It drives me nuts that everyone keeps claiming we’ve entered an “austerity” period in government. You can’t read an article in The Economist without them whining about this supposed austerity “endangering the recovery.” Seriously, every. . . single. . . article. And they aren’t alone. Most journalists now whine that “austerity” has “sapped growth” and hurt the economy. Noted liar Paul Krugman recently claimed “the turn toward austerity is a major factor in our growth slowdown.” This is demonstrably false.
In April, the White House and Congress agreed to a “draconian” $38 billion cut in the 2011 budget -- a whopping 1% of the $3.82 trillion leviathan. Oh my! Then in August they agreed to cut $2.4 trillion over the next decade. . . which would be 6% assuming the budget doesn’t increase for ten years (RFLMAO).
So there is austerity, right? It’s slight, but it is there, right?
Well, no.
Data from the Treasury shows that federal spending in 2011 is actually $120 billion higher than it was in 2010. In other words, spending is 5% higher than it was in 2010 and the supposed $38 billion in cuts has somehow morphed into $120 billion in additional spending.
That doesn’t sound like austerity to me.
Ok, so maybe we’re looking in the wrong place? Maybe the problem is really at the state level? After all, we keep hearing about belt-tightening and layoffs at the state level. Could that be where this supposed austerity is happening?
Well, no.
State budgets in 2010 were 8% higher than they were in 2008. And in 2011, they are 5% higher than they were in 2010. And in 2012, they’re estimated to be 2.6% higher again.
So where is this austerity? It’s made up. Liberals have spent like drunken sailors for the past decade. Federal spending is up 93% in 10 years and state spending is up 72% in 10 years, and there are no signs this growth is slowing any time soon. But they don’t want you knowing that, so they whine about austerity. And supposedly reputable magazines like The Economist prove they are too incompetent to even look up the truth. It’s a sad world.
Finally, let me point something out vis-a-vis the Democratic belief in stimulus spending. Federal spending increased 93% in ten years, yet the economy produced ZERO new jobs this decade. What gives? Maybe federal spending doesn't create jobs after all. . .
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Austerity?! You're Kidding, Right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
O.K. Andrew. I cannot figure out which drives me more nuts, the spending itself or the fact the damned lame stream never calls their pals out on it. While I loved your post, I will confess that my favorite "stat" (if one can really appropriately use the term "favorite" in this case) is the last one. 93/10/"0"
It's facts like these that make me want to march into washington and start knocking heads together. until the people truly understand that the power lies with us and can effectively communicate to our elected officials that they WORK FOR US, nothing is going to change. that washington continues to do as they please, without regard to what is actually happening in this country is incredible.
You big babies! You think that's an austerity measure? HERE's an austerity measure!
You know, after gaining some weight, we've been on an "austerity program" with our diets here for a couple weeks now. So, let's see, if I did the gov't version, that means I could now eat MORE doughnuts than I did last month?
Excellent...
Jed, 93-10-0.... nice way to put it!
This drives me crazy too. You seriously can't read an article in The Economist without them whining about how "austerity" is hurting the US economy and how it's threatening the world. And every time I see that I just want to go to their headquarters and start slapping people around.
How in the world can anyone reputable not simply look up the numbers and see that there has been NO austerity!
And how in the world can anyone believe in stimulus with 93-10-0? How long are we supposed to wait for the first "stimulus" job to appear?
patti, Not only do they do what they want no matter what we want and no matter the consequences, but then they lie to us over and over and over and expect us to fall for it. It's stunningly brazen!
Dear Greece, What do you know about austerity? Your version of austerity is to ask Uncle Fritz for a loan.
Crispy, Yes, the Uncle Sam Diet Plan would involve eating more each day and then whining a lot about how little others are letting you eat and how everyone around you is suffering because of it.
Also, you should buy all your food on credit with no ability to ever pay off that bill. :)
Krugman and the other so-called economists are mad. We aren't buying snake-oil from them or anyone anymore.
Also, they actually think that their guy will get in, if they destroy Cain. Well, I don't think so. So far, Romney is holding his own, but he won't be the Republican's nominee. Neither is Perry. Newt has a better chance at getting the Presidency if the attacks are successful on Cain. Hell, even Palin is reconsidering. We might even hear that Pawlenty will change his mind.
Krugman and company must be feeling a cold chill in the air. People are not taking them at their word any more.
An ad should be posted just to make it clear:
Candidates wanted for the Republican Nomination. All who want to be considered, must be conservative. Must have some sort of track record. Private or public it matters not, but we prefer experience in both. Must not have signed on with ObamaCare or the abomination in Massachusetts. Must have as the first goal in office elimination of ObamaCare. Race, creed or gender are not a factor, however a deep love of country and a humble respect for Christianity are requisites. Mistakes and gaffes are expected, but a potential must be aware that he or she is entering into hostile territory every time a mike , a camera or both present. They must be able to orally present the conservative viewpoint cogently and simply at any time during this silly season.
I promise you, you can throw that last statistic and every other one at the liberals and they will never blink an eye. They're committed, I tell you--in every sense of the word.
By the way, as an aside on Cain....
I read last night that the Des Moines Register did a poll and found that Cain was ahead with 30% of the vote. This was before the harassment scandal hit. So they called back the people they had polled and asked them if this changed their minds. Every one of them said it didn't:
LINK.
Joel, Nice ad. Don't forget to add: "Attention seekers and those looking to be loved need not apply." LOL!
In terms of Krugman, I think it goes beyond being upset. I think they have decided to tell lies to achieve political goals. They know Obama's policies have failed -- Krugman is no fool. But he still supports those policies. And the only way to deflect blame is to tell people something that isn't true... "austerity destroyed the world." And if enough of them repeat it long enough, then their voters will believe it and the people who don't pay close attention will believe it. And it will become conventional wisdom and then people will be willing to try their policies again in the future.
The left is rushing to co-opt the word “austerity” as to redefine the meaning of the word - - like, “what the meaning of is, is.” Statist Washington spends night and day trying to bamboozle the American people, the good news it’s not working in free America any longer. We are heading for a cataclysmic election in 2012, if we avoid real violence I’ll be amazed. This has the potential to make ’68 look like good times. While in the political vacuum of 2011, statist Washington prays that the Tea Party is done, I say it’s not, and as in 2010 many more firings are on the way, up and to which time that they get the understanding of austerity straight, and the word “is.”
T-Rav, That's true. They will have a million excuses like "they spent it wrong" or they will say "imagine how much worse it would have been." They're fools and they live in denial because the slightest hint of reality would expose their deepest beliefs to be fraudulent.
Stan, I think you're right that the establishment hopes the Tea Party has gone away but the Tea Party hasn't -- it just plays the game different. It doesn't hang around with lobbyists and go to dinners with Congressmen. Instead, it waits and it watches and it votes. And I think the establishment will be in for a real surprise when 2012 rolls around and they discover that more establishment types get tossed out.
I think numbers like this will be the driving force behind that too. Because nothing should prove the insincerity of Washington more than this scream of "austerity" while spending actually goes up.
It's like a bank robber screaming robbery once they get outside with the loot to make you think the robbers are still in the bank.
Andrew, that's an interesting story (the Iowa polling, I mean). I think partly that speaks to the lack of hard evidence in the charges; I think, also, it may be a determination among the base to stick to a "Not-Romney" candidate as long as they can. And also, the overwhelmingly positive, non-professional tone of the campaign overall has clearly paid some dividends in terms of supporters' loyalty. If nothing else comes out, I would predict that Cain continues his frontrunner status with little or no permanent damage and Perry drops off even further. And any support either candidate loses is likely to go to Newt.
Andrew: If that's austerity, I'd hate to see prodigality. We've been on a drunken orgy of spending for so long that a large portion of the American people think that belt-tightening is some new physical exercise. It's like the old joke, "I can't be broke, I still have checks left."
T-Rav, I think that's 100% right.
The people in the article are saying (1) there's no evidence, (2) this sounds really minor, and (3) this was decades ago, so who cares.
In fact, one of the people they quoted said they just don't care about the allegations because there are more important issues. Another said (paraphrase) "most businessmen probably have these kinds of false attacks in their pasts because that's how our system works."
I also think the style of campaign Cain has run has helped because he's seen as a guy who is successful, positive, and friendly, but never holds himself out as ideal. So people accept mistakes.
Also, with the other conservatives flaming out, it could well be that conservatives are sick of seeing their people go down and they especially aren't going to let their new guy go down just because of a media smear.
I think all of that is in play.
Lawhawk, It is quite possible that some people actually see this as "austerity," but can you image how twisted their worldview is if they think 5% yearly increases somehow represent drastic bone-chilling cuts?
On thing is for sure, the public isn't buying it. Few people in the private sector get 5% raises each year, and they certainly don't get 93% increases in 10 years!
Thanks for pointing this out. This is so typical of our establishment to scream AUSTERITY when they aren't even cutting a single penny.
On Cain, did you see that Perry tried to blame Romney.
DUQ, I saw that.
I also saw:
1. One of the accusers is a Democrat (though she claims no current party affiliation). Not surprisingly, she now doesn't want to come forward. That means she knows she's got nothing to say and she know the public would blast her when she couldn't come up with anything.
2. The other two accusers are government employees in the DC area... i.e. democrats. One is "afraid for her job" which is a lie because the government would NEVER fire you for speaking out on an issue like this. In fact, they can't. The Merit Service Board won't let them.
3. Employees are now coming forward and saying this is not true about Cain:
Christina Howard, a former lobbyist for the association, said: "I found him to be a good boss. I felt no problem going into his office and asking for his advice." She said she didn't recall allegations about Cain during his tenure and added, "I'd roll my eyes at anyone who would make that allegation."
4. Other restaurant association employees are now anonymously claiming that he engaged in lavish spending on things like cell phones and bonuses to employees! Oh my! And he stayed at expensive hotels! Oh my! (That's standard in the industry, by the way.)
Can you see where this is headed? It's grievance/bitch-session time.
5. An Iowa radio station is also now claiming that Cain somehow made their employees feel uncomfortable when he visited them this year. Something they of course didn't mention until it could get them publicity. Does ANYONE believe this?
Andrew, Excellent article. Great point about the 93% and no jobs for ten years. We should be flush with jobs if Keynse was right.
On the Cain stuff, I think the cracks are starting to show in the whole attack. I think they expected Cain to surrender. He didn't. Now they don't know what to do because they need to either put up or shut up and they've got nothing to put up.
Ed, I'm not sure this is over yet, but it has reached the ridiculous stage. When:
1. The accusers won't come forward and only their lawyers are trying to keep the story alive,
2. Other people start trying to pile other grievances onto the charge,
3. And idiots like this radio station try to pile on,
Then you know you've hit a point where things are falling apart. I suspect this story is going to start fading now, unless something really strong comes out.
Andrew,
Whoa! The list grows of formerly conservative blogs who buy into this Cain BS. Pajamas Media, whups, now PJMedia, now have joined Politico in perpetuating the smears on Cain. I wonder which site is next?
This one is a little different in that the author claims the accuser wants to set aside the confidentiality agreement. At least that is what the attorney is saying. A woman then in her twenties ended up in Herman's hotel bed one morning. The obvious question to me, "Was Cain holding her?", or, "Did he do the gallant thing and allowed her drunk ass to sleep it off in his bed while he took the couch?"
Unless this woman saved a blue dress with stains, I believe she doesn't have a leg to stand on. Sheesh.
Even his old radio station is getting into the mix. Now some of them are claiming to be "uncomfortable" with Cain when he visited a little while back.
I guess, this is one of those exposing events. It really doesn't expose Cain or even really damage him. It exposes who has a conservative integrity and who doesn't.
Sorry Andrew,
I posted, then saw your new one. Uh, by the way, she was given about $35,000. Same as the others.
Andrew, I saw the thing about the radio host in Iowa. For whatever it's worth, he had already written an article for Politico criticizing Cain as a candidate; he said he didn't include these "skeletons in the closet" at the time out of courtesy, but now of course it's important that the truth be known. Right.
This may not be nice, but at this point I would love nothing more than to see the Perry campaign self-destruct over this. (They probably won't, of course.) I'm sick of his supporters who claim that he is the ONLY TRUE CONSERVATIVE in the race and that every attack on him is false or misinformed, while every attack on Cain "raises some interesting points." I want to see what they have to say once he drops out.
Joel, It is an "exposing" event. It's exposing a lot of people who want to destroy something they don't like and are willing to lie to do it.
I am starting to suspect that this will be another one of those moments that break the back of the sexual harassment movement because they've picked the wrong target and so many of them are now piling on with nothing more to say than "he made me uncomfortable. ... why didn't I ever come forward? Uh... because I never thought of it until now."
Also, on the other websites, don't get me wrong on this -- there is plenty of room to discuss this and to discuss the pros and cons. But that's very different than buying into it, and too many conservatives are not only buying into it, they are trying to make it worse, see e.g. Karl Rove, because they see an opportunity to help their own guy here.
I might add, Gingrich was the only candidate to openly defend Cain against these attacks, calling them "gossip" and distractions in an interview yesterday. Together with the fact that he was also the only one to even partially defend the 999 plan in the last debate, and the two-man debate later this month, I'm starting to wonder if the two of them don't have some deal of their own going on. Either that, or Newt sees an opportunity to become the new "Not Romney" candidate.
T-Rav, That fits that the Iowa guy would already have written an anti-Cain article for Politico. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't hold an MSM credential that people like this guy are lying in an effort to bring down Cain.
Fortunately, moments like this are the ones that make everyone realize exactly what is going on. Unless something real comes out, and it doesn't appear there is anything real, then I suspect this scandal has peaked and from here on out, it's all going to be downhill for the accusers. They played it wrong. And lumping on obviously fake new allegations only exposes that.
The "he spent too lavishly" allegation is a mistake too because it turns "two victims" into a cabal of angry former employees with axes to grind.
On Perry, I think it's time he went back to Texas. He's gone from "the new hope" to "wait a minute" to "burn out" to "angry child" to "utter disgrace."
T-Rav,
Are you thinking that this will destroy or stop Cain? If so, Palin is set to jump in. She has no illusions and the media has shot its ammo on her.
I personally don't think Cain will cave or stop. He has too much integrity and he has something that is extremely rare. Unpredictability. The media can't predict what he will say or do.
T-Rav, I thought of that too.
My first thought is that Gingrich is showing his brains here. He knows this is a smear and we should not let the MSM choose our candidates for us by smearing the good ones and leaving the rest untouched.
My second thought was that he might be working to steal Cain's supporters should Cain go down in flames.
Either way, he's played it right.
Joel, I doubt this will destroy Cain. I think it has slowed him and taken him off message, but since there's "no there there," this will pass and he will resume. In fact, this was probably the best time for this to come out because now it can't come out the night before an election or during the election itself.
Rush is defending Cain and he's making some great points. He's attacking the people who are attacking Cain for not handling this well.
Joel, I certainly don't think this will make Cain drop out or plunge into third-tier status like Bachmann or Santorum. As those Iowa polls show, people still view him too favorably, and unless someone finds a dead girl in his basement or something, that opinion will hold.
The one way this might hurt him is if he keeps stumbling in his responses. That might lead some people who really like him to nonetheless feel he can't hold up to the pressures of a prolonged campaign, and reluctantly turn elsewhere. However, the determination among the base to nominate anyone but Romney means they will probably be a minority.
Long story short, I don't think this kicks him out of the first-tier status.
Oh, in non-Cain news (this thread was originally about austerity and economic stuff, right?), the Greek government seems ready to collapse after scrapping plans to hold a referendum on the EU bailout deal. That may please the technocrats in Brussels, since it'll keep the Greeks from rejecting the deal and thus maintain the Euro a while longer, but it's not likely to go over well on the streets of Athens. The heads of the armed forces were sacked just yesterday, possibly out of fears that there was a coup d'etat in the making.
See, whoever sockpuppeted Greece this morning was right on target about what real austerity measures look like, huh?
Ed, Glad to hear it. I don't have the radio on so I can't hear what he's saying, but I assume he's upset that people are faulting him for not being perfect?
T-Rav, I don't think it kicks him out of first tier status either -- barring the something real coming out in the allegations. And based on what they are using, there's nothing real here or we would have already heard hints of it.
T-Rav, On Greece, I suspect their government will collapse and they will fall out of the Euro and probably the EU -- with or without the referendum. And I think that will probably happen fairly soon.
Whoever sockpuppeted Greece? I thought that was you! LOL!
I checked out the Pajamas Media story. They're basically saying that Cain took an intoxicated woman back to his hotel room (one source said they got into a taxi together but then had to walk that back) and she showed up at work a few days later, emotionally distraught, and later saying that she had been taken advantage of. That's not sexual harassment, that's rape, and one would think the sites reporting this would have labeled it as such. And the fact the details on this are changing makes me highly suspicious.
T-Rav, Before this is over, we will all have been brutally raped by the sexual predator that is Herman Cain... only we all forgot.
The more they add, the less credence I give any of it.
Since the lawyers don't have the investigation by the National Restaurant Association and can't get it until the confidentiality is set aside, and Herman Cain can not talk about it.... No one gets to know until the agreement gets set aside. I think that the only sites I will continue to go to will be ones which apologize profusely to Cain after this blows over.
What I am really surprised is that Pajamas Media has stooped this low. I expected Hot Air and Red State, maybe even Ace of Spades. but Pajamas? Whew! Who knew that they have a favorite? And Cain isn't it.
Oh, and there have been corrections to the original story. Seems it was assumed that the witnesses actually saw that Cain and the woman got into the cab together. They didn't It is now that the woman awoke in his apartment not in his hotel bed.
Quite a bit different. Also it reflects badly that Pajamas didn't wait until it is confirmed.
It also seems the woman claimed she was taken advantage of except she has no proof and she worked a couple months more at NRA.
My guess is that people will talk and exaggerate until she felt uncomfortable at work, sought redress and since nothing really happened but the place had turned hostile towards her, the NRA paid her off.
Joel, The problem with that is that it remains anonymous. Until we see an actual allegation, some proof, the results of an investigation and the settlement, this is nothing more than a smear.
And let me say, if he actually did take a drunken employee to his apartment and had sex with her and she complained, they would have fired him -- especially if there were other harassment allegations made by other employees.
So I don't believe it.
Andrew,
I agree. What is really surprising is that people who should know better are buying this hook, line and sinker. I thought Ace of Spades wouldn't jump, but he did. Pajamas jumping on is totally left field for me.
RedState, well, Erick never was good at analysis. I was right about Allahpundit as well. I expected these two. Not the other two.
Joel, I'm not sure why they jumped. It could be that they are just looking for sensationalism to run up their page hits -- something we don't do because we're not trying to make money blogging. Or it could be they are in the tank for one of the other candidates. Or it could just be that they aren't that bright/good at analysis and they haven't learned how to ask critical questions.
I'm not saying they should ignore it. I think it's THE story right now. But they certainly could have done better than to just accept as true every single allegation and then to tar Cain for failing to definitively disprove an ephemeral allegation.
They are essentially doing the left's dirty work and making it impossible for future conservatives to run for President.
I think I read somewhere that this person got $45,000 in a settlement. Again, that's a year's salary or less; nowhere near what one would expect if these claims were true.
Joel, I don't follow Pajamas enough to say whether I would expect this or not, though you're right, it doesn't look good that they didn't vet this story before running it. Of the other three, though, I think HotAir is trying to pump up its numbers, and Ace and RedState have been shilling hard for Perry ever since he got in. Both have been openly hostile, in their posts and in their comments, to Cain for the past several weeks, and to Bachmann before that. It's fine that they support him, but this is biasing their judgment.
Rusty Humphries talk radio host here in Atlanta is doing a replay of an interview with Herman Cain from last evening that was done for a Tea Party Internet Town hall. Great interview, he’s fielding questions and dispensing with them nicely in regards to this media made scandal. He’s taking calls from across the country and people want to know how to help him, or other questions all together unrelated to this “scandal,” such as 9-9-9. I know it’s anecdotal but if this proves to be it, I believe he becomes a better, stronger candidate.
Note: He also admitted being understaffed, and is addressing it like a businessman, and is ramping up as business dictates, such as being number one in many polls. This is as opposed to say the dumbass Solyndra model.
T-Rav, I haven't seen that number (I've only seen the $35,000), but again, that's not what you would expect for a genuine sexual assault. Those cases tend to settle in the seven figure range or very high sixes.
My issue though, is that if there was such an allegation and they believed Cain had done anything wrong, they would have reprimanded him (at the least) and either fired him or quietly pushed him out the door within a few weeks. You just don't keep someone who has sex with drunken employees on staff -- especially when your business is to act as the representative of dozens of other businesses. It's just not done.
I also find it interesting that these people wait until he's the front-runner. If they really were so bothered by how they claim they were treated, why wait until now to mention it? The political timing is key here. A real victim doesn't wait to see if their attacker moves ahead in the polls.
Stan, I'm glad to hear it -- not only that he took questions from the public about this, but that he handled them well. That is an encouraging sign, especially because I don't think this whole scandal will work with the public. This is more inside-the-beltway "gotcha" stuff, as is the media firestorm. They ask him the same question 100 times. When he finally says "enough, I've answered that," then they run out with headlines "Cain snaps at media, refuses to answer questions." It's a disgusting game.
In the end, I think you're right that this will make him a better candidate because it will strengthen his support, it will give him the confidence to trust the American people and not the talking heads, and it will prepare him for all the future made up scandals the MSM has already pre-written.
I'm glad he's building up his staff. I would think the inflow of money is probably helping a lot with that.
Andrew, Politico's got it up. I think, after reading it, they're actually referring to one of the first two women who were brought up, and not this rape claim. The site also makes a big deal out of the fact that $45K is a lot more than the two or three months' salary Cain originally said she received. Okay.
Incidentally, on that claim yesterday by a pollster that Cain had been taking part in a bunch of inappropriate talk at dinner once--who cares, by the way?--someone else who was there has come forward and said he was drinking but did not say anything untoward.
T-Rav, That's the media gotcha game.
1. Demand you answer in detail ephemeral allegations without knowing what the allegations are or who is making them.
2. Say your answer is not enough, but still refuse to say what the allegations are.
3. Complain that you are dishonest for not being straightforward. Argue that no matter what the allegations, your response is the real problem.
4. Look for any inconsistency or perceived inconsistency and turn it into a lie that proves you are guilty OR that proves you are stupid for speaking before you knew anything.
5. Declare you guilty of being both evil and stupid.
6. Apologize 10 months later when the proof comes out and it is shown this was just a set up.
On the pollster, I think the guy is a disgrace. First, if he knew something he should have spoken -- he didn't. Instead, he acted like it would have been inappropriate for him to speak. That's a tease. Secondly, he's obviously doing it for political reasons. If Perry had any integrity (and we know he doesn't) he should fire the guy for slandering an opponent. But then, we know he did it with approval.
Here's an update:
1. The first woman to make an allegation apparently is alleging a single incident -- that he asked her to go to his hotel room which made her feel "incensed."
2. Ten of the Association's Board members say they never heard of any allegations against Cain.
Hi Andrew,
Aye! Already the allegation that Cain took a drunk employee to his apartment has been debunked and now the lying woman who suddenly "remembered" feeling uncomfortable because NOW she claims Cain asked her up to his apt..
It's so obvious that this "scandal" is still baseless smears.
Even some of the Fox reporters are getting in on this pile on.
I heard Shepard Smith call this a scandal and he was talking to some other idiot pundit about Cain's "inconsistant" answers or something to that effect.
I wish I could be there to tell these morons and dem operatives to put up some actual evidence or STFU!
Hey, you know what? I heard, from multiple sources, that Shepard Smith works for George Soros and was paid to repeat Poltico's lies and smears but I can't give out the names of my sources or give any details because they fear retaliation.
What's taking Smith so long to respond to these allegations? Why doesn't Fox fire him?
They have really gone downhill the last few years and they never were a conservative source of news...although moreso than the other major arms of the democrat party called the MSM.
Anyways, I (anyone) can make multiple allegations of criminal activity from anonymous sources on anyone.
And I'll try to point this out to all the conservatives who are biting Politicos bait or sitting on the fence.
As for those conservatives who are joining Politico's lynch mob for expediency to help their candidate:
They should be ashamed of themselves to have no integrity, honor or class!
And they should be ashamed to call themselves conservatives, because true conservatives value honesty and justice!
As Jack Webb (Joe Friday) would say: "just the facts ma'am."
Sorry, but to quote Lopan:
"This really pisses me off to no end!!!"
A Lopan quote, awesome! LOL!
Ben, I agree entirely on all points. I wasn't sure if the hotel thing was debunked or not because they are switching the allegations back and forth between the anonymous sources, so it's not clear what anyone is talking about.
I agree entirely that the conservatives who are using this to help their own guy should be ashamed. They are fools and are laying the groundwork for this kind of garbage to continue.
I don't like Romney, but if these allegations were made against him, I would be just as irate. Ditto when they attacked Bush, Bush 2, McCain and even Dole. This is SOP for the left and conservatives need to learn to reject it out of hand -- not play into it or try to exploit it.
As for Fox, they need to be exposed as not being friendly to conservatives. Maybe if conservatives started flipping them the bird, then Fox would get the message and actually BE conservative instead of just pretending they are.
Update P.S.
The very important (in Iowa) Rep. Steve King (who has not endorsed anyone yet) says he thinks the sexual harassment allegations are likely “liberal activists” and “official hyperventilaters of the first order.”
“I think that unless we have one, two or three Anita Hills stand up and say ‘this is what I say he did,’ then it should’ve never been a story. What are we talking about? We’re talking about a story about a story, we don’t know what the story is, we don’t know what the allegations are.”
I agree 100%.
Also, Rasmussen just released his latest national poll -- done after three days of attacks on Cain, and Cain has pulled ahead for the first time: Cain 26%, Romney 23%, Gingrich 14%.
Oh, speaking of austerity, the vast majority of Americans wouldn't recognize auserity if it bit 'em in the ass and called them Gumby.
To the austerity pushers who don't have a freakin clue what austerity means I say go to some third world countries or places like The Phillipinnes off the beaten path (but be very careful!) and see austerity first hand.
Bunch of spoiled imbeciles telling us about austerity. Give me a break and hold the BS.
Ben, I agree entirely. I still recall living in DC and hearing people complain about how they were forced by the then-recession to cut back on the hired cleaning service or the babysitter or put off buying the new luxury car... and they thought they were suffering. A-holes.
Great news on that poll! Thanks for the update Andrew!
Thanks for mentioning that on the ever-changing fairy tales the MSM is cranking out.
It's difficult to keep track of all the shrouded lies surrounded in perpetual mystery from these various "anonymous sources," LOL!
Good to see most Americans ain't buying it. :^)
You're welcome Ben. And don't worry, it doesn't appear that people are buying it. Not only have his poll numbers not fallen, but his donations are up and people seem to be reacting angrily to the allegations.
I think this smear will eventually backfire.
Even a guy like King saying it's a smear is significant. He's been entirely neutral in Iowa so far and that's frustrated a lot of the candidates. For him to take a stand on this is meaningful.
I think it'll backfire too, Andrew.
You know, on the timing of these smears, I think this is yet more evidence that the MSM and the democrat backers (Soros, etc.)really want Romney as the GOP presidential candidate.
Because even if Romney wins, he would probably do the least amount of damage to the democrats (and possibly compromise with them more often than the other candidates, except for Huntsman who doesn't stand a chance to win, thankfully).
I can't say for certain, of course. This is just a working theory I have.
I believe you mentioned a few days ago that Romney wouldn't be able to really attack Obama much since he has leaned left himself on many of the same issues.
Ben, I don't think the timing is coincidental at all.
If these "victims" were really upset, why not come forward as soon as Cain got into the race? Instead, they waited not only until Cain became the front runner in most polls, but until after the MSM's first attempt to destroy him as "unqualified" failed -- remember how they spent the past couple weeks telling us how his lack of knowledge of foreign policy minutia was "dangerous"?
It's like a "to do" list of attacks, one after the other, each intended to be used at the right time to make them the most effective.
When the "unqualified" garbage failed, lo and behold, here comes the harassment stuff -- which we knew was coming. There's no way the timing is coincidental, anymore than stories "suddenly discovered" the day before an election are coincidental or the way the ones that hurt the Democrats somehow just aren't deemed newsworthy until after elections, see e.g. John Edwards.
If these were legitimate complaints and not just politicized smears, they would have come out a long time ago. And they certainly wouldn't be trying to dribble out the specifics to stretch the news cycle.
I think you're right about Romney by the way. I'm not saying he's involved in this (in fact, I doubt that very much), but I think the MSM has decided he's the kind of Republican they want us to nominate.
Hmmm. I didn't know the Rasmussen poll was following the repeated attacks. That's interesting.
Ben, Shep Smith is one of the worst "journalists" on Fox, with the possible exception of Geraldo.
T-Rav, Yep, it was conducted Wednesday, after three days of allegations.
So that's a pretty telling poll. I would have expected some loss of support, but that doesn't appear to be the case -- any change in his support level is within the margin of error, and Romney seems to be the one bleeding support.
fyi, Perry is 8%, Bachmann 2% and Beeker 1%.
Andrew, if only they would let Beeker finish. That's all I have to say about that. :-)
Fred Thompson has an interesting article up at NRO on this whole mess. He implies, among other things, that Romney may be behind the leak, though I think the evidence he gives for that is pretty weak. But he also tries to ID Cain's real blunder in all of this (even if it hasn't hurt him so far):
"There’s a type of guy well known to every defense lawyer. He’s a very successful man, usually a businessman, politician, or other public figure, who owes his success in large part to being a forceful communicator as well as very smart. Often you cannot persuade him that he should not go before that grand jury to “just answer a few questions.” He cannot believe that he can’t persuade them of his innocence, because he believes he’s innocent. Just as he cannot believe the perjury indictment that is returned later."
T-Rav, That's very insightful. One of the things I've noticed in court is that liars make the best witnesses. The reason is simple -- they are better at shaping stories to fit what the jury wants to hear and they are better at telling those stories. People who tell the truth are kind of stuck with reality and don't have much practice trying to "sell" their position because they believe others will see it as true automatically. But liars know they need to sell their stories. So you end up with the liars coming across as the most believable and with the best stories and the honest people getting slaughtered. It's sad, but true.
Cain is handicapped because he just wants to tell the truth. If he was being a cynical manipulator instead (e.g. Clinton), then he would be slandering these women and telling very carefully crafted lies that come across as highly believable but ultimately too perfect if you stop and think about it.
What I'm saying is that unfortunately, he's caught in the honesty trap and that's not helping him. So Fred is right.
But one advantage he does have is that he's not the kind of Republican who wants to curl up in a ball and weep his way out of this. That's a disaster, but so many establishment Republicans think that's the way to go.
By the way, here's an interesting piece at American Thinker about the racial aspect of this -- which is very real. I have no doubt Politico et al. are using racist tactics to try to push this story. LINK
Oh oh... now it appears that Cain may have been telling the truth about not knowing about the settlement after all.
The woman's attorney says Cain didn't sign it, and the timing appears that the settlement was reached AFTER Cain left the NRA and it's like he was gone before she even made the complaint!
So it's sounding more and more like the smear is in fact a total smear.
LINK
Andrew,
I guess it is over for now. The NRA has magnanimously offered to release the woman or women from any confidentiality agreement concerning Cain. The woman through her lawyer has declined saying she doesn't want to live through it again. I think the the lawsuit Cain threaten Politico with was pretty good. I don't know if she will come back later, but I think that it is over for now.
Joel, I think that was an excellent move too because people understand what that means -- it means Cain is ready to endure scrutiny to clear his name.
I'm not surprised the woman backed out because she has nothing to say. "Gee, he asked me out" or "he said I looked nice, which made me think he wanted to rape me and my family, so I waited until he left the company and then I complained and demanded money." That doesn't play well.
I guess we'll see what happens with the other two allegations now.
Andrew,
I think all of them are going to drop it. This, as a political move, seems to have back-fired. Cain is as popular as ever. He has much more money to work with. His name recognition is greater. It also has the added benefit of destroying some superficially-conservative pundits' credibility.
I would have to say this has been a good week for Cain. Yes, he had been treated horribly, but he is still standing.
Joel, I'm going to update the whole thing on Monday, but that will be my conclusion -- that Cain is a stronger candidate because of this. For one thing, this will give him a coating to keep future scandals off because everyone now knows they will stoop to any level to smear him. Politico did 95 stories on this in 5 days and we still don't know what the allegation is!!!!
Secondly, I think the experience will make him stronger at responding to future smears.
Third, I think this brought on full support from people like Rush, who had previously been on the fence. I'm also seeing lots of people saying "I gave him money to show support." My sister just donated $9.99 to him! LOL!
All in all, this week stank for Cain, but it may end up paying huge dividends in the future.
Post a Comment