Why America Needs Herman Cain

Why America Needs Herman Cain

By Ed
Kaitz

Niccolò Machiavelli once said that “the man who adapts
his course of action to the nature of the times will succeed, and likewise, the
man who sets his course of action out of tune with the times will come to
grief.”

 

What I’d like to argue in this essay is that based on
the current “nature of the times” in America, Herman Cain must be the GOP
nominee for president.  In fact, Cain’s nomination represents what could be the
last and best opportunity Americans have to pry our battered country out from
the clutches of the increasingly strident, divisive, and Marxist pro-Obama
Democrat left.

 

Conversely, if the nomination goes to Rick Perry or
Mitt Romney, it will simply confirm my suspicion that the GOP base is absolutely
clueless when it comes to appreciating the unique contours of the American
left’s long-term strategy to undermine our nation’s constitutional heritage and
disposition.

 

The left has successfully poisoned any possibility for
a white conservative to attract enough minority voters on a platform based on
America’s colorblind founding principles.  Even a Romney or Perry victory, in
other words, will leave America as viciously divided as ever and will merely set
the stage for more Republican compromise with political opponents who rarely if
ever compromise.

 

Martin Luther King, in his 1963 “Letter from a
Birmingham City Jail,” said that when the “disinherited children of God sat down
at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American
dream and the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage.”  In addition,
said King, “[black people] were carrying our whole nation back to those great
walls of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the
formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence.”

 

King’s early Tea Party proclivities don’t seem to
garner much attention these days.

 

Indeed, soon after King issued those inspiring
remarks, the anti-American left began a long-term and sinister project to wed
Marxist ideology to racial politics in order to frighten white conservatives
into questioning the very basis of their country’s constitutional identity.  The
left’s goal back then was, according to philosopher Eric Hoffer, to “soften up
the white majority and beat it into a pulp.”

 

The left’s long-term objective was to both define a
new standard of civic righteousness and increase the power of the state by
championing the cause of America’s minority populations against what the left
considered the “oppressive” merit-based ethos of “reactionary” white America.
Epithets such as “Oreo” and “sellout” and “acting white,” for example, were
fashioned by leftists in order to intimidate both whites and minorities into
questioning the commonsense beliefs about personal initiative and self-reliance
built into the European Enlightenment tradition.  Duke professor Stanley Fish,
for example, captured the essence of this racial strategy a couple of decades
later in a defense of affirmative action that he wrote
for the Atlantic back in 1993:

 

Individualism, fairness, merit — these three words
are continually in the mouths of our up to date, newly respectable bigots who
have learned that they need not put on a white hood or bar access to the ballot
box in order to secure their ends.

 

And over the years, while a sincere but incredibly
naïve GOP pinned its election fortunes on the “economy,” thousands of teachers
in thousands of classrooms across the country found more and more reasons not to
present America’s founding tradition in a positive light.

 

Indeed, in one of the most prophetic books written in
the last few decades — Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on
Truth in American Law
— constitutional law professors Daniel Farber and
Suzanna Sherry argued in 1997 that the quiet invasion of “radical
multiculturalism” in American law schools has put professors “who cling to
Enlightenment aspirations” at some risk “of being labeled racists or bigots.”
Radical multiculturalists were able to accomplish this amazing feat by
relentlessly advancing the claim that “conceptions of merit are invented by the
powerful to reinforce their dominant position in society.”

 

The reason why Ronald Reagan’s conservative
“revolution” miscarried so quickly, in other words, is precisely the same reason
why constitutional law “scholar” and class warfare socialist Barack Obama
captured the most powerful office in the world so soon after Reagan left it: a
perfect storm or “righteous wind” that combined weak-kneed “compassionate” white
conservatives newly softened and distressed over the moral underpinnings of
their own merit-based ideology with legions of self-righteous champions of
“people of color” eager to unleash academia’s long, simmering, and toxic blend
of Marxism, social justice, and identity politics.

 

Mr. Obama stewed for years in this racially charged
environment — not only in college, but in the pews of his pastor Jeremiah
Wright’s black liberation “theology” church.  The effects of Obama’s one-sided
and rather crude education slipped out occasionally on the campaign trail in
2008.  At a Florida fundraiser, for example, Mr. Obama insinuated
that Republicans would create a state of fear by using Obama’s race as a means
to harvest votes for John McCain:

 

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run.
They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid
of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention
he’s black?

 

The Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto was
one of the few observers at the time to expose Obama’s pathetic attempt to
malign an entire political party as racist:

 

Obama is baselessly accusing Republicans of racial
prejudice, or at least of cynically pandering to racial prejudice. But by
wording this ‘accusation’ as a prediction, Obama is able to cast aspersions
without needing any evidence to back them up. He implicitly ascribes to the GOP
the view that voters are prejudiced against blacks, then calls on voters to
prove they are not by voting for Obama.

 

One has to add the word “white” to “Republican,”
however, for Taranto’s claims about “racial prejudice” to make any
sense.

 

Allan Bloom once said that “society’s greatest madness
may seem normal to itself.”  Indeed, an American candidate for president
succeeded in getting himself elected even after implying that members of the
opposition party in his own country are racists.  However, according to Newton’s
Third Law, the left’s carefully crafted attack on conservative white America was
bound to give birth to its very nemesis: a highly driven, eloquent, and
successful black political candidate who, unlike our current president, has
nothing but effusive gratitude for the opportunities his country has given
him.

 

Highly esteemed pundits including Daniel
Henninger
, Dorothy
Rabinowitz
, and Michael
Barone
are coming to recognize that Herman Cain’s unique combination of
business expertise, educational credentials, inspiring background, and love of
country is striking a deep cord among American voters.  But the most important
factor may be, as Ms. Rabinowitz observed recently, “Mr. Cain’s unfailing
capacity to speak as though from a core of fire deep inside
him.”

 

The left has spent decades trying to smother that
fire, and to some degree, most white political candidates for president are now
damaged goods — they tend to find it more prudent to triangulate, manage,
strategize, compromise, and appease.  They are also highly unlikely to
accomplish anything close to marginalizing today’s alarmingly radical Democrat
party.  In short, the GOP needs to elevate and highlight courageous and
passionate Tea Party favorites like Star Parker, Allen West, and Nikki Haley
rather than the more tepid Mitt Romney types.

 

On a national stage, Herman Cain and other minority
conservative candidates have the ability to send shockwaves not only through the
political landscape, but down deep into the dark corners of academia, where
legions of liberal professors continue to wield a very harmful but successful
narrative in order to beat young America’s potential defenders — both white and
nonwhite — into a pulp.

 

A Herman Cain-headed ticket for 2012 would be
unbeatable.  It would also represent a new dawn in America where gratitude,
confidence, and initiative would overwhelm the resentment, anger and ingratitude
so characteristic of left-wing political culture.

 

It’s the nature of the times.

We Need Jobs, Not Another Jobs Speech by the President

We Need Jobs, Not Another Jobs Speech by the
President

By Neil
Snyder

President Obama was under a lot of pressure after an
August 2011 jobs report told the tale in no uncertain terms.   Job growth in
that month was zero, and the unemployment rate was stuck at a disturbingly
high level — 9.1%.  Following a much-publicized brouhaha over the scheduling of
a “jobs speech” in September 2011, President Obama finally delivered an address
to the nation in which he outlined yet another stimulus program to create
jobs.

 

After all the hoopla associated with the speech,
investors expected something imaginative — something new, different, and
better.  Instead, the president tossed up a $450-billion package that looked
eerily similar to the “stimulus” programs he sold to Congress in 2009 — the
ones that failed so miserably.  Infrastructure spending, aid to states,
high-speed rail, and temporary tax cuts highlighted the president’s proposal,
just like they did almost three years earlier.  Representative Paul Ryan
(R-Wisconsin) gave an accurate
assessment
of the president’s proposal: “I didn’t hear any new ideas.”  The
reason Ryan didn’t hear any new ideas is because there weren’t
any.

 

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 300
points the day following the president’s speech, or about 3%.  Investors seemed
to be saying, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  We’ve
reached the point where Barack Obama isn’t believable on Wall Street or on Main
Street.  Only die-hard Obamanistas take our president seriously.  That’s a
dangerous state of affairs, because we face daunting challenges on multiple
fronts both at home and abroad.

 

In his jobs speech, Obama said, “There should be nothing controversial about this piece
of legislation.  Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been
supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here
tonight.  And everything in this bill will be paid for.  Everything.”  As usual,
the president didn’t explain how everything will be paid for.

 

After the jobs speech, President Obama hit the road to
sell his “new” plan to the American people.  At one stop on his journey, the president said, “If you
love me, you gotta help me pass this bill.”  This isn’t about love.  It’s about
jobs, and President Obama’s plan won’t work this time any better than it worked
the last time or the time before that.  I like the way Senate minority leader
Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) described the president’s plan on Meet the
Press
on September 18, 2011: “There’s little to be learned from the second
kick of a mule.”

 

A few days after he gave the jobs speech in September,
President Obama hustled to the podium again to deliver another deficit speech.
This is what David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, said about the president’s deficit speech:

 

I’m a sap, a specific kind of sap.  I’m an Obama
Sap.

When the president said the unemployed can’t wait 14
more months for help and we had to do something right away, I believed him.
When administration officials called around saying that the possibility of a
double-dip recession was horrifyingly real and that it would be irresponsible
not to come up with a package that could pass right away, I believed
them.

I liked Obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged
Republicans to play along.  But of course I’m a sap.  When the president
unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has
nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip.  This is
a campaign marker, not a jobs bill.

It recycles ideas that couldn’t get passed even when
Democrats controlled Congress.

 

Brooks was correct.  The president just rehashed the
same old, same old.  Generally speaking, the left loved the president’s deficit speech because it was laced with
“tax the rich” invective, and the right hated it for the same reason.  But — and this is a big
but — liberal Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) didn’t like it at all.  The tax hikes that the president kept
saying were essential were too liberal for him, and the same is true for the
majority of Democratic senators, no matter what their political bent happens to
be.

 

The political landscape is taking shape, and Obama’s
tax-and-spend approach is becoming less popular every day as voters are coming
to terms with stark reality.  Keep in mind that in 2009, a heavily Democratic
Congress gave the president carte blanche to deal with our nation’s economic
woes.  The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other stimulus programs that
cost American taxpayers close to $2 trillion were supposed to revitalize the economy and keep
the unemployment rate below 8%, but they were designed by President Obama to
achieve his objectives, not ours.

 

People who were hoping for change when they voted for
Obama were disheartened because what they got was the largest and most expensive
boondoggle in American history.  The change that President Obama had in mind was
even more taxing and spending — more than thinking people dreamed possible.
Jobs to him are little more than an afterthought.  Even with increasing
political pressure to do something meaningful to create jobs, Obama still can’t
admit that we have a serious problem and that his approach isn’t
working.

 

The latest round of political gimmickry should
convince any thinking person that President Obama is just playing games while
our economy crumbles.  As I said in a recent American Thinker blog entry, Senate Democrats didn’t
even take up the president’s “jobs plan” until a few days ago, and
immediately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) moved “to block Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s attempt to
bring the ‘jobs’ bill up for a vote in the Senate.”  But that’s not all.  Senate
Democrats tacked onto the “jobs” bill a “millionaires’ tax,” and Reid rewrote Senate rules to make it very difficult for the
minority party to force the majority party to take uncomfortable votes.  If
that’s not political game-playing, I don’t know what is.

 

Making the charade even more surreal, Obama took to
the airwaves again on Thursday and blamed Republicans for standing
in the way of progress.  He even attacked “Mitch McConnell several times by
name, without ever acknowledging the real reason his legislation has stalled in
the upper chamber: Democratic opposition.”

 

This is the bottom line.  We need jobs — not another
jobs speech by the president.  An unemployment rate above 9% is unacceptably
high, and the economy is moving in the wrong direction.  Almost everyone except
the president seems to know that.  Obama’s jobs and deficit speeches have done
nothing to help solve our economic problems, and time us running short.  We need
change we can believe in, and we need it fast.  Thankfully, November 2012 is
just around the corner.  It will be a referendum on President Obama’s
performance deficit.

 

Neil Snyder is a chaired
professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.  His blog,
SnyderTalk.com, is posted daily.
His latest book is titled
If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You’re Not a Racist, You
Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You’re Not an
Idiot
.

Herman Cain Proves the Power of Ideas in the Republican Race

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown,FloydReports.com

America’s media is obsessed with every tick of every poll. The reason they cover polls is
because they don’t want to cover ideas. Republicans should resist being sucked
into this reality show mentality and focus instead on the candidate’s ideas.

Herman
Cain
used this to great effect in the Florida Straw Poll. His powerful
speech concluded with a riff in which he talked about how the media had
declared,“I can’t win.”He then empowered his audience by telling them,“You
decide who wins,not the media.”Good advice from a candidate that is now watching
this particular race from the frontlines.

The media uses polls to create self-fulfilling prophecies. Media
organizations who are more interested in influencing the outcome of the race
than they are providing unbiased coverage of the race use polls as an instrument
of voter and donor manipulation. They manipulate the desire of us all to be with
a winner.

We have been carefully watching Republican Party contests since the
1970′s,and there are some more interesting markers than polls that can help you
understand what is really happening. Remember ideas have
consequences
with Republican primary voters.

First,straw polls don’t matter. If they did matter Pat Robertson would have
been elected president in 1988. He won the straw poll in Iowa and surged in the
media horse race as a result. His victory lead the New York Times to
report:“For the second time in a year,the Rev. Pat Robertson has shaken Vice
President Bush and his other rivals for the Republican Presidential nomination
by winning a test of organizational strength.”

Herman Cain likewise has surged after his astounding victory in the Florida
straw poll. The Cain victory has conservatives chanting “9-9-9″after his bold
economic plan. Cain is calling for a total tax reform which would eliminate
payroll taxes,the estate tax,investment taxes,and replace it all with a simple
flat tax of 9 percent,coupled with a 9 percent consumption tax and a 9 percent
corporate tax.

If Cain is going to win,it will be because of his bold ideas and vision. And
with ideas Mr. Cain excels,and frankly leaves most of the other candidates
wanting.

So our second point would be….

Read
more
.

Pitch-Perfect Palin

Pitch-Perfect Palin

By C.
Edmund Wright

Last night, Sarah Palin’s statement — and her
breaking news interview with Mark Levin — stressed some extremely important
ideas.  As such, her not running might well be among the least important topics
she touched on.  Yes, I know that’s the news that everybody was waiting for —
but what interested me most was what Palin said about her vision for America and
how she said it.  It was crafted very intentionally –and it was simply
pitch-perfect.

 

Palin spoke of ideas and priorities.  These were above
and beyond what particular position she — or anyone else — might play in our
arena of ideas.  That she’s still very much in the arena — and planning on
making a difference — is obvious.

 

In her written statement — and her immediate
follow-up interview with Levin — she made it clear what was important.  Saving
the country is all that matters, and the first step required for that task is to
totally reverse our current course.  Of course, that includes removal of the
current occupant in the White House.  Consider Palin’s first action
step:

 

We need to continue to actively and aggressively help
those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead
seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional
republic based on the rule of law.

 

Her message is transparent.  Obviously, fundamental
transformation refers to an idea of Barack Obama, and stopping this idea
requires defeating Obama.  If we don’t accomplish this, nothing else matters.
Stopping this fundamental transformation is more important than Palin’s
running…and more important than any particular person…and more important
than any particular issue.  Plugging the hole in the Titanic means
changing presidents, and if this is not accomplished, anything and everything
else is merely rearranging the deck chairs.

 

Thus — with apologies to the many on the internet
message boards who have been assuring us that she had a master plan to swoop in
with a whole new movement — Palin very directly asserted to Levin that a
third-party run (by her or anyone else) would merely guarantee the reelection of
Barack Obama.  This is a fate that must be avoided at all costs.  And by all
costs, Palin means all costs.

 

On this count, Palin’s choosing Levin’s show for her
initial interview post-announcement could not have been an accident.  Levin is a
classic Reagan conservative, and as such, he is an instinctively pro-Palin
figure.  Moreover, he is an “anybody but Obama” advocate, and while he will
likely criticize certain Republicans (like he did McCain in ’08) during the
primary process, he will be violently opposed to any third-party or independent
movement even if he’s not thrilled with the GOP choice.  Palin made it clear she
is of the same mind on that issue.  Read her lips: no third
party
.

 

As a note, this message was missed by some in the
pundit class — including A.B. Stoddard on last night’s Fox All Star Panel.
Stoddard confidently snarked that the use of the term “GOP nomination” in
Palin’s statement about not running was a clear signal that she intends to go
independent.  Sorry to disappoint, A.B.  You should have listened to the
tape.

 

What else struck me was Palin’s next order of
business: energy as the key to our free-market economy.  And by struck, I mean
profoundly pleased.  I totally agree with Palin’s emphasis:

 

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and
free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must
embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource
developments of conventional energy sources, along with
renewables.

 

What the former governor of an energy rich-state knows
is that without more reliable and less expensive energy, our free market economy
cannot reach its potential.  It just cannot happen.  She also knows that we
cannot have a nominee this time around as naïve on domestic energy as was John
McCain.  The energy emphasis was a profound statement and a perfect segue to the
more traditionally obvious Tea Party issues — which are, of course, still near
to Palin’s heart:

 

We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations
that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize
government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create
jobs. Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller,
smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the
people can better serve this most exceptional
nation.

 

Obviously, many of the tax burdens and onerous
regulations that are killing our economy are part of Obamacare — not to mention
the NLRB’s attack on Boeing and the EPA’s attack on just about everybody.  These
bureaucracies are just part and parcel of a government ever-growing in its size,
scope, cost, and intrusion into our lives — and threatening to bankrupt us for
generations as well.

 

This message is not merely an “it’s the economy,
stupid” message, but instead a message that demonstrates what is important about
the secular role of government — even to devout Christians who bathe their
political decisions in prayer.  And what is important is that said government
stays limited and allows for maximum liberty.  The fundamental transformation
Palin opposes maximizes government and minimizes liberty.

 

If that fundamental transformation is not stopped,
America will cease to exist as the Founders envisioned it and as we have known
it.  That America, more than anything else, is an idea — a huge idea.  It’s
bigger than any issue.  It’s bigger than any person.  And Sarah Palin, unlike
many who denigrate her, has a mind great enough to understand that.  We all need
to.  Pitch-perfect, indeed.

 

The author has written
about Sarah Palin since before she was picked as VP nominee in
2008.

Opposition to Obama grows — strongly

Opposition to Obama grows — strongly

By and , Updated:
Wednesday, October 5, 3:20 AM

Four in 10 Americans “strongly” disapprove of how President Obama is
handling the job of president in the new
Washington Post-ABC News poll
, the highest that number has risen during his
time in office and a sign of the hardening opposition to him as he seeks a
second term.

New poll numbers suggest political opposition to President Obama is rising
and hardening. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES – Tags:
POLITICS)

While the topline numbers are troubling enough, dig
deeper into them and the news gets no better for Obama. Forty-three percent of
independents — a group the president spent the better part of the last year
courting — strongly disapprove of the job he is doing. Forty-seven percent of
people 65 years of age and older — reliable voters in any election — strongly
disapprove of how he is doing his job.

 

Strong opposition to Obama has grown markedly since the start of the
year.

In a mid-January Post-ABC survey, 28 percent strongly disapproved of the job
Obama was doing. With the exception of a poll in early May that followed hard on
the
killing of Osama bin Laden
, that number has steadily ticked upward,
as the year has worn on and the economy has remained sluggish (at best).

And even as his strong disapproval numbers have risen, Obama’s strong
approval numbers have gone into a mirror-image decline.

In January, 30 percent strongly approved of the job Obama was doing. In the
latest Post-ABC survey, that numbers is 21 percent and, as recently as early
August, it had dipped to 18 percent.

All of those numbers — and yes, we here at the Fix do love us some poll
numbers — point to a simple fact: The “anyone but Obama” crowd is getting larger
and more strident in its opinions, while the president’s base is growing less
and less strongly supportive of how he is doing his job.

To that point: 43 percent of self-identified Democrats said they “strongly”
approve of the job Obama is doing, while 74 percent of Republicans strongly
disapprove. That’s a 31-point disparity for you non-math majors out there.

The poll data provide empirical evidence for the recent switch in Obama’s
rhetoric from a focus on compromise (aimed at independents) to one that
accentuates the differences between his approach and the one advocated by
Republicans (aimed at Democrats).

The Post-ABC poll does suggest, however, that Obama’s jobs plan could well
help him repair relations with his party base. More than eight in 10 Democrats —
and 81 percent of liberals — support it.

A dispirited base coupled with a highly energized opposition isn’t an ideal
place for the president to be, but neither is it a political death sentence.
President George W. Bush found himself in a not-dissimilar situation in
2004 and managed to win re-election, using a scorched-earth approach designed to
disqualify Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D) in the eyes of voters.

The latest poll numbers affirm that the 2012 election will look a lot more
like that 2004 election than it will Obama’s 2008 victory. Put another way:
winning ugly may be the only way for the president to win next November.

Democrats hold on in West Virginia: For those who were watching
baseball rather than politics last night, you didn’t miss much.

Despite some consternation, Democrats held
on to win
the special election for governor of West Virginia, with Acting
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) taking 50 percent of the vote to Republican
Bill Maloney’s 47 percent.

The AP called the race shortly after 9 p.m. Eastern time — about 90 minutes
after polls closed — a very early call that made the result rather
anti-climactic for Republicans.

Democrats were quick to argue that the GOP’s efforts to nationalize the race
and make it about President Obama failed, but the GOP did
close the gap
in the final days and weeks of the campaign.

Cain’s path to victory: With some questioning whether
he’s in it to win it
, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain laid out
his path to victory on Tuesday, and he appears to be trying to buy some
time.

The pizza magnate told
ABC News
that his goal is to finish in the top three in Iowa and New
Hampshire and, from there, win in South Carolina and Florida.

“We are not going to win every state, but we are going to win enough of the
critical ones in order to be able to get the delegates we need,” he said.

Early indications were that Cain could be a strong candidate in Iowa, but he
performed poorly in the straw poll in Ames and hasn’t been devoting the
requisite time to the state.

Meanwhile, he won a straw poll in Florida 10 days ago.

Of course, by emphasizing later states like South Carolina and Florida, Cain
could be trying to give himself more time to catch on. But we saw how well that
worked with Rudy Giuliani in 2008.

Conservative group boosts GOP incumbents: The conservative American
Action Network is launching a $1.6 million media campaign to prop up more than
four dozen Republican incumbents across the country.

The campaign, which features mail, print advertising and phone calls, accuses
Obama of trying to balance the budget by cutting Medicare and will benefit 43
House GOP incumbents and 11 Senate GOP incumbents from coast to coast. Samples
of the mail pieces can
be found here
.

Most of the Republicans receiving help are vulnerable to Democratic
challengers in 2012, but the media campaign will also benefit senators who were
just elected in 2010. It will also help Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who have come under pressure from the right and
could face tough primaries next year.

Easy first debate for Warren: The first primary debate in the
Massachusetts Senate race did little to stymie Harvard Law Professor
Elizabeth Warren, who has quickly vaulted to the front of the Democratic
pack.

City Year co-founder Alan Khazei took a shot at the “Washington
establishment” deciding the nominee, and activist Robert Massie warned
against what he called a “rush to judgment” — both veiled shots at Warren. But
there was no direct confrontation among the six contenders hoping to defeat Sen.
Scott Brown (R). They agreed on almost everything.

Warren had the most to lose; the fact that there was essentially no news out
of this debate was good news for her.

Fixbits:

Not content to let Mitt Romney have all the fun, Jon Huntsman
will deliver
his own foreign policy speech
on Monday.

Cain says being
gay is a choice
.

Chris Christie joins Rick Santorum in offering something short of
criticism
of the name of Perry’s hunting camp.

Post media writer Erik Wemple with a great
breakdown of Christie’s news conference
. Definitely worth the read.

Utah state House and state Senate Republicans are struggling
to reach a deal
on a congressional redistricting map.

Former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson (R) files
for the state’s open Senate seat.

Ron Paul says killing al-Awlaki is
an impeachable offense
for Obama.

Rummy spars
with al Jazeera
.

Former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (R) says he won’t announce his
plans on running for governor until the
calendar hits 2012
.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) gives
a vote of confidence
to the judge overseeing the drawing of the state’s new
congressional districts.

Disapproval of Congress hits a
two-decade high
.

One quarter of congressional freshmen have
started
their own political action committees.

National Republican Senatorial Commitee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas)
and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) bury
the hatchet
.

The President of Contempt

The President of Contempt

To Barack Obama, America is lovable in proportion to the love it gives him in return.

  • By BRET STEPHENS

Nixon was tricky. Ford was clumsy. Carter was dour. Reagan was sunny. Bush 41 was prudent. Clinton felt your pain. Bush 43 was stubborn. And Barack Obama is . . .

Early in America’s acquaintance with the man who would become the 44th president, the word that typically sprang from media lips to describe him was “cool.”

Cool as a matter of fashion sense—”Who does he think he is, George Clooney?” burbled the blogger Wonkette in April 2008. Cool as a matter of political temperament—”Maybe after eight years of George W. Bush stubbornness, on the heels of eight years of Clinton emotiveness, we need to send out for ice,” approved USA Today’s Ruben Navarrette that October. Cool as a matter of upbringing—Indonesia, apparently, is “where Barack learned to be cool,” according to a family friend quoted in a biography of his mother.

The Obama cool made for a reassuring contrast with his campaign’s warm-and-fuzzy appeals to hope, change and being the ones we’ve been waiting for. But as the American writer Minna Antrim observed long ago, “between flattery and admiration there often flows a river of contempt.” When it comes to Mr. Obama, boy does it ever.

We caught flashes of the contempt during the campaign. There were those small-town Midwesterners who, as he put it at a San Francisco fund-raiser, “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them.” There were those racist Republicans who, as he put it at a Jacksonville fund-raiser, would campaign against him by asking, “Did I mention he’s black?” There was the “you’re likable enough, Hillary,” line during a New Hampshire debate. But these were unscripted digressions and could be written off as such.

Bloomberg

Only after Mr. Obama came to office did it start to become clear that contempt would be both a style and method of his  governance. Take the “mess we have inherited” line, which became the administration’s ring tone for its first two years.

“I have never seen anything like the mess we have inherited,” said the late Richard Holbrooke—a man with memories of what Nixon inherited in Vietnam from Johnson—about Afghanistan in February 2009. “We are cleaning up something that is—quite simply—a mess,” said the president the following month about Guantanamo. “Let’s face it, we inherited a mess,” said Valerie Jarrett about the economy in March 2010.

For presidential candidates to rail against incumbents from an opposing party is normal; for a president to rail for years against a predecessor of any party is crass—and something to which neither Reagan nor Lincoln, each of them inheritors of much bigger messes, stooped.

Then again, the contempt Mr. Obama felt for the Bush administration was merely of a piece with the broader ambit of his disdain. Examples? Here’s a quick list:

The gratuitous return of the Churchill bust to Britain. The slam of the Boston police officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates. The high-profile rebuke of the members of the Supreme Court at his 2010 State of the Union speech. The diplomatic snubs, petty as well as serious, of Gordon Brown, Benjamin Netanyahu and Nicolas Sarkozy. The verbal assaults on Wall Street “fat cats” who “caused the problem” of “10% unemployment.” The never-ending baiting of millionaires and billionaires and jet owners and everyone else who, as Black Entertainment Television’s Robert Johnson memorably put it on Sunday, “tried rich and tried poor and like rich better.”

Now we come to the last few days, in which Mr. Obama first admonished the Congressional Black Caucus to “stop complainin’, stop grumblin’, stop cryin’,” and later told a Florida TV station that America was losing its competitive edge because it “had gotten a little soft.” The first comment earned a rebuke from none other than Rep. Maxine Waters, while the second elicited instant comparisons to Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech. They tell us something about the president’s political IQ. They tell us more about his world view.

What is it that Mr. Obama doesn’t like about the United States—a country that sent him hurtling like an American Idol contestant from the obscurity of an Illinois Senate seat to the presidency in a mere four years?

I suspect it’s the same thing that so many run-of-the-mill liberals dislike: Americans typically believe that happiness is an individual pursuit; we bridle at other people setting limits on what’s “enough”; we enjoy wealth and want to keep as much of it as we can; we don’t like trading in our own freedom for someone else’s idea of virtue, much less a fabricated concept of the collective good.

When a good history of anti-Americanism is someday written, it will note that it’s mainly a story of disenchantment—of the obdurate and sometimes vulgar reality of the country falling short of the lover’s ideal. Listening to Mr. Obama, especially now as the country turns against him, one senses in him a similar disenchantment: America is lovable exactly in proportion to the love it gives him in return.

Hence his increasingly ill-concealed expressions of contempt. Hence the increasingly widespread counter-contempt.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Herman Cain is running for president….

He’s probably one of the       few who can actually do the job and  totally knows what he’s doing or       knows how to learn OTJ! (On The Job!)

Herman Cain is           running for president….
He’s  not a career politician (in           fact he has never held political office). He’s known as a pizza guy,           but there’s a lot more to him. He’s also a computer guy, a banker guy,           and a rocket scientist guy.

Here’s his bio:

  • Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.
  • Master’s degree in Computer Science.
  • Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile             ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).
  • Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
  • VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this             is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of             information systems for a major           corporation).

All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he           reached the top of the information systems world, he changed           careers!

  • Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King             restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s             poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months             learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes,             cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the             company’s best performers.
  • Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge             of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of             bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.
  • In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from             Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he             reached the top of the ladder of another industry.
  • He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association             during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on             behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political             experience from the non-politician side.

Having reached the top of a second           industry, he changed careers again!

  • Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to             work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how             monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.
  • Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked             his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank.             This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal             Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This             position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the             inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary             system.

After           reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a           fourth time!

  • Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak             on leadership. His books             include Speak as a             Leader, CEO of             Self,Leadership is Common Sense,             and They Think You’re             Stupid.
  • Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he             started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk             radio station in the country).

He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father           was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his           accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three           unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and           banking—

STACK THAT  UP AGAINST THE           ‘COMMUNITY ORGANIZER’….

Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of           anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half           century.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers