Democrats & Liberals Archives

Herman Cain Done, Now Who Gets What Little Support He Had Left?

All good things must come to an end they say. This is true of Herman Cain. I felt myself watching the video and hoping he’d stay in just for fun because I enjoyed watching him in the race and I enjoyed watching conservatives supporters try and rally around him. Alas, Black Walnut’s political career seems all but over.

It all started out small but grew to surprise many naysayers on the left and right. Sadly though, Cain didn't even make it to Iowa. Perhaps he was afraid he'd finish behind Bachmann and Ron Paul in the final Iowa tally and that would be shameful? Perhaps more women were waiting in the wings? We may never know.

In the end Cain blamed everyone for his downfall but himself, claiming complete innocence and portraying himself as the victim of the media and of crazy women and the left wing machinery. His supporters feel the same way, rarely stopping to ask whether this was the work of people inside the establishment GOP. They would rather pretend there was a Democrat alive that wasn't excited to run against a candidate like Herman Cain.

There's some chance this is the last we'll hear of Cain in politics. I think Cain will stick around a while like Sarah Palin but end up equally impotent and a laughing stock all the same. It will be good for the speaking tours and good for the book sales but it will take a lot to get the Cain Train rolling for real in politics again. Perhaps he'll get a sweet gig working for Fox News?

The thing to watch now will be who gains the most from Cain leaving the race. Gingrich needs to close the gap more to compete in New Hampshire. This could be the thing to do it.

Posted by Adam Ducker at December 3, 2011 2:03 PM
Comments
Comment #332662

Cain was an interesting guy. He showed that being black and coming from a modest background will not keep you down in America and that you can be accepted by a wide slice of Americans. It is a story of achievement and a tribute to the United States of America that makes success like that possible. Unfortunately, personal flaws brought him down. It is a tragedy in the original sense of term, with the elements of hubris, ate and nemesis. The system uncovered these flaws before it was too late.

I do still think there is a double standard. Clinton had numerous “bimbo eruptions” but the MSM didn’t push it.

Posted by: C&J at December 3, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #332664

I don’t think Clinton compares because that was before Internet media and when 24-hour news was still in it’s infancy in many ways.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 3, 2011 4:43 PM
Comment #332665

C&J: “He showed that being black and coming from a modest background will not keep you down in America and that you can be accepted by a wide slice of Americans.”

Is this not also more true of President Obama as well?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 3, 2011 4:48 PM
Comment #332667

Adam

It is also true of Obama, but Cain was more part of the African-American experience, the descendent of slaves, in the South, historically black university. Obama was the son of an immigrant, raised in non-black communities, private schools and Ivy League. Obama’s background was actually fairly privileged.

Leave out race and you can see it. One kid grows up in an American urban environment, goes to public schools and a no-name college. The other goes to private schools, spends time overseas, goes to Ivy League university. Who is the more unlikely candidate?

Posted by: C&J at December 3, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #332668

C&J: “Who is the more unlikely candidate?”

I agree when you spell it out. Obama’s grandparents were solidly middle class for sure. But let’s not sell short the fact that Obama more than rose the challenge of certain opportunities he was given. He was not simply handed his education or his career path. Obama is not the Black Bush. That Obama is ivy league is not an example of how he was privileged so much as an example of how hard he worked to turn around what could have been a wasted life.

Cain certainly is interesting as you said, I’ll give him that. He had yet to show he was ready to be President though. His campaign was a slow train wreck of anti-Muslim bigotry, unfeasible economic solutions, and weird political decision making like that smoking ad. That people will focus on the sex scandals fails to give credit to how kooky and entertaining his campaign was start to finish.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 3, 2011 7:54 PM
Comment #332670

Adam

Most people are not qualified to be president. Our system throws up exotic weirdos like Cain, Ross Perot or Howard Dean who enjoy their moment in the sun and then disappear.

I read an interesting book called the “Drunkard’s Walk” about randomness. If you put enough weirdos up, eventually one of them wins.

I don’t think Obama is a weirdo, but I do think he is an accidental president. He was lucky to get in fast. If we had really figured out his record, he would not have won. He was not ready for the job and I think that is now evident.

Re Obama’s background - He was not privileged like Bush, but he certainly was not oppressed or underprivileged. His background in private schools and international travel was more than the average American gets. Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan & Clinton had more unlikely trajectories if you look at their childhoods and youth.

Posted by: C&J at December 3, 2011 8:54 PM
Comment #332675

Sometimes it feels like every president has been a product of the times. I wouldn’t call Obama accidental any more than many presidents have been.

What do you mean though about Obama’s record? What do we know now that we didn’t know then?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 4, 2011 3:03 AM
Comment #332680

Adam

I think Obama benefited from the “not Bush” move and the idea that he was somehow clean of the baggage of the past. I know that supporters get angry when people use the savior idea, but that was the sales pitch.

The man had no real presidential resume. He sold hope. There is saying by Samuel Johnson that “A second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.” Obama was the liberal hope.

He had no relevant record to attack and any attacks on his past judgement, such as the Wright debacle or his crooked Chicago connection, could be dismissed as irrelevant. He as good looking, articulate and biracial - a candidate from central casting.

His record now is different because he has one. Now we have seen what he can and cannot do. He has been a poor president,as the same lack of experience and skills at shape-shifting - so useful in the campaign - are liabilities in the real job. His big achievements such as health care and the massive stimulus were the products of someone who didn’t understand all the moving parts and made a bold - audacious - jump where no man had gone before for good reason.

The liberal script would have him triumphing, as all the problems with health care worked out, the economy started to surge and everybody recognized the preternatural vision of the man of hope. In real life this is not the case.

We should judge Obama by what happened in the last four years, good and bad. We should not allow him again to appeal to hope and change. Obama IS the change he promised. Are we all happy with what we got?

Posted by: C&J at December 4, 2011 7:54 AM
Comment #332682

“We should not allow him again to appeal to hope and change.”

He won’t be using hope and change. He’ll be using forward and reverse. Whether you agree with the statement or not, Obama’s campaign message is shaping up this way:

“The GOP left a mess for me to clean up. We’ve made great progress in 4 years despite 2 of those being with a GOP House that obstructed common sense solutions to help Americans simply to prevent me from staying in power. Do you want to give me 4 more years to finish the cleanup or do you want to go back to the folks that made the mess who have shown these past two years are only interested in their own power and not the strength of the American economy?”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 4, 2011 9:52 AM
Comment #332683

Ah, the ‘I know I suck, but I don’t suck as bad as the other guy’ leadership that America is desperate for? How can he lose?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 4, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #332685

Adam

I agree that is the message. It is BS and we have to call him on it. After four years, HE owns the problem. Reagan inherited a mess from Carter. After four years, things were looking up and there was real hope.

The problem for Obama is that in his first two years he held all the cards. He had the support of the people, the adoration of the chattering classes and control of both houses of congress. He passed a massive stimulus that piled on debt w/o fixing the economy; his Treasury Dept rewarded bankers and Wall Street who had helped cause the mess; his health care plan turns out to be mostly unworkable and will not save money. He took a bad problem and didn’t solve it, in fact made aspects of it worse.

Add that to the fact that Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress when “the mess” started and I think that we will have little trouble with the logic of demolishing Obama’s house of cards.

So Obama will push the program you mention with negative campaigns trying to - as Rhinhold says - to convince the public that as bad as Obama sucks others might suck more.

BTW - the Obama strategy you mention is still “hope and change”. Let me sum up.

Obama is saying that he did a bad job as president, but it wasn’t his fault. If we give him another chance, he hopes he can do better.

President Romney, when faced with the hangover from the massive stimulus can also make excuses that he “inherited” the problem. But I don’t think that Romney will choose the same low road that Obama has taken.

Writers on this side said - and still say - that Romney is too moderate to get nominated. They may be right. But if they are wrong, it will be interesting to see how fast they can flip to the position that he is right wing and will give us more of the same.

Posted by: C&J at December 4, 2011 11:30 AM
Comment #332690


Of course the Republican nominee will be up front with the American people on the issues like repealing the health care bill, privatizing Social Security and Medicare, etc.

Posted by: jlw at December 4, 2011 2:01 PM
Comment #332691

C&J,
Carter inherited a real mess from Nixon and Ford. Nixon resigned when faced with impeachment, and his hand-picked successor pardoned him. Ford pushed the slogan WIN, which stood for ‘Whip Inflation Now.’ The Vietnam War was a disaster, and Carter- not Reagan, Carter- restored Americans belief in the trustworthiness of a president.

In an astounding coincidence, the Iranians released their American hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated, a critical factor in helping him win the election, and then, a few years later, the Reagan administration was caught selling arms to the radical Iranian regime of Ayotullah Khomenei, and using the profits to fund thugs in Nicaraugua. By objective measurements, it was the most corrupt presidency in United States history.

What does it mean when a person “owns” a problem? When a person creates a problem, that person owns it. Others may try to solve it, and to the extent they succeed or fail, they share responsibility.

For example, conservatives voted for Bush. They initiated tax cuts and two unfunded wars, thereby turning budget surpluses into deficits, blowing up the national debt, and melting down the finanical sector due to deregulation (just as Reaagan did with deficits, debt, and deregulating the savings and loans). That is “owning” a problem.”

Under the Obama administration, the economy has grown again, and jobs have been added for 21 months or so. The Iraq War is ending, and Afghanistan will wind won. Osama bin Laden and Khadaffi are dead. Has Obama solved all of the problem created by Bush and conservatives who voted for him? No. But he has done a great deal, and done it pretty well.

Those are indisputable facts. I understand the strong desire to deny responsibility for actions. However, Bush and the conservatives who voted for him created the problems and OWN those problems, and always, always will.


Posted by: phx8 at December 4, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #332692

Rhinhold: “Ah, the ‘I know I suck, but I don’t suck as bad as the other guy’ leadership”

No, I that’s not it actually. Not even close.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 4, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #332693

jlw

Republicans want to fix these programs, not repeal them.

Phx8

Whether or not Carter “inherited” the problem, he left it to Reagan, who made things better.

Maybe ALL presidents “Inherit” problems and opportunities from their predecessors. It is what they do with them that makes them successes or failures.

The economy has grown for the last 21 months at substandard rates. The economy also grew for many months during the Bush terms, at must faster rates. Economies grow and decline. Will Obama leave office with us better off as Reagan did (and would have done even with one term) or will be, like Carter, produce bad results. I know he wants to blame Bush, but if things are not improved after four years of Obama, he is to blame too.

Posted by: C&J at December 4, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #332694

C&J: “Reagan inherited a mess from Carter. After four years, things were looking up and there was real hope.”

No matter how many times you compare the 2nd Bush recession to the Reagan recession they are still not the same. Decline in GDP was half as bad in 1983 and Reagan had a housing market to speed the recovery. Obama would love to have had the Reagan recession to deal with but instead he got the great recession instead.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 4, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #332695

I guess the question is what would Reagan have done to fix this recession which Obama failed to do?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 4, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #332696

Adam

Easy. Reagan would have trusted the American people. He would not have engaged in massive stimulus, spending money on things like cash for clunkers. He would have effectively stopped bonuses for bailed out banks. He would have led with optimism and magnanimity. And he would have worked with a congress controlled by an opposition who called him crazy, senile and said that Bonzo was the smarter of the two chimps in those movies.

Reagan also allowed restructuring to take place. He didn’t step in to save firms. They called it Reaganomics until it started to work. After that they just said it was luck.

The other thing that you are missing is that we don’t “dig out”. A big downturn is often followed by a burst of growth. The downturn cleans up the economy for the next growth. Why didn’t think happen for Obama? Maybe not in spite of his efforts but because of them.

Posted by: C&J at December 4, 2011 4:55 PM
Comment #332699

C&J: “Maybe not in spite of his efforts but because of them.”

Can you point to credible people suggesting such a thing or any evidence at all?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 4, 2011 11:42 PM
Comment #332701
No, I that’s not it actually. Not even close.

How do you figure? Are you going to suggest that Obama has done a GOOD job?

When you said:

The GOP left a mess for me to clean up. We’ve made great progress in 4 years despite 2 of those being with a GOP House that obstructed common sense solutions to help Americans simply to prevent me from staying in power. Do you want to give me 4 more years to finish the cleanup or do you want to go back to the folks that made the mess who have shown these past two years are only interested in their own power and not the strength of the American economy?

what else are we to take from that? The left has blamed everything they can think of on Conservative Presidents faced with obstruction when not controlling any part of congress, yet we are supposed to give Obama a pass because for one year he has had to deal with Republicans controlling the House?

Either you are saying that those Conservative leaders were great men who could work with an unfavorable political atmosphere to push their agenda through and therefore are the only ones to take the blame for what you see has bad government OR the opposition that he had, meaning Democrats, were so weak willed that they simply couldn’t put up any kind of defense, even though they held the house and senate, against those men…

Which one is it?

Oh, btw, let’s talk about all of the things that Obama has done that had nothing to do with Congress and Republicans ‘blocking’ him…

Unconstitutional military actions in Libya (using his own words)

Assassinating American citizens

Increasing the use of warrantless wiretaps and claiming government officials can not be held accountable for doing it

Bombing other countries without proper authorization (Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia) with unmanned drones, killing people

Promising to respect medicinal marijuana laws and then cranking up a war against those very dispensaries, even threatening to send in the National Guard if California tried making marijuana legal

Should I go on? I don’t think I need to, those are pretty bad enough, but unfortunately there is more…

Wonder if he will sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, allowing for the indefinite detention of US Citizens? His own party has pushed this through…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 5, 2011 2:44 AM
Comment #332702

Oh hell, let’s go on…

* Seized the assets of non-US companies he didn’t have the authority to perform

* Has escalated and kept us in Afghanistan with no clear reason

* Promised to pull all troops out of Iraq as his first act of office, still has yet to do so (despite trying to suggest he has) and has only pulled out what he has because of Iraq’s insistence, still plans to keep forces (both military and mercenary) in Iraq indefinitely

* Renominated Bernanke to be Chairman of the Fed after everything he did to help destroy our economy

* Promised to shut down Guantanamo, after failing to do so has admitted that it is needed to detain enemy combatants

* Promised to end the use of torture but has allowed it to be used against Pvt. Manning

* Promised to end the use of offshore detention facilities, but still uses them to this day

And, again, unfortunately there is even more… :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 5, 2011 3:05 AM
Comment #332707

Rhinehold: “How do you figure? Are you going to suggest that Obama has done a GOOD job?”

Yes, I would suggest that. You can list all the things you think Obama has done wrong and I can list all the things I think Obama has done right and we can see who comes up with more. Does it matter though? Nothing he does will make you happy or make you want to vote for him. I don’t like everything he’s done and I don’t support everything he’s done, but nothing he’s done so far has made me regret my vote or think somebody else would have done a better job.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 5, 2011 11:00 AM
Comment #332710

Rhinehold,
It’s interesting that most of the issues for which you condemn Obama are carry-overs from the Bush administration. I agree that keeping Guantanamo open is wrong, that any use of torture is wrong, and that killing American citizens abroad is problematic, to say the least. And yes, there’s more, a lot more… Then again, I disagree with some of your other criticisms.

On balance- on balance- there are more positives than negatives these past three years. No one likes to hear excuses about inheriting problems, and change being slow and difficult, and how the opposition did everything possible to prevent change, yet there is a lot of truth behind those excuses. Obama came into office with a total mess on his hands. Obama did a lot. He could have done more. He should have done some things differently. Thanks to my perfect hindsight, I am very good at seeing that. But once again, on balance- on balance- it has been a decent record of achievement.

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2011 12:11 PM
Comment #332720


Rhinehold has pointed out a significant fact, Obama is far more similar to Bush than not.

No one expected Bush to close Guantanamo. Everyone expected Obama to close Guantanamo.

The American people expected Obama to end our involvement in Iraq because he gave us his word that he would.

He lied to the American people. He is a disappointment to many on the left and they console themselves by believing that anyone who might replace him would be worse for the country. While those on the right think any of their candidates would do better.

Obama has one thing going for him, the people are often reluctant to vote out first term presidents. Obama may be one because he has lost the trust of the people. The people voted for change, real change in the direction the country has been going. Both parties are working to confuse the people and thus prevent any major changes in the direction they are leading us.

The fact is that if Obama is replaced, we can expect his replacement to be like him and Bush because that is the best the people can expect with our political process and the political pursuit of a One World Corpocracy.

C&J, it is amazing how Reagan was able to grow the beast to enormous size on hot air.

Posted by: jlw at December 5, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #332722

jlw,
You write: “Obama is far more similar to Bush than not.”

No. That is simply not true. The Obama administration followed the Bush administration into office. It is impossible to avoid the loose ends. Obama did not start with some sort of magical ‘do-over.’ He did not initiate the wars or the wiretapping or torture or oversea prisons.

Obama came into a situation where the Corporacracy was collapsing. He saved it with various bailouts and stimulus programs, not because he approved of it, but because the alternative of letting it fail were too horrendous to contemplate. The fact is, people like Rhinehold wanted to let the economy crash, and let corporations like GM fail, and that would have inflicted a degree of suffering almost impossible to imagine.

Contemplate an American city after one month of having no cash, no ATM’s, no checks. That is where a credit crunch would have taken us.

Having navigated through the credit crunch, many progressives like myself look for him to do more than merely save the corporations. He appointed Sotomayor to the SCOTUS, and that was a great move, and so appointing Kagan.

Obama kept most of his campaign pledges. To date, he has failed on a few others. Perfect? No. Pretty good? Yeah.

Remember, there is no bigger cheerleader for corporate control of our lives and corporate personhood than people like Rhinehold.

“A true libertarian calendar would be one page: the bottom would be blank so the free market can decide what day it is, and the top would just be a mirror, because you are the only one who matters.”
Stephen Colbert


Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #332726
nothing he’s done so far has made me regret my vote or think somebody else would have done a better job.

I daresay nothing he COULD do would alter your partisan mindset… I mention many things that Bush did as well that had the left up in arms and Obama gets a pass. He’s waged more war, violated the constitution more, tortured, claimed more power, etc. But where are the anti-war protests that were common during Bush’s administration? They are absent, not because anything has changed (it’s actually worse) but because the person in control has changed.

It’s despicable. It also just makes it clear in the future that the left cares not one bit about anything other than their own consolidated power, all of their complaints are ruses and lies to paint a story that isn’t true.

BTW, Obama has done a few things I agree with. But when I put the list together comparing them, there is no contest. I would ask you put in your list of the good he has done, I would be curious if anything that could be compared to the items on my list in your eyes… You know, it’s ok to kill brown people as long as we put some extra funds into green technology sort of comparisons.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 5, 2011 10:02 PM
Comment #332727
On balance- on balance- there are more positives than negatives these past three years.

I can’t even begin to imagine how you can twist yourself into thinking that is anywhere close to being true.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 5, 2011 10:04 PM
Comment #332728
No. That is simply not true. The Obama administration followed the Bush administration into office. It is impossible to avoid the loose ends. Obama did not start with some sort of magical ‘do-over.’ He did not initiate the wars or the wiretapping or torture or oversea prisons.

But he had the power to end them the day he took office, in fact he promised to do those very things. However, the first thing he did when he took office was to EXPAND the wiretapping powers that Bush had claimed for the executive branch. Not simply let it continue, not work hard to limit it as much as possible, no he grabbed more power for the executive branch to spy on American citizens that Bush would have been able to conceive of.

The left’s attempt to deflect away from Obama by blaming Bush as old at the end of his first year into office, that it is still being trotted out three years later is beyond pathetic.

The fact is, people like Rhinehold wanted to let the economy crash, and let corporations like GM fail, and that would have inflicted a degree of suffering almost impossible to imagine.

Wow, now we are getting personal, suggesting I enjoy watching people ‘suffer’? That’s pretty disgusting.

Failed institutions should be allowed to fail so that better institutions can come and take their place. The left who controlled congress could have minimized any damage that the collapse of the derivitaves market would have had and TARP would have been unnecessary had they simply did what they ended up doing 6 months later (after the elections were over) in relaxing the mark to market rules that were put into place temporarily, long enough to prevent wiping out the balance of many banks that prevented them from continuing lending. But the Democrats wanted to win an election and were 3 percentage points down in the polls so the suffering of millions of people were not a concern to them at all. They wanted that power. It was all lust for control that they desired.

And they sold a lie to their followers that ‘people like phx8’ still believe to this day, despite all of the evidence against it.

If the repeal of Glass-Stegal was such a horrible things, why hasn’t it been put back in place three years after the fact? Why did Geitner and Clinton say it had nothing to do with the economic issues of 2008? Why did Factcheck say the same? They must all be in the pocket of the corporations, I guess…

Contemplate an American city after one month of having no cash, no ATM’s, no checks. That is where a credit crunch would have taken us.

Actually, not it wouldn’t have. Your chicken little prognostication aside, the facts just do not support your theory considering that TARP did little to actually address that problem. That problem was address in March of 2009 when congress called on the relaxation of mark-to-market, which they should have done in 2008. And while GM was so mismanaged that they needed help, Ford did not. So it wasn’t ‘all encompassing’, it was simply the failure of some companies, not others.

Your ‘analysis’ is flawed in so many ways it’s hard to know how to start…

Remember, there is no bigger cheerleader for corporate control of our lives and corporate personhood than people like Rhinehold.

Again, you have no real understanding of what is going on with moronic comments like this. I’ve been fighting ‘corporate control’ of our government much longer than the likes of the left, but I understand where the real issue is. It’s that the power exists that the corporations (and unions, and special interests, and political parties) covet. The power should be returned to the people so that no one, even the corporations, can look to wield it.

I’ll return the favor, “Remember, there is no bigger cheerleader for the government controlling of our lives than people like phx8”.

“A true libertarian calendar would be one page: the bottom would be blank so the free market can decide what day it is, and the top would just be a mirror, because you are the only one who matters.” Stephen Colbert

You know, I like Stephen Colbert as well, been watching him for much longer than you can probably imagine. He would say this same thing I am about to say…

If you somehow think that a comedian trying to make you laugh as ‘insightful political theory’ then it calls into question everything you say.

There are no bigger champion of individual rights than libertarians. That you look to denigrate that for some reason shows that your goal isn’t individual liberty, it is just who controls people’s lives. Controlling people is fine to you, as long as you are the one who is controlling.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 5, 2011 10:26 PM
Comment #332730

Rhinehold,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to comment in reply. While I obviously don’t agree with much of it, I do appreciate it.

Obama should have ended the wiretapping and other excesses that came with the War of Terror. He promised to end them and he did not. For that, he is to blame.

Re Glass Steagall: yes, Clinton and Geithner are unquestionably in the pockets of Wall Street. The financial sector exerts a huge amount of influence on the political process.

Libertarians fight government control in order to maximize freedom. The problem is that, without government control (in the form of regulations and oversight), large corporations will take away freedom just as thoroughly as government. The only tool to preserve freedom, the only one available to “we the people,” is the tool of government.

In general, libertarians remind me of teenagers who read Ayn Rand for the first time, and discover their own libertarian streak. It’s a dizzying, heady experience, because this philosophy perfectly fits the self-centeredness that comes with those years. For the young teen and the older libertarian, Colbert’s mirror is the appropriate analogy; but the power vacuum left once occupied by government control does not, by default, leave one free; instead, the power vacuum is occupied by the next largest entity, the Corporacracy… or more accurately, the corporatist plutonomy.

Heh… big words…

And so, the bottom half of Colbert’s calender would be blank, to be filled by whatever date the free market tells you.

In sociological terms, the freest social structure is the tribal unit of thirty or less individuals. Most of us choose to participate in a larger society. That inherently requires a sacrifice of some freedom.

Dostoyevsky said we never really change. Civilization merely provides a wider variety of sensations, and absolutely nothing more. (Notes from the Underground, pg 21)

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2011 11:24 PM
Comment #332732
Libertarians fight government control in order to maximize freedom. The problem is that, without government control (in the form of regulations and oversight), large corporations will take away freedom just as thoroughly as government. The only tool to preserve freedom, the only one available to “we the people,” is the tool of government.

You’ll have to explain how this is possible to me, as no corporation has the ability to force anyone to do anything, including supporting them and buying their products or services. Without the people supporting them, they are nothing…

Many bad corporations are propped up by taking from the people through taxation by using the power of government to their ends. Without that support they would (and SHOULD) no longer exist.

In sociological terms, the freest social structure is the tribal unit of thirty or less individuals. Most of us choose to participate in a larger society. That inherently requires a sacrifice of some freedom.

And libertarians are not for the elimination of government, as much as its opponents will try to suggest.

The libertarian philosophy is “People should be free to live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t preventing others to the same”. Note, there is a caveat there to freedom, it doesn’t not give you the right to violate another’s. That is the purpose of government, to mediate and use force to protect that interaction between individuals.

BTW, for some edification… Ayn Rand was NOT a libertarian, she was an objectivist… I know this is a favorite tactic of libertarian opponents to strike at Ayn Rand for some reason and then paint with a large brush, but Ayn was not espousing libertarian philosophies, even she rejected that idea.

If you really want to understand libertarians (not anarcho-capitalists or objectivists) then you’ll have to go further than the stories you’ve heard so far. In fact, if you want to look to an author that was a libertarian, look to Robert Heinlein.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 6, 2011 12:07 AM
Comment #332782

Two things:

First, if any conservative had referred to Obama as Black Walnut, every blue blogger on this site would have taken the time to call him a racist, and that’s just fact. Hell I’m amazed Rhinehold hasn’t been called that in this very thread, but I’m sure it has happened before. I read an article on the Huffington Post recently that said Cain was the Republican parties Black friend. The comments underneath (not surprisingly) were all various iterations of “yeah, Republicans are all racists and Cain was their easy denial” but what so ironic is the notion by the left that Republicans think Cain was somehow a Black man who knows his place (that was Jon Stewart) when the real story is that the left thinks Black people should all know their place (in a far more broad-sweeping, judgemental manner) and that place is the Democrat party. The double standard and underlying bigotry is suffocating to me. Clearly the left thinks blacks don’t have the right or ability to think for themselves and come to their own decisions, they should just believe what the left believes like good little Democrat voters.

Second, I was a big Cain supporter and donated the maximum amount to his campaign. This was the most poignant example of character assassination I’ve ever seen in my 42 years of life. I genuinely don’t believe a single one of the accusations and fluff - not one. The first lady the establishment found (read paid) said Cain had the audacity to say to a secretary “Darling, would you mind doctoring up my tea for me?”

That sexist BASTARD - the nerve.

I couldn’t believe the smoking ad blunder (AT ALL) and I own an advertising agency, but he represented everything I love about this country. The difference between the complete and unabashed pass that the media gave (and continues to give) Obama, compared to the treatment that was given to Cain is so glaring, you truly must drink LITERAL koolaid each morning to help suppress the intellectual conflict hidden in the recesses of your mind.

Rhinehold’s list is a great summation, and I could likely double the amount in another few minutes, but I can’t echo the sentiment strongly enough that if you think the scales of judgement for Obama’s presidency weigh more heavily on the positive side, you must get ALL of your news from Jon Stewart and all of your talking points from Jay Carney’s personal notes.

P.S. Heinlein kicks ass.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at December 7, 2011 3:14 AM
Comment #332795

What is the golden age of science fiction?

Fifteen.

I read a lot of science fiction. I write it too, and someday hope to publish. Once upon a time, I read most of what Heinlein wrote. Recently, I tried rereading “Stranger in a Strange Land.” I’m sorry to say it was pretty bad.

My favorite SF writer is Jack Vance.

One of my favortie books is “Lord of Light” by Zelazney.

There is a strong strain of libertarianism running through science fiction writing, including writers like Harry Harrison and Isaac Asimov. It’s there in Vonnegut, too, if you look for it.

Yukon Jack,
Cain signed two separate, unrelated, nondisclosure agreements over the same issue, sexual harassment, and the women were each paid substantial amounts for their silence, one year’s salary. Those women lost their jobs because of it.

I’d suggest you talk to women you trust about their opinions on sexual harassment in the workplace, and their perceptions of Cain. I suspect they will see it much differently from you.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #332796

Phx8,
Apparently you’ve never had to deal with a frivolous claim or lawsuit. I have, a woman with 13 slip-fall lawsuits in four years “tripped” on the steps into my business and sued. Steps that I had shoveled and salted and were for all intents and purposes mindfully kept. Guess what… the insurance company settled for $35,000.

I had to sign a piece of paper in the settlement, so by your (very flawed) logic I am as guilty as the day is long. By ex-business partner was sued for something that was perpetrated by a GM of a company in which he owned stock - had no oversight or involvement whatsoever, he was just an investor, and the victim’s got together and sued him personally, being served was the first idea he even had that something had happened.

In depositions, he was told by the judge - this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, I understand you had nothing to do with this crime, and I believe you would win this suit handily. So your ultimate question is, do I want to spend a million dollars fighting this case and easily win, or settle for a quarter-million (their offer) and get on with your life?

Settlements mean NOTHING with respect to guilt or innocence. They are about financials, not truth.

Also, it’s very interesting that you would tell me to ask women I trust, because while I was a big Cain supporter it was like a gut-shot when the first story broke less than a week after my paypal money went through. I was upset, and it was a group of three businesswomen, whom I greatly respect (2 married, one a divorcee of a worthless pig) who all three said they listened to the women’s statements - the actual audio - and said they could hear the lies in their voices. One of the married women was a Ron Paul fanatic, and the other two are Clinton Democrats who laughed that he was being destroyed by the Republican establishment and the Media’s frenzy to run with the ball and keep Obama from running against an eloquent, conservative black man.

I hope you never have to see just how unbelievably twisted our legal system has become, but you ought to consider reevaluating your stance on his presumed guilt.

I’ll say it one more time if you didn’t catch it before, settlements mean NOTHING.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at December 7, 2011 5:35 PM
Comment #332805

Yukon Jack,
I’m familiar with ‘slip and falls’ and I’m sorry you had to deal with those. I also understand that it is possible, although unlikely, for a woman to make a false sexual harassment charge. I know someone… who was harassed by one of the top people at a large corporation. She lost her job, signed a nondisclosure agreement, and since she was making over 100k, she received a settlement for one year’s salary, a significant amount. However, she lost her job, a position for which she moved her family- twice. It was a devastating experience, and +100k jobs do not grow on trees. No woman would volunteer for such an experience. As for the harasser- he did the same to at least one other woman, and there was at least one other nondisclosure agreement, but you know, that’s how things work in the good ol’ boy network. Eventually the harasser got fired when he refused to pay a prostitute at a meeting, and she raised a very big, very public fuss.

As for Cain… One settlement may mean nothing. More than one? That’s a pattern. One of those incidents occurred in public. A person from the Perry campaign was one of the witnesses, which is why Cain initially blamed Perry. Now, claims of harassment made at a later date, with little supporting evidence, those might be true, but that’s not enough by itself. Multiple claims on top of two nondisclosure agreements, with public witnesses to one case- that’s too much. The final straw, the affair with Ginger White, would ordinarily have been something for Mr Cain, Ms Cain, and Ms White to sort out for themselves, as far as I’m concerned. However, the affair immediately revealed something about Cain- when it came to his sexual behavior outside of marriage, he was a liar, and it made it even more likely that he was, in fact, a sexual predator, using his position of power to harass women at his previous place of work.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2011 8:32 PM
Comment #332832

Phx8

“I also understand that it is possible, although unlikely, for a woman to make a false sexual harassment charge.”

On what do you base this? It is perhaps likely that many situations go unreported, but it does not follow that it is unlikely that false charges are made.

It depends on the what the woman … and the man are trying to accomplish. It is also possible that there is an honest disagreement about who said what to whom.

Weren’t there lots of claims against Clinton? Were they all true?

Posted by: C&J at December 8, 2011 3:20 PM
Post a comment