Wednesday night showcased another GOP debate, this time from Michigan. While the night did not feature the fireworks of the previous debate, there were a few noteworthy moments, mostly featuring the John Wayne wannabe, aka Rick Perry, and Dr. No, that courageous Congressman from Texas.
Rick Perry made a notable faux pas, when discussing which departments of the Federal government he would summarily cut. Repubs, especially many members comprising the party's base, love talk of government shrinkage and budget cuts. Gov. Perry could not recall the third department (of three) that he would cut. While it was a humorous reprieve for the Texan, it turned out to be a general indication of Perry's inability to get a handle on the concept of a "debate" (or, really, how to successfully perform at one). In all seriousness, his handlers need to prep him better: he needs to have a firm handle on his policy proposals (ridiculous as they may be) and needs to be given instruction on how to debate, which involves controlling facial expressions and his unyielding penchant to verbally pounce on opponents. Simple, really.
With each debate performance, Perry seems to cede more ground to his Repub opponents. His campaign is rapidly approaching the ash-heap of history. Each debate is an opportunity for each one of the candidates to shine: their answers could be soundbites that could be replayed on news programs and talk shows. I am sure that Perry's answers will be replayed but for the sole purpose of highlighting his incompetence. His poor debate performance is made worse by the fact that he does not appear jovial. To Bush's credit (or benefit), he had a jovial, likable personality. His poor "Yale style" debating ability was somewhat marginalized by his personality--his marketable persona. Perry's persona is one of a John Wayne wannabe--"a tough, rugged individualist." These moments of peril are rapidly accumulating and may sink his already unstable campaign boat.
On the other side is Ron Paul, whose debate performance demands some attention and, well, praise. Paul consistently appears to be the outcast at these debates. Even when he was running for the nomination in 2007, his presence on the Repub. debate stage seemed strange. His Congressional votes match his rhetoric, which has remained consistent for ... DECADES. He is a fascinating politician to study: the Washington political, old-boy network has not corrupted him. Paul is as pure and unadulterated as they come. During tonight's debate, Paul was given the opportunity to make his case for the necessity of liquidating the mal-investment and bad debt that U.S. corporations and banking firms have accumulated over the last forty years. The incorrigible, obnoxious, and overrated Jim Cramer, with his ideologically -laced questions, could not derail Paul. Each one of Paul's responses is really quite wonderful: each clearly articulates the problems with the current system and then proposes a solution that is both constitutional and dedicated to that seemingly antiquated notion of liberty. Just look at Ron Paul's criticisms of the bailouts and the current health system (including but not limited to Obamacare).
Paul's support does not appear to start or end with your humble blogger. According to the Detroit Free Press, the debate audience ranked Romney and Paul as among their favorites of the night. Unsurprising. Romney still manages to court GOP support and still maintains his solid standing in the polls; and, significant too, he performs well in the debates. The audience enthusiastically endorsed Paul's responses this evening, which follows the trend in debate audiences of the past. Paul does well. And continues the trend. Interestingly, Gingrich did well, too ... as did Cain. The audience loved Cain's response to the sexual harassment allegations.
The debate had its moments of worth but it was not a game changer: Perry is still in peril and Paul is still worthy of praise. Business as usual.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Lecherous(?) Godfather's Saga Continues ...
The fallout from accusations of sexual harassment is like jello: there is always room for more. Shorten that line and you have an aphorism. GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain cannot seem to avoid the accusation of sexual harassment. Just this week, another woman accused the Godfather, lobbyist, and FED minion of sexual harassment. What started as one accuser, then two, and then three has now resulted in four--yes, four--accusations.
On Tuesday, one of those accusers revealed her identity and claimed that she had concealed her identity because of fear of retaliation from Cain's supporters. She finally revealed herself as Karen Kraushaar and then proceeded to, in an interview with ABC News, call Cain "a monster." At a press conference on the same day, Cain attempted to distance himself (and his campaign) from the accusations by calling the accusers "liars" and blaming the accusations and accompanying media interest on the Democratic Party. Cain's commentary paints the Dems as an "evil" party that is conspiring to keep the pizza man from victory. To be sure, Cain needed to hold a press conference to categorically respond to the allegations but his press conference was Cain-esque in both substance and rhetoric. And, of course, Cain-esque is not exactly tactful policy.
Kraushaar's allegations raise significant questions, though. For one, she received a $45,000 settlement with the National Restaurant Association (Cain's old stomping grounds); in other words, she reasoned that $45,000 was enough to get over what the "monster" did to her. For another, she did not make public her decade old allegations until well into Cain's campaign (i.e., after his "9-9-9 plan" bump in the polls). Politically calculated allegations are never new, of course. These sexual harassment allegations have, at the very least, a political element that cannot be ignored. Everyone knows this. In a sense, it is a truism. Cain's press conference was aimed to combat the allegations and contain the negligible amount of fallout .
And, as the ABC News article noted, Kraushaar is now a spokeswoman for the IRS' Inspector General. For what it is worth, a member of the Federal government's tax harassment office is accusing a member of the political establishment of sexual harassment. I guess this should be newsworthy.
But, back to Cain's press conference. Cain denied even knowing Sharon Bialek, another one of his accusers who, also, worked at the NRA. His line was quite precious: "My first response in my mind and reaction was, 'I don't even know who this woman is.'" Correct me if I am wrong but you can certainly commit sexual harassment against a woman without knowing her name.
Also this week, a fifth woman came forward to say that Cain had made "a very odd request" after giving a speech in Egypt in 2001. Cain apparently asked Donna Donella (a name lacking in so many respects), the woman who helped to organize the speech, to help him contact "the lovely young woman in the audience who asked me the question so I can give her a more detailed answer over dinner." Both Donella and another woman found the request odd. I would, too. Expectedly, Donella refused to contact the woman. Then, she claims, Cain asked her to dinner!
You, dear reader, may have no idea what is happening to Cain, but the photo below may help to clarify:
On Tuesday, one of those accusers revealed her identity and claimed that she had concealed her identity because of fear of retaliation from Cain's supporters. She finally revealed herself as Karen Kraushaar and then proceeded to, in an interview with ABC News, call Cain "a monster." At a press conference on the same day, Cain attempted to distance himself (and his campaign) from the accusations by calling the accusers "liars" and blaming the accusations and accompanying media interest on the Democratic Party. Cain's commentary paints the Dems as an "evil" party that is conspiring to keep the pizza man from victory. To be sure, Cain needed to hold a press conference to categorically respond to the allegations but his press conference was Cain-esque in both substance and rhetoric. And, of course, Cain-esque is not exactly tactful policy.
Kraushaar's allegations raise significant questions, though. For one, she received a $45,000 settlement with the National Restaurant Association (Cain's old stomping grounds); in other words, she reasoned that $45,000 was enough to get over what the "monster" did to her. For another, she did not make public her decade old allegations until well into Cain's campaign (i.e., after his "9-9-9 plan" bump in the polls). Politically calculated allegations are never new, of course. These sexual harassment allegations have, at the very least, a political element that cannot be ignored. Everyone knows this. In a sense, it is a truism. Cain's press conference was aimed to combat the allegations and contain the negligible amount of fallout .
And, as the ABC News article noted, Kraushaar is now a spokeswoman for the IRS' Inspector General. For what it is worth, a member of the Federal government's tax harassment office is accusing a member of the political establishment of sexual harassment. I guess this should be newsworthy.
But, back to Cain's press conference. Cain denied even knowing Sharon Bialek, another one of his accusers who, also, worked at the NRA. His line was quite precious: "My first response in my mind and reaction was, 'I don't even know who this woman is.'" Correct me if I am wrong but you can certainly commit sexual harassment against a woman without knowing her name.
Also this week, a fifth woman came forward to say that Cain had made "a very odd request" after giving a speech in Egypt in 2001. Cain apparently asked Donna Donella (a name lacking in so many respects), the woman who helped to organize the speech, to help him contact "the lovely young woman in the audience who asked me the question so I can give her a more detailed answer over dinner." Both Donella and another woman found the request odd. I would, too. Expectedly, Donella refused to contact the woman. Then, she claims, Cain asked her to dinner!
You, dear reader, may have no idea what is happening to Cain, but the photo below may help to clarify:
Maybe the aphorism should be: the fallout from accusations of sexual harassment is like ice cream: there is always room for more. What would Bill Clinton say?!
Friday, November 4, 2011
CSPAN Video 24: New Media Changing Viewing Habits, Politics, and Fact Checking
This C-SPAN video clip features Susan Drucker, Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Hofstra University, discussing the rise of the new media, specifically YouTube, and how it has changed the viewing habits of many voters. Specifically, she notes that younger voters can quickly "fact check" as they view an interview with a politician or a presidential debate. Professor Drucker observes that the new media has created "a very different media environment." The internet has radically changed things. She is being interviewed right before the last 2008 Presidential debate. Interesting material.
CSPAN Video 23: New Media and the Youth Vote
This C-SPAN video clip is from 2008 and features David Burstein in conversation with Brian Lamb. Burstein discusses his documentary 18 in '08, which explores the youth vote's significance in the 2008 election. The clip features an important segment from the documentary that explores the significance of the internet (specifically sites like YouTube and Facebook). The guests interviewed noted that the internet has quickly become a major influence on the youth vote, because it serves as an information source and a community environment. Youth voters have come to rely on it. The video is highly recommended.
CSPAN Video 22: Clay Shirky on the New Media's Role in Politics and the Public Sphere
In this C-SPAN video, Clay Shirky, Assistant Teacher at New York University, talks about the new media--specifically, social networking websites--and its role in political affairs. Shirky contends that social media is a "net gain for democracy" as it is a tool that helps to "strengthen the public sphere" by keeping people informed and connected. Shirky discusses how social media can function as a revolutionary force. His analysis is interesting and has implications for the political establishment in America. It is a video clip worthy of a view.
Is the Texas Heat Getting to Perry?
It is fairly common: idiotic commentary prompting a politically calculated apology devoid of substance. Fairly simple and equally undesirable. Ok. So, Perry attempts to execute this common tactic this week by continuing to apologize for a comment that he made during the Repub. presidential debate of September 22. As a refresher, he rashly claimed that "opponents of in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants do not 'have a heart'" (HuffPost). Heartless? Interesting. To be sure, the idea was to present himself as the one "mainstream" Repub. candidate who does not seek to completely marginalize the hispanic vote. It is an interesting politic tactic that could be rewarding, if only Perry avoided the foolish rhetoric that has come to define his declining campaign.
Immigration is just one of many topics on which Perry has a mixed "conservative" record. During the most recent Repub. debate, we saw Perry on the defensive, attempting to defend himself against his record as Texas governor, by attempting to point out alleged weaknesses in Romney's "immigration stances." The Nevada audience responded with disgust, helping to cement Romney's claim to debate victory on that night. As expected, Perry is showing commentary schizophrenia. First, he utters these bizarre, ill-advised proclamations; and then he and his camp spend expensive time and energy attempting to both apologize and distance Governor Perry from his own delusions and commentary. I am sure that the American public is getting tired of this standard boilerplate.
But this is merely one element of a campaign that seems to be without definitive focus.
Perry's own campaign road proposals seem bizarre, even for a party historically willing to accept unconventional policy alternatives. As Cain ascended in the polls (thanks, in part, to his "9-9-9 Plan"), Perry attempted to capitalize on Repub. anti-tax sentiment by proposing his own tax reform measure: an optional 20% flat tax. The tax plan is replete with confusion and uncertainty. The plan will not derail Cain's campaign or transfer some of Cain's support to Perry. Each one of Perry's efforts at "one-upmanship" has ended in more bizarre rhetoric and predictable apology.
On the topic of Perry's tax plan: Bloomberg reported this week that Perry's optional 20% flat tax would increase taxes for approximately "41 percent of U.S. households." Comforting. So--again, an increase. I would like to hear from Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul. I am confident that he would not be warm to this inane plan. Interestingly, that same Bloomberg article notes that, "46 percent of households aren't paying Federal income tax this year." Most--not all--tax reform measures currently being debated seek to increase the number of taxable Americans. The short end of it is: more taxable Americans, means more revenue, translating to more spending programs. While this may not be explicitly stated, the reality remains: a serious tax reform policy of liberating Americans from the tyranny of the tax collectors is only being proposed by one candidate: that renegade Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. I am above the influence. Unlike the media, I am unapologetically mentioning him by name.
As the campaign season progresses, and more GOP debates are televised, Perry will be sure to open himself up to more criticism, resulting in a further decline in the polls. The result? More apologies and more incoherent policy proposals. I think that Texas heat has, indeed, been a culprit.
Immigration is just one of many topics on which Perry has a mixed "conservative" record. During the most recent Repub. debate, we saw Perry on the defensive, attempting to defend himself against his record as Texas governor, by attempting to point out alleged weaknesses in Romney's "immigration stances." The Nevada audience responded with disgust, helping to cement Romney's claim to debate victory on that night. As expected, Perry is showing commentary schizophrenia. First, he utters these bizarre, ill-advised proclamations; and then he and his camp spend expensive time and energy attempting to both apologize and distance Governor Perry from his own delusions and commentary. I am sure that the American public is getting tired of this standard boilerplate.
But this is merely one element of a campaign that seems to be without definitive focus.
Perry's own campaign road proposals seem bizarre, even for a party historically willing to accept unconventional policy alternatives. As Cain ascended in the polls (thanks, in part, to his "9-9-9 Plan"), Perry attempted to capitalize on Repub. anti-tax sentiment by proposing his own tax reform measure: an optional 20% flat tax. The tax plan is replete with confusion and uncertainty. The plan will not derail Cain's campaign or transfer some of Cain's support to Perry. Each one of Perry's efforts at "one-upmanship" has ended in more bizarre rhetoric and predictable apology.
On the topic of Perry's tax plan: Bloomberg reported this week that Perry's optional 20% flat tax would increase taxes for approximately "41 percent of U.S. households." Comforting. So--again, an increase. I would like to hear from Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul. I am confident that he would not be warm to this inane plan. Interestingly, that same Bloomberg article notes that, "46 percent of households aren't paying Federal income tax this year." Most--not all--tax reform measures currently being debated seek to increase the number of taxable Americans. The short end of it is: more taxable Americans, means more revenue, translating to more spending programs. While this may not be explicitly stated, the reality remains: a serious tax reform policy of liberating Americans from the tyranny of the tax collectors is only being proposed by one candidate: that renegade Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. I am above the influence. Unlike the media, I am unapologetically mentioning him by name.
As the campaign season progresses, and more GOP debates are televised, Perry will be sure to open himself up to more criticism, resulting in a further decline in the polls. The result? More apologies and more incoherent policy proposals. I think that Texas heat has, indeed, been a culprit.
Herr Herman the Harasser?
Doubtful, I say. News broke last week that a Repub. presidential hopeful, Herman Cain, was alleged to have committed sexual harassment multiple times throughout the 1990s. One of the times was in 1999, while he served as head of the National Restaurant Association. According to WSJ.com, one accuser had reported to her attorney that she was subjected to several "inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from" the Association's CEO. Of course, the first two accusers agreed to a substantial monetary settlement (five figures), thereby resolving their complaints. The third accuser stated that, despite the sexual harassment, she had decided against filing a formal complaint, according to HuffPost. A variety of prominent GOP-associated ideologues came to Cain's defense: Donald Trump and Fred Thompson, among others, registered their concerns about the allegations and media's treatment of Cain.
A natural question reveals itself: why now? That is to say, why are these eleven year old complaints presenting themselves at this stage of the campaign? I think both Trump and Thompson are correct when they assert that Cain's month long surge in the polls, with its accompanying media interest, has prompted an effort to derail his campaign. I am sadly reminded of Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991, when Anita Hill accused the then-nominated Supreme Court justice of sexual harassment, while both were employed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Those hearings are now infamous and for good reason. Members of Congress subjected Thomas to an undignified (read: hostile) attack; Hill's allegations contributed to the environment of Congressional ire. Of course, little came of the allegations, and Thomas was eventually confirmed.
I should note that I am not a fan of Herman Cain. His "9-9-9 Plan" leaves much to be desired, and I am not warm to his service at (or, really, to) the Kansas City FED. He is mostly a distraction, but his treatment by the political establishment, following these allegations, deserves wide-spread condemnation. A monetary settlement, short of a full investigation, is not an admission of guilt. If Cain did commit sexual harassment, he should be rightly investigated and appropriately disciplined. The evidence is lacking, but the fallout could be great.
In our politically correct society, the charge of "sexual harassment" is particularly acidic. The accuser is often given the benefit of the doubt, as great scrutiny is dispatched onto the accused. Thomas was able to avoid the stain and it appears that Cain, too, may be able to withstand the charges, given that his current standing in the polls has not diminished.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted this week has Romney in the lead at 24% and Cain closely behind at 23%. A Rasmussen poll, also conducted this week, found that, among likely Republican voters, 26% would vote for Cain, while 23% would vote for Romney. Of course, these polls are focused on GOP voters, so it is difficult to determine if Cain has broad-spectrum appeal.
To be sure, Cain and his camp have to marginalize these resurgent allegations before they morph into a national campaign that derails his candidacy. Cain, with calm determination, has to strike at the heart of the claims.
Herman's political opponents are going for maximum political return on these charges, and the Godfather must, for the wellbeing of his own campaign, stop the momentum. If not, Hermann may be forced to add another title to his collection: that of harasser.
A natural question reveals itself: why now? That is to say, why are these eleven year old complaints presenting themselves at this stage of the campaign? I think both Trump and Thompson are correct when they assert that Cain's month long surge in the polls, with its accompanying media interest, has prompted an effort to derail his campaign. I am sadly reminded of Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991, when Anita Hill accused the then-nominated Supreme Court justice of sexual harassment, while both were employed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Those hearings are now infamous and for good reason. Members of Congress subjected Thomas to an undignified (read: hostile) attack; Hill's allegations contributed to the environment of Congressional ire. Of course, little came of the allegations, and Thomas was eventually confirmed.
I should note that I am not a fan of Herman Cain. His "9-9-9 Plan" leaves much to be desired, and I am not warm to his service at (or, really, to) the Kansas City FED. He is mostly a distraction, but his treatment by the political establishment, following these allegations, deserves wide-spread condemnation. A monetary settlement, short of a full investigation, is not an admission of guilt. If Cain did commit sexual harassment, he should be rightly investigated and appropriately disciplined. The evidence is lacking, but the fallout could be great.
In our politically correct society, the charge of "sexual harassment" is particularly acidic. The accuser is often given the benefit of the doubt, as great scrutiny is dispatched onto the accused. Thomas was able to avoid the stain and it appears that Cain, too, may be able to withstand the charges, given that his current standing in the polls has not diminished.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted this week has Romney in the lead at 24% and Cain closely behind at 23%. A Rasmussen poll, also conducted this week, found that, among likely Republican voters, 26% would vote for Cain, while 23% would vote for Romney. Of course, these polls are focused on GOP voters, so it is difficult to determine if Cain has broad-spectrum appeal.
To be sure, Cain and his camp have to marginalize these resurgent allegations before they morph into a national campaign that derails his candidacy. Cain, with calm determination, has to strike at the heart of the claims.
Herman's political opponents are going for maximum political return on these charges, and the Godfather must, for the wellbeing of his own campaign, stop the momentum. If not, Hermann may be forced to add another title to his collection: that of harasser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)