Iowa Comes Down ToThe Wire

The latest polls show Mitt Romney in a statistical dead heat with Ron Paul, followed by Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Michele Bachmann is bringing up the rear, having fallen to single digits.

Romney campaigned in Des Moines today, stumping with New Jersey governor Chris Christie on a cold wet day with temperatures in the twenties. Considering the weather, Romeny drew a decent crowd as he mocked President Obama and his $4 million Hawaiian vacation.

"We’re out in the cold and the rain and the wind because we care about America. He just finished his 90th round of golf.”

Governor Christie: “You people disappoint me on Tuesday, you don’t do what you’re supposed to do on Tuesday for Mitt Romney I will be back, Jersey-style, people. I will be back,” he joked.

Rick Santorum is moving up in the polls as Newt Gingrich has been falling. A lot of evangelicals are reportedly giving him a second look. He's invested a great deal of time here in Iowa and he needs a strong finish here to keep his campaign viable.

Michele Bachmann has perhaps the saddest story of all. After winning the Ames straw poll, she suffered perhaps a terminal blow when her Iowa campaign chair defected to Ron Paul without giving her any warning whatsoever.

As much as I like Michele Bachmann, I think what we're seeing here is an indication that her campaign was hurried and perhaps premature. She's only been in Congress four years,and hopefully she can make another try for top job when she's had a little more seasoning and time to process what went wrong this time.

Iowa Comes Down ToThe Wire

The latest polls show Mitt Romney in a statistical dead heat with Ron Paul, followed by Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Michele Bachmann is bringing up the rear, having fallen to single digits.

Romney campaigned in Des Moines today, stumping with New Jersey governor Chris Christie on a cold wet day with temperatures in the twenties. Considering the weather, Romeny drew a decent crowd as he mocked President Obama and his $4 million Hawaiian vacation.

"We’re out in the cold and the rain and the wind because we care about America. He just finished his 90th round of golf.”

Governor Christie: “You people disappoint me on Tuesday, you don’t do what you’re supposed to do on Tuesday for Mitt Romney I will be back, Jersey-style, people. I will be back,” he joked.

Rick Santorum is moving up in the polls as Newt Gingrich has been falling. A lot of evangelicals are reportedly giving him a second look. He's invested a great deal of time here in Iowa and he needs a strong finish here to keep his campaign viable.

Michele Bachmann has perhaps the saddest story of all. After winning the Ames straw poll, she suffered perhaps a terminal blow when her Iowa campaign chair defected to Ron Paul without giving her any warning whatsoever.

As much as I like Michele Bachmann, I think what we're seeing here is an indication that her campaign was hurried and perhaps premature. She's only been in Congress four years,and hopefully she can make another try for top job when she's had a little more seasoning and time to process what went wrong this time.

Herman Cain: 'Maybe I Did, But Ain't Nobody's Business'

Herman Cain is reportedly 'reassessing' his campaign after the latest allegations of a 13 year affair with Ginger White, an Atlanta woman surfaced yesterday.

White went public in an interview with an Atlanta TV station, describing the sex as consensual and admitting that she knew Cain was married and that she’s “not proud” of what she described as a long-running affair with the married GOP candidate. “It was pretty simple,” Ms. White said in the interview. “It wasn’t complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”

She also said that Cain had given her money on occasion and produced cellphone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to and from a number she said was for Herman Cain’s private cellphone. When the station sent a text message to the number, Cain called back and acknowledged knowing Ms. White.

He then went on to issue the following statement, in an attempt to get out in front of the storm:

Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault - which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.

Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.

In other words, if you read between the lines, Cain was saying 'maybe I did, but it's nobody's business and I won't discuss it'. One of his handlers obviously got hold of him shortly afterwards and slapped some sense into him and he's since issued an outright denial, essentially saying that either his supporters are going to believe him or Ginger White, which doesn't explain a lot.

It's pretty obvious to me that at least some of the allegations about Cain's zipper problem are true, and I actually agree with him that it isn't anyone else's business - except that's not how presidential campaigns work, and someone cheating on his spouse matters to a lot of people.

In 'The Prince', Machiavelli famously said that only the prince she be allowed to lie as a tool of governing. What he didn't say but ought to be obvious is that the Prince must be able to lie well enough to appear credible, ala' Mr. Clinton.

Cain appears to have failed this elementary test of leadership, as he has so many others.

If he bails, it will be interesting to see where his supporters end up going - to Newt Gingrich or to Michele Bachmann.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Herman Cain: 'Maybe I Did, But Ain't Nobody's Business'

Herman Cain is reportedly 'reassessing' his campaign after the latest allegations of a 13 year affair with Ginger White, an Atlanta woman surfaced yesterday.

White went public in an interview with an Atlanta TV station, describing the sex as consensual and admitting that she knew Cain was married and that she’s “not proud” of what she described as a long-running affair with the married GOP candidate. “It was pretty simple,” Ms. White said in the interview. “It wasn’t complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”

She also said that Cain had given her money on occasion and produced cellphone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to and from a number she said was for Herman Cain’s private cellphone. When the station sent a text message to the number, Cain called back and acknowledged knowing Ms. White.

He then went on to issue the following statement, in an attempt to get out in front of the storm:

Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault - which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.

Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.

In other words, if you read between the lines, Cain was saying 'maybe I did, but it's nobody's business and I won't discuss it'. One of his handlers obviously got hold of him shortly afterwards and slapped some sense into him and he's since issued an outright denial, essentially saying that either his supporters are going to believe him or Ginger White, which doesn't explain a lot.

It's pretty obvious to me that at least some of the allegations about Cain's zipper problem are true, and I actually agree with him that it isn't anyone else's business - except that's not how presidential campaigns work, and someone cheating on his spouse matters to a lot of people.

In 'The Prince', Machiavelli famously said that only the prince she be allowed to lie as a tool of governing. What he didn't say but ought to be obvious is that the Prince must be able to lie well enough to appear credible, ala' Mr. Clinton.

Cain appears to have failed this elementary test of leadership, as he has so many others.

If he bails, it will be interesting to see where his supporters end up going - to Newt Gingrich or to Michele Bachmann.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama And Iran - Wag The Dog?

The Iranians have formally denied any participation in the attempt to murder the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

As usual, they're probably lying. We actually have one of the perps in custody.

But what they may not be lying about is the rationale for the ramping up of rhetoric by the Obama administration ( emphasis mine) :

An aide to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday denied US allegations that the Islamic republic was involved in a plot to kill the Saudi envoy to Washington.

“This is a prefabricated scenario to turn public attention away from domestic problems within the United States,” Ali Akbar Javanfekr, the president’s press adviser, told AFP.

“The US government and the CIA have a lot of experience in diverting public attention from domestic problems in the United States. We have to wait now to know the details of this prefabricated scenario to know the US government’s objectives,” he said.

Let's examine a few things.

Iran is a rogue nation and state supporter of terrorism who has been in a state of war with us since 1978. They or their proxies have killed US troops in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, supplied weapons to our enemies. There's even some credible evidence they may have helped facilitate 9/11.

They actually engaged in a shooting war with the U.S. in the Persian Gulf back in the 1980's, and then there's their illegal nuclear program, the constant threats and bluster and their direct arming of our enemies.

President Barack Obama has been an enabler and appeaser of Iran ever since he took office (and to be honest, so was President Bush before him to a large degree). Nothing I mentioned above ever caused him to falter a single bit in 'engaging' with the mullahs or extending what he called 'an unclenched fist' in their direction, no matter how often they spat in his hand.

Now, all of a sudden, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are pounding their chests and issuing war cries about an 'unacceptable escalation'? Why now?

What's changed, of course is the president's poll numbers. With an election coming on, President Obama might just see some forceful engagement in Iran as a way to boost those ol' approval numbers. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

This president frequently channels Jimmy Carter, and you may recall the boost in President Carter's popularity when the Iran Hostage crisis began. Before that, he failure to show even a semblence of acumen in running the U.S. economy or its foreign policy had him doomed to be a one term president.

But once the mullahs moved against our diplomats, the American people rallied around him - at least until they finally figured out that an incredibly weak president was going to be as feckless with the Iranians as he had with the commies and virtually everyone else. Then his ratings plummeted again. Meanwhile the mullahs were smart enough to release the hostages the day President Reagan took office even at terms that were actually far less than what they had been demanding of Carter.

If our current miserable excuse for a commander-in-chief has ideas of taking on Iran to bolster his political future, I applaud the action if not the motivation, provided it's done properly...which it likely won't be with President Obama in charge. A few things to consider:

The last thing we need is another war by diktat with foggy objectives. Unlike Libya, the president will need to make the case to Congress. I doubt he's capable of that, but will public opinion sit still for another war like Libya? Especially if the Obama Administration deliberately hampers our military with suicidal Rules of Engagement, encouraged by turgid presidential homilies about Islam, the religion of peace?

We have over one hundred thousand troops and billions in equipment stranded in a land locked Afghanistan surrounded by hostile territory. Some provision is almost certainly going to have to be made to get them out.

major strikes will need to be made on Iran's missile bases,infrastructure and nuclear facilities. And Iran's navy will have to be sunk, in order to keep the Shatt al-Arab in the Persian Gulf unobstructed. This is no time for half measures. Is President Obama capable of that?

Some provision is going to have to be made for our troops in Iraq.It's doubtful the Iraqis will aid their fellow Shi'ites, but they will not want the onus of sheltering U.S. troops, especially if the mullahs have the Iranian trained and armed militias like the Mahdi Army attack.

The Russians have billions invested in Iran, and the Chinese need Iranian oil. Depend on them to obstruct any of the UN resolutions or internationally based actions people like President Obama or Hillary Clinton are so fond of. Ditto when it comes to NATO,some of whose members depend on Russian oil and gas and with the European winter coming on.

The president is also likely to face hardline pressure from Putin to back off from Iran - something Obama has been notably deficient in dealing with in the past. In fact, the only real allies we're likely to have will be Australia and Israel, with maybe the Saudis and the Gulf nations in support roles. Given president Obama's hostility towards Israel, is he going to be prepared to make use of our mosy loyal ally in the Middle East?

Speaking of oil, the president is going to have to reconsider his de facto ban on drilling, something a number of his enviro-wacko supporters won't like at all. A war in the Persian Gulf would of necessity spike the oil market

Above all, is this president prepared to forgo the heady pleasures of nation building after the war's over? Aside from the fact we can't afford it (even less than we could in Iraq)rebuilding Iran would totally ignore the jihadi mentality, which is actually what we're fighting against.For that Islamist mindset, a large amount of rubble and casualties sends a certain invaluable message about the drawbacks of certain actions against America.

These are all things I hope President Obama is considering if he's contemplating a wag the dog moment.Frankly, I wonder if he has.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Obama And Iran - Wag The Dog?

The Iranians have formally denied any participation in the attempt to murder the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

As usual, they're probably lying. We actually have one of the perps in custody.

But what they may not be lying about is the rationale for the ramping up of rhetoric by the Obama administration ( emphasis mine) :

An aide to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday denied US allegations that the Islamic republic was involved in a plot to kill the Saudi envoy to Washington.

“This is a prefabricated scenario to turn public attention away from domestic problems within the United States,” Ali Akbar Javanfekr, the president’s press adviser, told AFP.

“The US government and the CIA have a lot of experience in diverting public attention from domestic problems in the United States. We have to wait now to know the details of this prefabricated scenario to know the US government’s objectives,” he said.

Let's examine a few things.

Iran is a rogue nation and state supporter of terrorism who has been in a state of war with us since 1978. They or their proxies have killed US troops in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, supplied weapons to our enemies. There's even some credible evidence they may have helped facilitate 9/11.

They actually engaged in a shooting war with the U.S. in the Persian Gulf back in the 1980's, and then there's their illegal nuclear program, the constant threats and bluster and their direct arming of our enemies.

President Barack Obama has been an enabler and appeaser of Iran ever since he took office (and to be honest, so was President Bush before him to a large degree). Nothing I mentioned above ever caused him to falter a single bit in 'engaging' with the mullahs or extending what he called 'an unclenched fist' in their direction, no matter how often they spat in his hand.

Now, all of a sudden, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are pounding their chests and issuing war cries about an 'unacceptable escalation'? Why now?

What's changed, of course is the president's poll numbers. With an election coming on, President Obama might just see some forceful engagement in Iran as a way to boost those ol' approval numbers. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

This president frequently channels Jimmy Carter, and you may recall the boost in President Carter's popularity when the Iran Hostage crisis began. Before that, he failure to show even a semblence of acumen in running the U.S. economy or its foreign policy had him doomed to be a one term president.

But once the mullahs moved against our diplomats, the American people rallied around him - at least until they finally figured out that an incredibly weak president was going to be as feckless with the Iranians as he had with the commies and virtually everyone else. Then his ratings plummeted again. Meanwhile the mullahs were smart enough to release the hostages the day President Reagan took office even at terms that were actually far less than what they had been demanding of Carter.

If our current miserable excuse for a commander-in-chief has ideas of taking on Iran to bolster his political future, I applaud the action if not the motivation, provided it's done properly...which it likely won't be with President Obama in charge. A few things to consider:

The last thing we need is another war by diktat with foggy objectives. Unlike Libya, the president will need to make the case to Congress. I doubt he's capable of that, but will public opinion sit still for another war like Libya? Especially if the Obama Administration deliberately hampers our military with suicidal Rules of Engagement, encouraged by turgid presidential homilies about Islam, the religion of peace?

We have over one hundred thousand troops and billions in equipment stranded in a land locked Afghanistan surrounded by hostile territory. Some provision is almost certainly going to have to be made to get them out.

major strikes will need to be made on Iran's missile bases,infrastructure and nuclear facilities. And Iran's navy will have to be sunk, in order to keep the Shatt al-Arab in the Persian Gulf unobstructed. This is no time for half measures. Is President Obama capable of that?

Some provision is going to have to be made for our troops in Iraq.It's doubtful the Iraqis will aid their fellow Shi'ites, but they will not want the onus of sheltering U.S. troops, especially if the mullahs have the Iranian trained and armed militias like the Mahdi Army attack.

The Russians have billions invested in Iran, and the Chinese need Iranian oil. Depend on them to obstruct any of the UN resolutions or internationally based actions people like President Obama or Hillary Clinton are so fond of. Ditto when it comes to NATO,some of whose members depend on Russian oil and gas and with the European winter coming on.

The president is also likely to face hardline pressure from Putin to back off from Iran - something Obama has been notably deficient in dealing with in the past. In fact, the only real allies we're likely to have will be Australia and Israel, with maybe the Saudis and the Gulf nations in support roles. Given president Obama's hostility towards Israel, is he going to be prepared to make use of our mosy loyal ally in the Middle East?

Speaking of oil, the president is going to have to reconsider his de facto ban on drilling, something a number of his enviro-wacko supporters won't like at all. A war in the Persian Gulf would of necessity spike the oil market

Above all, is this president prepared to forgo the heady pleasures of nation building after the war's over? Aside from the fact we can't afford it (even less than we could in Iraq)rebuilding Iran would totally ignore the jihadi mentality, which is actually what we're fighting against.For that Islamist mindset, a large amount of rubble and casualties sends a certain invaluable message about the drawbacks of certain actions against America.

These are all things I hope President Obama is considering if he's contemplating a wag the dog moment.Frankly, I wonder if he has.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Proof The GOP Is Going To Win The White House

Absolute, concrete, bet-real-money-on-it proof.

Yes, Bob Shrum is now predicting that President Obama wins re-election handily from 'the crazies' as he calls them.

When a partisan, ignorant political hack with the political acumen and judgment gained from having run or had major responsibility for the presidential campaigns of Ted Kenedy, Ed Muskie, George McGovern Dick Gephart, Michael Dukakis, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, and John Kerry makes a prediction like the one above, it's practically time to break out the champagne.

0 and 8, no wins or draws.

Perhaps both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's smartest move was making sure that Bob Shrum had nothing to do whatever in any capacity with their campaigns.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Proof The GOP Is Going To Win The White House

Absolute, concrete, bet-real-money-on-it proof.

Yes, Bob Shrum is now predicting that President Obama wins re-election handily from 'the crazies' as he calls them.

When a partisan, ignorant political hack with the political acumen and judgment gained from having run or had major responsibility for the presidential campaigns of Ted Kenedy, Ed Muskie, George McGovern Dick Gephart, Michael Dukakis, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, and John Kerry makes a prediction like the one above, it's practically time to break out the champagne.

0 and 8, no wins or draws.

Perhaps both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's smartest move was making sure that Bob Shrum had nothing to do whatever in any capacity with their campaigns.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!