Max

I've already said that the claims of the two women who settled with Cain (or more accurately, with the National Restaurant Association) should be taken very seriously. However, I'm pretty skeptical of the third--and now fourth--woman who all of a sudden popped up out of the woodwork and stated that she was sexually harassed by Cain. Why are they all of a sudden talking when they remained silent for all these years? Furthermore, why didn't these additional two women say something prior to the press reports about Cain's settlements (with the other two women), or say something back when Cain was a long-shot candidate? Playing the race card is reprehensible whether conservatives or liberals do it.

This is an interesting observation. Perhaps because I am so cynical, it's always been my opinion that the complete opposite is true. Brian, thank you so much for answering the question I posed you with this most eloquent response.

First of all, Brian, I did originally say--in the below quote--that not all Democrats or Republicans are insincere when they heap praise on a member of an opposite party (who isn't a RINO/DINO). I believe that you do like the Clintons. While I guess this is completely unrealistic, it would be nice if politics wasn't a "game." (I'm not sure what the problem with praising your immediate opponent is, other than it makes one look "weak" and perhaps hurts one's chances for re-election; I certainly believe that the country would be better off if we had less egotistical politicans who could praise an opponent if he has good ideas.) But because it is a game, I certainly don't believe that every single word of praise that every Republican heaps on her is genuine (as you stated). By praising a member of the opposite party (who happens not to be the president), I think that it is totally within the realm of possibility that the intention of some is to make the president look even worse in comparison. Regardless of the true sincerety of some individuals, I will never believe that the lion's share of partisan Republicans will hop on board the Hillary 2016 campaign, or that most loyal Democrats will dump Obama should Huntsman beat the million-to-one odds and win the GOP nomination. Any suggestion to the contrary just defies logic, and I doubt any non-partisan political analyst would disagree with me on this. Brian, if there's one thing I do agree with you on is that I'm sure most Republicans would rather have Hillary than Obama, while most Democrats would rather have Huntsman than any of his GOP opponents. (Brian, you obviously didn't mention anything about Huntsman; I'm just including him here because the Huntsman situation is a mirror image of what the GOP is doing with Hillary.) What I just cannot believe is that most--but not all--partisans would rather have Hillary or Huntsman over one of their own. If you don't mind me asking--given that I'm not honestly not sure how you would have voted--who would you have chosen in 2008 if the race had been McCain vs. Hillary? Hypothetically speaking, who would you vote for in 2012 if the race is between Hillary and Romney?

Carl, there were valid reasons why Democrats wouldn't like McCain, and he did flip-flop on some issues. However, 2007-08 did not mark the first time McCain changed his views. (I'm not upset that liberals disliked McCain in 2008; rather, I'm upset that liberals liked him in the first place in spite of the fact he was a scandal-tainted politican who held views that were very contrary to their beliefs, only to change their minds later.) During the 1980's, McCain had a very conservative record in Congress (even voting against a bill that would have made MLK's birthday a national holiday), and would always advertise himself as a Goldwater/Reagan Republican. And then, of course, there was his part in the Keating Five scandal. In fact, it was not until the 1990's that the senator changed and became a maverick. Regardless of all this history, Democrats were gushing over McCain from the moment he became a thorn in Bush's side until he decided to seek the presidency again in 2007. In their eagerness to praise him as the ideal Republican, they conveniently forgot (or just purposely ignored) the times in his past where he was very conservative or got in legal trouble. I'm willing to bet just about anything that had the 2000 election been McCain vs. Gore, the Democrats would have focused on this past like a laser beam and subsequently tore him apart (as opposed to praising McCain for the centerist views he held that year). Should Hillary Clinton ever become the Democratic nominee for president, all the daily praise the GOP gives her would go right out the window. Instead, she would be attacked in a way that would make the Obama attacks (i.e., he is a closeted Muslim socialist who was born in Kenya) look absolutely tame in comparison: the far-right would again engage in a smear campaign and suggest that she and her husband killed Vince Foster, and also suggest that electing her as president would result in a government that's for lesbians, by lesbians, and of lesbians.

I realize that there are some exceptions (where people may actually be sincere), but I always find it so phony when partisans praise members of the opposite party (excluding those who really are RINOs and DINOs). Right now, I see many a Republican say great things about Hillary Clinton, while a lot of Democrats are praising Jon Huntsman. The reason why I feel this way is because Democrats were constantly praising John McCain to the hilltops for most of the 2000's. But the moment he had a serious chance of actually getting elected president, their tune suddenly changed. (The Dems were critical of McCain well before he chose Palin as his running mate, so that can't be used as a valid reason for their change of heart.) If Huntsman were to actually get the nomination, then I would hear Obama supporters attack him for his conservative record as governor as Utah, and also for some of his business mistakes. And if Hillary were to ever run for president again, the GOP would hate her with the same fervor as they did in the 1990's. There's a logical reason why many partisans select a politican from the other party and heap such praise on them: doing so makes the president (that they hate)--or the likely presidential nominee--look so much worse in comparison.

Although probably less than one percent of Americans would agree with me on this, I think we should ban alcohol as well. I know that Prohibition had many bad consequences, but alcohol consumption still went down during this period (a fact that is seldom known); if a shady underground market arises as a result of banning a substance, it's a necessary evil that I think is worth it. (I concede that rehabilition efforts--as opposed to punishment--would likely be more effective for those who break the law when it comes to using illegal substances.) While I apologize for again being inconsistent, fast food--or any other type of food--should not be banned because of an important distinction: one can go cold turkey on alcohol, nicotene, or drugs (aside from essential medications) and still live, but one has to eat. Responsible eaters shouldn't be penalized by the government if they care to eat junkfood once in a while.

I may not politically agree with the hippies who are out of work, but I can certainly empathize with them, since I am unemployed myself. (The company I previously worked for was acquired, and all former employees in an overhead capacity were terminated.) In the Obama economy, the prospect of finding another job seems absolutely hopeless. Based on anecdotal evidence, companies get hundreds of resumes for most accounting positions that come up. I'd like to be able to go get a CPA (to give me a competitive edge), but the elisists who run the state board of accountancy have decided that one must earn 30 graduate credits in order to be certified (as if passing the hellish CPA exam wasn't enough). Unfortunately, I don't have anywhere near the money to pay for an extra year of school (nor can I afford to take out a loan). According to Obama and his supporters, the solution for the jobs crisis is more government stimulus. Of course, most of the jobs created from a stimulus would be hard labor in nature (such as building bridges and digging ditches). So, how the f*ck would this help the millions of white-collar professionals who are out of work? Obviously, things have changed drastically since the 1930's when most Americans never went to college (yet Democrats still believe the same solutions that worked then will work today). Not surprisingly, Democrats say any opposition the evil Congressional Republicans have to Obama's jobs bill must be purely partisan in nature. Thanks for the explanation about medical marijuana, Alphanguy. Although this seems to be very upsetting to Roman, I'm not a "consistent conservative," so I have no problem when the government steps in to protect people from harm (whether it means banning a harmful substance or requiring people to wear seat belts). Hell, even so called "red-meat conservatives" have no problems with government intervention when it comes to banning abortions. If we don't ban cigarettes, I'd have no problem with putting a huge tax on them as well. We should also raise the taxes on alcohol.

Regarding the whole nicotine vs. marijuana legalization debate, I also wanted to say that I'm consistent on this matter: since both substances are detrimental, both should be banned. (In certain instances, I would make an exception if medical professionals can show that either substance can heal a disease in a way that no other medications are able to.) There's another disgraced and unethical Wall Street executive making the news this week: it's Jon Corzine, the liberal Democrat who formerly served as NJ Governor (and was a U.S. Senator prior to that). Today, he resigned as head of MF Global, after a scandal that is currently engulfing the company: http://money.cnn.com...x.htm?hpt=hp_t2 I've criticized Chris Christie many times in the past. But despite the fact that he is blatantly running for president in 2016 (and thus not devoting his primary energies towards being governor), I'd gladly take him any day over Corzine.

You are putting words in my mouth, Roman, as I never said that I dislike McCaskill for not being liberal enough; rather, that was a criticism that I have heard from liberal commentators and bloggers/posters. I do appreciate the fact that you finally explained why you have a problem with her. What really upsets me is this double standard that you seem to have: while blasting me for making assumptions of what others think, you yourself seem to have no problem doing so (given that you have already suggested that I seem to judge senators based on how conservative or liberal they are, and given that you have suggested that the Republican agenda is to suppress the black vote in the South). With all due respect, you seem to still be pretty immature yourself. So if you no longer want to talk politics with me, I would be fine with that.

I'm not sure I understand this smiley face response. I wanted to get Roman to elaborate on why McCaskill was a bad senator, since he never gave a reason in the first place. This always made zero sense to me as well.

Roman, you never explained why you think that she makes a bad senator. Would it be too much trouble for you to please elaborate? Assuming that she gets the Democratic nomination next year (which is highly likely), how likely are you to vote for her GOP opponent instead (assuming that said opponent is very conservative like most Missouri Republicans are)? Or, will you choose to not vote at all in that election, or for a member of a third-party instead? (I will likely stop jumping to conclusions if you tell me that you plan to vote for a typical MO conservative Republican over McCaskill next year. Indeed, it is possible that you dislike McCaskill for reasons other than her moderation. However--given the fact that you indicated how terrible Mitch McConnell is--most reasonable people would conclude that you probably would not vote for a Republican for Senate, since that would increase McConnell's chances of becoming majority leader.) And when you suggested that liberal vs. conservative doesn't even enter the equation for you--but perhaps it does for me--you were once again jumping to conclusions (despite previously chiding me for doing the same). I wasn't trying to be mean or nasty by pointing this out; rather, I just chose to do so in order to show that you yourself seem to jump to conclusons about what I might think.

I think that most independents would have a hard time classifying CNN as right-leaning. While Begala and Carville dislike Obama for obvious reasons, both men gladly point out how sorry shape the GOP is in and how that party is controlled by Tea Party extremists. (And the latter observation is obviously false, since Boehner would not be speaker--nor would Romney be the presidential front-runner--if Republicans were completely dominated by the Tea Party.) When Erick Erickson is on CNN, I don't see him being presented as a mainstream conservative; rather, he is always introduced as editor of the RedState.com blog. (And I figure most people would realize that anyone who manages a blog called "RedState" would be extremely conservative.) To me, CNN's idea of mainstream conservatives are contributors like Ari Fleischer and Alex Castellanos. I actually see Roland Martin--somebody who is as big an Obama supporter as any talking head on MSNBC--consume considerably more airtime on CNN than Erickson does. What's the problem with Democrat Claire McCaskill? If it wasn't for her vote, ObamaCare would have never become law. Honestly, any Democrat to her left would be unable to win a statewide election in Missouri. (Would you rather nominate somebody more liberal, only to have that individual lose to the GOP nominee?) I guess I should apologize in jumping to assumptions/conclusions, but almost always when I see Democratic criticism of McCaskill, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, etc., it is because they are not liberal enough.

I've seen liberal criticism of CNN that it is conservatively biased in the past, and I've seen conservatives slam CNN for being liberally biased. If a news organization is regularly getting attacked from both the right and the left, it's quite possible that it is one of the most objective news sources out there. However, I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis that Romney is far from guaranteed the nomination. LOL, Brian!!!

Don't feel bad about being unable to abstain from this thread, Roman. A few months ago, I intended to take a long break (from the thread), but then came running back after a few weeks. It it just too hard for many to abstain from talking politics for any long period of time. (I give Qfan massive props for being able to have done so, though I do miss him.) Cain's just not ready for prime-time. Even before this, the fact that he "joked" about having an electric, barbed-wire fence along the border is evidence that he lacks the necessary discipline needed to rise to the top. If this harassment story does not go away soon, Perry and Santorum will benefit greatly, since many of Cain's supporters will most likely flock to one of these two men.

This is funny: after giving me yet another lecture about the dangers of knowing how members of one political party will behave, you then accuse/imply that Republicans are actively suppressing the black vote in the south. True. But unlike most other politicans, however, Obama--and his supporters--claimed that he would be above such behavior. Thus, a higher standard should apply to him. Of course there's always a couple of exceptions, but it is fantasy to suggest many partisans haven't acted the way I previously suggested (in regards to sexual harassment charges) since Clarence Thomas first became famous.

According to Wolf Blitzer, Democrats are already panicked over the prospect of having to face political weakling Romney: http://situationroom...acks/?hpt=hp_t2 I'm really glad that the president is a man of true integrity. Thus, I guess we can pretend the following events never happened: *Obama stating in 2006 (on "Meet the Press") that he wouldn't run for president, only to change is mind. *Obama and McCain entering into an agreement whereby each would abide by the limits of public financing, only for Barry to decide the exact opposite the moment he got the nomination. (And as a consequence, Obama's campaign had four times as much cash as did McCain's.) *Obama pledging to end politics as usual, only to then engage in more of the same. *Obama promosing to close Gitmo, but then breaking said promise. *Obama claiming to be on the side of Occupy Wall Street, while taking the money of Wall Street power brokers at the same time.

Here's the full story: http://politicaltick...riate-behavior/ These allegations are very serious. However, the thing that always makes me LMAO is that partisans/ideologues have a complete double standard when it comes to these things: When a member of the opposite political party is accused of such behavior, the assumption is usually made that such allegations are likely true; yet when a member of one's own political party is accused of such behavior, these allegations are immediately decried as a "political witch hunt." Now after having made the above statement, I would not at all be surprised if (1) I am accused of pandering, or (2) presented with an argument that such allegations are more serious when made against GOP politicians because they impeached Clinton "for having an affair" (even though that is a blatant re-write of history, since Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath).

Brian, I'm curious as to your opinion of Jerry Brown's governorship thus far. I personally feel that any governor of California--Democrat or Republican--is doomed to failure because of a combination of that state's proposition system, lopsidedly liberal legislature, and illegal immigration problem.

I really appreciate this statement, Alphanguy.

Brian and Roman, thank you so much for your kind words. Once again, I'm sorry if I ever misrepresented your viewpoints.

Brian, you certainly do not come across poorly in trying to express your thoughts. And if I have misrepresented your views (or that of Roman's), it wasn't intentional (and I apologize). I do have core political beliefs, but I am willing to change them if new evidence comes to light that suggests such beliefs might be wrong. (For instance, I was long opposed to gay marriage, not because I was bigoted, but because opponents argued that if gay marriage was legalized then polygamy could be next. When this did not happen--in the states that legalized gay marriage--I changed my opinion on the issue.) We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter, but I think that being willing to change your mind on some issues doesn't make you weak, but rather makes you stronger and more open to reason. (In fact, Ronald Reagan himself did a major about face when he opposed Medicare and other forms of big government after spending decades championing the New Deal. Did he change his mind just so that he could pander to a certain crowd?) You are certaintly entitled to believe that I'm just trying to be a moderate, but I personally know that this is not the case. At this point, however, I don't feel that there is anything I can say or do to convince you (or Roman) otherwise, but I am open to your suggestions.

I'm not holding MSNBC to a different standard; I'm just pointing out hypocrisy when I see it. You've seen me criticize Fox News before, and I'll do it again by pointing out that their talking heads are hypocritical when they advocate for smaller government yet push for increases in defense spending, or for government regulation of morality. I refuse to adhere to an ideology (knowning that both conservatism and liberalism are both badly flawed), and therefore expect to get attacked from both you and Brian. That's fine with me. So, you mean to suggest that most of those Occupy Wall Street protesters prefer Fox News or CNN over MSNBC (and that I was lying when I indicated the opposite was true)? If that's the case, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. I apologize for being "arrogant," but failing to acknowledge the obvious is just downright insulting. I know that you like to lecture me (as you are entitled to do) about not painting people with a wide brush, but it would be equally as absurd to suggest that most of the Birthers weren't racists.

I'm sure Buffett has made charitable contributions, Roman. What I am not so sure about is if any of these charitable contributions were given to the government. Furthermore, on Berkshire Hathaway's corporate income tax returns (which are separate from Buffett's own personal income tax returns), I'm willing to bet almost anything that Buffett and his accountants took advantage of just about every possible legal tax deduction. Buffett may be personally liberal, but a major reason why he has become such a huge success is because he is skilled in reducing the costs of doing business. However, for argument's sake, let's assume that Buffett did indeed give extra money to the government (from his personal wealth). I highly doubt the same can be said for every Hollywood celebrity who also adheres to the liberal philosophy that the wealthy pay too little in taxes. With all due respect, I really don't see how this is a relevant counter-argument. That's because neither CNN nor Fox News markets themselves as the network for liberals, nor are they the news network of choice for most of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. (Yes, that's an assumption, but if you're intellectually honest with yourself, you know it's a damn good one to make.) MSNBC, on the other hand, features its talking heads praising this movement while--at the same time--is part of a company that gets much of its financing from Wall Street. To me, that is the height of hypocrisy.

Brian, I hope that this makes some sense, but after some conservatives did those stupid things, I did begin a period of introspection where I questioned the entire ideology, and I found some logical inconsistencies in it. For example, how is it consistent for one to be opposed to government spending and yet be unwilling to cut the defense budget? Likewise, how can conservaties claim to be tough on illegal immigration if they constantly sing the praises of a president who granted amnesty to three million illegals back in 1986? Thus, after realizing the inconsistencies in conservatism, I then decided to no loger be an ideologue. (I still hold right-of-center viewpoints on most issues, but am willing to consider the liberal solutions if they make sense.) I want to assure you, however, that my above comments (knocking conservatism) were not made in an effort to pander to the liberal crowd here. Liberalism itself has tons of logical inconsistencies in it, three of which are as follows: *Many liberals claim to be huge proponents of the First Amendment, yet don't seem to realize that this means bigots have the right to make hate speech. *Liberals preach how "evil" Wall Street is, yet have no problem watching MSNBC (whose current and former owners--GE and Comcast--get much of their financing from Wall Street) or supporting Obama (who received huge amounts of money from Wall Street fat cats). *Wealthy liberals like Warren Buffett claim that they don't pay enough taxes, yet seldom (if ever) give more of their money to the government (in the form of charitable contributions), which they are free to do. There's only one ideology that's consistent: libertarianism. While I am not a libertarian, I give these folks credit for always being consistent: according to them, there should be as little government involvement as possible in the economy, in defense, in our social lives, and in the bedroom.

Kylie, it's not as simple as defeating Obama, but with him around for another four years, we're guaranteed to have a crappy leader. If we replace him with a moderate Republican such as Romney or Huntsman, perhaps there is a chance for the economy to improve. I have no major delusions, however; like you, I realize our political system will be unethical and dirty no matter who controls the presidency or Congress. (This is why I still am amazed why so many people--and I am not suggesting that you are one of those people, Kylie--were gullible enough to believe Obama's "hope and change" message back in 2008.) I really don't believe that Bush's track record is any worse than Obama's, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. However, assuming that what you said is true, it really doesn't have any relevance in predicting what type of job Romney or Huntsman would do as president (given that they happen to be in the same political party as Bush). I remember back in 1992, Republicans were telling everyone not to vote for Clinton because of the horrible experience the country had when a Democrat (Carter) was last president. Telling people to vote against the GOP in 2012 because Bush was such a s#itty leader is just as "logical" as what Republicans were saying back in 92.