Main Menu

Rick Perry’s polarizing flirtation with birtherism

Presidential candidate Rick Perry told Parade magazine last weekend that he didn’t know if Obama’s birth certificate was legitimate. Let the games begin.

Donald Trump jumped in during an interview with Piers Morgan yesterday (Oct. 27):

MORGAN: But tell me this: do you think politically for Rick Perry…

TRUMP: I think it’s a positive for him.

MORGAN: Is it a sensible thing for him to do?

TRUMP: Well, I think it’s good for him in the Republican primary. I don’t necessarily know if it’s good in the general election.

On the other hand, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus today blamed it all on the media “badgering” Perry with questions on the topic (the liberal media made him do it). The interview will air on Bloomberg TV tomorrow.

“I’ve said from the very beginning that I think it’s a big distraction,” Priebus said. “But I think it’s an issue that’s been dropped.”

Somebody tell the birthers.

, ,

109 Responses to Rick Perry’s polarizing flirtation with birtherism

  1. avatar
    foreigner October 29, 2011 at 9:25 am #

    the Parade-link leads to … nothing

  2. avatar
    foreigner October 29, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    OK, I found it. Nothing of interest in it, you can ignore.

    http://www.parade.com/news/2011/10/23-rick-perry-hates-to-lose.html?index=3

    Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
    I have no reason to think otherwise.

    That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
    Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.

    But you’ve seen his.
    I don’t know. Have I?

    You don’t believe what’s been released?
    I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.

    And?
    That came up.

    And he said?
    He doesn’t think it’s real.

    And you said?
    I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States.
    He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.

  3. avatar
    BatGuano October 29, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    “Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.”

    what does that even mean?

  4. avatar
    Majority Will October 29, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    BatGuano:
    “Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.”

    what does that even mean?

    This should explain everything. Rick Perry – poignant, candid, in touch with real Americans:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhDhDRvHaGs

  5. avatar
    Arthur October 29, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    BatGuano:
    “Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.”

    what does that even mean?

    Thank you for asking that question, B.G. It’s the same one I’ve been puzzling over. And thank you M.W. for providing the intellectual context to make sense of his non-nonsensical answer. It’s clear that we’ve got political theatre as written by Eugene Ionesco.

    And thank you foreigner for just being you!

  6. avatar
    Sef October 29, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

    Arthur: Thank you for asking that question, B.G. It’s the same one I’ve been puzzling over. And thank you M.W. for providing the intellectual context to make sense of his non-nonsensical answer.It’s clear that we’ve got political theatre as written by Eugene Ionesco.

    And thank you foreigner for just being you!

    And “save a pretzel for the gas jets”.

  7. avatar
    Arthur October 29, 2011 at 1:24 pm #

    Sef: And “save a pretzel for the gas jets”.

    Cuz it’s all nachos and hogwash, Sef. I see we agree on cowboys and anthrax.

  8. avatar
    Majority Will October 29, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    Arthur: Cuz it’s all nachos and hogwash, Sef. I see we agree on cowboys and anthrax.

    And all this time I’ve been wondering why the Porridge Bird lays its eggs in the air.

    The bozo knows.

  9. avatar
    Majority Will October 29, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    Arthur: Thank you for asking that question, B.G. It’s the same one I’ve been puzzling over. And thank you M.W. for providing the intellectual context to make sense of his non-nonsensical answer.It’s clear that we’ve got political theatre as written by Eugene Ionesco.

    And thank you foreigner for just being you!

    “A civil servant doesn’t make jokes.”
    – Eugene Ionesco

    đŸ˜€

  10. avatar
    Sally HIll October 29, 2011 at 2:05 pm #

    BatGuano: what does that even mean?

    It means he isn’t as smart as even the average bear. Meaning…..he is right up there with Obama in terms of intellect.

  11. avatar
    Scientist October 29, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    Sally HIll: It means he isn’t as smart as even the average bear. Meaning…..he is right up there with Obama in terms of intellect.

    Said the brilliant Sally Hill…….

  12. avatar
    Obsolete October 29, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    Of all the attacks on Obama, claiming he is not intelligent is perhaps the most laughable.
    I find it frequently comes from folks who cannot believe any black man could be intelligent.

  13. avatar
    Majority Will October 29, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Scientist: Said the brilliant Sally Hill…….

    Texas just keeps producing embarrassments.

  14. avatar
    Scientist October 29, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Majority Will: Texas just keeps producing embarrassments

    Blowing a 2 run lead with 2 outs and 2 strikes once is an embarrassment. Doing it twice in consecutive innings-I don’t even know what word to use.

  15. avatar
    Majority Will October 29, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    Scientist: Blowing a 2 run lead with 2 outs and 2 strikes once is an embarrassment.Doing it twice in consecutive innings-I don’t even know what word to use.

    They misunderestimated the competition?

  16. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 29, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    BatGuano:
    “Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.”

    what does that even mean?

    Perry garbled his line, it is a simple as that. He’s shown the same tendency in debates. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZXQE834MYY

    It’s a form of verbal dyslexia — or dysnomia — one which GW Bush had as well — in this particular instance, the pronouns came out wrong. (Perry meant to say ‘I’ve never seen his birth certificate” but it came out “he’s never seen my…..”)

  17. avatar
    Daniel October 29, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    Scientist: Said the brilliant Sally Hill…….

    I wonder if Sally Hill is intelligent enough to graduate Harvard, and sit as editor of the Law Review?

    WE know she’s smart enough to qualify as a birther, which puts her just under fruit flies on the IQ scale.

  18. avatar
    Arthur October 29, 2011 at 5:51 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Perry garbled his line, it is a simple as that. It’s a form of verbal dyslexia —or dysnomia — one which GW Bush had as well — in this particular instance, the pronouns came out wrong.(Perry meant to say I’ve never seen his birth certificate” but it came out “he’s never seen my…..”)

    Thanks, Expelliarmus, for the explanation. I wonder if this problem becomes more pronounced when he feels nervous or defensive? If so, it helps in understanding his deficient debate performances.

  19. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 29, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

    Yes, I think it clearly is an issue related to anxiety, or perhaps fatigue. However, I also felt that he sounded inebriated at that first debate where he stumbled so badly, so the impact of alcohol, drugs or medications could also be a factor. (I have no clue and don’t mean to be suggesting an alcohol or drug abuse problem… its just one of a number of possible explanations).

    Because the Parade interview was reported in text — rather than audio of Perry himself — it’s also possible that Parade missed the tone and intent, and perhaps Perry really was trying to joke around or be sarcastic, and the interviewer may have failed to catch the tone or edited out clarifying remarks. That is, for all we know, Perry might not have garbled the line, but instead have rambled a bit, and the journalist just happened to select out the bit that didn’t make sense out of context.

  20. avatar
    Keith October 29, 2011 at 7:20 pm #

    Majority Will: The bozo knows.

    But we don’t allow no Bozos on this bus.

  21. avatar
    Northland10 October 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    Scientist: Blowing a 2 run lead with 2 outs and 2 strikes once is an embarrassment. Doing it twice in consecutive innings-I don’t even know what word to use.

    Chicago Cubs

  22. avatar
    Majority Will October 29, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    Keith: But we don’t allow no Bozos on this bus.

    “Sure, understanding today’s complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But, there they are.”
    – The Honorable Chester Cadaver

    (April – June, 1971)

  23. avatar
    jayhg October 29, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

    Sally HIll: It means he isn’t as smart as even the average bear.Meaning…..he is right up there with Obama in terms of intellect.

    Each time you open your mouth, you sound more ignorant than the last time you opened your mouth. I’m going to see if you break a record for ignorance from over at free republic. You’re off to a good start……….

  24. avatar
    Keith October 29, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    Majority Will: “Sure, understanding today’s complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But, there they are.”
    – The Honorable Chester Cadaver

    (April – June, 1971)

    Before the beginning, there was this turtle. And the turtle was alone, and he looked around. And he saw his neighbor which was his mother. And he lay down on top of his neighbor and behold, she bore him in tears an oak tree which grew all day and then fell over…

    Yes some uncomplicated people still believe this myth…

  25. avatar
    foreigner October 29, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

    the journalists know that there are are many “Obot”-like people around who
    enjoy to jump on “Birthers”.
    So they make a headline like: “Perry is not a Birther” , and the readers and bloggers think:
    what, Perry also flirted with birtherism ? (in a polarizing way)

  26. avatar
    Majority Will October 29, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

    Keith: Before the beginning, there was this turtle. And the turtle was alone, and he looked around. And he saw his neighbor which was his mother. And he lay down on top of his neighbor and behold, she bore him in tears an oak tree which grew all day and then fell over…

    [Yes some uncomplicated people still believe this myth…]

    ” . . . like a bridge. And lo! Underneath the bridge there came a catfish. And he was very big. And he was walking. And he was the biggest he had seen. And so were the fiery balls of this fish, one of which is the sun, and the other, they called the moon.”

    “The future is fun! … The future is fair! … You may already have won! … You may already be there!”

    That does sound like something from a Perry speech on the stump.

  27. avatar
    Daniel October 29, 2011 at 11:29 pm #

    foreigner:
    the journalists know that there are are many “Obot”-like people around who
    enjoy to jump on “Birthers”.

    Well you are correct. The vast, vast majority of people are not birthers. The birthers are a lunatic fringe with very limited, and steadily decreasing numbers.

    And there are many, like most of us here on Doc’s blog, who enjoy immensely, laughing at the wilful ignorance of those few birthers. Real Journalists, as opposed to place like the Post and Fail, and World Nut Daily, understand who their audience are.

    I guess the lesson to be learned here for you birthers is… if you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.

    Birthers… the few, the proud…the few.

  28. avatar
    Daniel October 29, 2011 at 11:33 pm #

    Majority Will: ” . . .like a bridge. And lo! Underneath the bridge there came a catfish. And he was very big. And he was walking. And he was the biggest he had seen. And so were the fiery balls of this fish, one of which is the sun, and the other, they called the moon.”

    “The future is fun! … The future is fair! … You may already have won! … You may already be there!”

    That does sound like something from a Perry speech on the stump.

    If it takes a week to walk a month, how many apples in a barrel of grapes? As long as it takes a grasshopper with a wooden leg to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle.

    How many pancakes does it take to shingle a doghouse? Snakes don’t have armpits

    What’s the difference between a duck? One of it’s legs is both the same.

  29. avatar
    Majority Will October 30, 2011 at 12:13 am #

    Daniel: Birthers… the few, the proud…the few.

    NICE!!

  30. avatar
    Bob J October 30, 2011 at 4:04 am #

    At last; a birther writes the truth, without realizing it.

    I hope this is honesty and not an example of the dysnomia Expelliarmus wrote of earlier. Of course the following example is written so it must be honest. Here is a birther admitting to moving the goalposts( From the always entertaining, but never correct, Taitz site.):

    Yephora
    October 25th, 2011 @ 4:16 am

    I don’t see what all the excitement is about. Perry said absolutely nothing of any consequence. We’re all so desperate for something, *anything* to move the goalposts forward we’re grasping at straws. Perry’s answers couldn’t have been more weaselly

  31. avatar
    Lupin October 30, 2011 at 6:58 am #

    It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.– Mark Twain

  32. avatar
    aarrgghh October 30, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    Bob J:
    YephoraOctober 25th, 2011 @ 4:16 am

    … We’re all so desperate for something, *anything* to move the goalposts forward we’re grasping at straws pizza men (and a black one, at that!) …

    fifh.

  33. avatar
    joyeagle October 30, 2011 at 1:40 pm #

    Yes, Herman Cain is the best candidate for president. Vote Herman Cain and 9-9-9!

  34. avatar
    Bob October 30, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    It will be fun to watch the the Birthers switch their allegiance to Romney, whose father was born in Mexico and hasn’t released a birth certificate, when he becomes the nominee at the RNC convention.

  35. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater October 30, 2011 at 5:54 pm #

    This is the most coherent i’ve ever heard Herman Cain Sound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE5xZKszXMQ

  36. avatar
    Arthur October 30, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    joyeagle: Yes, Herman Cain is the best candidate for president. Vote Herman Cain and 9-9-9!

    Yes, joyeagle, he’s great . . . except BirtherLogic reverals three red flags. First of all, “Herman” was the name of Hermann Goering, so that means he’s a facist. Second, “Cain” was the name of Adam’s evil son, so that means he’s a killer. Third, if you turn “9-9-9” upside down, it’s “6-6-6”, so that means he’s satanic.. In other words, Cain’s a mudering Nazi anti-Christ. How do you like your blue-eyed boy now, mr. death?

  37. avatar
    Sean October 30, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

    With this, Perry has proven himself to not be Presidential material. Bringing up the birth certificate just can’t be good in the election. There are so many real issues to take stands on, being coy on a conspiracy theory isn’t cute, rather it shows that you’re a lightweight.

  38. avatar
    katahdin October 30, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

    You must be a member of the wealthy class, because nobody else benefits from this plan. Of course every Republican plan tilts the playing field further in favor of the superrich. That’s why Republicans exist.

    joyeagle:
    Yes, Herman Cain is the best candidate for president.Vote Herman Cain and 9-9-9!

  39. avatar
    Arthur October 31, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    During the past couple of days we’ve been chuckling over funny videos of Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachman in which their real words are replaced by “bad lip-reading.” Now a video has been posted of Governor Perry giving a speech in New Hampshire in which his actual words and delivery are calling into question his seriousness as a candidate.

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/perrys-passionate-speech-raises-eyebrows.php?ref=fpb

    What do you think, Expelliarmus? Is it high spirits or is he just high?

  40. avatar
    joyeagle October 31, 2011 at 6:41 am #

    No … not wealthy. Just like most of his supporters–grass roots, common sense Americans who believe in the American system and American way. We know that socialism is not good for anyone, that it doesn’t work, and we don’t want it. It is not about specific classes benefiting from the government, like all liberals are focused. It is about maintaining an environment where we all have opportunity for success, real jobs and productivity thrive and the government serves the people–not vice versa.

    katahdin:
    You must be a member of the wealthy class, because nobody else benefits from this plan. Of course every Republican plan tilts the playing field further in favor of the superrich. That’s why Republicans exist.

  41. avatar
    Scientist October 31, 2011 at 7:13 am #

    Yes, I like the way Herman Cain “spread opportunity” to those 2 women who got a cash settlement when they left his organization.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html

    I like the way he lobbied against raising the blood alcohol limit so that more drunks could kill people on the road (I bet you didn;t know that drunk drivers kill about 5x the number who died on 9/11 every single year)..

    I like his talk about an electrified fence on the Mexican border when he lobbied for a group (restaurants) that is probably the largest employer of illegals.

    I’m sure that if only he can get by these and about a dozen other “minor hiccups” and get elected that all those unemployed will have jobs even if no one can explain how. If not, maybe they will at least all have as much free terrrible pizza as they can eat.

  42. avatar
    Majority Will October 31, 2011 at 7:20 am #

    joyeagle: It is not about specific classes benefiting from the government, like all liberals are focused.

    Generalize much?

  43. avatar
    Majority Will October 31, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    joyeagle: We know that socialism is not good for anyone, that it doesn’t work, and we don’t want it.

    Excellent. Give me your address right now so We can cut off your 911 service immediately.
    I have no desire to pay into a protective service that might save your life or property. Let it burn.

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  44. avatar
    Bob October 31, 2011 at 7:27 am #

    “Now a video has been posted of Governor Perry giving a speech in New Hampshire in which his actual words and delivery are calling into question his seriousness as a candidate.”

    Perry’s behavior is decidedly UN-presidential in that speech. His Birtherism is decidedly UN-presidential. He’s sabotaging his own campaign. He wants his poll numbers to fall so that he can drop out — he realizes he’s in way over his head.

    That speech, and his Birtherism, screams “I want to abandon my bid for the presidency!”

  45. avatar
    katahdin October 31, 2011 at 7:30 am #

    Surely you must know that the wealthy and huge corporations get more taxpayer money than the poor. And that a system of government regulation of capitalism along with state support for education and health care produces more opportunity for everyone. What conservative call common sense is really just an unworkable ideology that benefit only the rich. Look up the economic history of the 19th century.

    joyeagle:
    No … not wealthy.Just like most of his supporters–grass roots, common sense Americans who believe in the American system and American way.We know that socialism is not good for anyone, that it doesn’t work, and we don’t want it.It is not about specific classes benefiting from the government, like all liberals are focused.It is about maintaining an environment where we all have opportunity for success, real jobs and productivity thrive and the government serves the people–not vice versa.

  46. avatar
    Scientist October 31, 2011 at 7:53 am #

    joyeagle: It is about maintaining an environment where we all have opportunity for success

    A laudable goal and one I entirely support. Unfortunately, the US has not been doing well at that and this goes back many years. The chances someone will move out of the class they were born into are lower in the US than in almost any country other than the UK. The “lands of opportunity” are countries you would call “socialist” (though they aren’t really), like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Canada.
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-paul-ryan-wrong-about-upwardly-mobile-america.php
    But why would you want to look at real-world data rather than fanciful rhetoric?

    By the way, when you say what “we” want, Mr Cain’s tax proposal polls very poorly among the general population..

  47. avatar
    Keith October 31, 2011 at 9:30 am #

    joyeagle: We know that socialism is not good for anyone, that it doesn’t work, and we don’t want it.

    Highways build and maintained by Government (even if under PPP scheme) – socialism
    Driver quality control, traffic management, emergency response – socialism
    Electromagnetic Spectrum manage by Government – socialism
    Fire Services provided by Government – socialism
    Police Services provided by Government – socialism
    Military Services provided by Government – socialism
    Ambulance Services provided by Government – socialism
    Medicare – socialism
    Social Security – socialism
    Ocean Rescue Services – socialism
    Meteorology Services – socialism
    Intellectual Capital Protection services – socialism

    I could go on of course, but you should be able to get the idea. Are you prepared to renounce the benefit you get from those government services? If so, I know of an Island in the Solomons that the current inhabitants are trying to leave. It is being swallowed by the sea rise from global warming, but you won’t care about any of that because you are an island unto yourself. You’ll be OK.

  48. avatar
    aarrgghh October 31, 2011 at 9:49 am #

    Arthur:
    … Now a video has been posted of Governor Perry giving a speech in New Hampshire in which his actual words and delivery are calling into question his seriousness as a candidate.

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/perrys-passionate-speech-raises-eyebrows.php?ref=fpb

    What do you think, Expelliarmus? Is it high spirits or is he just high?

    maybe he thinks hiring marcus bachmann as a speech coach will save his candidacy.

  49. avatar
    Scientist October 31, 2011 at 9:55 am #

    joyeagle- Can you put aside the labels for a minute and explain the following? Every analysis says that Cain”s 9-9-9 will cause low income working people-like a family wiith 2 kids making $30K/year-to pay MORE in federal taxes. In most cases, they will pay $2,000 more. That is less money to pay for healthy food, school supplies, dooctor visits. So how exactly will that increase their kids “opportunity for success”?

  50. avatar
    joyeagle October 31, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    Sure, Scientist. “Every analysis says …” meaning incomplete, negative analysis by anti-Cain groups who don’t look at the entire plan. By replacing the current tax code, many hidden taxes will go away. The price of food will be LOWER even with the 9% sales tax than it currently is with all of the other added taxes–but the point is, we don’t want half of the country to pay anything into the system, and have a stake in the system? Currently,it is the “rich” who can hire accountant/lawyers–people like GM and Warren Buffet, who get out of paying huge amounts of taxes. Actually ridding loopholes has HUGE popular support–simplifying has HUGE popular support. Maintaining the current system where “the minority” have HUGE power due to the manipulative nature of our current complicated tax code, is not good for the poor. Poor kids will have more opportunities because there will be mega more jobs–getting off of the government dole is always good in my way o thinking–but liberals/socialist want the most amount of people enslaved to govt handout to maintain their power over them.
    Just my 2 cents perspective–you asked. When you poll data–you word the question to get the results you are looking for.

    Scientist:
    joyeagle- Can you put aside the labels for a minute and explain the following?Every analysis says that Cain”s 9-9-9 will cause low income working people-like a family wiith 2 kids making $30K/year-to pay MORE in federal taxes.In most cases, they will pay $2,000 more. That is less money to pay for healthy food, school supplies, dooctor visits. So how exactly will that increase their kids “opportunity for success”?

  51. avatar
    joyeagle October 31, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    Great. Someone earlier in this community explained a strawman argument to me. Now I see it clear as plain day coming from Majority Will and Keith. Socialism or anarchy … the only two options available. If a person expresses dislike for socialism, it must mean they want no government whatsoever. Great analysis and editorial. Cheers.

    Majority Will: Excellent. Give me your address right now so We can cut off your 911 service immediately.
    I have no desire to pay into a protective service that might save your life or property. Let it burn.

    Keith: Highways build and maintained by Government (even if under PPP scheme) – socialism
    Driver quality control, traffic management, emergency response – socialism

    Social Security – socialism
    Ocean Rescue Services – socialism
    Meteorology Services – socialism
    Intellectual Capital Protection services – socialism

  52. avatar
    Tarrant October 31, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    For a non-negligible number people “socialism” is any and all government spending that they don’t get a direct benefit from, or simply spending that they wouldn’t have voted for. Hence people railing against “socialized medicine” while receiving Medicare and Social Security, or decrying food stamps while accepting cash farm subsidies.

    The reality is America’s quality of life, general health and wellness, prison population, crime rate, and debt, are worse than most of the nations many US citizens decry as evil and socialis – including, oh, Canada to the north. Americans pay more, and get less, than other nations in almost every category, and the only reason there isn’t more of an outrage is that so many people believe so fervently against all evidence that “America is #1 in everything!!!” that they can’t accept that such a position isn’t always true.

    The answer doesn’t have to be that the public sector provide all these things – but the CURRENT systems are horribly broken, providing Americans with worse service and outcomes at a higher price than the citizens of nearly every other first world nation.

  53. avatar
    Scientist October 31, 2011 at 11:15 am #

    joyeagle: but liberals/socialist want the most amount of people enslaved to govt handout to maintain their power over them.

    There you go with the labels again. I didn’t think you could make it through even a single post without labels and I was right.

    joyeagle: Scientist. “Every analysis says …” meaning incomplete, negative analysis by anti-Cain groups who don’t look at the entire plan.

    Unless you define “anti-Cain” as everyone except Mr Cain himself. I have not seen a single analysis from anyone outside the Cain campaign that disputes that this will raise taxes on low-moderate incoome folks.

    joyeagle: The price of food will be LOWER even with the 9% sales tax than it currently is with all of the other added taxe

    How does that work? I’ve heard Cain’s explanation and it makes no sense.

    joyeagle: Warren Buffet, who get out of paying huge amounts of taxes.

    Almsot all of Buffett’s income is capital gains and dividends. Cain wants to TOTALLY EXEMPT those from taxation. So show me how Buffett wiill pay more under Cain when all his income is tax-exempt. You really should think before typing.

    joyeagle: we don’t want half of the country to pay anything into the system, and have a stake in the system?

    Of course, one way to get the low income to pay taxes is to pay them more. Perhaps Walmart could pay its “associates” a couple bucks an hour more (and provide health insurance” and charge $12 for that lousy piece of Chinese junk instead of $10. I get really tired of hearing that low-wage workers are bums because they don’t pay income taxes on their starvation wages, even though they pay FICA, sales taxes, icome taxes in most states, property taxes (yes, even if you rent, it’s part of your rent). Try supporting a family on $25K/year and then tell me they can afford to pay a bunch more in taxes.

    joyeagle: Poor kids will have more opportunities because there will be mega more jobs

    Really? How? You take money out of the average worker’s pockets. he wiil buy less. Who will expand their business with no customers? You are completely ignorant about how busiiness works. No business meeting I have ever been part of discussed investing more because taxes are X% vs Y%. Businesses invest when there is unsatisfied demand. Period. Next time your company has a meeting to plan future investments, see if you can get invited. You might learn something.

    Anyway, with the latest allegations of sexual harassment and campaign finance violations, I will bet that Cain is gone before you have a chance to vote for him in a primary.

  54. avatar
    Lupin October 31, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    joyeagle: We know that socialism is not good for anyone, that it doesn’t work, and we don’t want it.

    I respect your right to not want “socialism” for your country, but it has been good for England, France, Sweden, Germany and many other European countries on and off for 60 years or so, and has certainly proven that it can work.

  55. avatar
    Majority Will October 31, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    joyeagle: Socialism or anarchy … the only two options available. If a person expresses dislike for socialism, it must mean they want no government whatsoever. Great analysis and editorial. Cheers.

    It must mean? That’s ridiculous, bizarre and specious reasoning.

    Show where I said the only options are either socialism or anarchy. You’re making sophist crap up and blaming us for your ignorance by putting words in other people’s mouths.

    You’ve been labeling people and saying “all liberals”. Hasty generalizations like that are a sign of bigotry and foolishness.

    “We know that socialism is not good for anyone, that it doesn’t work, and we don’t want it.”

    You claimed to speak for everyone. My retort of “. . . so We can . . .” was intended to show you the utter ridiculousness of your claim of knowing what WE want and that democratic socialism is “not good for anyone”.

    Ever hear the cry, “We want our country back!”? Who exactly is we and from whom are they taking this country back?

    You keep talking in absolutes. Your reasoning is “absolutely” absurd, laughable and the kind of prejudice and paranoia that is killing the modern conservative movement.

  56. avatar
    G October 31, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    From my perspective, I see the problem of that very binary strawman argument being provided on both sides here, YOU included. Your post right before this one was UTTERLY the very binary strawman you just railed against:

    We know that socialism is not good for anyone, that it doesn’t work, and we don’t want it. It is not about specific classes benefiting from the government, like all liberals are focused.

    Wow…within that, you’ve painted a childish, insulting and oversimplified binary picture of both “socialism” and “liberals” within the very first sentence!

    Heck, and then you follow it up with a statement of intentional “contrast” of what you clearly view as the opposite of both those things and of what you want, clearly implying that you view these things to be to the exclusion of “socialism” or “liberalism”:

    It is about maintaining an environment where we all have opportunity for success, real jobs and productivity thrive and the government serves the people–not vice versa.

    Guess what: just about EVERYBODY I know, myself included wants pretty much *EXACTLY* those things. That pretty much in a nutshell *is* the promise of the American dream and what the Constitution is designed to provide and preserve for us.

    Obviously, folks have a difference of opinion of what it takes to get there and how to best maintain such noble goals and ideals and the past is rife with where we’ve fallen lax or short as a country in doing so.

    The reality is there is no such thing as the “free market” that you naively preach and just about ALL countries are mixed-market economies , as they need to be for practical reasons.

    We should be working together to seriously examine the problems and figure out how to best fix areas where the system isn’t working as well as it should and reduce the opportunities for corruption and abuse inherent within so we can get the most FAIR market and society for such opportunity to truly exist and flourish.

    The argument of big vs small government is really the wrong argument for the realities and size/scope of our modern society and just as childishly distractive of a false binary choice. Our representative form of government is structured to serve us and is represent the will & needs of the people and uphold those values and promises. It isn’t some mysterious “other” entity… it is made up of fellow Americans, doing their part to try to fulfill those contractual obligations to us all, because WE put them there to do just that.

    If you view government as not working properly, then work to FIX it, not just smugly and lazily claim “government is bad” or “government is too big”. You should want a government that gets you the MOST value and provides the BEST return for your tax dollars.

    Joyeagle, I appreciate your contribution here but wish you would stop and think sometimes before you react or preach, because you’re worldview comes across just as annoyingly naive and hypocritically dismissive of everybody else as you obviously view some of the opposing views and retorts slung back at you. You really need to step back, think about what you don’t like in those posts & examine your own and reflect on that.

    As a pragmatist, this false choice of polarized over-generalization demagogery is nothing but an anoying distraction and the weak and lazy excuse to do nothing but b*tch about problems instead of the hard work and thought of actually fixing them. I really wish you’d stop adding to the problem and seriously care about realistic, practical and fair ways to build solutions.

    joyeagle: Great. Someone earlier in this community explained a strawman argument to me. Now I see it clear as plain day coming from Majority Will and Keith. Socialism or anarchy … the only two options available. If a person expresses dislike for socialism, it must mean they want no government whatsoever. Great analysis and editorial. Cheers.

  57. avatar
    Lupin October 31, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    joyeagle: Great. Someone earlier in this community explained a strawman argument to me. Now I see it clear as plain day coming from Majority Will and Keith. Socialism or anarchy … the only two options available. If a person expresses dislike for socialism, it must mean they want no government whatsoever.

    Unless you define “socialism”as, I don’t know, “rule by a giant dragon from the Moon”, we have to abide by standard definitions.

    When the US Government bails out your auto industry, it is socialism., Presently, your aerospace industry (Boeing, Lockheed, etc.) would not exist without US government support. That is also socialism. Your farmers would not exist without your system of price support. Socialism again.

    You are like a fish railing and ranting against water.

  58. avatar
    joyeagle October 31, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    G,

    Good post. I wasn’t giving any effort to being thoughtful and contributing, just poking back at the others who continuously participate in the same things they accuse others (me) of. Regardless of my inability to communicate perfectly and without prejudice, many of the liberals on here are simply using generalizations, over simplifications, prejudice, strawman arguments, etc, etc, and pounce self-righteously on those of the opposite political spectrum for doing the same. The hypocrisy is irritating. So I couldn’t resist poking at them a bit.
    I do think I will get to vote for Herman Cain in the Florida primary and see him nominated and win the presidency. I have more hope in the American people to believe the liberal media will again succeed with Palinizing him and using the same tactics the tried with Clarence Thomas. “They” hate true American success stories. (Generalization).

    G:
    From my perspective, I see the problem of that very binary strawman argument being provided on both sides here, YOU included.Your post right before this one was UTTERLY the very binary strawman you just railed against:

    Wow…within that, you’ve painted a childish, insulting and oversimplified binary picture of both “socialism” and “liberals” within the very first sentence!
    … .I really wish you’d stop adding to the problem and seriously care about realistic, practical and fair ways to build solutions.

  59. avatar
    G October 31, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    Now this exchange between the two of you was a much better and more reasoned discourse on your opinions of a specific candidates policies and why you support or oppose it. Bravo!

    Look, I can understand why folks like Joyeagle and Charo sometimes react over defensively and revert to their very own stereotypical generalizations in lashing back. When they simply open up and express which candidate they are considering voting for, they get dumped on by those that don’t like their candidate.

    Let’s get one thing clear – and I pretty much think everybody here supports this, when you scratch the surface. This IS America. You have the right to vote for whomever you wish and others have just as much right to NOT want to vote for the person you end up chosing.

    Right now, we’re dealing with the GOP Primary, in which there is really a pretty much fixed set of options for those participating in it to chose from. A number of our regular posters here will likely participate in that Primary (Charo, Joyeagle, John Reilly, Daniel, etc.). Many others will not.

    This cycle, I have no interest in the GOP candidates running as part of my vote choice for President, so I will not be partipating in that Primary contest, so I can only sit back and observe it for informative and entertainment purposes until they select their candidate and we’re dealing with the General Election cycle.

    For those of you who are merely expressing your loyalty as a GOP voter or a sincere desire to cast a vote for someone different then the current office holder, I may not feel the same way about it as you do, but I respect your right to vote differently and according to your own desires. I also sympathize towards your plight, as you are pretty much limited in choice to the current crop of GOP Primary candidates out there…and it is the overall weakest field I’ve seen in my lifetime.

    I can truly respect and understand many legitimate reasons why GOP Primary voters would be looking to latch onto or settle for one of the alternative contenders in the race, over what has been the defacto establishment candidate being pushed on them (Romney).

    Romney seems to be nothing but the worst stereotypical characterization of a pure politician – boring, inauthentic and someone who seems they will say anything or take any position that they think that particular audience at that specific moment will want to hear. Someone who merely wants to get elected for the sake of getting elected. As a voter, I can see where folks of any political leaning or ideology would find this very disconcering and undesirable – you really can’t have any comfort level with this type of politician of where they really stand or how they would actually govern…and more worrisome is that anyone who is this blatently willing to say anything or switch positions this frequently in order to get elected is probably even MORE susceptible to corruption, various special-interest lobbying and manipulation ONCE they achieved office, if they got elected.

    Look, I always vote. In just about any election, large or small in which I’m afforded the opportunity to do so. Voting is a right and privilege as an American I take very seriously and honor dearly. I’m sure that many of you feel similarly and prefer to also make your vote register instead of stay home, even when faced with options of limited appeal to chose between.

    For those of our friends, neighbors, family and online community that wish to cast their vote and who particiate in the GOP Primmary, I feel for you and I respect your rights and the position you are in. Right now, Cain is one of your viable options and with the alternatives you have to chose from, I can totally understand why you might be hoping or leaning in his direction and simply prefer him to the other choices you have currently in front of you. I might engage in discussion on a candidate’s particular position on an issue or join in the fun of laughing at an entertaining or bizarre gaffe the candidate makes, but I won’t disparage your right to support and cast your vote for that candidate.

    joyeagle: Sure, Scientist. “Every analysis says …” meaning incomplete, negative analysis by anti-Cain groups who don’t look at the entire plan. By replacing the current tax code, many hidden taxes will go away. The price of food will be LOWER even with the 9% sales tax than it currently is with all of the other added taxes–but the point is, we don’t want half of the country to pay anything into the system, and have a stake in the system? Currently,it is the “rich” who can hire accountant/lawyers–people like GM and Warren Buffet, who get out of paying huge amounts of taxes. Actually ridding loopholes has HUGE popular support–simplifying has HUGE popular support. Maintaining the current system where “the minority” have HUGE power due to the manipulative nature of our current complicated tax code, is not good for the poor. Poor kids will have more opportunities because there will be mega more jobs–getting off of the government dole is always good in my way o thinking–but liberals/socialist want the most amount of people enslaved to govt handout to maintain their power over them.
    Just my 2 cents perspective–you asked. When you poll data–you word the question to get the results you are looking for.
    Scientist:
    joyeagle- Can you put aside the labels for a minute and explain the following?Every analysis says that Cain”s 9-9-9 will cause low income working people-like a family wiith 2 kids making $30K/year-to pay MORE in federal taxes.In most cases, they will pay $2,000 more. That is less money to pay for healthy food, school supplies, dooctor visits. So how exactly will that increase their kids “opportunity for success”?

  60. avatar
    G October 31, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    WELL SAID!!!

    Tarrant: For a non-negligible number people “socialism” is any and all government spending that they don’t get a direct benefit from, or simply spending that they wouldn’t have voted for. Hence people railing against “socialized medicine” while receiving Medicare and Social Security, or decrying food stamps while accepting cash farm subsidies.The reality is America’s quality of life, general health and wellness, prison population, crime rate, and debt, are worse than most of the nations many US citizens decry as evil and socialis – including, oh, Canada to the north. Americans pay more, and get less, than other nations in almost every category, and the only reason there isn’t more of an outrage is that so many people believe so fervently against all evidence that “America is #1 in everything!!!” that they can’t accept that such a position isn’t always true.The answer doesn’t have to be that the public sector provide all these things – but the CURRENT systems are horribly broken, providing Americans with worse service and outcomes at a higher price than the citizens of nearly every other first world nation.

  61. avatar
    Scientist October 31, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    joyeagle: the liberal media

    There you go with the labels again! You can’t stop yourself! The place to break the story was “Politico”. They are not “liberal”, but right-of-center (even if not far-right enough for you because they try to go where the data leads). The original source? Who knows, but the smart money is on Karl Rove. Is he a “liberal” too?

    Look, it seems that the National Restaurant Association paid money to make these allegations go away, so there are 2 possibilities:
    1. They are true.
    2. They are false and gave in to blackmail.
    Neither is favorable to Cain. As to the campaign finance allegations, they are pretty well documented. John Edwards is about to go on trial for a felony for campaign finance violations, so this is serious stuff..

  62. avatar
    G October 31, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    BRAVO! I agree totally. This is the reality that folks who use the dismissive and false claim that half the population “don’t have a stake” seem to keep forgetting. This point needs to be repeatedly driven home like a hammer until it finally starts to sink in.

    Scientist: I get really tired of hearing that low-wage workers are bums because they don’t pay income taxes on their starvation wages, even though they pay FICA, sales taxes, icome taxes in most states, property taxes (yes, even if you rent, it’s part of your rent). Try supporting a family on $25K/year and then tell me they can afford to pay a bunch more in taxes.

  63. avatar
    G October 31, 2011 at 12:25 pm #

    BINGO! Just as important of points on how the world really works and operates that needs to be hammered home.

    Scientist: Really? How? You take money out of the average worker’s pockets. he wiil buy less. Who will expand their business with no customers? You are completely ignorant about how business works. No business meeting I have ever been part of discussed investing more because taxes are X% vs Y%. Businesses invest when there is unsatisfied demand. Period. Next time your company has a meeting to plan future investments, see if you can get invited. You might learn something.

  64. avatar
    Majority Will October 31, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    joyeagle: I wasn’t giving any effort to being thoughtful and contributing

    I nominate this for Understatement of the Thread Award.

    The rest is a steaming pile of whatever, dude.

  65. avatar
    G October 31, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    Joyeagle,

    Thank you for the sincere response. I hope you were able to read my (lengthy) second response as well and realize that I do have some sense of why you were irked and what caused your unfortunate reaction. I appreciate that you are at least aware of your tendency to fall into ideological stereotyping… particularly when confronted by what comes across as the same sort of thing from the other side!

    I do sincerely hope that you will strive, not just here, but in all aspects of your life, to try to reduce that inherent stereotyping gut tendency of yours and become more open to realizing that the majority of folks who don’t necessarily think like you or share your background might ALSO still have the same overall goals and desires for wanting a better America and even what that really means at its core…once you take the ideological wrappings off of it.

    joyeagle: G,Good post. I wasn’t giving any effort to being thoughtful and contributing, just poking back at the others who continuously participate in the same things they accuse others (me) of. Regardless of my inability to communicate perfectly and without prejudice, many of the liberals on here are simply using generalizations, over simplifications, prejudice, strawman arguments, etc, etc, and pounce self-righteously on those of the opposite political spectrum for doing the same. The hypocrisy is irritating. So I couldn’t resist poking at them a bit.I do think I will get to vote for Herman Cain in the Florida primary and see him nominated and win the presidency. I have more hope in the American people to believe the liberal media will again succeed with Palinizing him and using the same tactics the tried with Clarence Thomas. “They” hate true American success stories. (Generalization).

  66. avatar
    Arthur October 31, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Joyeagle:

    Since this thread is about Rick Perry and birtherism, I hesitate to get involved in a discussion about Herman Cain’s tax policy . . . oh, what the hell.

    You wrote, ‘“Every analysis says …” meaning incomplete, negative analysis by anti-Cain groups who don’t look at the entire plan.’ I tend to agree with you when you suggest that we should be skeptical of analysis done by groups who are opposed to Cain’s candidacy. For example, since Rick Santorum is competing for the Republican nomination, it isn’t surprising that he would be against Cain’s proposal; on the other hand, it’s worth examining why Santorum opposes the plan. His primary concern, expressed during a Republican debate on Oct. 11 in New Hampshire, is that the plan would be unpopular among voters because it calls for a nine percent sales tax (including food and medicine), and that the plan had zero chance to pass Congress. I don’t agree with much of what Rick Santorum says, but I think his comments on Cain’s plan are straightforward and accurate.

    But criticism of Cain’s plan doesn’t just come from political opponents; influential business groups are also skeptical. For example, the October 14 edition of the Miami Herald reported that the “The National Retail Federation strongly opposes the Republican presidential candidate’s plan because it would institute a first-ever national sales tax of 9 percent that, the federation says, will dampen consumer spending.” Rachelle Bernstein, the NRF’s tax policy expert is quoted as saying that the national sales tax will “hurt demand and slow the economic recovery.”

    That same article in the Miami Herald revealed that economists with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business “said there was only so much of Cain’s tax plan that could be analyzed because there aren’t enough details.” Likewise, the National Association of Homebuilders criticized the plan for “lacking specifics and being politically unrealistic.” In response to this kind of criticism, Cain said that his plan was “well-studied and well-developed.”However, Cain did not say exactly who has studied his plan, and the man he credits for developing it, Richard Lowrie, is a Wells Fargo financial adviser near Cleveland. Lowrie is not an economist.

    Grover Norquist, a leading voice in conservative tax policy, spoke out against Cain’s proposal on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, saying “Having three taxes, all of which can grow — it’s like having three needles in your arm taking blood out, it’s much more dangerous than having one.” In addition, Robert Dietz, an economist with the National Association of Homebuilders, concluded “It would have a negative impact on a fragile housing market.”

    Cain’s tax plan has also been criticized for leading to more deficit spending. During the New Hampshire in the debate, the moderator noted that a Bloomberg analysis (Bloomberg cosponsored the date and is a financial news and information services media company, with revenue of nearly 7 billion dollars) projected Cain’s proposal would lead to “an additional $200 billion budget deficit.”

    Of course, Cain’s plan has been roundly criticized by organizations like the Tax Policy Center for dramatically reducing taxes for the wealthy and increasing them for the middle class and poor. Similar criticism has come from other sectors. For example, Edward D. Kleinbard, tax-law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff at the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, analyzed Cain’s proposal and concluded, “The 9-9-9 plan would materially raise the tax burden on many low- and middle-income taxpayers.”

    The point is joyeagle, a diverse number of people and organizations, not just those who don’t like Cain, criticize his plan for lacking specifics, for lacking political support, and for being economically destructive, bad for the deficit, and inequitable.

  67. avatar
    G October 31, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    Good points. Yeah, I’m really tired of the worn-out “liberal media” meme. It seems to be one of those things that just gets repeated all the time over the years, so it has become “assumed” to be true by the general public, but doesn’t hold up at all under actual evaluation.

    Maybe at one time, there might have been some truth to that…I don’t know. Maybe I’m only partially defending a meme, because I grew up always hearing that. The only glimmers of truth to it is that there are a number of folks who chose a career in journalism that happened to personally have a liberal background.

    However, beyond that, the meme completely falls apart. Just about all of the print, radio and TV media organizations are owned by the same small consolidated cadre of conservative led corporations.

    It really matters less what the little guy on screen or typing an article personally thinks, when the editorial corporate direction overseeing his work and controlling his paycheck and access to storyline has the final say and controls the tone.

    Talk radio is mostly *very* conservative. FNC is the largest cable media outlet and has the most blatent conservative/pro-GOP/anti-Obama agenda out there. The very conservative Rupert Murdoch dominates print and various other media holdings, not only in this country, but throughout many parts of the world. Even networks with the most “liberal” opinion shows, such as MSNBC, are owned and controlled by conservative corporations.

    Yes, media BIAS does exist and it does try to shape a narrative…but in most cases, what it is really trying to push is controvery and “info-tainment” and to some extent an “establishment” agenda.

    Overall, if the media had to be pigeon-holed into an overall ideological bias slant, the body of evidence clearly points to Conservative, not liberal.

    Scientist: There you go with the labels again! You can’t stop yourself! The place to break the story was “Politico”. They are not “liberal”, but right-of-center (even if not far-right enough for you because they try to go where the data leads). The original source? Who knows, but the smart money is on Karl Rove. Is he a “liberal” too?Look, it seems that the National Restaurant Association paid money to make these allegations go away, so there are 2 possibilities:1. They are true.2. They are false and gave in to blackmail.Neither is favorable to Cain. As to the campaign finance allegations, they are pretty well documented. John Edwards is about to go on trial for a felony for campaign finance violations, so this is serious stuff..

  68. avatar
    Lupin October 31, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

    I could be mistaken but it seems very hard for the GOP to find a candidate who is both (i) ideologically correct and (ii) experienced enough to credibly run your country.

    Right now, what I see are clowns and aging male prostitutes.

    I believe the GOP has pretty much given up on 2012 and might be grooming Jeb Bush for a serious run in 2016. By then, W will be “reinterpreted” as an avuncular figure and some of the Bush stain might be off. Who knows?

  69. avatar
    Scientist October 31, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

    G: Good points. Yeah, I’m really tired of the worn-out “liberal media” meme. It seems to be one of those things that just gets repeated all the time over the years, so it has become “assumed” to be true by the general public, but doesn’t hold up at all under actual evaluation

    Herman Cain says, “If you’re poor, it’s your fault”, but if he pays hush money to settle allegations (whether true or false) it’s the media’s fault for reporting it. Talk about breaking irony meters.

    As far as “If you’re poor, it’s your fault,” let’s examine this a bit. The implication is that we could have a country of 300,000,000 rich people. So who would mow the lawns, clean the houses, care for the chiildren and elderly, cook the meals? I guess other rich people. But if you were rich and had to do all that for other rich people, what would be the point of being rich?

  70. avatar
    Lupin October 31, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    G: Maybe at one time, there might have been some truth to that…I don’t know.

    I think in the 1970s the East Coast print media were liberal — the NYT, WAPO… They truly hated Nixon, Agnew and that bunch. (How right they were!) Not the rest of the country. The LA TIMES of the 70s wasn’t particularly liberal. (IMHO)

    The networks also never struck me as particularly liberal during the Viet-Nam war. Cronkite was always a couple of trains behind the real liberals.

    Then of course today the Right would define Barry Goldwater as “liberal” so the Overton Window has moved a lot.

  71. avatar
    joyeagle October 31, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    Yes, I do consider Politico left-leaning, just from reading it and analyzing it everyday. Doesn’t mean I don’t read it though. Listen to NPR news daily also. I get all sources, but see through the filter of pre-disposed political advocacy.
    Karl Rove … I detest (politically–not necessarily as a person). I see him as a Politician/pundit with no principle whatsoever–like John McCain. I am glad Obama got elected over John McCain–because the difference in governing/policy would have been minimal, and it wouldn’t have awakened the great tea party movement to the need to restore the country to founding principles.
    We’ll see–I have no idea to the truth of the allegations, but am unwilling to swallow any allegations hurled at him at this point. Right now on the substance of issues, he is my first choice–although I prefer Ron Paul’s foreign policy and on many other issues too.

    Scientist: There you go with the labels again!You can’t stop yourself!The place to break the story was “Politico”.They are not “liberal”, but right-of-center (even if not far-right enough for you because they try to go where the data leads).The original source?Who knows, but the smart money is on Karl Rove.Is he a “liberal” too?

    Look, it seems that the National Restaurant Association paid money to make these allegations go away, so there are 2 possibilities:
    1. They are true.
    2. They are false and gave in to blackmail.
    Neither is favorable to Cain.As to the campaign finance allegations, they are pretty well documented.John Edwards is about to go on trial for a felony for campaign financeviolations, so this is serious stuff..

  72. avatar
    joyeagle October 31, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    Right … trying. It is intellectually, emotionally challenging to jump in a “left-leaning” forum, admit your errors of earlier persuasions and debate substance and ignore hypocrisy. I appreciate your very fair, and logic based assertions … even if we do disagree on most every political issue. I appreciate you indulging me the opportunity to interact/debate, even with my tendencies to overreact.
    Thanks.

    G:
    Joyeagle,

    Thank you for the sincere response.I hope you were able to read my (lengthy) second response as well and realize that I do have some sense of why you were irked and what caused your unfortunate reaction.I appreciate that you are at least aware of your tendency to fall into ideological stereotyping… particularly when confronted by what comes across as the same sort of thing from the other side!

    I do sincerely hope that you will strive, not just here, but in all aspects of your life, to try to reduce that inherent stereotyping gut tendency of yours and become more open to realizing that the majority of folks who don’t necessarily think like you or share your background might ALSO still have the same overall goals and desires for wanting a better America and even what that really means at its core…once you take the ideological wrappings off of it.

  73. avatar
    Scientist October 31, 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    joyeagle: Yes, I do consider Politico left-leaning, just from reading it and analyzing it everyday.

    It’s considered by most to be moderately right-of center. You’re missing the point, though (deliberately, perhaps). Cain (actually the organization of which he was CEO) paying 2 female employees because of allegations of harassment is not left-wing or right-wing, it’s a matter of fact. NBC has identified one of the women. You might as well say that the papers who said the Cardiinals won the World Series have a National League bias.

    Now the question is did he actuually harass them? My opinion is that if he didn’t, then they used the member’s dues to pay blackmail. And that might even be worse than harassing. But either way is bad. And it isn’t Politico’s fault that Cain paid a settlement. No, it’s Cain’s.

    Conservatives are supposed to believe in personal responsibility. Let’s see them take some and apply it close to home.

  74. avatar
    joyeagle October 31, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    Hey, as it turns out, your namesake, Arthur Laffer, a well-respected and successful political economist, supports 9-9-9.
    Rick Santorum’s criticism is disingenuous, and typical politician. He and the others that suggested that NH is getting a new sales tax levied on them with 9-9-9, and ignore the offset of income tax reduction, and ignores the lowering costs due to the reduction of payroll taxes on the companies selling the goods. Laffer says “such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment.”
    Lifelong politicians like Santorum don’t believe in big bold steps. The 9-9-9 plan is just the first step towards the fair tax …
    Saying it’s another tax that can grow–to me is a useless argument. There is no cap on the current tax system–we aren’t protected now from what “they” are warning against.
    I think Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a Boston University economist who is a columnist for Bloomberg, does a fair assessment of it. He doesn’t completely endorse it, but offers and alternate 15-15-15.
    You know what many of us like? It gets all of the underground, tax-evading money into the system too.
    Those who consider it falling short of revenue disagree on the growth of the economy that it would lead–based on simplicity, predictability, and venture capital free to be reinvested in the country. They also assume continued government growth in spending.
    I don’t expect every “expert” is going to fully endorse his plan. I think if the American people got a full understanding, at the grass root level, it would get overwhelming support it.

    Arthur:
    Joyeagle:

    Since this thread is about Rick Perry and birtherism, I hesitate to get involved in a discussion about Herman Cain’s tax policy . . . oh, what the hell.

    You wrote, ‘“Every analysis says …” meaning incomplete, negative analysis by anti-Cain groups who don’t look at the entire plan.’ I tend to agree with you when you suggest that we should be skeptical of analysis done by groups who are opposed to Cain’s candidacy. For example, since Rick Santorum is competing for the Republican nomination, it isn’t surprising that he would be against Cain’s proposal; on the other hand, it’s worth examining why Santorum opposes the plan. His primary concern, expressed during a Republican debate on Oct. 11 in New Hampshire, is that the plan would be unpopular among voters because it calls for a nine percent sales tax (including food and medicine), and that the plan had zero chance to pass Congress. I don’t agree with much of what Rick Santorum says, but I think his comments on Cain’s plan are straightforward and accurate.

    But criticism of Cain’s plan doesn’t just come from political opponents; influential business groups are also skeptical. For example, the October 14 edition of the Miami Herald reported that the “The National Retail Federation strongly opposes the Republican presidential candidate’s plan because it would institute a first-ever national sales tax of 9 percent that, the federation says, will dampen consumer spending.”Rachelle Bernstein, the NRF’s tax policy expert is quoted as saying that the national sales tax will “hurt demand and slow the economic recovery.”

    That same article in the Miami Herald revealed that economists with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business “said there was only so much of Cain’s tax plan that could be analyzed because there aren’t enough details.” Likewise, the National Association of Homebuilders criticized the plan for “lacking specifics and being politically unrealistic.” In response to this kind ofcriticism, Cain said that his plan was “well-studied and well-developed.”However, Cain did not say exactly who has studied his plan, and the man he credits for developing it, Richard Lowrie, is a Wells Fargo financial adviser near Cleveland. Lowrie is not an economist.

    Grover Norquist, a leading voice in conservative tax policy, spoke out against Cain’s proposal on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program, saying “Having three taxes, all of which can grow — it’s like having three needles in your arm taking blood out, it’s much more dangerous than having one.” In addition, Robert Dietz, an economist with the National Association of Homebuilders, concluded “It would have a negative impact on a fragile housing market.”

    Cain’s tax plan has also been criticized for leading to more deficit spending. During the New Hampshirein the debate, the moderator noted that a Bloomberg analysis (Bloomberg cosponsored the date andis a financial news and information services media company, with revenue ofnearly 7 billion dollars) projected Cain’s proposal would lead to “an additional $200 billion budget deficit.”

    Of course, Cain’s plan has been roundly criticized by organizations like the Tax Policy Center for dramatically reducing taxes for the wealthy and increasing them for the middle class and poor. Similar criticism has come from other sectors. For example, Edward D. Kleinbard, tax-law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff at the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, analyzed Cain’s proposal and concluded, “The 9-9-9 plan would materially raise the tax burden on many low- and middle-income taxpayers.”

    The point is joyeagle, a diverse number of people and organizations, not just those who don’t like Cain, criticize his plan for lacking specifics, for lacking political support, and for being economically destructive, bad for the deficit, and inequitable.

  75. avatar
    joyeagle October 31, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    Yes, I guess we’ll see when all the facts come out about Cain. But there is bias. Holder/Obama are not being held accountable for the much more grievous (causing the death of our national defenders) fast and furious, or Solyndra.

    Scientist: It’s considered by most to be moderately right-of center.You’re missing the point, though (deliberately, perhaps).Cain (actually the organization of which he was CEO) paying 2 female employees because of allegations of harassment …

    Conservatives are supposed to believe in personal responsibility.Let’s see them take some and apply it close to home.

  76. avatar
    sfjeff October 31, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    I just want to point out that for the GOP- any hint that a candidate might have international or foreign policy experience seems to alienate them from the GOP electorate.

    Hunstman’s paper qualifications are superb. Governor, ambassador, speaks Mandarin, business man…but he isn’t even seriously considered.

    The GOP front runners are distinguished by their lack of foreign experience.

  77. avatar
    foreigner October 31, 2011 at 2:04 pm #

    seems that this is just all about politics, Dems vs. Reps.
    So, if Obama had happened to be a Rep, you were all birthers, right ?

  78. avatar
    sfjeff October 31, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    joyeagle: Yes, I guess we’ll see when all the facts come out about Cain. But there is bias. Holder/Obama are not being held accountable for the much more grievous (causing the death of our national defenders) fast and furious, or Solyndra.

    Of course the facts should come out about all of that also, so that voters can factor that into their vote.

    I really think that everyone is jumping a little to eagerly into the Cain story. Certainly I think the voters should get all the facts, but I see lots of conclusions being made way before all of the facts are known.

    This is, by the way, commonly done to Obama by his opponents also.

  79. avatar
    Scientist October 31, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    joyeagle: Holder/Obama are not being held accountable for the much more grievous (causing the death of our national defenders) fast and furious, or Solyndra.

    Fast and furious? I don’t know what you are referring to. As for Solyndra, I have seen no evidence of wrong-doing, as opposed to a business investment that didn’t work out (largely because the Chinese undercut them on price). You seem not to know that much about business, but I can assure you that when venture caps invest in start-up technologies, they plan for a 90% failure rate. But if there is actual evidence, I will listen.

    Congressman Issa promised to uncover all kinds of corruption in the Obama administration, but so far he has nada. You certainly are entitled to an opinion on the effectiveness of the Obama administration, but is is an objective fact that far fewer scandals have come out then did by this point in any other recent administration of either party.

    foreigner: So, if Obama had happened to be a Rep, you were all birthers, right ?

    Absolutely not. There is more reason to doubt McCain’s eligibility than Obama’s, since he actually was born outside the US, but had the voters chosen him, I personally would have accepted him as President without a further word. And I consider Rubio and Jindal eligible should they decide to run. Hell, I even think Schwarzenegger should be able to run. Leave it up to the voters.

  80. avatar
    sfjeff October 31, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    foreigner: seems that this is just all about politics, Dems vs. Reps.So, if Obama had happened to be a Rep, you were all birthers, right ?

    Of course not.

    I never doubted McCain’s eligibility, even though I could see why people doubted his eligiblity. I never questioned Bush’s either.

    I actually would have voted for McCain vs Kerry- if that had been the contest. I liked the 2004 McCain much more than I ever cared for Kerry.

    If Hunstman were (by some Mormon miracle) were the RNC candidate, at this point, i would probably vote for him.

    Of course Birthers have never really cared about eligiblity- which is why they haven’t asked any of the current RNC candidates to show so much as their library card. .

  81. avatar
    Majority Will October 31, 2011 at 2:55 pm #

    sfjeff: Of course Birthers have never really cared about eligiblity- which is why they haven’t asked any of the current RNC candidates to show so much as their library card. .

    Does anyone think Perry has (or ever had) a library card? Doubtful.

  82. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 31, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    joyeagle, the problem with Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan…

    83.6% of Americans would actually see their taxes go up under the plan, and significantly at that. And almost all of them are the poorest of Americans.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/18/herman-cain/herman-cain-says-9-9-9-plan-does-not-raise-taxes-t/

    1. Herman Cain’s tax plan has a couple of things. It gets rid of all deductions except for 2: Charitable Gifts, and living within impoversished cities. It gets rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit. It gets rid of the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. It gets rid of the Child Tax Credit. Those means that most families would actually see an increase in tax rates just because those 3 deductions would go bye-bye. Then given the fact that Herman Cain’s plan has no bottom (flat tax, after all) in low-income tax burden, and it would actually get more.

    2. Herman Cain’s Tax plan includes a 9% sales tax. Sales taxes are among the most regressive taxes in existance. For instance, a study which analyizes state and local sales taxes showed that Washington’s (state, which has a sales tax, and no income tax) tax burden for the lowest 20% was somewhere around 18% of their income. The top 1% only paid 3% of their income to state and local taxes.

    These are significant problems with Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. It would be a massive shifting of the tax burden from the rich to the poor, and it would mean that the rich get a massive tax break and structurally pay a significantly less portion of their income than what the poor pay.

  83. avatar
    Arthur October 31, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    joyeagle,

    Thanks for the response. It was interesting to read what Arthur Laffer had to say about Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I don’t support the principle of a flat tax, but Laffer’s an influential enconomist and I don’t lightly dismiss his analysis.

    Regarding Rick Santorum’s criticisms of Cain’s plan, I wouldn’t pooh-pooh them as easily as you do. His point that passing 9-9-9 tax reform would be politically impossible is not hyperbole. Even if Republicans kept the House and won the Senate, such a plan would be difficult to pass.

    You wrote, “Those who consider [Cain’s tax plan] falling short of revenue disagree on the growth of the economy that it would lead–based on simplicity, predictability, and venture capital free to be reinvested in the country.” I don’t find this a compelling argument in favor of Cain’s plan. Plannning for rosey outcomes, in the absense of historical and contemporary evidence to support those outcommes, is just wishful thinking.

  84. avatar
    G October 31, 2011 at 6:06 pm #

    NO. Birtherism is simply unsupported in our laws, period. I deal in facts and reality, not emotional fantasies. Whether I like someone or like some law or not, I am mature enough to understand and accept that it exists and won’t resort to made up ad hominem smears on those I oppose.

    I consider McCain, Jindal and Rubio to be NBC. Period.

    Your posts seem to tell us more about the sad and immature way you think and behave and unfortunately, you try to project your own petty and limited frame of reference with your emotion-based fantasy thinking onto others. Sorry, but you need to learn that many people simply would not think or act the way you do.

    foreigner: seems that this is just all about politics, Dems vs. Reps.So, if Obama had happened to be a Rep, you were all birthers, right ?

  85. avatar
    El Diablo Negro October 31, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    Scientist: is is an objective fact that far fewer scandals have come out then did by this point in any other recent administration of either party.

    That could also be a contributor those who oppose him. He is too clean, he must be up to something or the common theme is no one putting him to task (oh how they have short memories). And when the fishing reveals nothing…its a cover-up..he must be up to something.

  86. avatar
    Joey October 31, 2011 at 7:12 pm #

    sfjeff: Of course not.

    I never doubted McCain’s eligibility, even though I could see why people doubted his eligiblity. I never questioned Bush’s either.

    I actually would have voted for McCain vs Kerry- if that had been the contest. I liked the 2004 McCain much more than I ever cared for Kerry.

    If Hunstman were (by some Mormon miracle) were the RNC candidate, at this point, i would probably vote for him.

    Of course Birthers have never really cared about eligiblity- which is why they haven’t asked any of the current RNC candidates to show so much as their library card. .

    In fairness, the issue of Marco Rubio’s (and to a lesser extent, Bobby Jindal’s) eligibility/ineligibility has become a big issue among birthers.
    There’s even a small faction of birthers who question Mitt Romney on eligiblity. And, of course John McCain was actually sued by some early birthers. (see Hollander v McCain)

  87. avatar
    Horus October 31, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Daniel: I guess the lesson to be learned here for you birthers is… if you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.

    I would change that to “If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t ever leave The Post and Fail!”.

  88. avatar
    Horus October 31, 2011 at 9:06 pm #

    joyeagle: Yes, I guess we’ll see when all the facts come out about Cain. But there is bias. Holder/Obama are not being held accountable for the much more grievous (causing the death of our national defenders) fast and furious, or Solyndra.

    Fast and Furious was ALL Bush baby!

  89. avatar
    G November 1, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    I believe the Solyndra deal started under the Bush administration as well.

    Bottom line – both are over trumped non-scandal “scandals” being pushed as political propaganda by the right, because this administration has been so comparatively scandal free that their desperately stretching for anything to use as a smear…and unfortunately, their audience is conditioned to just buy their hype hook line and sinker and repeat it ad nauseum, without ever thinking deeper or objectively looking into it further.

    Solyndra is merely some egg on the face for the administration and their Green Jobs program, in terms of a business deal that simply didn’t succeed. Yes, it got pushed and fast-tracked, but that is exactly what happens with all the “showcase” projects that Washington backs. Always has been the case. Nothing unusual or criminal here, just some minor embarrasement and setbacks.

    Horus: Fast and Furious was ALL Bush baby!

  90. avatar
    Keith November 1, 2011 at 6:14 am #

    Lupin:
    I could be mistaken but it seems very hard for the GOP to find a candidate who is both (i) ideologically correct and (ii) experienced enough to credibly run your country.

    Right now, what I see are clowns and aging male prostitutes.

    I believe the GOP has pretty much given up on 2012 and might be grooming Jeb Bush for a serious run in 2016. By then, W will be “reinterpreted” as an avuncular figure and some of the Bush stain might be off. Who knows?

    There is a whole lot of truth in what you say here.

    I think though that they (as in the powers that be behind the GOP power brokers) gave up on 2012 back in 2007 when they realized that they had totally trashed the economy and didn’t have anyone who could challenge either Clinton or Obama and wouldn’t have for a while. They reluctantly gave lip service support to McCain, and forced the Alaskan Quitter down his throat to ensure he didn’t have even a snowflakes chance in the Sahara (if there is one thing the GOP learned from Nixon it was to never, but never, have a GOP President they couldn’t control) and retreated into their “lets just hate for 8 years” mode.

  91. avatar
    Keith November 1, 2011 at 6:17 am #

    joyeagle: and it wouldn’t have awakened the great tea party movement to the need to restore the country to founding principles.

    Please help me out here. What ‘founding principles’ need restoring?

  92. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 1, 2011 at 7:15 am #

    Joey: In fairness, the issue of Marco Rubio’s (and to a lesser extent, Bobby Jindal’s) eligibility/ineligibility has become a big issue among birthers.

    Has anybody yet suggested that if this Alabama legislation were passed and stood the test of the Supreme Court (which it won’t, of course), Bobby Jindal would not be a natural born citizen? After all, we are 100% sure that he was conceived, meaning he started his life as a non-citizen, outside the USA….

    It does not help that he actually believes it himself.

    Of course, this would mean that American women of child-bearing age would have to be screened both on entering and leaving the USA, to be sure that when returning they are not smuggling an illegal immigrant into the country.

  93. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 1, 2011 at 7:30 am #

    El Diablo Negro: Scientist: is is an objective fact that far fewer scandals have come out then did by this point in any other recent administration of either party.

    That could also be a contributor those who oppose him. He is too clean, he must be up to something or the common theme is no one putting him to task (oh how they have short memories). And when the fishing reveals nothing…its a cover-up..he must be up to something.

    Yes, if he has never yet been accused by a female underling of sexual harassment, it must be because they are all paid prostitutes or he’s really a homosexual.

    Oh, wait, they already claimed that last one.

    I will never understand the Americans’ objection with sex. I wasn’t interested in Bill Clinton’s cigars, and frankly, I do not want to know why Cain had to settle with those two women. I am sure, however, that the media will devote far less time to it than they would if Cain were a Democrat (so much for left-wing bias in the uS media).

    I only care that every sound economist knows that Cain’s 9-9-9 will be bad for America. And thus will be bad for the world – since China, Brazil, India (and in a sense Russia) are not ready yet to take over as a growth motor. Period.

    So, does Perry have any economic plans, apart from not supporting Cain’s – hoping that the GOP establishment will go for him when lacklustre Romney again turns out to be unprimarible?

  94. avatar
    Scientist November 1, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Has anybody yet suggested that if this Alabama legislation were passed and stood the test of the Supreme Court (which it won’t, of course), Bobby Jindal would not be a natural born citizen? After all, we are 100% sure that he was conceived, meaning he started his life as a non-citizen, outside the USA….It does not help that he actually believes it himself.Of course, this would mean that American women of child-bearing age would have to be screened both on entering and leaving the USA, to be sure that when returning they are not smuggling an illegal immigrant into the country.

    I believe you mean Mississippi.

    But that is an intriguing question as to whether a fetus conceived outside the US would need a visa to enter. This could certainly harm the honeymoon business in the Caribbean.

  95. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 1, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    foreigner: seems that this is just all about politics, Dems vs. Reps.So, if Obama had happened to be a Rep, you were all birthers, right ?

    Then you obviously haven’t paid attention. A majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents think the birthers are full of crap.

  96. avatar
    Judge Mental November 1, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    Horus: Fast and Furious was ALL Bush baby!

    That’s got my attention as I’ve never seen that ccesfully claimed before. I’m aware that the birth of the overall umberella exercise ‘Operation Gunrunner’ arose in the Bush era but I’ve never seen anyone come up with any goods on ‘Fast and Furious’ having its origins in the Bush era.

    In fact if you’ve got the goods on that I’d love to see a reference to it so that I can throw it in the face of one partcularly obnoxious guy I’m acquainted with elsewhere.

  97. avatar
    Judge Mental November 1, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    *succesfully* (an edit function, an edit function….my kingdom for an edit function!)

  98. avatar
    Daniel November 1, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: I will never understand the Americans’ objection with sex. I wasn’t interested in Bill Clinton’s cigars, and frankly, I do not want to know why Cain had to settle with those two women. I am sure, however, that the media will devote far less time to it than they would if Cain were a Democrat (so much for left-wing bias in the uS media).

    I have noticed that up here in Canada, where I work, the voters for the most part don’t seem to give a rat’s ass about who their politicians are sleeping with. They just want their politicians to be competent.

  99. avatar
    G November 1, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    Perry has come out over the past week with his own 20% flat tax plan, that he’s emphasizing is a simplified plan that can “fit on a post card”.

    Look, I agree that all of these tax plans and ideas have lots of problems, but if we all take off our partisan filters for a moment, it is easy to understand why such ideas will have a certain amount of appeal. Tax policy is a very complex thing. From the basest gut-level, nobody enjoys paying taxes. You have to first use your brain to override your gut and focus on what their purpose and end benefits can be and realize they are necessary for society and the greater good of all and yes, beneficial even to ourselves.

    Second, just about no one is happy with how the existing sets of tax structures are working at the moment. They seem very complex, overly cumbersome and full of endless loopholes and areas rife for abuse. There is a strong desire to want to find a better, simpler and more fair way.

    Even if the specifics of policies such as Cain’s, Perrys & Ron Pauls might not be workable or able to be put place in practice, they still speak to that underlying need to reform the system…and some would say, to drastically reform and simplify it.

    So even if their actual plans put forth at this stage of a campaign aren’t the solution, I don’t think that’s really the point. In the broadest sense, they deserve some credit for at least broaching an important topic and starting a conversation that needs to be had. Their brainstormed ideas might not be the right ones, but that is how brainstorming works…to generate all sorts of ideas focused on a topic, in hopes of leading to a better solution. Even bad ideas can spark others to come up with good ones.

    The point here is that the specifics of a proposed policy to a very complex and difficult tax structure issue are themselves details really too small to necessarily kill someone’s campaign or derail their support at this stage. Such proposals themselves are just one piece in the overall picture of most voter’s decisions.

    What I think many are missing is that it is the very idea of providing a bold path to address the perceived tax problems that is the appeal in and of itself and that these candidates can gain supporters simply based on championing that mere idea itself, regardless of the actual specific workableness of the solution they propose.

    Paul Pieniezny: I only care that every sound economist knows that Cain’s 9-9-9 will be bad for America. And thus will be bad for the world – since China, Brazil, India (and in a sense Russia) are not ready yet to take over as a growth motor. Period.
    So, does Perry have any economic plans, apart from not supporting Cain’s – hoping that the GOP establishment will go for him when lacklustre Romney again turns out to be unprimarible?

  100. avatar
    Scientist November 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    G: So even if their actual plans put forth at this stage of a campaign aren’t the solution, I don’t think that’s really the point. In the broadest sense, they deserve some credit for at least broaching an important topic and starting a conversation that needs to be had.

    Only a few months ago, the President and the Speaker were discussing tax reform that would simplify, remove deductions and lower rates as part of a “Grand Bargain: on the deficit that would also address entitlement reform. The Speaker walked away because it would raise a fairly modest amount of revenue. If the candidates really wanted to achieve the goals you mention, why not support that approach?

    The problem with Perry’s plan is that it would unquestionably lower revenue by an enormous amount, because peopple could chose the current or flat, whiichever was more advantageous. Cain’s plan is too fuzzy on details to really judge the efffect on revenue, but most think it would reduce it, but probably by less than Perry’s.

  101. avatar
    G November 1, 2011 at 6:11 pm #

    I think you already know the answer to that.

    I agree that the President has been also been talking about reforming the tax code since his campaign days…and he truly would like to get this done.

    However, the dynamic in play is clear – the GOP and their supporters simply want to oppose this President and will tune out any good idea he has. They only will listen if “their side” comes up with an idea and ignore it outright (or sadly, even oppose it) otherwise.

    So you have to look at the dynamic at play in the GOP through the irrational emotional lense that exists.

    Scientist: Only a few months ago, the President and the Speaker were discussing tax reform that would simplify, remove deductions and lower rates as part of a “Grand Bargain: on the deficit that would also address entitlement reform. The Speaker walked away because it would raise a fairly modest amount of revenue. If the candidates really wanted to achieve the goals you mention, why not support that approach?The problem with Perry’s plan is that it would unquestionably lower revenue by an enormous amount, because peopple could chose the current or flat, whiichever was more advantageous. Cain’s plan is too fuzzy on details to really judge the efffect on revenue, but most think it would reduce it, but probably by less than Perry’s.

  102. avatar
    Obsolete November 2, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    Is Cain going to speak anytime soon regarding his “9-let me grab that ass-9-come up to my apartment-9” plan?

  103. avatar
    Daniel November 2, 2011 at 8:56 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Is Cain going to speak anytime soon regarding his “9-let me grab that ass-9-come up to my apartment-9‘ plan?

    A the risk of slagging my own Republican Party, and at the risk of giving into speculations of conspiracy, and at the risk of…..

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the same people in the Tea-Party, and NeoCon, portions of the GOP, who object to Obama, because of his inability to reflect the entire spectrum of visible light, are finding the prospect of “full spectrum impaired” Cain actually taking the nomination to be a bit frightening. After all it was a good idea to have him in the running back when he was a long shot at best, just to deflect complaints of racism, but we can’t have him actually win, now can we?

  104. avatar
    G November 2, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    The establishment portion and big-money portion of the GOP has pretty much already settled on Romney. The base is opposed and that is what scares the establishment, which has always been able to manipulate the base to do its wishes. The base doesn’t want Romney, that’s obvious. The establishment fears the base defying its wishes and is the most likely source of the leaks on Cain (probably connected to Karl Rove in some way). So yes, it frightens him and they can’t let him win the nomination and his current popularity makes them now determined to try to take him down.

    Daniel: A the risk of slagging my own Republican Party, and at the risk of giving into speculations of conspiracy, and at the risk of…..It wouldn’t surprise me if the same people in the Tea-Party, and NeoCon, portions of the GOP, who object to Obama, because of his inability to reflect the entire spectrum of visible light, are finding the prospect of “full spectrum impaired” Cain actually taking the nomination to be a bit frightening. After all it was a good idea to have him in the running back when he was a long shot at best, just to deflect complaints of racism, but we can’t have him actually win, now can we?

  105. avatar
    Keith November 3, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

    G: The establishment portion and big-money portion of the GOP has pretty much already settled on Romney.

    Those folks have already given up on winning in 2012 anyway. There is no way they can win with a candidate that they can control sufficiently. Nixon taught them that they must have complete control over the President.

    They pretty much gave up on 2012 way back in 2007. That’s why there aren’t any actually viable ‘Presidential’ candidates running this time. They are keeping their powder dry for 2016 and concentrating on keeping their hate simmering for the intervening 8 years..

  106. avatar
    Daniel November 3, 2011 at 8:07 pm #

    Keith: Those folks have already given up on winning in 2012 anyway. There is no way they can win with a candidate that they can control sufficiently. Nixon taught them that they must have complete control over the President.

    They pretty much gave up on 2012 way back in 2007. That’s why there aren’t any actually viable ‘Presidential’ candidates running this time. They are keeping their powder dry for 2016 and concentrating on keeping their hate simmering for the intervening 8 years..

    I think the current slate of Rep candidates for nomination are a pretty good indication that the GOP in general isn’t counting on winning next election.

    If it looks as though the sitting President is heading to a second term, you hold back your best candidates. After all you don’t want your real Candidates going into the next after election saddles with a previous loss if you can avoid it.

    I’m betting dollars to donuts that’s the real reason both Sarah Palin and Chris Christie aren’t in this running. Palin because another defeat would finish her, and Christie because he’s going to be shiny and new next time.

    The current crop are the “fill in the blanks” candidates you use so you at least have something on the ticket come election time

  107. avatar
    Keith November 3, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

    Daniel: I’m betting dollars to donuts that’s the real reason both Sarah Palin and Chris Christie aren’t in this running.

    Agree on Christie, for sure. Palin? meh.

  108. avatar
    G November 3, 2011 at 10:24 pm #

    I agree with both Keith and Daniel’s points. Especially when you compare which early potential candidates decided to “pass” and sit out this cycle with those that are running… it seems that underlying message is clearly there: overall, 2012 is not a year they really felt they could (or would even want to) win.

    The *only* hope that the GOP has in 2012 is by causing the economy to collapse and hope they don’t get held accountable for that. That is a TERRIBLE strategy…on just about EVERY level.

    Had they actually tried to participate & help America over the past few years..or had any other ideas other than just endless tax cuts, then they could have actually had something to run on or for people to look forward to in considering them as an option.

    I would hope that the unprecedented level of obstructionism will diminish significantly after 2012 (if the GOP had any good sense left, that is), as they will need a mostly recovered economy and removal of the obstructionism/destructionist taint all over them in order to have a fresh start chance in 2016.

    I think Sarah Palin is dead in the water as a future candidate regardless. She’s damaged her credibility too much and her lengthy tease and then bow out has pretty much worn out her welcome. Unless her ego drives her to jump in as some 3rd-party spoiler in 2012 or 2016 and hope that her delusionally loyal fanbase backs her, her career as a political candidate is now over.