“This competition for new jobs and businesses and middle-class security, that’s the race I know we can win. But you don’t win it by saying every American is on their own. We’re not going to win it if we just hand out more tax cuts to people who don’t need them, let companies play by their own rules without any restriction, and we just hope somehow that the success of the wealthiest few translates in the prosperity for everybody else. We have tried that, by the way. We tried it for 10 years. It’s part of what got into the mess that we’re in. It doesn’t work. It didn’t work for Herbert Hoover, when it was called trickle-down economics during the Depression. It didn’t work between 2000 and 2008, and it won’t work today. And the reason it won’t work is because we are not a country that is built on survival of the fittest. That’s not who we are.”
— Barack Obama, Nov. 14, Kapolei, Hawaii
Obama is dead wrong. Data from the White House’s own website shows that Hoover increased, rather than cut, spending in the Great Depression, and ran up deficits that were huge by historical standards.
I’ve said it before: They don’t teach economics at Harvard Law.
The Obama administration is “dangerously incompetent” in foreign policy, according to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said, who accused the president of “coddling dictators” in a fundraising appeal sent to supporters after Tuesday’s debate on CNN.
“I believe I was able to clearly explain my philosophy about America’s international affairs and how I believe the Obama Administration has been so dangerously incompetent with our overseas dealings,” the Atlanta businessman wrote in the e-mail (seefull text below). “Unlike President Obama, I believe America should treat our allies better than we do our enemies. That means we should embrace traditional allies like Great Britain instead of coddling dictators like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.”
Some analysts have dismissed Cain’s campaign since he recently slipped to third place in national polls. However, there is evidence the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO may have begun recovering from damage inflicted by allegations of sexual harassment in the 1990s and by his own gaffes. A CNN poll taken Nov. 18-20 shows Cain at 17 percent, up three points from a CNN poll taken a week earlier. And polls in Iowa — where the Jan. 3 caucuses are now less than six weeks away — continue to show Cain competitive in the Hawkeye State.
“I am a consistent conservative who can solve our nation’s problems,” Cain wrote to his supporters. “That is why I am running for President. That is why I can win.”
– – – – –
** FULL TEXT OF CAIN CAMPAIGN E-MAIL **
Dear Patriots
I hope you were able to watch tonight’s Republican foreign policy debate. I believe I was able to clearly explain my philosophy about America’s international affairs and how I believe the Obama Administration has been so dangerously incompetent with our overseas dealings.
Unlike President Obama, I believe America should treat our allies better than we do our enemies. That means we should embrace traditional allies like Great Britain instead of coddling dictators like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
Unlike President Obama, I believe America needs to stand up to Iran. We should build our missile shield in Eastern Europe to protect our interests from Iranian missiles.
And, unlike President Obama, I don’t believe in spreading America’s wealth all across the globe in the form of “foreign aid.” Our economy is in a shambles and our government is broke. We should only provide aid to foreign countries that are either our allies or who have suffered a great humanitarian disaster.
The differences between Barack Obama and me on nearly every issue are clear. We are politically polar opposites. It doesn’t matter if we are discussing foreign policy or the economic future of America. I am a consistent conservative who can solve our nation’s problems. That is why I am running for President. That is why I can win.
Ideas and commitment alone aren’t enough to win the Iowa caucuses, however.
I need you. Please make an urgent contribution to my campaign of $20, $30, $50, $100, $250 or more right away. The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are only weeks away and our opponents have so much money.
I need the funds the match them dollar for dollar in TV ads and grassroots organizing. I need the money to spread my message of economic opportunity and fiscal discipline. I need the resources to recruit more and more volunteers to publicize the job-building benefits of my revolutionary “9-9-9 Plan” to spur economic growth. 9-9-9 means jobs-jobs-jobs!
Please make a generous donation to my campaign right away.
Thank you in advance for your support and God Bless America!
Washington, DC — At this evening’s CNN/Heritage Foundation/AEI Republican National Security Debate, Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) showed he is the one candidate ready and able to answer the 3am phone call to ensure our nation’s security and safety.
Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “Rick Santorum isn’t politically correct, he’s just correct. Should we be profiling grandma? No, we should profile the people who fit the description of radical Islamic terrorists. Senator Santorum is the one candidate with the experience, knowledge, and the willingness to level with the American people about the threats and challenges facing America.”
SANTORUM SAID: On Profiling:
“We should be looking to find the bomber, not the bomb. To put the enormous responsibility on the Federal government and TSA is too much. I voted to allow privatization of the TSA. But the issue is the PATRIOT Act, we are at war. The last time we had a threat like this at home, Lincoln ran over civil rights because we had a domestic threat. But I disagree with Governor Huntsman. We have had the debate (on the PATRIOT Act and profiling) and it does show the values of our country.”
On Time Lines For Afghan Withdrawal:
“We are not fighting a tactic (terrorism), we are fighting radical Islam. All the radical Islamists are saying just wait America out — they are weak, they will set time limits and we will tell the people in Afghanistan and Iraq that we will be the strong horse in the region.”
On Foreign Aid To Africa:
“I believe it is essential. Africa was on the brink of chaos, where radical Islamists could take hold. While humanitarian in nature, (the aid) was essential for our national security…. We must promote our values. We are the shining city on the Hill.”
On Compromise:
“If the things you have to give up make the things you are trying to do harder, no. By raising taxes, what the Democrats are trying to do is slow down the economy. You don’t undermine the ability of our economy to grow. This president has poisoned the well. He’s divided group from group to position himself to win this election. I have a long record of bipartisan accomplishment. I point to Welfare Reform. We instituted work requirements, time limits on welfare. Yes, I compromised on some child care, transportation, but we 100% changed the welfare system because we stuck to our principles.”
On Highly Skilled Immigrants:
“As a son of a legal immigrant, I strongly believe in legal immigration because we are the shining city a hill unto the world. A huge percentage of legal immigrants come here want to innovate. That’s one of the reasons I put forward my economic plan to take advantage of legal immigration and encourage innovation. We need to make sure things are made in America. We need to make sure we create an environment to help innovation and create income mobility. That is why I have called for a zeroing out of the corporate tax for manufacturers, regulatory reform, repatriation of foreign profits, and increasing energy exploration to improve income mobility. Greatness has come from (legal) immigrants who have worked hard, created businesses, and created jobs.”
On The Most Under Discussed Foreign Policy Threat:
“I have spent a lot of time concerned with the militant socialists and radical Islamists bonding together in Central and South America… We have sent all the wrong signals to Central and South America. We need to build a solid hemisphere and they need to know we are in solidarity.”
UPDATE: By the way: I don’t know if Santorum won or not. It’s just that his campaign was the first one to send me a press release. I didn’t watch the debate. After the Nov. 12 debate in South Carolina, I’m kind of burnt-out on debates. We don’t get CNN at the house, and I’ve been watching Storage Wars on A&E all night. Anyway, Politico found Santorum’s performance worth a headline:
“We should be trying to find the bomber, not the bomb,” Santorum said when asked by moderator Wolf Blitzer whether the U.S. should use profiling. “Other countries have done it — Israel’s probably the best example. But to put this enormous expense on the federal government, to put this enormous expense on the traveling public for pat-downs and other intrusions — I think it’s too much money.”
Santorum then said that like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, he believes the TSA should be privatized and that Abraham Lincoln proved sometimes civil liberties have to take a back seat to national security.
Steering the conversation back to profiling, Blitzer then asked Santorum who, exactly, he believes security professionals should be on the lookout for.
“Well, the folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes,” he replied. “Obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely. Those are the folks — the radical Muslims have been people committing these crimes by and large, as well as younger males. Not exclusively, but these are the things you profile to find your most likely candidate.”
Again, remember: Iowa GOP caucus voters. Not many ACLU types are going to be showing up Jan. 3. You expect Republicans in Des Moines and Davenport to have a lot of sympathy for Abdul and Omar getting hassled at the airport?
Trying to keep up with the news is sometimes a challenge even for the most hard-core news junkie, and I hope readers will forgive me for occasionally overlooking stories I should notice. Libertarian blogger Tom Knapp recentlly called my attention to the latest damsel-in-distress drama involving Michelle Fields of the Daily Caller.
When last we encountered Miss Fields, she was trapped with me amid the smelly hippie mob of Occupy DC protesters who were trying to storm the AFP Summit. The same commie scum had been shouting ugly things at Miss Fields, who vowed never again to cover Occupy DC, so . . .
Tucker Carlson evidently got the bright idea to send Miss Fields and her camerawoman, Direna Cousins, to cover the Occupy Wall Street mob’s “Day of Action” in New York, where they got beaten by the NYPD:
“The police officers were beating the protesters with batons, and were also beating the media,” Fields told TheDC. “They hit Direna and me with batons. They hit other members of the press in order to get them to move out of the street.” . . .
Clear indications that Fields and Cousins were members of the press didn’t stop the NYPD beating. “Direna had a camera in her hand and I had a microphone, and we were being hit,” she said. “When I fell to the ground I said at one point, ‘I’m just covering this! I’m covering this!’ And the officer just said, ‘Come on, get up, get up,’ before pulling me up by my jacket.’”
In the crush of the crowd, Fields and Cousins were unable to get out of the street and comply with the NYPD’s orders.
“The protesters came up to me right away and asked if I needed any medical assistance. They were actually very kind and helpful. It was the police officers who were very aggressive,” Fields added.
Here is the video — blurry and confusing — where you see the incident and hear people shouting, “Help her up!”:
Hunter S. Thompson got tear-gassed while covering the riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, so Miss Fields is certainly following in excellent journalistic footsteps. However, my chivalrous instincts and paternal sensibilities are a bit ruffled by the thought of her editors sending a 5-foot-5, 115-pound girl into the middle of such a chaotic situation. But the 21st century cannot distinguish chivalry from chauvinism, and I suppose Tucker Carlson would be sued by the Justice Department or the EEOC if he refused Miss Fields the “opportunity” to get wedged between an angry mob and a squadron of baton-wielding NYPD officers.
Having exposed myself to accusations of “discrimination,” I’ll just go ahead and earn the contempt of feminists everywhere by questioning the wisdom of pregnant women participating in protests:
Jennifer Fox, 19, spoke to The Stranger at the Occupy Seattle encampment at Seattle Central Community College. Fox claimed that she was three months pregnant last Tuesday evening when she joined an Occupy Seattle march that stopped at the intersection of 5th Avenue and Pine Street.
“I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in,” she says. “I was screaming, ‘I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.’” At that point, Fox continues, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. “Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut,” she says.
Wow. The Occupy movement is suddenly pro-life?
OK, that was cruel and unfair, in addition to being sexist, so I apologize. Perhaps you see why it might sometimes be better for me to ignore these stories. Wherever there is the slightest hint of controversy — or an opportunity to create a controversy — you can always depend on me to say something that offends people. Set your watch by it. And in other recent news developments . . .
“Sugar Falling Out of the Sky!” — If you’ve ever listened to University of Georgia football on the radio, you know that Larry Munson was the least objective play-by-play man in the history of sports broadcasting. A native of Minnesota, he became the Bulldogs’ biggest fan and never bothered to hide his emotional reactions. Larry just got called up to that Great Press Box in the Sky, no doubt because God needed somebody to do play-by-play for the Battle of Armageddon with as much drama as Larry brought to the 1980 Georgia-Florida game: “Lindsay Scott! Lindsay Scott!”
Speaking of Which — Monday, we had more than 14,000 page-views and exactly one tip-jar hitter. So everybody else was reading on TK’s $20. Just sayin‘ . . .
“Le mouvement des indignés compte beaucoup moins de femmes que d’hommes. Cela fait contraste avec le TEA PARTY qui compte 55% de femmes. Stacey McCain pense connaitre ce qui explique cette différence. La majorité des filles et des femmes n’ont pas envie de camper dehors avec des pouilleux qui sentent mauvais.”
Which I believe translates to “hippies stink.”
The 2011 Originality in Criminality Award — “GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — A Grand Junction man has been arrested for sexual assault on a child after using a ruse to dupe the teen’s parents into thinking he was a high school tutor. According to the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office, Adam Clayton Ross, 27, of Grand Junction, was arrested on Thursday and is being charged with sexual assault on a child. The warrant for his arrest says that Ross met the 14 year old girl on MySpace and became aware that she was attending the Grande River Virtual Academy. He then showed up at her door with fake credentials, claiming he was a tutor. Her parents allowed Ross to meet with the girl on three occasions for tutoring sessions.” I blame Al Gore for inventing the Internet.
The 2011 Stupidity in Criminality Award — Armed robber encounters armed convenience store clerk, hilarity ensues. Be sure to watch the video: The clerk had the good sense to shoot first, because a masked man who walks in brandishing a revolver has forfeited the presumption of innocence.
The Band Didn’t Know ‘Brick House’? — Apparently, the drummer in Jimmy Fallon’s band is a Newt Gingrich supporter.
Great Ideas Deserve to Be Stolen — This post represents a form that Jimmie Bise calls “Clearing the Browser Tabs” and, despite my notorious shamelessness in ripping off great ideas, I’d be a lowdown polecat if I didn’t suggest you go over and hit Jimmie’s tip jar for a few bucks. Ease my conscience.
Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) joins TheCollegeConservative as a contributor and assistant editor from the University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, California. A Political Science major and History minor, Hoffman is also the Outreach Director for The California Review. She contributes the “Being Young, Conservative and Spicy” column at The Washington Times Communities, and has also had articles published on FoxNation and The College Fix. Hoffman is a native of Coto de Caza, California. She can be reached at [email protected].
The actual title of the notional organization, mentioned at The Enterprise Blog is Global Liquidity Facility (GLF).
And with the European Central Bank about to reprise the role of the Fed in the 1930s, economic analyst Ed Yardeni thinks Bernanke may well ride to the rescue of the eurozone and the global economy:
Given the ECB’s reluctance to act, I suspect that the Fed will spearhead the formation of a Global Liquidity Facility (GLF) to avert a global financial meltdown. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke demonstrated that he is a master at putting together such emergency measures back in 2008. In effect, it would act as the world’s central bank. Mr. Bernanke is clearly very worried about the prospect that the European sovereign debt crisis is a contagion that could spread to the US, as evidenced by his bizarre town hall meeting with troops returning from Iraq on November 10. The GLF would receive deposits from the Fed and other participating central banks, including the ECB. The funds would be used to buy the bonds of debt-challenged governments that would be required to accept strict supervision of their fiscal and regulatory policies by the IMF.
You might be thinking that I’ve gone mad. Actually, I’m simply predicting the behavior of our wild and crazy Fed officials. Last Wednesday, Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren noted that the Fed and the ECB worked together during the 2008 global market meltdown, and “if there was a (new) crisis I would expect that there would be some coordinated activities (again). We would want to make sure … that people have access to short-term credit markets.” He added, “We’re not at that point right now, but there are clearly stresses in short-term credit markets.” He said, “We’re watching that very closely, and if it becomes appropriate for us to take more actions to try to relieve that, I fully assume that we would do something.” Mr. Rosengren isn’t on the FOMC, but he is one of Mr. Bernanke’s most supportive colleagues.
There would certainly be a firestorm in Congress, but Bernanke is unlikely to seek (or if he did, get) another term anyway.
I am still working hard, trying to envision how any candidate for POTUS can argue that the crap undertaken by the Federal Reserve is even remotely in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.
Watching the worldwide slouch toward financial ruin just oozes the sense of the #Occupy movement. Except that at least the #Occupiers are not claiming any sort of superiority, or condescendingly making idiotic decisions with Other Peoples’ Money. And when the #Occupiers want to off themselves, they do it expediently with a drug overdose, and not some lingering totentanz.
Ultimately, the committee did not succeed because we could not bridge the gap between two dramatically competing visions of the role government should play in a free society, the proper purpose and design of the social safety net, and the fundamentals of job creation and economic growth.
Well, that is about as dispassionate, and un-finger-pointy as you can get. Socialism, misery codified as policy, is dying, and demands company. The good news is that the enumerated powers are as straight as a plumb line, showing which federal tasks should be retained, and which should properly be returned to the states. The bad news is that the federal graft has been too tempting on both sides of the aisle to permit proper carrying out of what must be done.
And yet, for all the billions and trillions of illegitimate acts by this Congress, to say nothing of the Administration, we’re supposed to get excited if Mitt Romney, arguably, packs an ad more tightly with information than necessary, and leaves some significant contextual details for the text of the post.
See, the snippet used in the Romney ad referencing talking about the economy being a losing plan was actually from a campaign stop where Obama was quoting a John McCain staffer in 2008.
Oh, that #RebelRomney.
One is tempted to think that the kerfuffle over the quotation sourcing was a test on the part of the Romney campaign which the Obama campaign is failing. More attention is drawn to the ad, and the catastrophic absurdity of this administration by pointing out the dodgy choice of quotation. Anyone who has read the Obamateurism posts at Hot Air knows that, if we had $100 for every time that #OccupyResoluteDesk had said the kind of thing for which we’ve seen Herman Cain pilloried, neither the deficit nor the debt would be of particular concern.
Unfortunately for Mitt, the air of inevitability, the slick soundbites, the centrist posturing, and the media echoes coming from their location in the tank trigger associations with none other than BHO’s 2008 campaign. “Repeal ObamaCare” looks good on a bumper sticker, but if the motive for doing so isn’t founded in a sincere desire to go after federal entitlements hammer and tongs, then we can expect the bad ideas informing both RomneyCare and ObamaCare to return like a communicable disease in an ObamaVille.
What is needed perhaps, is someone who has some experience, yet runs with more of and outsider feel. Someone with character as impeccable as Romney, but who manages not to exude the Ruling Class smarminess. Who doesn’t sound like a condescending Tom Brokaw acolyte when he speaks. Who is not running a ball-control offense campaign, as if winning means avoiding mistakes. I mean, of course, Rick Santorum.
Having the last burst of attention right before the caucuses could give him the momentum he needs to win Iowa — so, why is his boomlet next?
“Some would say because I’m the only one left to get a boomlet,” Santorum says while laughing. “I would say because if you look at the attention that’s been paid to the other candidates, and the knowledge that people have of other candidates, I think we are probably the least known candidate in the race here in Iowa and so as people are looking around … my strong sense is that people are going to start examining the only candidate they don’t know much about, and I think when they do, obviously I feel confident that we will do well.”
He says he also hears quite often, “We love you Rick. We think you are great, but we are not sure you can win.” He asks those voters to keep him on their list, and as candidate after candidate has their moment in the sun and then plummets, he believes they will come back to him.
“I see a momentum and it won’t be a momentum moved by the press, it will be a momentum by folks that are actually taking the time to analyze the candidates,” Santorum says. “From the very beginning of this campaign I’ve described this as being on an episode of ‘Survivor’ and you just want to stay on the island and be able to be there and hopefully be the last person standing when it comes down to caucus day. That’s been our game plan, that’s what we have been working on, working under the radar.
Barack Obama represents the culmination of a century of Progressivism. It’s all been crap. Does Mitt Romney represent a sufficient break from the Progressive tradition to recover America? The bets seem rather hedged in Mitt’s case. Hence the search for alternatives. Newt? Who would argue he’s less of an insider than Mitt? Does the scholarly delivery indicate Newt has done enough soul-searching to repent of his wayward ways? Maybe.
Santorum offers a solid, conservative candidate, in contrast.
Update: hopefully the left will spring to the defense of this personally insulting introduction of Michele Bachmann. Or is this old tune the new tone? Via Riehl.
Maybe it’s because I’m so influential in the blogosphere (no matter what Tabitha Hale says). Or maybe it’s because I signed up for an e-mail news alert while I was covering the 2008 campaign. Either way, I think you’ll agree that it’s pretty nice of President Obama to take time from his busy schedule to send me this e-mail personally inviting me to dinner:
Robert —
A few Thursdays ago, I had dinner with four Americans named Ken, Casey, Juanita, and Wendi — the winners of the campaign’s first Dinner with Barack contest.
I loved getting to know each of them.
We’re taking names for the next dinner starting now, and this time I want to add a new feature: If you win, you can bring a guest.
Chip in $3 or more today to be automatically entered to win a spot for you and a guest at the next dinner.
The folks who this election is all about tend to fall under the radar of the D.C. pundits and traditional news media.
They’re people like Juanita, who helped put her three sons through college on a teacher’s salary while saving what she could for retirement.
Like Ken, a single dad who stood by his mother as she fought insurance companies while battling two forms of cancer.
They’re like Casey, whose three young kids may not yet appreciate what courage it took for their dad to take a chance and start his own business.
And Wendi, an artist and third-generation teacher who canvassed, marched, and phone banked in Indiana in 2008, the year her home state defied the traditional electoral map.
These people weren’t just there for themselves — they were representing you, this movement, and the folks I go to work for every day as president.
These dinners are important to me because I want to spend time whenever I can with the people who sent me here. They’re proving wrong the conventional wisdom that says campaigns should cater to Washington lobbyists and powerful interests. And they’re an important reminder that this movement — and my presidency — have never just been about me.
I’m proud that we’re choosing to run the kind of campaign where a dinner like this isn’t just possible, it’s a regular thing. And next time, I don’t just want to meet you — I want to meet someone else in your life.
Donate $3 or more, and start thinking about who you’ll invite to dinner:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinner
Thanks for being part of this,
Barack
Isn’t that special? Unfortunately, I don’t have $3 to spare today, but if readers will hit my tip jar, I promise not to donate it to Obama. Because I wouldn’t want to end up like some other Obama donors:
Yeah Bad things happen in proximity to political disaster. As opposed to the good things that happen to people who hit my tip jar or shop our special Amazon “Black Friday Deals Week” sale: You get amazing bargains, I get a commission on each sale, and none of us gives a dime to Obama. What a deal!
In honor of today’s date and his new novel “11/22/63”, we turn our attention herein to a particularly disturbing case in point — Stephen King. Disturbing because in recent years, King has regressed from being a respectful liberal — to the extent that’s not an oxymoron — to a leading purveyor of the tin foil hat brigade.
His latest spate of books features an army of right-wing caricatures so over the top, they could have been penned by Howard Dean. YEARRGH!! In interviews for 11/22/63, King draws parallels between conservative “real hate and obstructionism” of President Obama and the assassination of JFK. Which sounds almost plausible … well, until you consider that Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist sympathizing leftist. But putting that aside, it’s like the same thing, right?
I’m thinking about publishing an open letter to the National Association of Rifle-Wielding Psychotic Extremists, urging them to save their ammo. The last thing we need is Chris Matthews tearfully re-living his leg tingles as he gushes with “Camelot” comparisons. Please, kooks and crackpots, I beg you to spare us such a calamity.
