First, let me say that I don’t have a favorite among those left. I don’t like any of them much at all. However, I have noticed a tendency in voters to forgive some character flaws over others.
Newt Gingrich comes with a lot of baggage. Everybody knows it. It has been aired for a number of years. Yet, people can’t forgive him even when he asks for forgiveness. The thing they can’t seem to forgive is his multiple marraiges. That’s okay, but it’s not the only character flaw that determines if a person will stay true to his word in other matters.
Mitt Romney has a lot of baggage; more than people realize along with a ruthlessness about how he deals with competition that looks like it might win over him. Not mention his perpetual campaign that began in 2007 and has not ceased since. In addition to that ruthlessness, he can’t seem to stay on one side of an issue; any issue. Some call him the Flipper but it’s worse than that. He often reminds me of those blow bop dolls that kids like to punch. The doll reels backward, forward, and to the sides before it finally rights itself, ready for the next punch only to repeat the cycle. Once we can finally sort out where he actually stands on an issue, there is still his ruthlessness against his opponents to consider. Remember Fred Thompson? Here’s what the Romney camp for 08 did to Fred Thompson, in Thompson’s own words:
[…] Days after I got into the presidential race in 2007, I was greeted with a website, “PhoneyFred.org,” described in the media at the time as an “anti Fred Thompson smear site.” You couldn’t really tell who was behind it, but we learned of it from the Democratic National Committee, which made ample use of it. We assumed that they had created it. However, a reporter at the Washington Post (of all people) decided to find out who was behind the site. After a lot of effort, she traced it to an executive of TTS Strategies, a South Carolina consulting firm run by J. Warren Tompkins, one of the most notorious hardball political operatives in the country.
Politicians of opposing campaigns were known to get the “Warren Treatment.” He ran Bush’s 1980 campaign, in which anonymous flyers and telephone calls accused John McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child.
In 2007, he was running Mitt Romney’s campaign in South Carolina, where Mitt was behind the rest of us in the polls. Of course, when confronted, both Tompkins and Mitt were “shocked” to learn that a rogue employee (who ran Tompkins’s office) was running such a website (out of the office), and the site was taken down immediately. One of the more benign and amusing things the site accused me of was being a “flip flopper.” I kid you not. […]
Do read the rest of the article. The part quoted is near the end of the article which is mainly about Herman Cain. Like Fred, I don’t know if Romney’s campaign was behind the torpedoing of Cain(whom I did support) but it does remind one of what Romney is capable of. Now that Gingrich has somewhat burst Romney’s bubble of inevitablitiy, it will be interesting going forward.
By the way, Santorum has a lot of baggage, too. Google Santorum scandals and you’ll see. I won’t spend a lot of time on him because he doesn’t seem to be getting much traction after Iowa. So does Ron Paul. Google him, too.
It does remind one of the old cliche about living in glass houses and throwing stones.
But character flaws should be expected. These men are only human, after all. There is no perfect human being save one who died for our sins and sins we still commit. Depending on our worldview some sins are worse than others, though God nor Christ ever differentiated between one or another.
Fred’s article about Cain does make one wonder about things when Romney chose the very same firm that torpedoed Fred to manage his campaign again this time around (emphasis mine).
[…]”We knew coming here that Romney would have a bull’s-eye on his back but now it’s the size of the Target sign,” said J. Warren Tompkins, a South Carolina GOP strategist advising Romney’s campaign. “You’ve got to worry about that. We’ve got to survive here, but if you do the probability of getting the nomination is pretty good.” […]
I’m not exactly advocating for either Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum over Romney but neither am I discounting them just because the media wants Romney. Given that the ‘inevitability bubble’ has burst, this primary season could get real interesting if we stop this selective forgiveness some their transgressions while beating up others for theirs. Hopefully, if we can manage to do that, we can have the least of the leasser evils that have been foisted upon us.
[A post-Florida Gator-devouring USC gamecock’s Stone Mountain of Georgia roost-view of his undergrad alma mater, Wofford College and Spartanburg hometown’s hosting of the South Carolina, CBS/National Journal, Republican Party presidential debate]
Let the Big Dog eat!
The motto of Wofford Terriers’ (pictured) sports teams is “Let the Big Dog eat!”, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich looked like the Big Dog eating away at GOP presidential nomination opponents’ leads last Saturday night.
The Speaker’s mastery of foreign policy was equaled only by Former Massachusett’s Governor Mitt Romney, both of whom made clear that they would be willing to take unilateral military action to prevent the Islamist mullahs ruling the terrorist state of Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately for those, like me, that consider it imperative that any President of the United States maintain a credible deterrent and that we have a nominee with a bold jobs plan (like 9-9-9) fit for the depths of the present economic crisis, Herman Cain turns out to be with Ron Paul in publicly and dovishly taking the military option off the table over the issue that could drastically change life on Planet Earth one minute after Iran demonstrates its enty into the world’s Nuclear Club.
The critical exchange:
Major Garrett: This week, a U.N. nuclear watchdog agency provided additional credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. If you were president right now, what would you do specifically that this administration is not doing to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
Herman Cain: The first thing that I would do is to assist the opposition movement in Iran, that’s tryin’ to overthrow the regime. Our enemies are not the people of Iran, it’s the regime. And a regime change is what they are trying to achieve. Secondly, we need to put economic pressure on Iran, by way of our own energy independence strategy. By having our own energy independence strategy, we will impact the price of oil in the world markets, because Iran uses oil not only as a– means of currency, but they use it as a weapon.
One of the reasons that they are able to afford that nuclear weapons program, is because of oil. Secondly, we would then work to increase sanctions on Iran, along with our friends and our allies. So whereas we will not be– so that’s why I do believe that they have a nuclear weapons program and they are closer to having nuclear weapon, stopping them– the only we can stop them is through economic means.
Major Garrett: A quick follow up, Mr. Cain. You say assisting the opposition, would you entertain military assistance and opposition?
Herman Cain: I would not entertain– military opposition. I’m talkin’ about to help the opposition movement within the country. And then there’s one other thing that we could do. We could deploy our ballistic missile defense capable (UNINTEL) war ships strategically in that part of the world. We have the biggest fleet of those warships in the world. And we could use them strategically in the event that they were able to fire a ballistic missile.
Cain’s, not quite the Spartan-like fighting stance
Spartanburg is named for the Pelopennisian War/Sparta 300-like fighting spirit and skill of General Daniel Morgan’s (whose statute stands in his eponymously-named Downtown Square of the debate’s host city) “Spartan Rifles” that defeated the British in the pivotal nearby Revolutionary War Battles of Cowpens and Kings Mountain.
Herman Cain endures Beltway economic ignorance and poor legal advice on non-disclosure agreements from The Center Seat on FNC’s Special Report, The Panel segment, on Tuesday
This time, Americans want a man with courage to implement the values and principles that might just save America, rather than a Barbie Doll that gives all the lawyered-up, Beltway-approved “right” answers. Americans are amenable to a normal conversation with non-lawyers rather than a gotcha game.
We know that people with courage and the needed convictions aren’t necessarily those that respond like gold medalists in the perfect-answers-approved-by-peanut-gallery talking heads.
We like, admire and trust Herman Cain. We know that fixing the economy requires courage and Reagan-like principles and polices more than being a non-gaffe geek.
We hate the lawyer, PC, make-a-mistake-and-we’ll-sue-you liberal culture. We loathe it like the plague. We are tired of staying silent with glazed-over eyes as we endure the victimhood of women that heard a bad joke or got flirted with. We are tired of defending lawsuits because of “institutional” racism.
We have been tired for a long time. But now we are tired and poor.
Herman Cain sat in the Center Seat of Special Report’s The Panel on Fox News Channel last Tuesday night. He was cross-examined/ridiculed by Charles Krathammer et al on the regessivity of the sales tax portion of his 9-9-9 (modified 9-0-9 for the poor) Plan.
Reagan’s tax rate cuts that returned America to prosperity were deemed “unrealistic” voodoo economics at this stage of his campaign. Herman Cain sticks another needle in that voodoo doll!
President Ronald Reagan’s voodoo not only passed, but worked. Vice President George H.W. Bush gave up voodoo detection until he rode Reagan’s coattails to office and passed a lobbyist/establishment friendly tax hike that betrayed lip reading.
If only doomsayers had less lives that cats
When even one of this gamecock’s favorite conservative tea partier-friendly website highlight’s surrender to any notion of scrapping the establishment-friendly tax code, we know that the battle to save America remains formidable despite the biggest GOP election victory in over 60 years in 2010.
The new front-runner for the Republican Party presidential nomination dominated the recent Bloomberg debate in New Hampshire by skilfully defending his plan against his media and GOP opponents to scrap the current tax code (and its scores of taxes, deductions, exemptions and subsidies on and from new-born babies to estates of the dead) in favor of just three taxes assessed at 9% on personal income, corporate income and the sales of new goods.
Now enter the anonymous streiff at Redstate who declares that Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan relies “entirely on hope…that runs contrary to everything we know about human nature and the way government operates.” Really? Entirely on hope contrary to everything we know?
The businessman eschews semantics and revising history in favor of taking care of America’s business
Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? A “failure”? Who cares what one-word description best fits says Herman Cain. Leave such irrelevancies to politicians, academics and bloggers with time on their hands. He would rather be about the business of curing what ails America.
Admittedly, it helps to have a record in business of fixing broken companies rather than having inherited messy state governments and people with demands more complicated than Whoppers or Mafia pizza pies at reasonable prices. But unlike his Bay State, Lone Star State and Gopher State opponents for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the former corporate CEO from the Peach State is not afraid of truthful explanations of his present policy positions and frank apologies for past mistakes.
This early 2007 supporter of Mitt Romney, before Fred Thompson briefly dropped in on the 2008 race, began this campaign in Cain’s corner, having volunteered for his unsuccessful Georgia senatorial bid in 2004. But we quickly became disillusioned when our Atlanta neighbor and former 750 WSB-AM radio talk show host took an extreme and unconstitutional position opposing the building of a mosque within the city limits of Murfreesboro, Tennessee; and seemed not up to speed on the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” of so-called refugees to Israel and other issues in the first two debates.
Cain’s honesty and common sense trumps slickness
But, to our great pleasure, rather than deny ignorance or mistakes, Cain did his homework, apologized and made corrections in his positions where appropriate. Now, he and fellow Peach State denizen and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, look like the adults on debate hall stages full of a few unruly children fighting over toys.
Toys? Yes, and especially the age-old stand-by of mostly meaningless semantic arguments that seek to simplify major issues down to labels.
Whether the Social Security program always was or now is a “Ponzi Scheme” and/or a “failure” in some existential sense, it is not sustainable in its present form. Many if not most federal government programs need to be reformed with conservative principles, returned to the states or ended altogether and most if not all bear no resemblance to schemes known by proper names or geometric shapes.
Could at least one candidate identify problems in plain language and figure out what laws to pass to solve the problems, rather than seek history books for cute analogies? Cain says yes.
[A big thank you to Richard Hornsby for the photo]
This past Wednesday through Saturday, The American Conservative Union sponsored the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. CPAC was open to all conservative activists who wanted to attend. This year, I had the honor of being a credentialed blogger for CPAC, and, thus, was able to sit in the bloggers’ lounge that was sponsored by Freedom Works. Tabitha Hale, the brains behind the bloggers’ row who put the whole thing together, really outdid herself. (All attendees should participate in a quiet “golf clap” for Tabitha.)
Folks, I had a blast this past week. Seriously, if any of you ever get the opportunity to attend CPAC, I highly suggest going. In fact, there are three very good reasons to attend CPAC next year (or any similar national conservative activist conference in the future). So, without much fanfare and ado, let’s get right to it.