Democrats & Liberals Archives

Breaking: Undecided leads GOP field!

In one of the most stunning campaigns in modern political history, Undecided has climbed into a tie for the lead among Republican presidential candidates. According to the latest Gallup poll, Undecided managed to tie both Romney and Cain at 21% with less than two months to the Iowa caucus. How did Undecided manage such a remarkable feat without funds, participation in debates, political experience, or any exposure in the media?

Of course, it's no coincidence that Undecided is tied with Romney and Cain, the two GOP candidates most closely reflecting a philosophy of 'I don't know.'

Having taken both sides of virtually every major issue, Romney presents a real challenge to Undecided. He has the kind of vague, undefined beliefs that can change at any moment, that will enable him to run neck and neck with Undecided right into Super Tuesday. Romney also enjoys an enormous financial lead, with Undecided possessing literally no money whatsoever; and yet, supporters express concern that Romney has not been able to break away.

Undecided has never addressed the media or participated in a debate. Recently, candidate Herman Cain has followed undecided's lead, with such classic statements as this: "Excuse me! Excuse me! Excuse me! Don't even bother asking!" Other statements are so confusing, they amount to an 'I don't know' approach. Despite the lack of focus and attempts to hide from the media, Cain may not have the staying power to go beyond the Iowa caucuses, while Undecided seems primed to go the distance.

Other Republican presidential candidates can only gape in slack-jawed wonder. How did Undecided do it? After all, there have been millions of dollars raised, media campaigns, viral videos, trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, and debate after debate after debate, and still, Undecided is crushing the likes of Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, and others. Rove is reported to be livid.

The Obama administration is already preparing a strategy for this newcomer. Feelers have been sent. Obama will take the first step, compromise, and sacrifice any progressive issue whatsoever, while asking nothing more in return from Undecided than a "MAYBE."

Undecided has reportedly not replied.

Posted by phx8 at November 7, 2011 6:33 PM
Comments
Comment #331645

I have it on good authority that “Undecided” could beat Obama if the election were held today.

Should “Undecided” be picked to run against decided liberal obama, he/she/it will receive my vote.

“Undecided” would undoubtedly follow the lead of the republican dominated house and senate and the country could get back to work.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2011 7:42 PM
Comment #331646

I’d like to see Undecided’s Birth Certificate.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 7, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #331647

Undecided has a 0-0-0 plan, but gives no indication of vetoing any legislation to the contrary.

Rick Perry has followed Undecided’s lead and withdrawn from the debates, and sure enough, his poll numbers have improved. The less people see Perry, the better he performs in polls.

Obama has offered to do away with Medicare if Undecided will not stand in the way of a 0-0-1 tax increase. When Undecided does not reply, Obama will sweeten the pot on his initial offer, throw in Social Security, and give a great speech demanding this do-nothing candidate do something. No such luck.

Posted by: phx8 at November 7, 2011 8:28 PM
Comment #331651

It is good not to have a candidate too early. Obama has a big pile of money, more than all the Republicans candidates together. He will trash the candidate with a negative attack. Better to let him have no target or attack the decoys, like Cain.

Posted by: C&J at November 7, 2011 10:33 PM
Comment #331652

Rumor has it Undecided will consider Generic Republican for the VP slot.

Posted by: phx8 at November 7, 2011 10:36 PM
Comment #331653

Undecided sounds like a RINO to me.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 7, 2011 10:41 PM
Comment #331661

‘Undecided’ will have a tough fight against ‘Lockstep’ in the coming elections.

It’s going to be rough and ugly. I’m not sure ‘think for yourself’ can beat ‘do as your told,’ anymore.

Constitution be damned, the lurch to the left will continue.

Posted by: kctim at November 8, 2011 10:30 AM
Comment #331662

I believe the same Gallop poll that phx8 uses to report on undecideds is also the same poll that shows conservatives at 42% and liberals at 21%.

“Self-professed conservatives now outnumber self-professed liberals in the United States, 42 percent to 21 percent, according to a Gallup poll published Monday. Another 37 percent described themselves as moderates.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-poll-conservatives-42-liberals-21

So it doesn’t matter who the undecided conservatives are; what matters is will they rally around any Republican candidate, and the answer to that is YES…

Obama’s approval ratings are in the consistant low 40’s, and all the latest hype over Cain has virtually not affected his standing in the polls. If the charges are true, he will go down; but if they are false, he will hold his own. The truth always comes out and if the Dems or Repubs are behind the accusations, the American people will be very upset.

kctim; good one about the left being in lockstep, rather than undecided, haha.

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2011 12:48 PM
Comment #331664
the same poll that shows conservatives at 42% and liberals at 21%.

Old news. The real question is where the GOP candidates expects to find the remaining 8% of the vote.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 8, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #331665

GOP candidates GOP candidate

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 8, 2011 1:24 PM
Comment #331666

Let me see if I got this. A horse is now leading the GOP field?

Posted by: Schwamp at November 8, 2011 1:34 PM
Comment #331667

Finding 8% Warped is a whole lot easier than trying to find 29% the liberals need.

Posted by: KAP at November 8, 2011 1:46 PM
Comment #331668

KAP,

Most “moderates” and “independents” have opinions that lean left. They voted for Obama in 2008 and will do so again if the GOP nominates anyone other than Romney.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 8, 2011 1:49 PM
Comment #331669

Warped, Most independents are PO’ed at Obama and moderates are distancing themselves from him. He has nothing to run on except bashing his opponent whoever that may be. His failed policies are NOT going to get him re elected.

Posted by: KAP at November 8, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #331670

Cain has gone from Cain is Able to Cain the decoy. At least we now know what is jobs plan is.

I thought Romney and undecided were the same?

My kingdom for a uber conservative with brains and no baggage.

Posted by: jlw at November 8, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #331671

KAP,
I think Americans are smart enough to recognize that conservatives in Congress have opposed Obama’s policies from day one and have hindered our nation’s progress. Most Americans agree with the specifics of Obama’s policies so they won’t regard them as “failed” as you do.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 8, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #331674

warped

in 2008 obama was an unknown quantity. many people were fooled into believing he was a moderate. this is no longer the case. he has shown his true colors, and they aren’t pretty. we are all now very well aware of his far left leanings, and those who gambled, and were fooled, will not be fooled again. IMO he will lose, and lose big. it would not suprise me to see the dems throw him under the bus, and try to run hilary. the IMO is thier only chance to salvage 2012.

Posted by: dbs at November 8, 2011 4:31 PM
Comment #331675

“KAP,
Most “moderates” and “independents” have opinions that lean left. They voted for Obama in 2008 and will do so again if the GOP nominates anyone other than Romney.”

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 8, 2011 1:49 PM

Warped, I assume you are saying this because Romney is a moderate and you don’t think a conservative has a chance of winning moderates or independents. The exact same thing was said about Ronald Reagan. He ran as a conservative and won all fifty states, and I might add, he ran against the failed economic and foreign policies of the second worst president in the history of the US…Jimmy Carter. Carter used to be the worst and most incompetent, until Obama showed up.

“KAP,
I think Americans are smart enough to recognize that conservatives in Congress have opposed Obama’s policies from day one and have hindered our nation’s progress. Most Americans agree with the specifics of Obama’s policies so they won’t regard them as “failed” as you do.”

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 8, 2011 3:13 PM

Not true; the American voters see a president who has implemented policies they don’t like, and has presented ideas to the Congress, which even Democrats can’t vote to pass. He has gone on campaign trips and vacations while showing no leadership in DC. The idea of the obamacare is still rejected by a majority of Americans. He has supported a bunch of union thugs and perverts who want to call themselves a grassroots movement; of which warnings were given that they would become violent mobs, and they have. The American people know he supported these protestors, and whatever they do, it will be identified with him. His approvals have been in the low 40’s for a year and neither they or his failed economic policies are going to get any better.

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2011 4:33 PM
Comment #331676

Here is a breakdown of the latest Gallop Poll, which polled a whopping 39,000 voters. The trends have changed from the 2008 election cycle, and they are definitly leaning conservative.

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/97177/obama-reelection-strategy

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #331678

Warped, ALL THE ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at November 8, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #331679

Good link Mike. The traditional democrat party base of blacks, unions, environmentalists, women and the young is breaking down. None of these groups can point, with much pride or believability, to any measurable benefits of the obama administration.

Sometimes elections turn on matters of war and peace. This is not the case now, unless something drastic happens. This will be a bread and butter election. obama’s crumbs and margarine won’t carry the day.

Voters know of the trillions spent and don’t find the economy any better and unemployment worse than when this Barry fellow took office. Promises of more of the same don’t cut it with the voters…they want results.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 8, 2011 8:09 PM
Comment #331680

You are correct Royal, and then you add to this the unkept promises to those same “blacks, unions, environmentalists, women and the young”; you find these people losing their zeal to show up at the polls. This is the reason for the class warfare, of all sorts, done to fire up his base.

Tonight, Newt Gingrich was on Bret Bier’s panel on FOX News. Juan Williams tried to catch him in a gotcha question. Newt basically said, Obama tries to please each of his base groups and in the end he does what he did as an Illinois Senator, he just votes “present”.

Warped Reality needs to get a grip on reality; his idea that Obama is going to be able to hang on to his 2008 base and the swing voters that voted for him are out of the question. It’s more than just who wins or loses and it’s worse than obamacare; if Obama is allowed to stay in office 4 more years and Reid maintains control of the Senate, the United States is doomed to bankruptcy and collaps. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a smart young guy like Warped would believe more of the same spending policies would help our economy. At some point, someone has to say, the Kennesian policies aren’t working, and the Soviet Union showed us what wealth re-distribution and socialist policies did for them.

Warped is paying into a failing SS and Medicare program that will not be there for him.

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2011 9:12 PM
Comment #331682

“we are all now very well aware of his [Obama] far left leanings,”

OK, dbs. What exactly are his far left leaning policies? It is easy to say such a thing, but it would be far more persuasive if you actually identified those policies.

Is it defense? What exactly has Obama done in the area of national defense that you characterize as far left? Is it the war in Afghanistan? Is it the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Is it the drone strike on the American Muslim cleric or his media guy? Is it the drone strikes on al Qaeda in Pakistan? Is it the increased funding for defense?

Is it his financial regulatory policies? Is it the continuation of the Bush Wall Street bailout? Is the financial reform package passed during his administration? Which elements of the financial reform package do you think are “far left leaning?” Is it his choice for Treasury, Tim Geitner, a Fed principal intimately involved in the Bush bailout of Wall Street. Is it the reappointment of Ben Bernanke, a Bush appointee, as Fed Chairman? Is it the appointment of Wall Street veterans in his economic advisory group?

Is it health care? Is it the conservative Heritage Foundation model (Romneycare) that was followed by the Obamas administration in the Health Care Reform bill?

Is it his economic policies? Is it the stimulus package? Is it the continuation of the Bush auto industry bailout and structured bankruptcy for the principal firms? Is it the new tax cuts and continuation of the Bush tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

Is it his fiscal policies? Should he have proposed balancing the federal budget, i.e, more aggressively pursued raising taxes and/or drastically cutting spending to avoid deficits in a deep recession? Was his proposal to cut $4 trillion in federal spending over ten years during the debt ceiling crisis too little?

Is it his social policies? Is it his neutral stance on gay marriage? Civil unions are OK, but not marriage. What exactly has he done in the social policy area that could be characterized as “far left leaning?” In fact, thinking about it, there have surprisingly few social issues of controversy coming from his administration.

Progressives would love to learn about all those “far left leaning” policies of Obama.

Posted by: Rich at November 8, 2011 10:08 PM
Comment #331687

Rich,

It’s because their blacks are better than the Democrats blacks.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/242244/20111102/ann-coulter-defends-blacks-better-statement-video.htm

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 9, 2011 7:49 AM
Comment #331691


“We are all now very well aware of his [Obama] far left leanings.”

That could have been a direct quote from one of the conservative pundits. They like their listeners don’t have to present the facts because they are well aware of Obama’s left leanings.

They know, as a matter of fact, that Obama has leaned so far left the the left is abandoning him.

I’m beginning to think Hillary could win the Republican nomination. It would be a close call because she would be competing with Cain for the Republican women’s vote.

Posted by: jlw at November 9, 2011 1:16 PM
Comment #331692

At least one of the women accusing Cain is a registered Repubican. When a FOX News reporter asked Cain for proof or evidence that he was being attacked by a “democratic machine,” Cain admitted he had no proof at all, no evidence.

The GOP is doing a superb job of driving women away from the party.

An attempt to pass an initiative stating life begins at the moment of conception went down to a crushing defeat in MS.

Posted by: phx8 at November 9, 2011 1:41 PM
Comment #331702

So far the liberal MSM has had more reported stories on Cain so called escapades than Clinton’s women, Weiner, Spitzer, or Edwards combined. I believe the liberal MSM could be considered a “Democratic Machine”. If proof was required before an allegation was made; then the left would’nt have a single word to say.

Cain is leading in todays polls in Florida and he also leads in Iowa. I realize that can change, but so far the conservatives are giving Cain the benefit of the doubt.

Concerning the MS defeat; that law was destined to defeat, either in the voting booth or in the courts. So it’s not considered a crushing defeat, especially when it’s the most pro-life state in the union. It’s called, “the voters were weary of the law”, and they used the intelligence God gave them to make a decision on thei own. Unlike liberals who vote in lockstep with their rulers.

Posted by: Frank at November 9, 2011 4:42 PM
Comment #331704

The Obamas far-left leanings are in what he has said and done, NOT in what he was stopped from doing or forced to compromise on.

Posted by: kctim at November 9, 2011 4:46 PM
Comment #331714

Frank,
You write: “So far the liberal MSM has had more reported stories on Cain so called escapades than Clinton’s women, Weiner, Spitzer, or Edwards combined.”

That is simply not true. The Weiner & Spitzer issues came and went fairly quickly. Edwards never received much attention because that issue came to light after Edwards was already out of the public eye.

Presumably you are either too young to remember, or were not following politics at the time. The Clinton stories dominated the headlines for years. The attacks were almost exlusively personal attacks against his character, suggestions of corruption and impropriety. Virtually none of the attacks involved any political issues. The GOP hated Clinton because he was a successful president, so he could not be attacked on the issues; they spent literally years manufacturing ridiculous allegatations. It culminated with an accusation by Rush Limbaugh that Clinton was selling plots at Arlington Cemetary… Although my favorite loony allegation was the one about a fellow named Foster… Anyway, the circus surrounding Cain is a drop in the water compared with the sustained attack against Clinton.

And remember, Cain brought this upon himself. As details emerged, he changed his story, again and again.

But if you want to see the GOP stake its future on a guy you probably never heard of until a few months ago, by all means. Back him to the hilt. Give him money. Encourage fellow conservatives to believe everything Cain says, and disbelieve everyone else. See how that works out.

Better yet, make sure none of the other candidates get any media attention in the meantime. Let no alternative emerge. Suck the oxygen out of the room with an ongoing sex scandal.

Posted by: phx8 at November 9, 2011 6:11 PM
Comment #331722

I am a conservative and Christian and hold all life sacred. However, I could not have voted in favor of the MS amendment as stated on the ballot. It was poorly worded and too encompassing. There are exceptions to abortion that I favor.

As for Bill Clinton, he was impeached by the House. That alone says much about this guys presidency. It is nearly a singular event in our history and has been reserved for the very worst of offenders.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2011 8:15 PM
Comment #331726

Phx8 said:

“Frank,
You write: “So far the liberal MSM has had more reported stories on Cain so called escapades than Clinton’s women, Weiner, Spitzer, or Edwards combined.”

That is simply not true. The Weiner & Spitzer issues came and went fairly quickly. Edwards never received much attention because that issue came to light after Edwards was already out of the public eye.

Presumably you are either too young to remember, or were not following politics at the time. The Clinton stories dominated the headlines for years. The attacks were almost exlusively personal attacks against his character, suggestions of corruption and impropriety.”

Since we are talking about the liberal MSM supporting the Democrats, your statement, “The Weiner & Spitzer issues came and went fairly quickly. Edwards never received much attention because that issue came to light after Edwards was already out of the public eye”, simply prove my point that nothing was said about their sexual escapades.

Concerning Clinton, you say, “The Clinton stories dominated the headlines for years. The attacks were almost exlusively personal attacks against his character, suggestions of corruption and impropriety.” We are talking about the liberal MSM not attacking democrats and you say they were; so the burden of proof is on you. Perhaps you could give some examples of the liberal MSM going after Clinton, as pertaining to his sexual escapades. If you cannot, then I stand by my original statement that the liberal MSM is part of the Democrat attacks on Cain.

Let me show you an example of the absolute, irrefutable, double standards of the left; below are two post that were entered in the liberal column of WB by Stephen Daugherty, concerning Anthony Weiner. Both of these posts are attacks, not on Weiner for his perversion, but on the media (in this case Brietbart, not part of the liberal MSM) because they brought out the story. Virtually every liberal on WB made personal attacks on Brietbart and defended Weiner, and yet we find the exact opposite now. The media is praised for declaring the “truth” and the victim (Cain) is found guilty and waiting for the tar and feathering. Is it possible for a liberal to ever feel embarrassed for their ability to use double standards? I don’t think so…

“On the Fine Art of Being Wrong In the Right Way”

“There are two things you’re going to expect from me, and one of them you will not get.

I will not apologize for having pursued the case against Rep. Anthony Weiner’s accusers, nor will I apologize to Breitbart for doubting him. He’s not only been wrong before, he’s pushed outright untrue material. In the short term he will gain more credibility, but my bet is, Breitbart will squander that before long.”

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2011 4:51 PM

“Call It By It’s True Name: BreitbartGate”

“Is he the guy who’s actually behaving scandalously? From all accounts, the original story, that he was cheating on his wife, or at least sending lewd pictures to a young admirer was a total setup. Even if the image was him, it was a private photo gained by unsavory means, not an inadvertantly released document of Representative Anthony Weiner’s personal immorality.”

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2011 2:19 PM

Posted by: Frank at November 9, 2011 9:25 PM
Comment #331727

Frank,
You write: “Since we are talking about the liberal MSM supporting the Democrats, your statement, “The Weiner & Spitzer issues came and went fairly quickly. Edwards never received much attention because that issue came to light after Edwards was already out of the public eye”, simply prove my point that nothing was said about their sexual escapades.”

No. It doesn’t prove your point. The salacious aspects of the Weiner & Spitzer issues made them irresistable to the press, regardless of any political bias. They lasted a short time because in both cases the main people resigned.

If you want to address Stephen, just ask him. He posts frequently. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to guess his opinion. In general, I would distrust anything that comes from someone like Breitbart or the National Inquirer; however, they do occasionally get something right. If they are not taken seriously as sources of information or as journalists, then that is their own fault. Who would have ever imagined a ‘love child’ story from the National Inquirer would actually turn out to be true! Usually, fiction is stranger than truth, but sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.

Posted by: phx8 at November 9, 2011 10:32 PM
Comment #331739

phx8,

You are trying to lead this conversation another direction. Your statement ridiculed Cain for making the claim that the Democrat machine was trying to hang him. I claim the liberal MSM is a tool of the Democratic Party. It doesn’t matter how long Weiner, Spitzer, or Edwards were in the news, because the only news that condemned them were sources like Brietbart. The liberal MSM did not cover the story in the same sense as they cover any Republican story. And it doesn’t matter what Stephen Daugherty wrote and I don’t expect you to answer for him; the point being made was that every liberal on WB supported SD’s attacks on Brietbart for revealing the stories and at the same time defended the ones being accused. What was the reason; because they are liberal’s and liberal’s defend liberals. The left defended Clinton on all of his sexual deviant escapades and attacked anyone who exposed him. There were more claims than just the Lewinsky situation; there were several women, over many years, which claimed Clinton groped them, raped them, and had ongoing affairs. Results: the liberal press ignored the accounts, the left defended Clinton against the accounts, and Clinton denied the accounts. But the funny thing about truth is that it always comes out; Clinton was protected from prosecution by executive right and he paid others off by settlements. The whole point is the double standards and the hypocrisy of the left; you ignore or justify the sexual escapades of Democrats, and yet demand to crucify a conservative who has only had unfounded he said/she said accusations against him. And the liberal MSM is part of the Democrat attack machine.

During last night’s Michigan debate; when CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo started to ask Cain about the sexual harassment allegations, the crowd booed and yet when Cain gave a truthful answer the placed erupted in cheers for Cain.

What happened to the left’s defense of Clinton, “it’s only sex”, or “they are unsubstantiated claims against Clinton”? In all cases against Clinton, this was the response of the liberal MSM Democrat attack machine.

phx8, you can go on attacking Cain and calling him names if you want, I don’t care; but when you say the MSM treats Republicans the same as they do Democrats, you are not telling the truth; because history shows differently. The MSM is part of the Democrat attack machine and Cain was right.

Posted by: Frank at November 10, 2011 9:21 AM
Comment #331742
The trends have changed from the 2008 election cycle, and they are definitly leaning conservative.

As the conservative myths are revealed to the voting public it seems what has really changed is the mindset of the 2010 mid terms results Mike. The dismal performance of the tea party backed extremist in Congress leaves us with no real choice. The repubs are led by ideologues whose ideology has failed. They spew myths that have proven to be false. They offer nothing.


It seems as people realize what the generic repub might actually represent they decide it is not what they want.


http://news.yahoo.com/poll-obama-turns-around-against-generic-republican-075923199.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 10, 2011 10:01 AM
Comment #331744

Frank,
When a FOX News reporter asked Cain to support his claim about attacks from the “Democratic machine,” Cain said he had no proof and no evidence.

“I cannot say that it is a conspiracy. We do not have definitive, factual proof”
Herman Cain

Do you have any proof about an MSM bias on sex scandals? Any evidence? I think you are making up most of case out of whole cloth.

In fact, if you will recall, Herman Cain accused the Perry campaign of putting this story out there. Cain may or may not have been correct- there were a lot of witnesses at the site of one incident, and according to Politico, six sources backed the initial story.

I’m not sure what you consider the MSM. The largest news outlets are owned by the following corporations: GE, Disney, Viacom, TimeWarner, and News Corp. In case you haven’t noticed, the primary purpose of broadcasts is to sell advertising. THAT is the MSM bias- Whatever sells advertising. Stories will come and go on the news, but roughly 1/3 of every show will consist of advertising.

And sex sells. And a sex scandal sells. Always has. Always will.

Posted by: phx8 at November 10, 2011 12:25 PM
Comment #331745

Frank-
I watch that so-called liberal media, and I read its publications. Those stories were all over the media from day one. They may not have been as enthusiastically covered by regular reporter as they were by reporters in your intentionally biased news organizations, but they were covered extensively.

As for what I wrote?

Breitbart, up to that point, had slandered several people, selectively edited videos to make things look in brief other than that what they appeared to be in the full videos, which were typically released after the short versions had made their media splash.

You’re right we defended Anthony Weiner. You’re right we thought it was a put-up job, and that we thought Breitbart’s allegations were a fraud. That’s why I’ll never apologize for my efforts to exonerate him.

Still, I’ll tell you point blank that Breitbart was right, and that what I believed about the origin of the images was wrong.

As for the case against him?

Well, let me be blunt here: Democrats might have gotten some benefits through Bill Clinton’s leadership, but they suffered quite a bit for overlooking his irresponsible behavior. This time around many of those in charge encouraged Weiner to resign, and he did. Cain? You have to decides whether he’s worth the political price.

As a merely practical matter, if you didn’t have those two settlements on the record for those sexual harrassment cases, I’d think it was pretty weak sauce myself, but with those two settlements, I think it becomes pretty obvious that something was going on, and it wasn’t good.

You can talk about Clinton as a sexual deviant, but in essence, you’re taking a position that many Democrats, myself included, took concerning Clinton, that this was all a political frame job, and that what was really fueling the controversy was a partisan media out to get him.

You need to sit down and realize that rather than there being a double standard on our part, there’s one on everybody’s part. Few people want to admit that their boy or girl’s done wrong. On the other side, they’re eager to prove that the other side’s full of it.

The question is, though, how long do we keep fooling ourselves?

Cain most likely sexually harrassed those women. The sooner you face up to it, the quicker you get the humiliation of having the facts slap you in the face over with. I speak as somebody who trusted both Clinton and Anthony Weiner more than I should.

As for you language on deviants and all that other crap?

Look, fellow, I doubt either side is clear of this crap. On our side we have sausage in the underwear, Rielle’s Love Child, and “You taste good”. On your side, you have Diaper Play, Wide Stance, and text messages to underage male pages. Now the Democrats don’t make your party’s claim that they’re the moral guardians of the bedroom, so the question is, why did they hide the proclivities of Mark Foley, and why do they still tolerate Mark Vitter, with his diaper play with prostitutes?

If you can’t lead by example, there’s no point in calling the rest of us hypocrites. The beam is in your eye, while you’re trying to pick out the mote from ours.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 10, 2011 12:33 PM
Comment #331750
So far the liberal MSM has had more reported stories on Cain so called escapades than Clinton’s women, Weiner, Spitzer, or Edwards combined.

Frank I Googled these scandals you mentioned just to see if you had any credibility at all. You don’t. On the Spitzer scandal I got 2,290,000 hits as I did on the John Edwards scandal. On the Weiner scandal I got 3,000,000 hits and on the Cain scandal a mere 235,000 hits. Of course Cain’s scandal is still in the denial stage. These scandals are on line and in the news for all to see.

The MSM is a conservative myth Frank. As is your claim.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 10, 2011 2:56 PM
Comment #331753

The correlation of the biological time and the social time frequencies and their interrelation in the global historical process was named “the Law of Time”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bV7w_YW0Zg

Posted by: tank at November 10, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #331758

Stephen, so you say you (the left) had the right to question and even slander the media source (in this case Brietbart) for revealing the story on Weiner, and you (the left) had the right to defend Weiner as being innocent until proved guilty, of which you say you will never apologize; and yet, conservatives do not have the right to question the sources or defend Cain as innocent until proven guilty? Another case of double standards and hypocrisy.

“As a merely practical matter, if you didn’t have those two settlements on the record for those sexual harrassment cases, I’d think it was pretty weak sauce myself, but with those two settlements, I think it becomes pretty obvious that something was going on, and it wasn’t good.”

Well Mister Facts, perhaps you could provide the link to the court records showing these “two settlements on the record for those sexual harassment cases”? Or is this just another attempt to play on words?

“You can talk about Clinton as a sexual deviant, but in essence, you’re taking a position that many Democrats, myself included, took concerning Clinton, that this was all a political frame job, and that what was really fueling the controversy was a partisan media out to get him.”

Stephen even thought the subject was about the liberal MSM being part of the Democrat machine to take out Cain; I will discuss your allegations that Clinton’s escapades were simply attacks by Republicans. So here are some facts:

http://alamo-girl.com/0262.htm

http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/value_of_women.html

And here is the settlement of $850,000 from Clinton to Paula Jones:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/pjones.htm

So in summing up Bill Clinton, if you read the accusations against him, you will see that Bill Clinton is and was a sexual deviant, but go ahead and defend him. By the way Stephen, Clinton was not impeached for sexual deviancy, he was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury.

“Cain most likely sexually harrassed those women. The sooner you face up to it, the quicker you get the humiliation of having the facts slap you in the face over with. I speak as somebody who trusted both Clinton and Anthony Weiner more than I should.”

Well, on the word of the great moral Stephen Daugherty, I guess we should just skip the part about being innocent until proven guilty. I’m sure you already have the tar and feathers ready for the black man that had the audacity to make sexual advances on white women with blond hair. Great Stephen, you’re a real jewel.

J2t2, tell me, do these hits on Google correlate to defending Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner, or are they accusing them? And are they hits on the liberal MSM, or are they hits on conservative sites? Research a little further before you use the “Myth” word.

Phx8 said:

“I’m not sure what you consider the MSM. The largest news outlets are owned by the following corporations: GE, Disney, Viacom, TimeWarner, and News Corp.”

I referred to the liberal MSM, and by MSM, I am referring to what most people consider liberal MSM: The big three news outlets of the past, ABC, NBC, and CBS. That can now be expanded to CNBC. MSNBC, and CNN. The printed liberal MSM are NYT, Washington Post, etc, etc, etc.

Posted by: Frank at November 10, 2011 5:58 PM
Comment #331760

Very well stated Frank.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2011 7:08 PM
Comment #331766
J2t2, tell me, do these hits on Google correlate to defending Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner, or are they accusing them? And are they hits on the liberal MSM, or are they hits on conservative sites? Research a little further before you use the “Myth” word.

No need to search further Frank. Whether it is accusing or defending these guys is irrelevant to the myth you attempt to sell. Whether it is a conservative or liberal site is irrelevant. The simple fact is the information is out there on all these scandals for everyone to see. Those outlets you consider liberal “I am referring to what most people consider liberal MSM: The big three news outlets of the past, ABC, NBC, and CBS. That can now be expanded to CNBC. MSNBC, and CNN. The printed liberal MSM are NYT, Washington Post,…” are all included in those Google searches. Each and every scandal you have mentioned . Each and every outlet you have mentioned. In addition many more websites reported and commented on these scandals. The fact is your myth is just that a myth with no basis in fact.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 10, 2011 8:16 PM
Comment #331786

j2t2, okay, let me see if I can puts this in some simple terms you might be able to understand. There are now 41 responses to this post titled, “Breaking: Undecided leads GOP field”. Are all the responses arguing for the same point or are they diversified? We are talking about what Cain said, that the Democrat machine was trying to take him out; and I included the liberal MSM as part of the Democrat machine…because they support Democrat candidates and attack Conservative candidates. You tell me that there are thousands of hits on Google concerning the mention of the sexual escapades of Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner and I agree there are. But, the condemnation of Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner is not what these liberal MSM hits discuss; they spend their time defending Democrats.; just as the articles of Stephen Daugherty defended these same Democrat perverts and every liberal on WB also defended them. On the other hand, the liberal MSM hits on Cain have condemned and found him guilty. The condemnation of Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner in the liberal MSM, do not total(all together)the number articles condemning Cain. I don’t see where this is so complicated for you to understand, unless you are just a liberal who cannot think for himself and just repeat the talking points of the party?

Posted by: Frank at November 11, 2011 10:01 AM
Comment #331788

Since I don’t have a computer I don’t have time to look for the mention of the Worldwide Occupy Movement. Maybe Watchblog can get a few commentators to do an overview. It might already be here, but with limited time I can’t find it.
And, by the way, it has everything to do with what the dialogue is.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at November 11, 2011 11:25 AM
Comment #331789
But, the condemnation of Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner is not what these liberal MSM hits discuss; they spend their time defending Democrats.; …. On the other hand, the liberal MSM hits on Cain have condemned and found him guilty. The condemnation of Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner in the liberal MSM, do not total(all together)the number articles condemning Cain.

To keep it simple Frank once again your wrong. You are repeating a myth. Follow these links and you will see these liberal MSM outlets as you mythtakingly refer to them report on the different scandals. These outlets report the news, the facts of the situation as credible news organizations should do. Perhaps because Faux doesn’t do that ….

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-10/politics/spitzer.political.survival_1_prostitution-ring-eliot-spitzer-scandal?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-03/opinion/opinion_fleischer-cain-scandal-industrial-complex_1_sexual-harassment-herman-cain-scandal?_s=PM:OPINION

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23590919/


http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-03/opinion/opinion_fleischer-cain-scandal-industrial-complex_1_sexual-harassment-herman-cain-scandal?_s=PM:OPINION

Now take a look at Faux and how they consistently and intentionally mislead the conservatives-
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906240026

They just recently did the same during Kasich’s speech after the defeat of his class warfare bill in Ohio this past week. They did it when Foley was caught abusing Pages as a Congressman.


I don’t see where this is so complicated for you to understand, unless you are just a liberal who cannot think for himself and just repeat the talking points of the party?

It’s not complicated at all Frank.Understanding is not the issue here, your use of myth and misinformation (or as I like to say mythinformation) to defend Cain is the issue. Instead of defending Cain directly you choose to defend him by falsely claiming it is the liberal media that is wrong. You make the claim but offer nothing in the way of proof to support the often repeated mythinformation of the conservative propagandist. It is that simple Frank.

You seem unable to see that it is you using the TRC talking points to defend Cain. Your movement leaders are leading you into pointing the fingers at the media instead of at the candidate Cain.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 11, 2011 11:33 AM
Comment #331792

oops the next to last link should be replaced with this one.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000056079

Posted by: j2t2 at November 11, 2011 12:05 PM
Comment #331795

HAPPY VETERANS DAY TO ALL WHO HAVE HONORABLY SERVED THEIR COUNTRY IN OUR ARMED FORCES. WE THANK YOU ALL. MAY GOD BLESS YOU.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 11, 2011 12:38 PM
Comment #331796

Phx8, it is good to see you writing. You have a style that is refreshing and often a lot of fun to read.

At any rate I see this thing has turned into the old main stream media bias argument. I would like to introduce a rather simplistic approach and point out that since FOX is the number one rated news channel in the US, shouldn’t that fact render them as thee main stream media?

Imo if repubs don’t want so much negative coverage then perhaps they simply should not provide so much material to work with. News outlets thrive on controversy. I guess since the right supposedly gets so much more coverage, then it is fair to assume that they provide more opportunity than the left.

To be honest I think the right is largely just jealous that the left does not provide nearly as many colorful, silly, questionable, dimwitted, unfaithful, challenged or just plain looney subjects as they do.

Posted by: RickIl at November 11, 2011 1:07 PM
Comment #331799

RickIl,
Thanks! I thought about writing another article, but right at the moment, the Republican candidates dominate the political news by default. The debt commission will be a big deal, but it’s still a ways off. Congress will be gridlocked for the next year, Obama will give speeches, but about all that really matters on the Democratic side is keeping the GOP from shutting down the government or finding some other way to destroy the economy.

The current field of candidates for the Republican nomination is astoundingly weak. In the debate the other night, most of the candidates seemed absolutely clueless about the economic situation in Italy. On foreign policy, only Huntsman demonstrates any kind of expertise, and most of the time the GOP ignores him.

I thought the smartest thing Gingrich has done in the debates was defer to Huntsman on a question about China. Huntsman is an expert, a former ambassador- a real ambassador, fluent in the language(s) and with experience as a governor, not just a big campaign contributor who wants to be a figurehead and sit at the head of the table during banquets- and a president needs to be able to delegate, to find the best available and use them to their maximum potential. Newt did well with that one. Take charge, take the question and delegate to the best available. Very smart. It shows both competence and confidence. I liked that.

But there’s hasn’t been a field so wide open in a long time. Only a few of the candidates demonstrate the basic competence, intelligence, and experience to handle the job, but even they cannot command the loyalty of more than a fraction of GOP voters. Romney should be a lock, but he is just not a likeable guy, and he changes positions so often, no one knows where he really stands. There’s just not much point electing a guy like him. Huntsman is ignored. Paul is running a vanity campaign, with too many philosophically consistent but extreme positions for the GOP.

It’s probably too late for anyone else to enter the contest. Well…

A political operative said ‘there are only two things important in politics; the first one is money, and I forget the other one.’ Romney commands a massive lead, so unless someone catches fire…

Unfortunately, when Republicans catch fire, it’s more like spontaneous human combustion.

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #331802


While conservatives complain about the attention given to Cain by the MSM, not one of them has mentioned that Fox News pundits and other conservative pundits have been attacking the alleged victims of Cain unceasingly.

These conservative pundits have mastered the art of slanderous opinion mongering.

Posted by: jlw at November 11, 2011 3:01 PM
Comment #331803

Jlw,
When it comes to sexual harassment, women get it. Cain’s support among women has dropped substantially, and he has plunged in the most recent poll. Republican men may see no problem with what is happening, but not surprisingly, Republican women have a very different opinion.

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #331865

Democrat women on the other hand…

I wonder when it will be time for people to accept that people are individuals with individual thoughts, motivations and desires and that saying ‘groups of xxxx’ will act a certain way is part of the problem and not the cure…?

Probably not in my lifetime, I suspect. :( Individualism isn’t politically expedient for the totalitarian machine.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 11, 2011 10:48 PM
Comment #331870

Rhinehold, individualism is the totalitarian machine. Or at the very least the tool of the totalitarian machine.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 11, 2011 11:38 PM
Comment #331890

Rhinehold-
The GOP in the 90’s wasn’t exactly a shining beacon on the hill when it came to dealing with Sexual Harrassment. They treated it like it was a joke. Don’t forget the political impact of the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy. Republicans basically sacrificed any leverage they had against Clinton with liberal women by having started out that decade raining scorn on a professional woman for coming out with these accusations. Efforts to exploit the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case were then taken to be what they were, in part: cynical political attacks.

Clinton didn’t pay the political price for his misdeeds primarily because the attempts on the right were so nakedly partisan and hypocritical, what with their people carrying on affairs and committing their own sins, that nobody trusted that rewarding the Republicans for the virtues these attacks were supposed to imply on their part would actually raise the level of moral sanctity in the place.

And now? Well, the response to allegations about Cain is demonstrating that folks were right to question the GOP’s sanctity on the matter.

Frank-
Of course we had the right to question Breitbart, and reasons, too. The guy pushed creatively edited material, the NPR interview so preposterously distorted that even Glenn Beck’s site The Blaze was calling them out on it.

But I also admitted I was wrong, and didn’t spend weeks afterwards trying to come up with conspiracy theories to exonerate him, or doing what you are doing now, here, with the Cain matter.

If Politico had run a story saying that there were two sexual harrassment cases that were settled with non-disclosure agrements with two women for the equivalent of their full year’s salary, and that hadn’t been the case, Cain’s response would have been simple and swift: No such cases exists, thank you very much, I’ll see you in court for defamation, go ahead and grab your ankles.

The cases exist. Get that out of the way before you hurt yourself worse in our debate.

As for Clinton? I don’t think there was a year in office in which the Republicans didn’t scandal monger the guy. What I recall from the time is their throw it at the wall and see if it sticks attitude. I mean, there was no subject too petty, no conspiracy theory too outrageous. By the time Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky came forward, and we had been assaulted with all that BS for a few years, many Democrats were past the point of caring. It wasn’t as if we expected the man to be an angel, and the constant bombardment of petty and ludicrous scandal mongering had left most of us jaded.

Sure, we’ll try to pick a candidate next time who keeps it in his pants better, who isn’t such a horndog. For now, the thinking went, such stuff was being used in the service of a much more misogynistic political party, who just years before had spectacularly defamed Anita Hill, and which now seemed bent on destroying him simply because he was a Democrat.

Ah, but we had already elected him, knowing he’d likely screwed around on his wife with Gennifer Flowers. So, to a certain extent, we brought it on ourselves.

Which is what mystfies me here. Other than this partisan wish not to knuckle under to anything resembling somebody saying no to them from the left, what reason does the GOP have to inflict this on themselves.

As for this whole MSM thing?

I believe there’s something valuable in having a media that that isn’t devoted to sugarcoating and denying difficult truths, that in facts goes out there and finds them. The Republicans have great flatterers in FOXNews and other conservative media outlets, but that means that the people out there who are taken in by that flattery never provide the selective force that keeps the dumbasses, the crazies, and the rabid ideologues safely on the margins.

It’s not a bizarre, unexplainable accident that the Republican’s line up gets worse and worse with every passing election. It is the unintended result of the culture inside the party and the media organizations that are in cahoots with them. I mean, there was no shortage of negative coverage on Barack Obama before the election, or after. The MSM did not censor stories about him. If anything, as certain studies have demonstrated, Obama gets LESS than a fairshake.

But Democrats aren’t deluded about the fact that he’s not their perfect candidate. The media reports on all the deals, all the disappointments and defeats. We don’t get a lot handed to us sugarcoated.

Democrats are therefore tougher when it comes to their people. Murtha, for all his positive reputation concerning the wars, was not spared on account of that when certain corrupt deals came to light. Jefferson was the brunt of jokes on TPM that had him identified as (D - Icebox) right on the front page. The ethics charges on Rangel were well covered as well.

As for being innocent until proven guilty? Right or wrong, that isn’t the way the court of public opinion works. I mean, did Breitbart and O’Keefe operate on that principle when they selectively edited footage to make it look like the liberal organizations they were stalking were up to something?

Or put another way, can the Republican Party take what it dishes, or are they hypocritical enough to play victim and victimizer at the same time?

As for Democratic Party perverts?

Mister, when Weiner confessed to doing something very perverted, he resigned. When Spitzer confessed to being a customer of call girls, he resigned. When David Vitter confessed to being a pervert who wore diapers when he had sex with prostitutes, he not only didn’t resign, but he stays a Senator to this day.

It seems to me that Democrats have a greater sense of shame, despite their constituents being more open-minded about sex, than Republicans, where it seems the dead girl/live boy standard seems to apply.

So don’t get high and might about the morals to me. Your people regularly throw the first stone, even when your own people have committed the same sins, and that’s part of the reason nobody outside the party much buys their moral authority. Democrats, at least, have a sense of shame, even if they don’t bother to elevate themselves above their competitors or their supporters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2011 10:37 AM
Comment #331893
Rhinehold, individualism is the totalitarian machine. Or at the very least the tool of the totalitarian machine.

Sorry, that you even suggest such a thing is at best laughable and at worst displays a complete lack of understanding of what individualism, totalitarianism and reality are. It also sets up defenses of racism, sexism and other ‘isms’ that allow group based hatred to run rampant through our society.

Congrats.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 12, 2011 10:52 AM
Comment #331909

Stephen Daugherty, two thoughts: first there was physical evidence of Weiner and Spitzer and you have no evidence for Cain, second Weiner and Spitzer resigned because teh rest of the Dems told them too.

Again you make the statements of sexual harassment settlements; but offer no proof. At least give us the date the court awarded settlements?

As for Clinton; he sat in a pile of crap that was his own creation. Like Obama’s socialist friends and background, Clinton also came to DC with a lot of baggage; it was a shame the MSM didn’t do their job of vetting both men, as they are now doing with the conservative candidates. And you are still out here defending them, ho hum.

“I believe there’s something valuable in having a media that that isn’t devoted to sugarcoating and denying difficult truths, that in facts goes out there and finds them. The Republicans have great flatterers in FOXNews and other conservative media outlets, but that means that the people out there who are taken in by that flattery never provide the selective force that keeps the dumbasses, the crazies, and the rabid ideologues safely on the margins.”

The liberal MSM has had 80 years to perfect their defense and pomotion of democrats and attacks on republicans. Conservative talk radio and Fox News has only been around for 15+ years. Funny how their have become so popular to Americans and so hated by the left, isn’t it.

I especially love your first sentence, “I believe there’s something valuable in having a media that that isn’t devoted to sugarcoating and denying difficult truths, that in facts goes out there and finds them.”

You just got finished saying that Clinton had not been properly vetted and now you say they don’t sugarcoat and dig out the facts. So which one is it?

How do you have the audacity to say the liberal news does their job; after Clinton’s background was ignored, and I can’t even begin to list the bullshit that the liberal media completely ignored about Obama. Are you serious when you make this statement, and best of all, who do you expect to believe it?

Stephen, I believe you’re loosing it. You need to seek help. I am seriously concerned that another democrat election loss will send you over the edge.

Posted by: Frank at November 12, 2011 11:36 PM
Comment #331911

RE sexual harassment generally

There are many areas for misunderstanding. Often the difference between an unwelcome advance and a romantic interlude is in the interpretation.

Signals get crossed. We have become very prudish about many things. Simple jokes may be “hostile” and it is very possible to get in trouble for completely innocent reasons. Words have different meanings to different people and this is even more true of gestures and looks.

Firms are often eager to settle even if no wrongdoing has taken place. It can be a type of extortion. Going to a jury can be a crap shoot and the publicity is always bad. The fact that the alleged Cain suites were settled for so little indicates there was not much smoke and maybe no fire.

It is true that some men (and some women) behave like pigs. It is also true that some women (and some men) lie to get things they want.

I personally know of a couple cases where women lied about harassment to further their career goals. I also know that everybody in the organization knew the charges were bogus, but preferred to let it go.

In order to judge the case, we really need many more facts than we have.

People are innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence to prove that Cain did anything that MOST of us would consider heinous. And it is silly for him to have to take time from his campaign to deal with innuendo.

If he attacked women or actually engaged in sexual acts, he would be more like Clinton and we would have to think about it more. There is NO indication that this is true. If he did perverted things like Weiner, we would have to think about it. There is NO indication this is true either.

What they claim Cain did is say that a woman was about the height of his wife and maybe tell inappropriate jokes. If this is what he did, I do not care at all. And I would ask all the prudish people who do care to get a life of their own and stop living on gossip.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2011 6:50 AM
Post a comment