People vs. Principles

Herman, Herman, Herman…

Yer killin’ me!

The first time I let myself “fall in love” a little with a candidate and he let’s me down!  I should have stuck with my lifelong rule:  Support principles, not people, because people will always let you down.

Well, here we are.  I’m still holding out hope he wasn’t a cad.  I really, really, really, really want to believe he’s the good man he has presented himself to be, but this long-term affair lady is credible.  I believe her.  And even if they didn’t have a sexually intimate relationship, he violated the covenant of trust with his wife by having a sufficiently intimate relationship with another woman that he could call/text her 61 times in 4 months, once at 4:27am.

That’s an astonishing piece of bad judgement & wanton hubris for a man on the national stage.  That alone is disqualifying as a matter of judgement.


NYT Giveth, NYT Taketh Away

I was just about to give The New York Times an “atta-boy” for publishing my comment beneath their story on the Cain/Libya/Taliban dust-up, defending Herman Cain as correct on his assertion that there are, indeed, Taliban among the rebels on the ground in Libya – you know, the rebels who are now in charge, which is exactly what Herman said – when I had withdraw it (the “atta-boy”).

Interestingly, they updated their article overnight,  softening their mockery of him, possibly because they, I dunno, Googled it like I did. My previous post explains why Herman’s statement, rather than showing a paucity of knowledge, in fact, shows a careful – dare I say nuanced – understanding of the rebels-cum-leaders on the ground in Libya. (If Obama, or Hillary had said exactly the same thing Herman said, they would have called it “nuanced” and any honest reader g*ddamned well knows it.) First, here’s my comment:

So what prompted the “atta-boy” withdrawal?

Well, while grabbing the screenshot of it, I looked to the right and saw a “Featured” columns list of headlines.  One of the headlines I swear to God – was:

The underlying assumption of that question, by extension, the publishing of that headline, is so revealing, so packed with meaning, I hardly know where to begin!

First, the easy one:  You can’t have it both ways, New York Times.  You kill whole forests of trees, digital or otherwise, day after damned day asserting the entire GOP are uninformed rubes, which means you, day after damned day, assert that 40% of the country are rubes.  That stat is from a recent, reliable poll – one you people usually hold up like friggin’ tablets of stone – which said that 40% of America self-identifies as conservative (20% self-identifies as liberal – that’s 1/2 as much, for you OWS kids doing the math at home).

Perhaps this explains why “the Republican debates seem to matter so much.”

Perhaps it also explains why your newspapers is bleeding subscribers.  What have you got, maybe a million paying subscribers, right? That’s only twice your arch-enemy, “rodeo-clown” Glenn Beck’s subscriber base for GBTV, which launched, what?  Three months ago?

Beck, who digs up original documents, primary sources, plays audio/video of people saying things in their own words, invites historians, politicians, businessmen on, that you sneer at, who also bring with them original documents, primary sources, and audio/video of people saying things, then give us the links to the original documents, primary sources, and audio/video of people saying things so we can fact-check it ourselves – because he & his guests are not afraid to be “crowd-sourced” and back up on their assertions.

Not a day goes by you don’t hear him say, multiple times, “Go do your own homework on this.  The links up at my blog.”  That means he’s not afraid to be taken in context, understand?  To be “crowd-sourced” on what he asserts.  There’s a whole industry of people who take him on it, too.  You & Media Matters are among the leaders of that group.

You & Media Matters then, reliably, go on to mock – him– , offering up an Alinsky ad-hominem attack on him or his guests, but 99% of the time, that’s all you got.  I defy anyone reading this to go look at the bile Media Matters posts as fact-checking or analysis and you will find the overhwhelming majority of it is tangential noise, attacking the character of the person saying it, but not the core facts themselves.  Let me repeat that:  They are not able to post facts contradicting Beck’s facts.  Got it?

Beck could teach every single on of your how to have the courage of your convictions and do basic friggin’ reporting.  You’ve been around since the 19th friggin’ century, 1860, was it?. Before the Civil War!!!  You’re the paper of f*cking record.

Think that might be a clue why “the Republican debates seem to matter so much”, a**holes?

I’ll have more thoughts on this later.  One involving the Queen of England’s advice to a bride on her wedding night… but I have to go now.  I’ll be back later 😉



Herman’s not done.

It seems like it, because of all the unbelievably dishonest reporting going on.

The latest is that he’s an ignoramous because he suggested that there’s Taliban in Libya.


Seems there is.  And no less a liberal rag than The Los Angeles Times had a headline stating that very fact last April.  I Googled “Taliban in Libya” and it was the second result.  Second!  Do these “reporters” ever fact-check?  Do they ever think?  Do they ever think that we fact-check? 

Besides, everybody paying attention knew, and knows, that the “rebels” are a very sketchy bunch.  It’s hardly a stretch to assume that one flavor of West-hating jihadi wouldn’t be happy to put aside their ancestral hatred of another flavor of West-hating jihadi who has been their traditional mortal enemy – just long enough to kill a mutual third enemy.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend even when we’re talking about jihadis. They’ll team up for firepower just long enough to kill whomever it is they both hate, smug in the assumption that they’ll get the upper hand on their temporary ally when their usefulness has expired – and just kill them.

Happens all the time.


Anyway… Back to my original point.

Herman’s not done.  It’s been ticking around in the back of my brain all day, so persistently I had to commit it publicly.

He may surprise everyone in Iowa.  Iowa doesn’t like Mitt.  He’s blown them off and they know it.  Newt hasn’t been in the state for 5 minutes.  And from what I hear, every Iowan that’s met Herman loves him – and we all know it’s retail politics that wins.  The other candidates may have been better ground games, but Iowans don’t like them.

They love Herman.

I expect 2nd in Iowa.  Not confidently, but I think it’s a fair shot. Perhaps 3rd.  He won’t win it.

He will place  3rd in New Hampshire.  He will not win it.  At this point the entire media establishment will write his obituary.

He will then go on to win South Carolina and Florida.

Remember where you read it first 😉

Cain STILL Leads Among LIKELY Iowa Voters!

From a Bloomberg Iowa poll, taken on Nov. 10 to 12, released this morning:

Cain leads the field with 20%, followed by Paul with 19%, Romney with 18% and Gingrich with 17%, a statistical tie within the poll’s four point margin of error.”

Dig a little deeper and the poll tells us that the slime-job against Cain has largely failed, and resulted in 66% saying they “believed Cain’s denials” or “were waiting for more information.”  Only 25% said they were either “skeptical”or just outright “didn’t believe” him. In other words, the electorate is being eminently fair.  Short of a(n unlikely) bombshell, something really, definitively damning, I stand by my previous prediction that this tactic to take Herman down is over.  Also as prevously stated, that doesn’t mean they’re done with sliming him, but this tactic, the sex one, is over.

More here.

MSNBC's Alex Wagner Should be FIRED

I spent my life behind a radio microphone, so am loathe to call for any broadcaster’s firing, knowing as I do, how easy it is to step in it, but sitting down to tweet is a DELIBERATIVE* act, something done ON PURPOSE, after THINKING ABOUT IT, and this tweet was formed with CLEAR MALICE OF INTENT,  a DECLARATIVE statement making a DISGUSTING CAUSAL link from facts NOT IN EVIDENCE to fundraising from his outraged supporters, and thus, appears, to me, a non-lawyer, to be a LIBELOUS SLANDER.

Perhaps it’s short of the textbook definition of “libel,” so perhaps the law is not the place to seek remedy, but MSNBC should!  If for no other reason than to maintain the integrity (such as it is) of the brand.

*NOTE:  This is not to suggest that broadcasting is not a “deliberative act, something done on purpose, after thinking about it”:) but clearly, when one talks into a microphone, live, the nature of one’s utterances is far less regulated, and rightly subject to a much wider berth for forgiveness.

h/t NewsBusters – “MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Tweets ‘Sexual Harassment Is a Lucrative Side Gig’ for Herman Cain”