dyed in the wool conservatives on that stage, and I want better than Mitt.

Foreign policy is a good topic for Mitt. I have my issues with him on domestic policy because I question whether or not he's conservative ENOUGH on taxes, on the economy, etc. But like I said for eight years under George W. Bush, I do trust him to keep us safe.

I thought Mitt came out strong at several times, including his clear statement against Barrack Obama for believing that his personal charisma would make the difference in a world filled with evil people (I'm paraphrasing here) and that the President thinks of this country as just another nation. I agree with Mitt, America is not just another nation. America is the great, shining city on a hill.

Tonight's debate gave me reasons that, if Romney is our nominee, I could get behind Mitt and support him. I still hope for better, but I will get behind him if I need to in the general election.

Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):

Santorum had a great debate. He really was on the ball. I just don’t see him getting revved up. Maybe I’m wrong. But for now, he’s getting 2-3% in polls. He’s got no chance.

Santorum bumbled a lot on Saturday. When he said "Pakistan MUST be our friend" to me was a stupid statement. Yes, Pakistan is a nuclear power. So is North Korea. The idea that because someone is a bully that it's better to befriend the bully out of fear that the bully might attack us next, even though we KNOW we would clean said bully's clock in a fight. The better thing to do is to let the bully know that we will take the bully out if they try to pick on any of the other kids.


Another debate, kind of a short one considering how many candidates we have in the race, but entertaining.

Debate Winner(s): Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney

Honorable Mention: Rick Perry (For delivering better than expected.)

As it sits now, the race for my personal vote looks like this:

1. Newt Gingrich
2. Herman Cain
3. Rick Perry

How about you? Let me know in the comment section, on Twitter (@UpstateMetFan) or on the Biblical Conservatism Fan Page on Facebook!

Tea Party Meeting in Rochester, NY Results in ZERO Arrests

On Saturday, November 5th at 4:00 pm, We Surround Rochester, a local Tea Party group that is part of the 9-12 Project, met for their monthly meeting at Bathtub Billy's Restaurant, located at 630 Ridge Rd W Rochester, NY 14615 USA.  The topics discussed included the history of Veterans Day and also participation in Glenn Beck's Mercury One charitable organization. The group concluded their meeting, payed for their meals, left tips and cleaned up after themselves.

More importantly:  No one was arrested. A simple google search of news articles "Arrests at 912 Meeting in Rochester NY" returned zero stories. A second google search of news articles "Rape accusations at 912 Meeting in Rochester NY" also returned zero results.

As a part of my dilligence for this post, I made a phone call to Bathtub Billy's and spoke to an employee who was present on Saturday at the meeting. When I asked him if there had been any arrests at the meeting, he laughed at me and said "No, there has never been an arrest," and noted that the group "always peacably demonstrates."  In speaking with a fellow member of the group I was told that he "would willingly leave a $20 bill on the table at a We Surround Rochester meeting and trust that it would be there at the end of the night."

Why does this matter?  Well, the Drive-By Media is telling us how the Occupy Protests are the liberal Tea Party, aren't they?  So let's look at the same google search as it pertains to Occupy Rochester:  A google search of "Occupy Rochester Arrests" shows stories where 32 people and 16 people were arrested on different days at Occupy Rochester protests in the first three articles listed.

As far as rape accusations, there have been zero at Occupy Rochester, for the record, however, Occupy Wall Street has seen quite a few rape accusations surface.  And I'm pretty sure a wise individual wouldn't leave a $20 bill lying out at one of those protests.

Yet the Left wants you to believe that the Occupy Protests are the Liberal Tea Party.  Here's one example of how it isn't:  Zero arrests in over 100 meetings from We Surround Rochester.  Compare that to dozens over a few days at Occupy Rochester.

No, the Occupy Protests aren't the equivalent of the Tea Party...the Tea Party doesn't get arrested, protests peacefully, doesn't wreck the streets, and doesn't have rapes.  Can't say that for Occupy Protests, can you?

Reactions to the CNBC “Your Money, Your Vote” Debate

Last night, the Republican Presidential Candidates met for a debate in Rochester, MI. CNBC hosted the debate, and on many fronts I wanted to smack the moderators. It was pretty bad actually. I darn near threw my remote through the television when the moderators tried to play gotcha with Herman Cain. Then I remembered it’s not the TV’s fault. I continue to wonder why the heck we as Republicans keep putting ourselves through these debates? CNBC’s moderators kept trying to join into the debate and that is not what they are supposed to do. Too much gotcha was played. Jim Cramer reminded me a lot of Matt Foley the Motivational Speaker last night.


Aside from that, let’s play everybody’s favorite post debate game, buy, hold, sell, sell all or sold:

Michelle Bachmann – Hold (Sell):

Congresswoman Bachmann came out swinging tonight (look for that statement a lot tonight). She really had some great moments. I honestly do not know if this response will build any support for her. She had some great moments. My favorite was when she brought up that Barrack Obama’s relatives are still in this country illegally. Honestly I don’t know if she’s going to pick up any support, but I thought her debate performance was solid.

Bachmann had good moments, but her place in the polls has tanked. I like what she said about everyone paying taxes, even if it’s $10 a year. I agree. When the Left talks about someone “not paying their fair share,” but they ignore that 47% of Americans pay zero taxes and then consumes more than half of the government welfare. So 47% of people pay no taxes and use all the tax money.

At one point Congresswoman Bachmann was my top choice. Right now I don’t feel she’s got a chance, and I’m not wasting my vote on idealism. Maybe she can be Vice President, but not President.

Herman Cain – Buy (Buy):

He took it hard on the 9% sales tax in the debate from the other candidates. I think he did a good job of responding and explaining that the plan is replacing the current pipeline, not giving a new tax pipeline.


In the last month I’ve done a 180 on Herman Cain. He’s become a viable candidate and is the current contender to Mitt Romney at the top of the race. I thought he did a very good job of explaining his 9-9-9 Plan and continuing to invite people to go to his website and view the plan in full. He did a great job to explain that his plan is replacing significant taxes that go into the price of every product we buy. He’s going to have to do a lot of explaining to get that fact into people’s heads. Yes, there would need to be significant and potentially Constitutional safeguards for a plan like 9-9-9 to work. But he did a good job I think of shaking off the attacks and staying firm on his plan.

Cain has had a rough couple of weeks. Early on, the moderators tried to play gotcha with Cain. It didn’t work. He came off as genuine in his response. I will say this over and over, when Cain denies these charges, deep down in places I don’t talk about at parties, I believe him. Cain is an honest man. The best phrase to describe him is “what you see is what you get.” He really answered well.

Then he got back on message. He talked about 9-9-9. He talked about making taxes fairer and transparent. He really got back on topic today. I believe if Cain can stay on message he’ll get past this propped up, made up scandal and continue to succeed.

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):

Newt joins Herman Cain in the category of making me look bad, and I’m glad of it. I really like Newt. If he can show himself to be a viable option and not a throw away vote in my state’s primary, I’d strongly consider voting for him. He’s got great ideas and he would absolutely cream Obama in a debate. He had great moments in the debate. I’d like to see Newt really take the next step. Let’s see what happens.

In debates, Newt is the man. He tells it like it is and does it in a way that people can digest. I loved when he said that there were two points in our history of rapid economic growth, the Reagan Years and the Contract with America (bad news, Clinton fans, it wasn’t Clinton who caused the 90s Boom, it was the Contract with America). Both of those eras had one huge similarity: Lower taxes and let people keep their own money, because private citizens do better with their money than government ever can. Newt is on the rise, and I think he has a chance. I’m seriously considering voting for him now. He was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. I’m glad to see his rise.

Jon Huntsman – Sold (Sold):

I’m glad Huntsman wasn’t here. I’ve run out of funny statements for him. I’ll work on it before the next debate. Any suggestions, send me a tweet @UpstateMetFan.

I’m kind of glad Huntsman is in these debates. It gives me a chance to use the bathroom or make a sandwich.

Gary Johnson – Not in Attendance (Sold):

See Jon Huntsman note.

Johnson showed up at what, one debate? Is he still running? Does anybody care?

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):

Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy tonight. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I agree with him on 85% of his policies. Unfortunately the other 15%, which didn’t come up tonight, scare me about him, like his isolationist policies that do not make sense in our modern world. I stay where I stay, he won’t be the President. But I’m glad he’s in my party. Also, I’d like to give kudos to Paul on one statement, “We have rights, and they come from God.”

I like some of Paul’s plans, namely cutting $1 Trillion from the budget in year one. Unfortunately there’s still that 15% where I can’t agree with him.

Rick Perry – Hold (Hold):

I felt Perry rebounded pretty well. His plans to use the energy resources we have to power this country makes far too much sense to ignore. I can’t tell you what a boon to my budget it would be to see my energy costs go down. I’m fortunate enough to live in a town with local, municipal electricity, but even so, if gas prices were cut in half and energy prices were cut in half due to increased supply, that’d be a 10% increase in my monthly available budget, and that would be absolutely huge to me. For the rest of American that would be so as well. I felt he did a decent job on immigration as well.


Most importantly, I felt Perry did a good job of taking it to Mitt Romney. In fairness, Perry really should have let Mitt finish his sentences, but the reality of the situation was that I think Mitt sounded like a he was whining while Perry seemed like an attack dog. While Perry’s statement about Romney hiring illegal immigrants may not have only been true in name only (and I’ll look for a fact check on that), if Romney’s response was indeed true, it still did bloody Romney a bit. Perry may have started to rebound last night.

Perry got better in this debate before he got worse. At first he was figuring out how to properly present conservatism. As I’ve said recently, I like his Flat Tax. I like his plan to remove all regulations added by the Obama administration based on one critera, “if it costs jobs, get rid of it.” My other favorite Perry statement tonight was “If you’re too big to fail, you’re too big.” And then the gaffes happened.

At one point I thought that Perry was back on the rise, and I was glad, because I think he’s one of the conservative powerhouses in this race and if he can prove he can win I’d love to back him. Then he couldn’t complete answering a question and looked like a bumbling fool. Once again I continue to stay that real conservatism wins every single time it’s effectively communicated. The problem is I still doubt if Perry can effectively communicate it.

Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):

Mitt stood his ground last night and did as well as he’s continued to do. I want to see a fact check on his claim that his “illegal immigrant hiring” was actually him contracting for landscaping with a company who hired illegals, which is, in fairness, not something I can legitimately blame Mitt for. However, where I think he looked bad was when he was defending himself against the interruptions by Perry. I know, it doesn’t sound right, and in most cases I would think that Perry sounded like a jerk and Mitt like a victim. Yet, in that particular instance, Mitt came off to me as condescending and Perry as someone who was legitimately looking for answers.


That exchange (and the subsequent Twitter reactions during it) showed Mitt’s biggest problem. The conservative Republican base really doesn’t want him. That’s why there’s been a perpetual battle of Mitt vs. Not Mitt. (The role of Not Mitt has been played recently by Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain.) Republicans are desperately seeking somebody else, and that will hurt Mitt.

Mitt had good moments and bad. One of his best moments was explaining the definition of profits. He got out of his robotic mode and got excited and showed emotion about capitalism. He had a rough moment early on when he was being questioned about his flip flops. What it really comes down to is that Romney would be okay, but we can do better. We’ve got, by my count, five dyed in the wool conservatives on that stage, and I want better than Mitt.

Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):

Santorum was swinging away again tonight, and I still don’t think he gained any traction. I like him, but his highest possible realistic goal is Vice President.

Santorum had a great debate. He really was on the ball. I just don’t see him getting revved up. Maybe I’m wrong. But for now, he’s getting 2-3% in polls. He’s got no chance.


My personal decision is getting closer…at least I’m down to three candidates I’m seriously considering: Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I’m sick of listening to Leftwing Moderators playing gotcha and knowing they will give softballs to Obama when the general election debates occur. Still, The field is winnowing in my mind. We’ll see how that continues. Next debate is Saturday night. We’ll see what happens!

Cain Accusations Would Never Hold Up in Court

I've been hearing from several people on both sides of the aisle one question: Why are conservatives defending Herman Cain?  Why is it different than when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual harassment and other, far worse charges?  Here's why:  The accusations against Cain are hearsay at best. Three of the four accusations have come anonymously and without description.  The fourth shows up only after three others came up anonymously and has so many holes in it it should be on a Turkey and Swiss sandwich, and the fifth's accusations (again anonymous) is that Cain invited her to dinner. (Apparently every woman I asked to join me for a meal was sexual harassment…even the ones I didn't have romantic intentions toward. So Grandma, the time I asked you if you wanted to go out and get a slice of pizza with me…I'm sorry.)

Back to the one and only accuser with a name and a face. There's a lot to question with this woman's story. For example, why is it you filed no charges then, made no formal complaint then, called no press conference when Herman Cain ran for Senate in 2004, and then, all of a sudden, shows up with Gloria Allred, who has a striking history of only defending leftists (while refusing to represent Juanita Broderick when she alleged rape against Bill Clinton). Or how about if someone makes such outrageous advances on you, do you ask for a ride home? Or how about why you now have no intention still of pressing any charges or suing Cain?  Or why is it you show up only after multiple anonymous claims? This is, believe it or not, is the best witness available!

These claims wouldn't last two seconds in a court of law.  There's still no real evidence. There's only one witness and her story is full of holes.  Anonymous witnesses don't count for beans in court, ever, nor should they count in court.  It's easy to stand behind a curtain and levy charges anonymously, because that's the best way to lie.  You don't give your name or your source, you just claim wildly and expect to be believed.
So yes, I am disregarding these claims until something believable comes out from credible sources. When Bill Clinton was accused, there were named, specific accusations levied.  There were witnesses and a history of those accusations being made.  They didn't just happen to show up years later only when Clinton was a candidate.  There was a long pattern of accusations dating to before Clinton's candidacy to his days as Governor of Arkansas.  Such accusations weren't new to Clinton.

But with Herman Cain it's all of a sudden. It didn't happen when he ran for Senate, it didn't happen when he decided to run for President, it happened when he became the frontrunner then, out of nowhere, these accusations come out, and they're veiled and anonymous at first. Then after a week of a non-story backed by only anonymous sources, out pops this woman whose story just doesn't add up with Democrat activist attorney Gloria Allred at her side. It's awfully convenient. 

This is why we're defending Cain: We understand the meaning of due process and innocent until proven guilty.  We do not play the game that the "seriousness of the charge outweighs the nature of the evidence."  The evidence is flimsy at best coming from questionable and mainly anonymous sources. Beyond that, sexual harassment has become any appearance of impropriety, or even not impropriety at all that caused someone to be "offended," with zero regard to whether such offense is reasonable. Then it's tried by the media where a verdict of guilty is pronounced on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to quit whatever their job or race they are currently in.  It's ridiculous.

In the end, we're defending Cain because such hit-pieces by the Drive-By Media are now standard operating procedure.  They will pull them out on any candidate they deem to conservative, and any Republican once they're the nominee.  (Don't believe me?  Where was the Media love-fest over John McCain in 2008?  Oh yeah, there wasn't one.)  They pulled it with Rick Perry and the name painted over on a rock at his family hunting camp, they're trying to pull it out with a false story about Newt Gingrich and his ex-wife.  Now they're pulling it out on Cain.  

Conservatives will actually rebuke our own when such claims are proven (just ask Newt Gingrich).  But what we will not do is let a man's reputation be trashed on heresay. Prove it with credible witnesses (plural witnesses who are ALSO credible), not with one witness who isn't credible and three anonymous claims.  Otherwise, move on, and quit trashing a man's reputation.

What's really ticking of the Drive-By Media is the fact that Cain isn't playing their game. He won't quit because he's being accused. He maintains it's not true and won't drop it. That's what an innocent man does, people! Innocent people don't admit to wrongs they didn't perpetrate because it's demanded of them. Quite frankly, the way Cain is denying this is part of what makes be believe he is innocent. I could be wrong here, but I know that Cain is a smart man.

Cain knows that he won't have the Leftwing Media defending his actions and sweeping them under the rug if he was lying, like Bill Clinton did. Yet he keeps denying it. That leaves, in my mind, two possibilities. Option one, he's a fool, and there's too much evidence to the contrary for that. Or, option two, he's telling the truth. Which means the constant barrage of "admit what you did" is simply unreasonable. You can stand and demand that I admit here and now that I robbed a bank last Tuesday…but there's one problem: I didn't rob a bank last Tuesday…in fact I've never robbed a bank. I'm not going to admit to a false accusation. I look in Herman Cain's eyes when he denies these charges, and my gut tells me he's telling the truth. (The same gut that told me Bill Clinton was lying when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" by the way.)

The last thing:  If you're a fan of some other GOP candidate and you think that piling on to Cain is going to somehow help your guy or gal, let me tell you something with 100% certainty:  If your guy or gal gets the nomination, there will be some other sort of gotcha perpetrated on them.  It might be an outdated name on a hunting camp that you painted over, it might be a false story about your ex-wife, it might be an attack on your religious faith, it might be a false claim of sexual harassment.  Your candidate will not be above reproach, because the Drive-By Media is not restricted to the truth.  If there's nothing real, they will make it up.  Guaranteed. If we do not draw the line in the stand and say "this far and no farther" I guarantee you that this will be the new liberal template to get any conservative out of any race. It's the seriousness of the charge, no resign. I don't care how innocent and angelic you think your candidate is…I guarantee you he or she will be the next who is slandered. The time has come to demand real, iron-clad evidence, and in the absence of such, defend our people. Period.

9% Unemployment is Still Terrible

The news came out on Friday that the national unemployment rate is down to 9%.  The Drive-By Media is going to tell you that this is a win for President Obama.  I'm here to be your reality check and tell you it's not a win for Obama. It's a joke to say that this is a win for Obama, based on the President's own standard. 

Remember when the Stimulus was passed? Nearly three years after Obama's Stimulus Package was passed, we're still at a full percentage point higher than the President promised we would go past if we did pass the Stimulus.  So, to put it simply:  Promise: Unemployment below 8%.  Reality: Two years later, we're celebrating 9%, and remember, it was as high as 10.9% at one point. 

Now I know what the two or three liberals who end up reading this will tell me: It would've been so much worse.  It's a favorite line of liberals, because of course their claim can't be proven so they can trumpet it like it's their job. Actually, there are many historical examples of worse recessions that we were able to get out of much faster with zero government stimulus.

In 1920 we saw a depression (not just a recession, a depression) where unemployment jumped from 4% to 12%.  President Warren G. Harding's reaction?  Cut government spending in half then slash tax rates on all income brackets, in the process reducing the national debt by one-third.  The Federal Reserve did just as little. By 1921 a full blown recovery commenced.  By 1922, unemployment was down to 6.7% and by 1933 it was 2.4%. (2)

According to historian and economist Thomas Woods,

The federal government did not do what Keynesian economists ever since have urged it to do: run unbalanced budgets and prime the pump through increased expenditures. Rather, there prevailed the old-fashioned view that government should keep taxation and spending low and reduce the public debt. (2)

Yet today, we've got 9% unemployment, which is an increase from pre-Stimulus levels and higher than the promised "not above 8%" that the Democrats hawked before the bill, yet Nancy Pelosi is telling us that, without the stimulus, unemployment would've gone up to 15%. (3)  Nothing in history backs this claim.  We might as well make our own claims too.  So here goes nothing.  If I hadn't had a ham sandwich for lunch this past Friday, the Earth would've been sucked into the Sun.  It makes absolutely the same amount of sense as Pelosi's claim.  

Aside from using a level of logic that hasn't been so illogical since the invention of the Biathalon (seriously...skiing plus shooting a gun...who thought of THAT?), this is not a win for Obama.  Based on his claims, we never should've seen 9% unemployment to begin with.  If Obama hadn't played his Keynesian games that have yet to work in the history of the world, we'd be out of this recession.  So no, this isn't a win for Obama.  This is a loss for Obama.  End of story.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) U.S. unemployment rate falls to 9%

(2) The Forgotten Depression of 1920 

(3) Pelosi: Without Obama's Stimulus, Unemployment Would Now Be 15%

Reactions to the Cain-Gingrinch "Lincoln-Douglas" Debate

Saturday night, Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain met for an unorthodox but highly entertaining debate in the style of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas from their 1858 campaign for the United States Senate. It was a fascinating concept. What I liked about this debate was I got to see real discussion between two candidates that went heavily into the issues instead of just providing for quick, sound-bite answers.


From an entertainment standpoint, this debate was beyond compare. Both Cain and Gingrich are legitimate conservative candidates that I am seriously considering voting for come New York’s primary next year. Both present two great conservative solutions: the 9-9-9 Plan and the New Contract with America. Seeing the two of them square off head to head told me one thing above all else: I’d love to get behind either one of these men in 2012 against Obama.

For the record, I’m buying both of their stocks, so I won’t bother playing Buy, Hold, Sell All or Sold. This was just too different a debate to use the standard format. So instead, I’d like to discuss what I thought was each candidate’s best overall moment, best response to a question, best point made against their opponent and what position makes me, as a conservative, the most excited.


Herman Cain:

Best Overall Moment: “Since Medicare/Medicaid got started in 1965 what it has done trying to control it out of Washington, DC it has gotten states hooked on it like people getting hooked on crack. We have to break the crack habit! Block granting is definitely the approach to end the dependence of states on Washington DC bureaucrats making those decisions.”

Best Response to a Question: We have the best healthcare in the world…we have a Healthcare cost problem. “Don’t let the liberals use their typical scare tactic of throwing grandma off a cliff.” Treat Medicare money like IT’S YOUR MONEY not part of a pool. Ownership of money will cause people to spend it better.

Honorable Mention Moment: Cain’s statement on requiring a photo ID to vote. I had some friends over (including fellow blogger the JC_Freak) to watch the debate and we actually took a moment to discuss what type of individual would actually be able to survive in this country without some sort of legal photo ID. We concluded it would be an individual who had inherited their home on a generational basis going back so far that that Squater’s Rights took over and a photo ID was not required to receive the house in a will, is a completely self-sufficient subsistence farmer who grows his own food and does not sell it, or if he does sell it accepts only cash and then keeps his money under his mattress does not drive, and never purchases any age limited product (ie alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, and NyQuil). That’s the person who would be able to survive without a photo ID, because you must provide it to buy a home, to rent a home, to drive a car and to have a job. So to say that it’s disenfranchising people by requiring a photo ID is just plain silly.

Position that Excites me Most as a Conservative: Cain’s “teach a man to fish” story excited me. Cain gets the problem with the entitlement society…we’re just giving people a fish constantly and now they’re standing with their hands out waiting for their next fish. The truth is that we should create a system where we are not making people comfortable in poverty but where we provide their immediate needs until such time as they can pull THEMSELVES out of poverty.

Newt Gingrich:

Best Overall Moment: “The left has this model in which everybody is weak, helpless and stupid but government will take care of them…which always leads me to wonder who do they think government hires?”

Best Response to a Question: "All of us have a hand in making medical costs a mess. Nobody thought through the consequences of a 3rd party payment system. We have no nat’l hearings on fraud at McDonald’s because you ask for a Quarter Pounder, they give you a Quarter Pounder, you give them money. There is a direct relationship. Medical insurance is not like that."


Position that Excites me Most as a Conservative: In the last part of the debate, Gingrich said “I don’t think you solve poverty problems by considering people helpless.” I couldn’t agree more. We treat the poor as so helpless and useless that they need government to care for them. This is the cornerstone of the liberal mentality that must be changed. People, regardless of their current fiscal property, have the ability to lift themselves out of poverty given the proper impetus. The left doesn’t want that…they believe you need government to save you from poverty. We as conservatives believe that, to paraphrase somebody I don’t like “Yes YOU can.”

Winner of the Debate: Newt Gingrich by a mile. Newt was more articulate and more Presidential. I do believe I’d give my right arm to see Gingrich debate Obama.

I’d love to see a Gingrich/Cain ticket in 2012 (with Newt at the top of the ticket). It would serve multiple purposes, including giving Cain experience as the #2 and grooming him to be President after Gingrich.

Between the Debates - Checking in on the GOP Race

It's been a while since we've been able to assess where candidates (and their stock) are standing in the current race. The last debate was on October 18th, the next full debate is on November 9th.  It seems like it's a good time to check in and do a round of buy, hold, sell, sell all or sold to assess where the candidates stand in the race.  As always, we'll continue to put the previous debate's comments for each candidate in italics and their previous stock rating in parenthasis.

Michelle Bachmann – Sell (Hold):

Congresswoman Bachmann came out swinging last night. She really had some great moments. I honestly do not know if this response will build any support for her. She had some great moments. My favorite was when she brought up that Barrack Obama’s relatives are still in this country illegally. Honestly I don’t know if she’s going to pick up any support, but I thought her debate performance was solid.

Congresswoman Bachmann hasn't really capitalized on the debate performance from October 18th.  She still sits at around 3% in the current polls.  It's going to take something huge for her to contend.  Keep an eye on her as a potential Vice Presidential candidate.  I also think if Speaker John Boehner loses a Tea Party primary challenge, I think you could see Bachmann as Speaker of the House.

Herman Cain – Buy (Buy):

He took it hard on the 9% sales tax in the debate from the other candidates. I think he did a good job of responding and explaining that the plan is replacing the current pipeline, not giving a new tax pipeline.

In the last month I’ve done a 180 on Herman Cain. He’s become a viable candidate and is the current contender to Mitt Romney at the top of the race. I thought he did a very good job of explaining his 9-9-9 Plan and continuing to invite people to go to his website and view the plan in full. He did a great job to explain that his plan is replacing significant taxes that go into the price of every product we buy. He’s going to have to do a lot of explaining to get that fact into people’s heads. Yes, there would need to be significant and potentially Constitutional safeguards for a plan like 9-9-9 to work. But he did a good job I think of shaking off the attacks and staying firm on his plan.

Cain has become the frontrunner in the race.  He's leading Mitt Romney in basically every national poll and is doing well in several key states, including leading Mitt by 7% in the most recent Quinnipiac Poll (1).  The left has tried to take him out by bringing out the old, tried and true sexual harrassment claims on Cain, and his support, along with his fundraising, went UP.  Liberals are absolutely dumbfounded now....they have no idea how to beat Cain. This could be very, very interesting.

Side note: I'm very interested to watch Cain and Newt Gingrich square off in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on Saturday.  Should be fun to watch.

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Buy):

Newt joins Herman Cain in the category of making me look bad, and I’m glad of it. I really like Newt. If he can show himself to be a viable option and not a throw away vote in my state’s primary, I’d strongly consider voting for him. He’s got great ideas and he would absolutely cream Obama in a debate. He had great moments in the debate. I’d like to see Newt really take the next step. Let’s see what happens.

Newt has pulled into 3rd place and is staying there.  If Cain falls off at some point, I'd expect Newt to be one of the contenders for the official "Not Mitt" spot in the race of Mitt vs. Not Mitt.  I'd love to get behind Newt...he's just got to prove to me that he can win.  He's a true dyed in the wool conservative, just what this country needs, and if the current liberal attack machine on Herman Cain ends up doing any damage, watch out for Newt to be the new "Not Mitt" option.

Jon Huntsman – Not In Attendance (Sold):

I’m glad Huntsman wasn’t here. I’ve run out of funny statements for him. I’ll work on it before the next debate. Any suggestions, send me a tweet @UpstateMetFan.

I still need suggestions...tweet me!

Gary Johnson – Not in Attendance (Sold):

See Jon Huntsman note.

See John Huntsman note.

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):

Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy tonight for the majority of the debate. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I agree with him on 85% of his policies. Unfortunately the other 15%, which only came up minimally last night, scare me about him, like his isolationist policies that do not make sense in our modern world. I stay where I’ve stood, he won’t be the President. But I’m glad he’s in my party. Also, I’d like to give kudos to Paul on one statement, “We have rights, and they come from God.”

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ron Paul isn't going to be the GOP nominee.  Unlike the other people who have no chance, however, I respect Paul, so I won't go past that.

Rick Perry – Hold (Buy):

I felt Perry rebounded pretty well. His plans to use the energy resources we have to power this country makes far too much sense to ignore. I can’t tell you what a boon to my budget it would be to see my energy costs go down. I’m fortunate enough to live in a town with local, municipal electricity, but even so, if gas prices were cut in half and energy prices were cut in half due to increased supply, that’d be a 10% increase in my monthly available budget, and that would be absolutely huge to me. For the rest of American that would be so as well. I felt he did a decent job on immigration as well.

Most importantly, I felt Perry did a good job of taking it to Mitt Romney. In fairness, Perry really should have let Mitt finish his sentences, but the reality of the situation was that I think Mitt sounded like a he was whining while Perry seemed like an attack dog. While Perry’s statement about Romney hiring illegal immigrants may not have only been true in name only (and I’ll look for a fact check on that), if Romney’s response was indeed true, it still did bloody Romney a bit. Perry may have started to rebound last night.

I just don't know what to do with Perry.  On paper, his ideas are great...Flat Tax, Balanced Budget Amendment, Drill Baby Drill...and yet I'm not convinced he can effectively communicate those ideas.  There's an old adage in sales:  A good salesman could sell ice to an eskimo, but a bad salesman couldn't sell a man dying of thirst a glass of water. This is where I am with Perry...which salesman is he?  Conservatism is a good product, but if you're not a good salesman you can't even sell someone precisely what they need.  Perry's next debate performance will be key.  Has he taken time to practice and work on his message?  If so, he's got a shot at my vote and being the Republican nominee.  If not, he's done on both counts.

Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):

Mitt stood his ground last night and did as well as he’s continued to do. I want to see a fact check on his claim that his “illegal immigrant hiring” was actually him contracting for landscaping with a company who hired illegals, which is, in fairness, not something I can legitimately blame Mitt for. However, where I think he looked bad was when he was defending himself against the interruptions by Perry. I know, it doesn’t sound right, and in most cases I would think that Perry sounded like a jerk and Mitt like a victim. Yet, in that particular instance, Mitt came off to me as condescending and Perry as someone who was legitimately looking for answers.

That exchange (and the subsequent Twitter reactions during said exchange) showed Mitt’s biggest problem. The conservative Republican base really doesn’t want him. That’s why there’s been a perpetual battle of Mitt vs. Not Mitt. (The role of Not Mitt has been played recently by Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain.) Republicans are desperately seeking somebody else, and that will hurt Mitt.

Romney is what he is...a Rockefeller Republican who would be better than Obama, but we can still do better than Mitt. Conservatives don't want him...but the other Rockefeller Republicans do. I've talked to a few independents as well who like Romney, but I still think there's better choices out there, and with the Democrats seemingly intent on running Obama again, we have the opportunity to run a real conservative and give America a real choice.  However, I can live with Romney if I have to...I just hope I don't have to live with Romney.

Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):

Santorum was swinging away again tonight, and I still don’t think he gained any traction. I like him, but his highest possible realistic goal is Vice President.

Santorum can't get traction, and if he hasn't gotten out of the basement yet, he's simply not going to now.  He might be Vice President, and that's an outside chance.


The next debate is five days away, and it's going to be interesting to see how this break between debates effects certain candidates.  Personally, I still haven't made up my mind.  Have you?  I'd love to hear from you if you have.  Email me at biblicalconservatism@aol.com with your thoughts!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) American Voters Like Obama Better This Week, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Cain And Gingrich Up As Romney Stalls And Perry Fades

Dear President Obama: We're better off on our own!

This is one of those posts where I want musical accompaniment.  So please, click the embedded video below, then proceed to read:

                        (1)

This past week President Obama gave a speech wherein you warned that if he were not reelected, government would tell people "you're on your own." You know what? Sounds awesome!

You see, Mr. President, I wasn't raised to count on government to take care of me. I'm not standing in the street waiting for you to give me money our of your "stash." I've got a job where I earn my own living...I have a college degree which I paid for myself through my own hard work...I've got everything I have by the grace of God and the sweat of my brow...and I'm darn proud of it.

That's the problem I have with Obama's leftist policies. It's not the government's job to take care of me. It's my own job to do that. It's not up to the government to provide me with healthcare. It's up to me to figure that out on my own. 

Now I'm no anarchist. I'm glad that I, as one member of We the People, have joined into the contract of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I'm happy to pay taxes so that we can have centralized protections from police internally and military externally. I'm happy to pay taxes so there are roads and bridges and so forth. What I do object to is the mentality that we NEED government to do far more than that.

See what Obama doesn’t understand…refuses to understand really, is that I’m better off on my own. I can take care of myself far better than the nanny-state government can do. I can decide for myself whether or not I want to eat food with trans-fats. I can decide for myself how much salt I should eat. I can decide for myself whether or not to buy health insurance and I can deal with the consequences of that decision on my own.
As an individual with the assistance of other individuals we can take care of the needy just fine without the government doing it. We’re called the Church of Jesus Christ. There are other groups like us except they’re called synagogues, or Salvation Army, or the Rescue Mission, or Volunteers of America. We give benevolently from our ability to churches and synagogues and charities so we can provide for food pantries, shelters, and other organizations with which can care for the needy far better than the government can giving handouts. If you don’t believe me, then ask me why it was that there wasn’t widespread starvation in the Great Depression…after all there wasn’t massive government safety nets to care for people…yet there wasn’t widespread starvation. You know why? It’s because churches and charities took care of those needy individuals and provided food and often shelter. Who do you think ran those bread lines and soup kitchens you see in old newsreels? It sure wasn’t the government!

The truth is, Mr. President, I can take care of myself just fine. I’ve got a blood family and a church family who will help me if I need it. Now I don’t mind having that minimal safety net for those in need like unemployment insurance and emergency medical care at hospitals, regardless of ability to pay. A safety net isn’t the problem. The problem is that liberals like you, Mr. President, have decided that the government should not be providing a safety net but instead be a source of provision for people full time. And once you’ve made people comfortable in poverty rather than simply providing their needs, you now make it so people don’t want to pull themselves out of poverty! That’s the difference between giving a hungry person a bag of nutritious groceries and an EBT Card where they can purchase candy and soda with instead of food.

While we’re at it, your accusation that the Republicans’ way means “dirty air, dirty water” is flat out baloney. You see, we had more than enough regulations to actually keep the water and air clean before you came along and added to them. Despite what liberals seem to believe, it is not possible to pass a law so perfect that nobody will break it. Yet they seem to think if the law is broken we need a new law. Actually, if we’d just enforce those laws and punish those who break them, we’d be just fine, thank you very much. We don’t need new laws. We don’t need to pass a moratorium on deep water drilling because there was an accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Do you recall what gas prices were before that moratorium? I do…below $2 per gallon. Then the President bans drilling and gas prices double. Meanwhile, Exxon has cleaned up the spill in the Gulf and, shock of shocks, our magnificently created planet has healed itself completely thanks to such wonderful natural organisms like bacteria that eat oil. (It’s almost like Earth was designed that way, isn’t it?) It wasn’t government that fixed that problem, now was it? It was the magnificence of God’s creation coupled with Exxon cleaning up after itself.

We don’t need to pass a law to force people to buy health insurance…it turns out the safety net we already had worked just fine. As a matter of fact, your law has cost people their insurance. Companies like McDonalds that offered optional accident and sickness coverage have had to drop that coverage because it’s too expensive, thanks to Obamacare. Even though your law was supposed to give more people health insurance, it’s cost people their insurance. It’s making it harder to for employers to provide insurance now than it was before by making it more expensive. See, the Republican’s “do nothing solution” isn’t really doing nothing period, it’s getting government out of the way and letting the private sector “do something.”

Mr. President, we’re doing just fine on our own. We’d be better off without your “help.” So when you tell us that if you lose “we’re on our own” my response is HALLELUJAH! I’m on my own! I can take care of myself just fine, thank you kindly. So do me a favor, will you, Mr. President? Let me be on my own. I’ll keep my freedom and my personal responsibility. You can keep the change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Lynyrd Skynyrd - That aint my America

No, Rick Perry Wasn't Drunk...Move On

Last week, Texas Governor and Presidential Candidate Rick Perry gave a speech in New Hampshire.  Now the liberal media attack machine is claiming that Perry "must have been drunk" during the speech.  Apparently since the attacks regarding the former name of a ranch that the Perry family owns (and renamed due to the offensive slur) (1) didn't land, now they're going to claim Perry must've been drunk when he gave the speech.

Now I won't tell you Perry is the most polished speaker.  He isn't.  But that doesn't equate drunkeness.  At all. Other descriptions called the speech "rambling and incoherent."  Actually, he sounds like a good old boy Texan, and to quote a favorite movie, "just because he talks slow doesn't mean he's stupid."  He also sounded like he was trying to present a similar, off the cuff, regular guy style like Herman Cain.  (Did he do it well?  No.)

Friends, I listened to the entire speech...it wasn't rambling and incoherent.  (I grant you, it sounded a lot more incoherent when I sat down and WATCHED the speech rather than listening to it without images.) However, there were actually some great moments presenting great conservative ideas. Not only are you not going to think Perry was drunk, you may actually become excited about his ideas.   I encourage you to watch the entire speech:

 (2)

Now this never happens when a liberal makes a fool out of themselves.  Was Howard Dean said to be drunk in 2004?  Goodness no! Now ask me, what seems more like a man drunk or on drugs?  Perry above, or this:

 (3)

How about rambling?  Do you want to hear a rambling, incoherent speech?  Listen to what President Obama sounds like when he goes off the teleprompter.

 (4)

Now THAT was incoherent.

In the last few days, we've seen the Drive-By Media go all out at two of the most conservative candidates available in the Republican Primary, Herman Cain (5) and Rick Perry.  The truth is the left is terrified of a real conservative...they know that it would mean not only the end of Obama's presidency, but also a huge setback for liberalism, because real conservatism not only wins every time it's effectively communicated, but it works every time it's tried.  They don't want people to see how well conservatism works, so they break out false attacks on conservatives.  They used to get away with it...not anymore.

-------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rick Perry "Racist" Hunting Camp is a Grasp at Straws by the Left

(2) Rick Perry - Full, uncut "drunk" Cornerstone New Hampshire speech - Friday, 28 October, 2011

(3) Howard Dean's Scream

(4) Obama gets lost reading his teleprompter
(5) Left Breaks Out Same Tired Playbook on Herman Cain

Left Breaks Out Same Tired Playbook on Herman Cain

It’s one of the oldest plays in the liberal playbook…come out with a story with anonymous sources with vague accusations of sexual harassment or some other such thing at a conservative and trumpet it as “the seriousness of the charge demands our attention,” regardless of the nature of the evidence. It happens especially often when a black American dares to succeed outside the framework of the Democrat party…without affirmative action, without liberal victimization, just on their own merit…especially if they dare to be conservative.

This is precisely what the left is attempting to pull on Herman Cain. This time it’s a claim of sexual harassment, reported by the liberal favorite Politico, that was found to be baseless after an investigation, and based on, at best, a tremendous overreaction, or at worst an intentional attempt to tear down a good man.

To his credit, Mr. Cain has done a fine job of responding to this baloney. He explained the supposedly offensive gesture in an interview last night with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News.

“She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying -- and I was standing close to her -- and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, 'My wife comes up to my chin.'" At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. "And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable," Cain said, "something that was in the sexual harassment charge." (1)

Now THERE is an avert sexual advance…you’re about the same height as my wife, she’s this tall. (If you’re picking up my sarcasm, it’s good, because I’m laying it on pretty thick.) Now we don’t know the context of this conversation, but I’m pretty sure discussing someone’s height as a relative to the height of someone else in your life is something I do all the time when the subject comes up. For example, if someone complains that they’re too short, such a response would make an awful lot of sense…you’re not that short, you’re the same height as my wife.

Yes, I know there was a settlement paid. For those of you who have never worked in corporate America, I’m going to explain to you how the world works in such cases. Businesses perform a cost-benefit analysis and often decide that the cost of fighting a lawsuit would be significantly more than the cost of paying a small settlement, so they pay the settlement rather than fight the case and paying the legal fees. It means precisely nothing. It means that the case was settled rather than pay the legal fees to fight it and nothing more. The investigation that occurred after the fact cleared Cain of any wrongdoing, which backs up this fact. (1)

Of course, when a liberal Democrat is accused of the same thing, every attempt is made to sweep it under the rug. When the Monica Lewinski scandal first broke, the claims from the same liberal press was Lewinski was stalking Clinton and that Kenneth Star was “obsessed with sex.” Quite probably if Lewinski hadn’t kept the famous blue dress as a souvenir, she would have had her reputation as tarnished by the Clinton administration and the media as Paula Jones, Juanita Broadderick, and Kathleen Willey…and those claims ranged from sexual harassment to sexual assault to rape...these of course were swept under the rug. We were told these claims didn’t matter because they didn’t affect his job. These were claims that were spread out across many women and were widespread and also very serious charges, and yet the Drive-By Media didn’t run with them. On the contrary, they took Clinton’s part in the whole thing.

I, for one, am sick and tired of this high-tech lynching of any black American who dares to succeed without help from the Democrat party. It’s precisely the same game used by the left to try to destroy Clarence Thomas when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. The same type of accusations were leveled at Thomas, but never proven…once again it was the “seriousness of the charge” and not the nature of the evidence that mattered.

Here’s the truth: Herman Cain terrifies the Obama Administration. If he was the Republican nominee, it would take away the favorite ad homonym attack to explain why conservatives dislike Obama (racism). Yet how can we be racist if we staunchly support a black man who agrees with us politically? It’s almost like we conservatives will support any qualified conservative candidate whose values we support, regardless of their skin color! He would mop the floor with Obama in a debate. He’s got real ideas and real experience. He can talk to a crowd as well as Obama could in ’08, and now the President has a record to answer for rather than just lines about hopeychange. Obama does not want to run against Herman Cain, so now the Drive-By Media is going to carry his water and try a hit piece on Cain.

This story was proven baseless years ago and without evidence. Shame on Politico for running this story in the first place…shame on the rest of the Drive-By Media for running this non-story…every one of them owes Herman Cain an apology.

---------------------------------------------------------

(1) Washington Examiner: Cain details gesture that led to sex accusation