Thanks to leaked emails form the DNC and the Hillary for President Campaign we now know that scores of elite media reporters essentially work for them, coordinate with them, and even submit their stories to them for approval before handing them over to their editors.
Some are pretending that two weeks before an election stories of women claiming they were groped by the Republican candidate is some how something new. The allegations against Herman Can who ran for president in 2012 were demonstrated to be false and orchestrated by David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s campaign manager.
Powerline takes us in a short trip through memory lane:
Today’s news is dominated by claims that years ago, Donald Trump made crude comments about women, or inappropriately touched women, or intruded into a women’s dressing room, and so on. Gone from the campaign are such issues as the economy, Obamacare, national security and immigration. As Election Day approaches, the news is all Trump scandals, all the time.
Some will say–I may have said–that Republican primary voters asked for it by nominating a man with obvious personal vulnerabilities, instead of a more upright (and more electable) Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz or whoever.
But what’s a Republican to do? Last cycle, we nominated the ultimate Boy Scout: Mitt Romney. Whatever you think of Romney from a policy perspective, he is as admirable a man as you will ever meet. To find a presidential candidate of better moral character, you probably have to go back to Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Romney never said a rude word about a woman in his life.
So what happened? Did Romney and the GOP get credit in the press for the candidates’s outstanding character? No. Romney, who helped to create tens of thousands of jobs at Bain Capital, was denounced as a “vulture capitalist” and blamed, absurdly, for one woman’s developing cancer. The Washington Post made a front page story of the fact that 50 years earlier, when he was in high school, he and others had cut a classmate’s hair. Oh, and Romney was a racist, too. Does anyone remember why? I don’t.
The cycle before that, GOP voters nominated John McCain. McCain is a great patriot, a man of extraordinary character and courage who survived years of torture and abuse as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Did the liberal media give Republicans credit for nominating such a hero? No. The New York Times, to its everlasting shame, peddled a false rumor that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. (Bill Clinton would have done that before breakfast.) It also berated McCain for failing to release his medical records–which, actually, he did, unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
The Left’s permanent smear campaign against conservatives doesn’t just extend to Republican presidential candidates. Recall how the Democrat/media complex treated the Tea Party. Prominent House Democrats lied, disgracefully: they claimed, falsely, that Tea Party activists at a protest in Washington had hurled racial insults at black Democrats like John Lewis. The press ate it up. They printed the Democrats’ lies as facts, and to this day reporters and editors have never corrected the libel, even though a $100,000 prize to anyone who could substantiate the Democrats’ lies went unclaimed.
Hillary said that women who claim to have been abused deserve to be believed. To that we say sure, unless they turn out to be false.
The difference between Clinton’s accusers as opposed to the Trump accusers is that the Clinton accusers have been corroborated. They have been not just investigated by the press, complete with witnesses some of which were on the Clinton’s security detail, but they have been investigated by the courts and the House of Representatives. Bill Clinton lost his law licence and had to pay a large settlement to accusers like Paul Jones.
The Trump accusers, as you can see by our coverage and others, is that the accusers stories are not substantiated, with most already falling apart. Witnesses they claimed would back them have done the opposite, key facts of their story ended up being incorrect and one accuser even fashioned her accusation using the lyrics of a song. Even the Huffington Post is reporting these with skepticism warning that the accusers stories are not substantiated.
Here we have an email dated January 7, 2016 between Bill Clinton’s Attorney David Kendall, Hillary’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta, Hillary’s, Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, Deputy Communications Director Christina Reynolds, and her Press Secretary and former Obama Justice Department Press Secretary Brian Fallon.
The email has attached documents from David Kendall with opposition research on rape victim Juanita Broaddrick and Kendall ends the email with “Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide about this slimefest”:
“When we were doing the debates Newt and I used to talk and we could relate and I would listen to what he would say and I listened to what Romney would say. I would say Newt is definitely closer to Reagan,”
[Note, this story is stickied to the top of the page as it is our feature of the week. Please scroll down to see new posts and updates!]
by PoliticalArena.org Editor Chuck Norton
Sometimes beltway wisdom can reflect certain truths not apparent to many nice folks in “fly over country”, but often the beltway wisdom caters to government largess and the message can be sold to large donors and bundlers.
Inside the beltway, insiders from both parties treat small government conservatives as “extreme” because all of them make their money from government largess either directly or indirectly. There are also factors that swing the public that those inside the beltway never get exposed to. The greatest example of this was in 1976 and in 1980 when “insiders” believed that Ronald Reagan was a joke, a stupid B-movie actor whose eloquent speeches about the dangers of communism, socialism and collectivism should have went out with the 1950’s. Now those same pundits claim to be the very fathers of his success. While some of the names of the insiders and pundits have changed, the beltway mentality has not.
Please examine these comments from the insiders poll at National Journal and enjoy my comments which will appear in red.
The Gingrich Moment has yet to catch on with National Journal‘s Political Insiders. Despite former House Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s surge in the Republican presidential nomination contest, overwhelming majorities of both Democratic and Republican Insiders still say former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the better shot at beating President Obama in 2012.
[This is what the left and the elite media say. They said the same thing about McCain and Dole. The elite media is essentially the Democrat media complex, so if Mitt Romney is so much of a threat why are they avoiding piling on and trashing Romney like they have the other candidates? In each case where the most “moderate” candidate was considered the most electable the Democrat campaigned to the right of the GOP nominee and won. When there is a bold difference between the two candidates the conservative Republican wins.
Some insiders know this and are simply rooting for the two candidates who are most likely to guarantee continued government largess. Other insiders start out with the best of intentions, but end up adopting the very mentality that they came to DC to change in the first place. Having been to DC events I can tell you that the temptation to meld in to that mentality is highly seductive. Make no mistake, the media and the White House want to run against Romney and several White House staffers have let that leak out. They believe that the same strategy the GOP used against John Kerry in 2004 can be used against Mitt Romney. They also believe that Obama can fool voters by campaigning to the right of Romney’s record. They will say that Romney talks like Reagan, but governed like Dukakis. Obama will also run against what he will describe as a namby-pamby do nothing Congress that talks about grandiose reforms but ends up with a schizophrenic big government record like Romney’s. ]
For some of the Insiders, Romney’s well-oiled campaign and potential for moderate appeal gave him the edge.
[The well oiled campaign with huge state machines is not as overwhelmingly effective as it used to be for two reasons.
The first reason is that with the power of the internet and multiple 24 hours news channels voters have more unfiltered access to information and the candidates. Herman Cain had almost no ground machine to speak of, and the truth is that if it weren’t for his repeated stumbling when it comes to basic foreign policy questions and messaging, he would still be the front-runner. The allegations of sexual harassment by women, all of whom have direct ties to David Axelrod and the Chicago Democrat machine were so transparent, that most people were not swayed by them. The fact that the Cain allegations didn’t stick in spite of a massive elite media campaign to try to make them otherwise is yet another indicator of just how powerful new media really is (note, remember when Cain was asked if he would take a lie detector test about the allegations and he said yes? Only local media shared the results). A wealthy massive machine is no longer necessary to get a message out.]
“He [Romney] almost beat a liberal icon in a blue state and went on to win the governor’s race,” said one Democratic Insider. “He is a very strong general-election candidate.”
[And Newt nationalized a mid-term election, brought in a GOP majority in the House for the first time in 40 years, cut taxes, balanced the federal budget, created a surplus, and passed welfare reform with a Democrat President, yet our Democratic insider knows that. Also, since when has Massachusetts ever been a political gauge for the rest of the country? ]
“Mitt Romney is better positioned to speak to independent voters,” said another Democrat, “including key voting blocs like swing unmarried women.” A Republican strategist agreed. “Romney is more acceptable to moderate voters, especially female voters.”
[Nonsense. And this brings us to the second reason why massive state machines on the ground are not as effective as they used to be. Those machines were needed to get the attention of ordinarily more apathetic independent voters (and conservatives could not be more motivated already). Independent voters have been anything but apathetic since 2009. Independents are engaged and informed in a way I thought I would never see again in my lifetime. They are also far from what beltway insiders would consider moderate.
In questionnaires about civics and current events independents score almost as high as Republican voters, before 2009 they scored below Democrat voters.
In the 2009 state and local elections voters swung towards GOP/TEA candidates by 18 points in the key swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania. The independent voters in those key swing states were not energized by a “moderate message”. They were energized by the bold TEA Party message of Rick Santelli and Sarah Palin. In New Jersey the firebrand fiscal hawk Chris Christie was elected governor.
In 2010 GOP/TEA Party candidates swept the elections in nine of the top ten swing states. For the first time since 1984 when Ronald Reagan won 49 states, traditionally independent and slightly left leaning voters such as women and Catholics voted Republican by big numbers. There is no way that anyone could say that they were energized by Mitt Romney or anyone like him. Florida, which Obama won, tossed out their own Republican Governor Charlie Crist who was a wishy-washy Mitt Romney like moderate, and replaced him with reaganesque Marco Rubio. Governor Crist tried to take the independent vote away from Rubio by running as an independent and guarantee the Democrats a win, but independent voters such as women and Catholics voted for Rubio by significant margins.]
Other Republican Insiders named Romney as the stronger candidate, but couldn’t muster much enthusiasm about the prospect.
“Romney’s shape-shifting might not be appealing for conservatives in the primary, but he’s far more disciplined than Gingrich and is the only candidate that can win in November,” said one Republican.
[Romney is more disciplined, but not as disciplined as one might think, already since the debates started Romney has changed his messaging and positions. What is the bold Romney vision for America other than “I’m not Barack Obama and don’t I look sweet on TV? Also Newt has come back from the early missteps in his campaign with a new discipline and has avoided his previous academics ways of getting himself off message with excessive nuance.]
“Mitt Romney will be hard to hate in the general for the same reason he is hard to love in a primary,” said another Republican. “There isn’t much ‘there’ there, so the spotlight will gravitate to Obama. Romney makes it a referendum on Obama; Gingrich makes it a choice.”
[Indeed, 1980 could have been a referendum about Carter, but Ronald Reagan went out of his way to make it a choice. Gingrich gives you something to vote for.]
Concerns about Romney’s charisma led a small number of Insiders on both sides of the spectrum made the case for Gingrich as the stronger Obama opponent. “Romney seems like he is the most formidable on paper and in debates,” said one Democrat, “but the American people will struggle to take to him, just as the Republicans are struggling to take to him.” “The president’s money will dwarf ours,” warned a Republican strategist. “So our candidate must frame his message more clearly and forcefully. That’s Newt’s strength and that’s Romney’s weakness.”
[Hey someone in DC is thinking! Obama and his team led by David Axelrod will try to mottle everything, change history, and make the facts into a soup until people don’t know what to think. Newt has the boldness and razor like clarity in his presentation that can cut through the nonsense.]
Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are for Mitt Romney. Why?
Ann & Laura are singularly focused on Romney’s ability to speak and have been quite up front about this when discussing it.
I understand their point of view, but I do not totally agree with it. During the Bush administration while I was getting my latest degree at IU, I had to constantly defend what the administration was doing right because the administration made almost no attempt to articulate it themselves (with the exception of hiring Tony Snow).
This became very tiresome and was a reason why the GOP got pasted in 2006 and 2008. Since communication is the life of Ann and Laura (and it is my life too) I see how their point of view can be so unbalanced.
When George W. Bush was debating John Kerry can anyone honestly say that Bush dominated Kerry in any of those debates? Yet Bush still won convincingly.
The want to have Romney for the reasons stated is defensive in nature. Just as the Democrats picking Dukakis was defensive, picking Mondale was defensive, and picking Kerry was defensive. They were all picked because the Democrats “settled” on who they thought was “electable”. The GOP did this with Dole and McCain and today many “insiders” want to follow that line of thinking for 2012. Don’t be fooled.
Ann and Laura had a conversation on The Laura Ingraham Show and agreed that Mitt Romney will never be as conservative after the primary as he is now, and he will not be as conservative in the White House as he would be in the General Election. They both laughed and said how it will work out great for them because they will have yet another [liberal] Republican that they can make fun of for four years.
The state of the country is so dire that we no longer can afford the luxury of having a president talk radio can make fun of.
Cain, who last week stumbled over questions about what he would do in Libya, seemed to know little about Cuba. His campaign kept reporters at bay, and when asked about the Cuban Adjustment Act and the so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy, Cain seemed stumped. The policy allows Cuban immigrants who have made it to US soil to stay.
“Wet foot, dry foot policy?” Cain asked. His press handlers interrupted as Cain diverted his course and ducked back into the building. Later, when he emerged, he was asked again by another reporter. Cain wouldn’t answer. …
Cain, though, wouldn’t talk to reporters there, either. A FOX reporter asked Cain what he thought of President Obama’s easing of travel restrictions to Cuba. Cain said that was a “gotcha question.”
I realize that I am a politics junkie as are most readers of Political Arena, so it is perfectly understandable that we know what Clinton’s Castro hugging “wet feet, dry feet” policy is. What is not understandable is how Cain’s staff let him go to South Florida without being up to speed on Cuban policy from the last 20 years? I can make this one pretty easy for our friends in Herman Cain’s staff. The policy stinks. The very notion that someone who risked their life to flee Marxist tyranny should be sent home because they were found by our Coast Guard is not just immoral on it’s face, but costs lives. People making that perilous journey in what ever boat they can make or find should not be but in further peril by trying to avoid the United States Coast Guard. Herman Cain talks about putting a solid team together when he gets to the White House. This does not inspire confidence.
On a 1985 Washington, D.C., dinner with her date, the then single former Sen. Chris Dodd, and dining companion, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy:
“So, having recently graduated completely healed and normal from my first stint in a rehab, and appearing in an almost perfectly respectable piece of work, I found myself driving from Baltimore to Washington, D.C., to have dinner with Chris Dodd, this senator who I knew virtually nothing about. Nor did Senator Dodd — like most people, then, now and always — have any idea who I was in the wide, wide world beyond this cute little actress who’d played Princess Leia.”
“Suddenly, Senator Kennedy, seated directly across from me, looked at me with his alert, aristocratic eyes and asked me a most surprising question. ‘So,’ he said, clearly amused, ‘do you think you’ll be having sex with Chris at the end of your date?’ … To my left, Chris Dodd looked at me with an unusual grin hanging on his very flushed face.”
Her reply: “‘Funnily enough, I won’t be having sex with Chris tonight,’ I said, my face composed and calm. ‘No, that probably won’t happen.’ People blinked. ‘Thanks for asking, though.'”
His retort: “‘Would you have sex with Chris in a hot tub?’ Senator Kennedy asked me, perhaps as a way to say good night? ‘I’m no good in water,’ I told him.”
Karen Kraushaar currently serves as a communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department, a position she has held since last year. She did not return phone messages left by The Daily.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.
Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar’s complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.
To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
UPDATE II – Television legend Bill Kurtis explains how Sharon Bialek worked with him at CBS. He said that she has [with emphasis] “a history” and that from his experience the roles in the car between Bialek and Cain were likely reversed.
More updates are being posted so be sure to scroll down to examine them.
Martha MacCallum, FOX News: “One of the things is that you lived at a 505 North Lake Shore Drive apartment, right? This is the same building, it happens to be the same building David Axelrod lives in. Do you know David Axelrod? Ever have any interaction with him at all?
‘She’s a complete gold digger’: Murky past of Herman Cain accuser starts to emerge.
Fiance of Sharon Bialek says he is supporting her but did not find out until Friday
Filed for bankruptcy twice
Accused former boyfriend of harassing her to pay a loan
Cain appears on Jimmy Kimmel saying he will fight the accusations
Father found out about allegations on Monday
A ‘gold digger’ embroiled in legal and financial difficulties who has always lived above her station and will do anything to never have to work again.
This is the portrait that has started to emerge of the fourth woman to accuse Herman Cain of sexual harassment – the first to come out publicly.
Though her lawyer Gloria Allred painted a respectable and prestigious education and employment history for Sharon Bialek, 50, just a day later it has been revealed that she has not held a job for more than two years and has filed for bankruptcy twice.
… In stark contrast to Mr. Cain’s four decades spent climbing the corporate ladder rising to the level of CEO at multiple successful business enterprises, Ms. Bialek has taken a far different path.
The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances – which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred.
In the courts, Ms. Bialek has had a lengthy record in the Cook County Court system over various civil lawsuits. The following cases on file in Cook County are:
· 2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management
· 2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
· 2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
· 2005-M1-111072 Defendant in lawsuit against Mr. Mark Beatovic.
· 2007-M1-189176 Defendant in lawsuit against Midland Funding.
· 2009-M1-158826 Defendant in lawsuit against Illinois Lending.
Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV). Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011
In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001. The respective case numbers according to the PACER system are 1:01-bk-22664 and 1:91-bk-23273.
Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years. Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011
Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago.
Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?
The questions should be – who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions?
UPDATE I– Bialek will not rule out selling her story or trying to make money off of this.
[There are MANY updates. Please scroll down to examine them. Steven Tucker has found two people who saw Bialek approach Cain after his speech at TEAcon (not before as they said in the presser), but no one in the Chicago TEA Party seems to know who she is or seen her before and as you will see by the details, this story gets stranger by the moment.
The updates are getting more and more interesting Bialek faced multiple liens including an IRS lien in 2009. See update VI. Bialek is described by Gloria Allred and the elite media as a TEA Party Republican, yet her voter registration status is inactive. See Update VII.
We would like to point out that a $35,000 termination agreement 15 years ago with an anonymous accuser who, when allowed to break confidentiality by the National Restaurant Association decided to clam up, is a big deal to the elite media. But Bill Clinton paying $850,000 for real sexual assault and harassment against Paula Jones is no big deal and the dozen other women who came out and told a similar story were all “nuts & sluts”. Who was president 15 years ago?
Eye Witness to the Cain-Bialek encounter at TeaCon: They hugged, “flirtatious”! Bielek applied for a job at WIND Radio See Update IX
After Nine updates we are starting a new thread HERE – Editor]
When Sharon Bialek said that he was with Herman Cain at the Chicago TEA Party event with Herman Cain I reached out to one of the key voices and leaders of the Chicago TEA Party C. Steven Tucker and he says “I did not recognize her Chuck and I was there all weekend.”
I have been reaching out to my other friends in the Chicago TEA Party and so far no one recognizes her. Gloria Allred portrayed Bialek as a TEA Party Republican. Having seen her picture Bialek is not someone who goes unnoticed easily.
Tucker comments further:
I have spoken at Tea Party events ALL OVER Chicagoland including TeaCon Midwest 2011 where Gloria Allred says her client “confronted” Herman Cain. I have never seen nor have I ever even heard of a Sharon Bialek.
Bailek has not been seen at any other TEA Party events. Even if she had gone to just one, why go to the one with Herman Cain and no others? It makes no sense.
Sharon Blailek said that this happened in 1996 so where was Blailek when Herman Cain was running for Senate in 2004?
We have been doing internet searches on Sharon Bialek. Her linkedin and all social networking/employer networking sites where her name appears seem to have been scrubbed. When you are telling the truth, why make the attempt to scrub your past? [Note: Her LinkedIn profile is back – Editor]
Speaking of not making sense, why would a supposed Republican TEA Party activist/sympathizer call a known leftist hatchet man like Gloria Allred, as any association with Allred would impune her credibility?
Why would being with Gloria Allred impune Bailek’s credibility?
Gloria Allred, in an attempt to smear California candidate for governor Meg Whitman, exposed her ‘client’ Nikki Diaz to felony charges of forging a Social Security document, tax fraud, identity theft because she had assumed another persons identity, exposed her to deportation, fines and prison, all for asking to be paid mileage for a couple of times when she had to drive to carry out her duties, even though she was paid $23.00 an hour; all for a political smear. And where is Nikki Diaz today?
In this video attorney and Fox News anchor Greta van Susteren takes Gloria Allred to task for misrepresenting the ‘evidence’ she claims to have and for exposing her client to great jeopardy without sufficient cause.
Famed attorney Mark Levin also goes after Allred on the same angle in this interview. This interview is very revealing as Allred does everything she can to keep changing the subject away from the pertinent legal facts.
This is what disbarment is for.
It gets better. Here is Gloria Allred defending the illegal groping by the TSA. Allred said that she enjoyed being groped by the TSA.
When Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick, both Democratic Party activists, were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton they reached out to Gloria Allred and Allred was not interested in helping them.
Here is Gloria Allred demonstrating anal sex with a baseball bat in front of children.
The Media Research Center takes us back to how the elite media treated the 23 women who spoke out against sexual harassment, assault and even credible rape allegations against former President Bill Clinton – LINK.
UPDATE I: This is really indicative of the elite media reaction to this story. Just the stats as of 11-6-2011 via Law Prof. William Jacobson:
Days as of 8 p.m. Eastern today since Politico broke the story – 7
Politico news stories about or mentioning “Herman Cain“: 138
Politico news stories about or mentioning “sexual harassment“: 91
Politico news stories about or mentioning “sexual harassment” not involving Herman Cain: 0
Politico news stories showing what Herman Cain actually did: 0
Politico news stories showing specifically what Herman Cain was accused of: 0
Percentage drop in Herman Cain favorability rating as reported by Politico: 9
Politico news stories about or mentioning “Solyndra“: 9
Politico news stories about or mentioning “Fast and Furious“: 3
Politico news stories about or mentioning “unemployment“: 17
Politico news stories about or mentioning “recession“: 14
I would like to add –
Number of stories quoting an accuser by name: 0
Number of specific allegations made as far as conduct: 0
Former Marietta Mayor Bill Dunaway reports that he was called by reporters this week from the Associated Press and The Washington Post, both trying to dig up dirt on embattled presidential candidate Herman Cain of Georgia. The reporters had somehow heard that Dunaway is former owner of The 1848 House restaurant in Marietta and had been in the restaurant business while Cain was president of the National Restaurant Association.
“They each wanted to know what ‘bad’ things I had heard about him and what ‘bad’ things the NRA members thought of him. I disappointed them in that I neither knew nor heard any bad rumors about him,” Dunaway emailed AT’s Bill Kinney.
“The press is really working hard on Herman,” he concluded. No question about that.
UPDATE III – The Chicago TEA Party is investigating:
Tucker found someone who saw Blailek at TEAcon. Via Steven Tucker:
Chuck, please add this to your blog post. AM 560 WIND General Manager Jeff Reisman and AM 560 WIND morning Radio Personality John Howell witnessed the conversation between Bialek and Herman Cain AFTER Herman’s speech at TeaCon Midwest 2011. Bialek had the timing wrong, but she did indeed talk to him after the speech. John Howell was on the nationally syndicated Micheal Medved show this afternoon talking about it – they’re trying to get Bialek to come on WIND this afternoon to talk about it.
Says Tucker, I can personally guarantee that this woman is NOT a “Tea Party Person”.
UPDATE IV – Sharon Bialek starts a Facebook page today.
With all of my contacts in the Chicago Area at this time we have no mutual friends, that includes Chicago TEA Party leaders. This leaves next to no doubt, she is not a TEA Party person as she has been portrayed by implication.
Chicago TEA Party lead activist Steven Tucker, who has 5004 friends, has not one friend in common with Blailek.
Note: Fake Sharon Bialek profiles are now appearing on Facebook. Since one of the friends on the profile linked seems to be a Facebook.com editor it seems more likely than not that this is her new profile. The question of the day is what happened to the old one. She has LinkedIn so it is most unlikely that she had no previous profile before today.
UPDATE V – Bialek goes on a media tour. Here she is on CNN with Piers Morgan. I encourage everyone to watch the video. Bialek is grinning rather strangely while explaining how she was ‘abused’. They had hotel suites and yet she says that it happened in the car? Who tries to make it in the car when you have a hotel suite?
UPDATE VI – Bialek faced multiple liens including an IRS lien in 2009
Amy Jacobson witnessed the Cain/Bialek encounter a month ago while backstage at the AM 560 WIND sponsored TeaCon meeting in Schaumburg Sept. 30-Oct. 1 at the Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center.
◆Quoth Jacobson: “I had turned on TV to find out who was Cain’s accuser, and I almost fell over when I saw it was Sharon Bialek accusing Cain of groping her genitals.”
“I was waiting for Herman Cain’s ‘Accuser No. 4’ to surface — and up pops Sharon!”
“I couldn’t believe it. I was shocked.”
“I recall Sharon was hell bent on going backstage at the TeaCon convention — where she cornered him,” said Jacobson.
“I was surprised to hear she claims she did not know Cain was going to be there. Cain was expected and was late.”
Bialek told the media on Monday: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”
◆The encounter: “It looked sort of flirtatious,” said Jacobson. “I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”
◆The introduction: “It all began when I took a convention break and joined my pals at the hotel bar. Sharon was drinking Mimosas with them. She said she was a Republican, a Tea Party member, had once dated [White Sox sports announcer’ Steve Stone] and had worked at WGN radio.”
◆The rendezvous: Sharon also said she was anxious to meet Cain again and had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago. But she never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.”
◆The upshot: Bialek has since applied for employment in sales at WIND radio and is scheduled for a second interview Thursday.
[Editor’s Note: Remember that Newsweek knew about Monica Lewinski and decided to try to kill the story so it was leaked to Matt Drudge. In the case of John Edwards many in the elite media knew about the affair, but all of them decided to cover it up until the National Inquirer broke the story.
Remember, the quality of the propaganda (read bullshit) is MUCH higher this election season. That is because it used to be aimed at Independents who started counting yard signs two weeks before an election. New attitude change propaganda is aimed at people sympathetic to the TEA Party which is most Independents. TEA/Independents are more politically informed so the new propaganda is smarter and designed to target conservative sensibilities as well as people’s cynicism about government, so the lies from the hired political communications guns are based on variations of truths you have heard before. It is very effective.]
The video below is a textbook example of how to do an interview and deal with a false accusation. Cain’s reaction over the weekend was to challenge the elite media to name names, who are these anonymous sources?
Notice the elite media’s reaction to an accusation by anonymous sources, buy a known bogus hit piece writer from Politico (Vogel), compared to how they reacted to multiple women who spoke out against Bill Clinton including credible claims of rape (Juanita Brodderick) and sexual harassment/assault (Paula Jones, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and the list goes on) and not to mention multiple affairs (Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinski). In the case of Bill Clinton they circled the wagons and attacked the women. The Democrats and the elite media even very personally attacked Linda Tripp who was simply a witness who told the truth about the evidence she had.
After the Clarence Thomas attack there was a surge of bogus sexual harassment suits in the 90’s. Anyone who was a CEO would/could be a target of one. It is called a harassment suit.
Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rick Perry, Herman Cain. Notice that the attacks came out when each one of these people was at their peak.
Yesterday was Herman Cain’s best fundraising day ever.
Now the Elite Media is crying “cover up”. The Cain Campiagn are staffed by political noobs whose messaging was muttered for the first daywhile they were trying to figure out from who and where this anonymous allegation came from.
The Cain Campaign has always done this when faced with a new issue or critique. It takes them a few days to get their footing just as it did on his Israel comments, abortion comments, answer to Homosexuality questions, the comments about not having Muslims in his administration etc. No one should be surprised that it was the same way with this curve ball.
The elite media doesn’t want to talk about the allegation because their story is a joke and from an anonymous source. So the elite media watching the story become about the Politico reporters who havce posted made up quotes in hit pieces before about SAarah Palin and others, have decided to move the goal post and interpret Cains messaging problems on a “cover up”.
According to witnesses in the incident Cain is aware of all he did was tell someone that they where about as tall as his wife and brought his hand to his chin, so she filed a harassment suit saying that Cain made a gesture that made her think of oral sex. Some official at the NRA paid her a small sum of money to go away. Harassment suits happen a lot. But here is the rub, since it is an anonymous source with few details Cain can not be sure if this is the incident or not.
Nice catch 22 isn’t it? If it is about this incident than there was no sexual behavior at all and this means nothing, if it is not this incident it is from an anonymous source with next to no details so it still means nothing, in both cases there is nothing to cover up. Like we said, this is just the elite media moving the goal post because if they talk about the allegation the story becomes about the liberal reporter who has a history.
Networks Hype Vague Cain Charges, Ignored Sexual Harassment Claims Against Clinton
The three networks have aggressively covered vague charges of sexual harassment against Herman Cain, but brushed aside far more serious and specific claims against Bill Clinton.
Since the Herman Cain sexual harassment story broke late Sunday night, the broadcast networks have covered it extensively: full stories on Monday’s morning news shows (ABC’s Good Morning America led off their broadcast); full stories on Monday’s evening news shows (the CBS Evening News made it their top item) and ABC’s Nightline; and the top story on all three Tuesday morning shows.
Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Monday hyped the story as a “bombshell blast” and on Tuesday he derided Cain’s “bizarre series of interviews” on the subject. On Tuesday’s Early Show, Jan Crawford highlighted how Cain has been “trying to shoot down these allegations.” NBC’s Matt Lauer gloated that the Republican was “finding out the hard way about the attention that goes along with being a front-runner.”
Cain’s accusers are still anonymous. Three women publicly accused Bill Clinton of far more serious instances of sexual harassment in the 1990s, but the networks all but ignored them. The coverage that did exist was often skeptical, insulting and hostile, an astonishing double standard.
– Paula Jones, who accused Bill Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room when she was a state employee in Arkansas, held a public press conference in February 1994, CBS and NBC ignored those charges, while ABC devoted just 16 seconds to Jones’ press conference.
As a January 29, 1998 Media Reality Check pointed out, “The rest of the media waited three months, until Jones filed suit, and the networks then did just 21 stories in that month.”
Appearing on the late Tim Russert’s CNBC program, then-Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw dismissed, “It didn’t seem to most people, entirely relevant to what was going on at the time. These are the kind of charges raised about the President before.”
In the Jones case, the networks were openly disdainful of covering her accusations. “It’s a little tough to figure out who’s being harassed,” NBC Today host Bryant Gumbel smugly asserted (May 10, 1994).
After ABC’s Sam Donaldson interviewed Jones for Prime Time Live in June 1994, anchor Charles Gibson wanted to know: “Why does anyone care what this woman has to say?”
Gibson continued to pile on, adding, “Bottom line, Sam: Is she not trying to capitalize on this, in effect to profit from impugning the President?”
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, who sometimes appears on the networks to offer analysis, derided Jones as “some sleazy woman with big hair.” (This was on the May 7, 1994 Inside Washington.)
– In the case of Kathleen Willey, who said Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office while President, the networks gave minimal coverage to that story when it was broke by Newsweek magazine in late July 1997.
On July 30, 1997, the CBS Evening News aired a story, but managed not to mention Willey by name. Reporter Bill Plante warned, “But unless and until this case is settled, this is only the beginning of attempts by attorneys on both sides to damage the reputations and credibility of everyone involved.”
– In the case of Juanita Broaddrick, who publicly came forward to say Bill Clinton raped her while he was the Arkansas Attorney General and a candidate for Governor, the networks offered weekend coverage in March 1998, when the charge surfaced in a court filing by Paula Jones’ attorneys. NBC interviewed Broaddrick for a Dateline special in January 1999, but the airing was delayed until February 24, 1999, after the end of Clinton’s impeachment trial.
In the first five days of Hill’s charges (October 6-10,1991), the network evening shows (on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and PBS’s NewsHour) aired 67 stories. (If a count began with Jones’ February press conference, the networks supplied just a single 16-second anchor brief; if the count began with her sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton in May, the number was 15.)
But in the first five days after Juanita Broaddrick has charged the President with rape in The Wall Street Journal (February 19-23), the number of evening news stories was two. That’s a ratio of 67 to 2.
Is it any coincidence that each conservative candidiate from the last several elections was attacked when they peaked in the polls? Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain (remember how Sarah Palin was attacked?).
When you look at the history of minorities who ran as Republicans such as Michael Steele, Allen West, etc the Democrats in every case use the worst personal smear tactics against them, including releasing their social security numbers and personal credit information.
Remember Miguel Estrada who was picked by President Bush to be on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals? Democrats said in their leaked Judiciary Committee memo’s that they must smear and defeat him “because he’s Latino“.
And surprise surprise, the attorney for said un-named source is Joel Bennet. Most people do not have any idea Joel Bennet is. He was the head of the DC bar, and a co-chair of the National bar Association. Bennet is a big time power lawyer in DC and was even featured in Super Lawyers magazine. So who do you suppose is bankrolling this guy? You can be sure that it is not a former staffer at the National Restaurant Association.
Notice how Clinton says that it will work because it means that everyone in the business will have to raise their prices the same so it all works out; no it doesn’t. Clinton is engaging in a false assumption that destroys smaller competition and benefits the biggest players in a market.
Cain is explaining that “big pizza” has a higher base percentage of profit, based on both volume and on economies of scale, that gives them lower costs and higher aggregate profitability compared to smaller competitors. While Godfathers has a profitability of 1.5%, “big pizza” has a profitability that is likely close to 6%.
So what does this mean? If Clinton gets his way “big pizza” will not raise their prices at all, on the contrary they will have a sale and keep that sale on till smaller outfits like GodFathers who are forced to raise prices and reduce service via layoffs can’t compete and shut down. At first the barely profitable stores close, then the better ones. The result is more and more markets where “big pizza” progresses its virtual monopoly in each market. With that competition taken out of the picture “big pizza” can charge whatever it likes and prices go up, and the pressure to keep quality up starts to evaporate.
Big business loves big government, which is why big business loves domestic taxes and regulation because it keeps the small and medium-sized competition out of the competition. It also causes inflation, so ultimately it is you who pays and the poor who are hardest hit. (Big business often gets loopholes written in the laws for themselves such as Nancy Pelosi trying to get a part of the tuna industry exempted from the minimum wage law).
UPDATES (See Bottom of post for details) – Glenn Beck: Romney lied in the debate
New York Post: Romney not authentic, pandering
Fox News: Polling dictates Romney answers…
In the debate Romney trashed Rick Perry and takes the position that you cannot be too against illegal immigration, but he was talking amnesty with Tim Russert:
Live Blog by PoliticalArena.org editor Chuck Norton:
Perry opens up with setting an environment to help get small business hiring – points 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Perry: Texas was the number one state for relocation for five years in a row.
Mitt Romney opens up by attacking Obama on his job crushing policies – very smart. “Regulators have to be allies to business not foes”…
Romney is trying to walk the fence of the class warfare game. – We need to bring wealth home and dodging Brett’s question about that does not inspire confidence.
[Note – Romney had an opportunity to take on Obama’s recent push on class warfare he and he totally waffled. Romney’s answer fell somewhere between the non-committal committal and the non-denial denial. This is really indicative of a man who is making political calculations and is not standing on principle. This really bothered me.]
Bachmann goes after Obama on the “Out of every dollar I earn how much do I deserve to keep” question.
Federal Right to Work Law Question – Santorum goes after over reaching government unions – but the feds already took such bargaining away from the federal govt unions under Carter.
Newt: Unemployment should be tied to a business training program.
Huntsman targeted by Chris Wallace on his idea to subsidize natural gas…..and my internet freezes… so I did not hear the rest of his answer. OK – He favors it to ‘get the ball rolling’, so long as there is a quick phase out so it isn’t a long term thing…
Herman Cain on his 9 9 9 plan. Throw out the tax code totally. Romney wont toss out the tax code and start over and that dog wont hunt says Cain. Cain is absolutely right. The tax code is such a mess and so hard to comply with right now that modifying the edges of it will not help really fix the real problem which is the tax code itself.
How to get teeth in the 10th Amendment – Ron Paul says that he would veto every bill that violates the 10th amendment – It sounds great in theory, but that radical of a change so fast would be a huge shock to the economy. It would have to be phased in over time. There are just better answers to this question.
Gary Johnson gets his first answer. I promise, I promise list of goodies. Gary is a nice guy and pretty smart. I have had the pleasure of talking with him personally. He wants the Fair Tax. He needs to work on his charismatic approach IMO but a nice answer.
Megyn Kelly quoting Newt: Sure of course he is (a socialist) LOL I love it. Romney – I have news for Obama, European socialism isnt working for Europeans so stop trying to use it here.
Huntsman – this is the worst time to be raising any taxes and everybody knows that. We have structural problems with our tax code. Now huntsman is pretty much quoting the Obama deficit commission plan, which is actually a pretty good plan, which is why Obama ignored it.
Our friend Lee Doren in the debate with a question!! What department would YOU eliminate?? Herman Cain – we need to start all over on these departments like the EPA- he is right. More Cain – we need to use the Chilean model on Social Security – “The solution is FIX IT” – Herman Cain is GREAT at ‘make sure you are addressing the RIGHT problem’.
Newt – once again he refuses to accept the premise of the media figures question. Newt announces a NEW Contract with America – Far Deeper, far bolder, far more profound. Newt: Obama’s socialist policies..,. SMACK home run.
Newt just wowed the debate again.
Education Question: Gary Johnson – the department of education actually costs us more money than it spends. Santorum agrees saying “The federal education system doesn’t serve the customer” Great answer Rick. Newt Gingrich wants Pel Grants for K-12 – he obviously believes that the public schools have failed. Ron Paul – if you love your children get the govt out of public education, people need a right to opt out of the public school system when it is failing.
Rick Perry – comes out for school choice praises everyone on stage and slaps Romney for praising the “Race to the Top” program which is a regulatory disaster. Notice Romney does not deny what Perry said. Romney is dodging…. Romney just praised Arne Duncan /facepalm [Arne Duncan and ‘Race to the Top’ are both a disaster, if you do not know why I will be happy to explain in comments below – Editor]
[UPDATE – More on the education issue and Romney added in the update section below.]
Huntsman – I signed the second voucher bill in the United States. I have actually done something about this. Localize, Localize, Localize.
Bachmann asked the illegal immigration question – Should each state enforce the immigration laws because the feds will not. Wallace said that laws like Arizona’s are at odds with the Constitution – that is NOT so. The courts have said that the states can enforce federal law as long as the state law mimics it and the AZ law does.
Newt: E-Verify is a mess with massive fraud. Visa and Mastercard could run E- Verify better. Newt is right that E-Verify as it is now is useless. The federal govt keeps that program a mess.
Romney goes after Perry on in state tuition in Texas. Perry – only 4 dissenting votes in legislature on his tuition law – Perry is Right about this guys.
The accusation: Perry wants to hand ‘in state’ tuition to illegals who just waltz over the border…This particular “in state tuition for illegals” accusation is an easy one to bust when ALL of the facts are considered. WHY?????
The bill did not give in state tuition for all “illegals”, it gave it to the children of illegals who graduated in good standing from Texas high schools. The difference is a huge moral gulf. I am fine with punishing illegals who had illegal intent when crossing the border in the middle of the night.
What I am NOT willing to do is punish their children who could not control who their parents are or what they did. The very idea of punishing someone for the acts of their parents, or of continuing punishment via bloodline is morally repugnant to many good people, including myself. Would you want your kids to suffer for what YOU did, as a politician would you want to take the position that the children of those who do wrong should “pay”?
The very idea of “criminal intent” goes to the very fabric of our rule of law and of our legal procedure back to the earliest days of the common law. No case can be made that the kids of those illegals had criminal intent.
This policy is way better than having them go on state and federal welfare rolls. By the way, said students who get in state tuition have to had come out from the shadows and be on a path to citizenship
Foreign policy question – time to watch Ron Paul blow himself to bits … IF he gets asked the Iran question. He doesn’t get asked.
On Israel: Romney – you do not have an inch of space between you and your allies. Romney pounding Obama on his trashing of Israel and sucking up to Hamas. Well done Mitt. “It is unacceptable for Iran to be a nuclear state”.
Herman Cain – I like peace through strength so my policy would be “Peace Through Strength & Clarity”. Very good answer.
Perry on the Pakistan nuke question “Where do you start”? Perry answers that you begin with Pakistan’s neighbors who are our allies. – Good answer. Santorum says stabilize Iraq and then goes after Ron Paul. He obviously does not want to see RP as the nominee.
Newt: If the country is not your ally why are you giving them money? Newt says that the world could become dramatically more dangerous in a short time.
Gary Johnson – the biggest threat to our national security is that we are bankrupt – he was wise to ignore the stupid Cuba question at first. Cuba doesn’t matter right now.
Santorum: Just because our economy is sick doesn’t mean that our values are sick – /smacks Huntsman hard and lectures him on Obama’s stupid rules of engagement. [It is true that the rules of engagement that our soldiers are operating under are ridiculous and made by a pack of lawyers. They cost lives – Editor]
Bachmann is right on the separation question. Separation means that the US Govt should not be run as a Church of the United States, not the idiocy that the courts are engaged in now. Her constitutional interpretation is spot on.
Santorum on the gays in the military question – His answer is spot on. Folks, anyone who leads with or defines himself with his sexuality is making a mistake. Sex should not be an issue so soldiers, liberals, activists should not make it one.
Ron Paul on the day after pill – the rape question – we have too many laws already and the “day after pill” is just too hard to enforce a ban upon.
Perry: the fed govt has no business telling the states how to educate our children.
Cain on ObamaCare – I suspect that he is about to whack it out of the park….. he does. Herman Cain – I had stage four colon and liver cancer. ObamaCare would have resulted in delays in tests and treatments. The only reason I survived is because I got treated on MY timeline and not the federal governments. Great answer.
YouTube question from Ian McDonald – “I have a heart condition” – asks about the new provision for kids to stay on parents policies till they are 26 [Note – this was a GOP idea a long time ago and that was included in ObamaCare in an attempt to call it “bipartisan”]. Huntsman: lets have the states engage in experiments. In Utah we have a state backed catastrophic policy that can be a supplement to private insurance [This is also a long time GOP idea by the way].
Chris Wallace goes after Bachmann on the HPV causes retardation question. – Bachmann is spinning because the day after the last debate she doubled down on this issue . Bachmann is going after Perry on the Merck donations issue – the issue is a total red herring. Bachmann gets donations from Merck’s competition and those donations are more than what Perry got. Perry reminded us on the opt out and gave a touching story. Perry is trying a rise above strategy – it may be working.
Perry on Romney’s flip flopping. Sorry Mitt, but Perry is right about that. Romney has a cute line about experience to get this country going again, but he is shying away from substance and trying to go charismatic. It is already starting to get a tad old [Note – I am trained in political communications, including deception and propaganda, so I am more sensitive to the game Romney is playing. I am not sure regular folks wont fall for this tactic. I hope not].
Via Doug Scheon and Pat Caddell: Perry is winning the polling on Fox News on immigration – toldja 🙂
Question: How to jump start the turn around once elected:
Huntsman – good specifics on energy.
Herman Cain – the problem is a severe lack of confidence in leadership – great point and one that should not be underestimated. – Reagan, shining city on a hill – Cain is doing very well tonight.
Bachmann – first thing to do is repeal ObamaCare – its a good point because domestic business is scared to death of it, while the internationals love the idea so it can eliminate their domestic competition.
Romney – restore trust in the Oval Office
Perry – energy independent, repeal ObamaCare, reform the tax code,
Ron Paul – fix the Federal Reserve problem in creating market bubbles – Good point.
Newt Quoting Reagan – “When Jimmy Carter is unemployed it is a recovery”. Awesome.
Santorum – We need to remember who are are as Americans and we have a president who does not understand what America is all about. Obama is the new King George III who believes that things need to be dictated to on high. WOW
Gary Johnson – My neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this current administration. More – Balance the budget now, not 20 years form now. Do it NOW. Toss out the tax system and start over.
The Running-mate question:
Johnson picks Ron Paul.
Santorum – I would pick Newt.
Newt – I do not know yet but would be capable. Newts audio flaked out so I missed part of his answer.
Ron Paul – I defer
Rick Perry – I want to merge Herman Cain and Newt and make him VP 🙂
Romney – there are a couple images I am going to have a hard time getting out of my mind. Any one up here would be a great president or VP.
Bachmann – a solid conservative she says. Then she has a good moment saying, (paraphrasing) “Every 4 years we are told that we have to settle. I do not think that is true. We need a candidate who represents constitutional conservatives especially since Obama’s numbers will be even more in the tank come election time.”
Cain Hints using a non verbals that he is open to be asked for the VP spot and says – If Romney throws out his bad jobs plan and adopted 9 – 9 – 9 I could go for him, but am thinking Newt Gingrich.
Huntsmnan – I would pick Herman Cain.
END OF DEBATE –
Romney had his first decent night, but once again everyone had their moments. Romney and Herman Cain stood out as far as showmanship is concerned.
Doug Scheon said that the people are still ahead of the candidates. That is a very astute observation, but I think Doug missed Mitt walking the fence on the class warfare card because Scheon is a Democrat who does not understand GOP sensitivities on that issue.
Mitt’s fence walking on this critical issue has actually managed to lower my confidence in him, but he did raise my estimates of him communications ability. I think more voters caught onto that than the Fox News team realizes.
If I was on Perry’s communications team. I would have this theme and pound it:
Voters have had enough of candidates who talk a great game and then lack follow through when elected. You guys TALK about plans and job creation, but I do it every day and I do something none of you have done, and that is have the best job growth under the totally irresponsible job killing policies of this president. Talk all you want, I walk the walk when the chips are down.
I am becoming more convinced that Romney is not going to replace the tax code, he is not going to tackle the bureaucracy and regulatory reform except superficially. His vision lacks boldness. Every time Romney was asked to state a BOLD plan or vision for reform he gave platitudes and/or his weak-sauce “59 points job plan” answer. Even Herman Cain made it clear that Romney”s 59 points plan is almost a joke.
I discussed tonights performance with two communications professionals. One who is from out West and another who is a DC insider with many years of political experience.
I’m not liking Romney. Class warfare, the scare tactics and his flip flopping. I smell a John McCain all over. Conservative in the primaries and a moderate in the general & presidency. Perry needs to be specific and articulate more. My top three candidates so far are Perry, Gingrich & Cain. Santorum & Bachmann come off as bitter Perry haters, although I loved Rick Santorum’s smack-down on Ron Paul/Huntsman on foreign policy.
If Bachmann is so anti Obamacare, why is she not pounding Romney on Romneycare? If she’s truly principled, she’d hammer Romney instead of trying to pry back the Evangelical vote from Perry?[Answer: Bachmann wants Romney v Bachmann two man race, that is why.]
Thanks, Chuck…good honest assessment of candidates’ positions. Right on…exactly about the Fox News team of Caddell, Scheon, and Parino missing the point on Romney’s fence walking. Romney’s communications person (Eric Fehrnstrom) and his strategist are crippling him [in the long run as they may have done OK in this battle but will lose the war with the charismatics and the fence walking].
UPDATE – Glenn Beck comparing Romney’s book from 2 and a half years ago to the recently released paperback version (ironically called ‘No Apologies’).
Romney then: The stimulus will help some but could be better. RomneyCare could be a national model.
Romney now: Stimulus is a war against free enterprise. National health care of any kind is unconstitutional.
Glenn Beck just read verbatim from the two versions of Romney’s book. When Perry hit Romney for making these changes he said “I have changed no such thing” – Romney lied.
I am going over clips from the debate. When Romney praised Obama’s radicalized and failed Education Secretary Arne Duncan in the debate, Romney was saying that we need to have a teacher accountability program like Duncan has proposed (and will never see the light of day).
How many “teacher accountability” programs have we had? Tinkering around the fringes of our failed education system will not fix the problem. Herman Cain lectured Romney last night for taking that same approach to his economic recovery and jobs program. Cain always says, “Make sure that you are working on the RIGHT problem”. The problems are institutional in education as well as our regulatory structure. Much like the tax code, they are structurally flawed and tinkering with them will not solve the problem.
UPDATE II – New York Post: Romney an unauthentic panderer
Today’s New York Post after going through Romney’s statements found out that he was not being honest in much the same way we did.
And yet maybe Perry’s debate wasn’t all awful. Far from it. The thing is, debates aren’t only about performance; they are also about the way the interchanges reveal the character of the candidates — their political character.
Do they stand up for what they believe? Do they believe in anything, or are they just willing to say whatever their audiences want to hear?
And in that regard, Romney did not perform well at all.
In the opening of the debate, Romney went after Perry for statements in his book, “Fed Up,” about Social Security and the problems with the direct election of senators. And Perry lowered the boom on him. Romney, he noted, changed his line on his own health-care plan in the text of the paperback version of his book “No Apology.”
Words poured from Romney’s mouth like smoke from a wildfire. He zoomed through sentences impossible to follow as he tried to deny that he had done what he had in fact done, which was scrub his own book as his own position changed.
The speed with which he spoke recalled the flim-flam salesman Harold Hill, clouding the minds of innocent Iowans as he raced through the song “Trouble in River City” in “The Music Man.”
Even more telling, Perry hit Romney for speaking well of President Obama’s “Race to the Top” initiative, as implemented by Education Secretary Arne Duncan–which Romney absolutely did in Miami on Wednesday. “I think Secretary Duncan has done some good things,” he said, as reported by Politico. “I hope that’s not heresy in this room.”
Romney denied it–a huge blunder, because this contradiction can be thrown back at him daily until the campaign is over. And because it speaks to precisely the reason Romney has been unable to make the sale with Republicans despite his incredible persistence in wooing them over the course of five years. He comes across as false, somehow.
Is unprepared and graceless worse than smooth and false in the eyes of voters desperate for authenticity? I don’t think so.
UPDATE III – Dan Henniger at Fox News
A reader sent us the following note:
Chuck, Dan Henninger just referenced your sentiments on Journal Editorial Report on Fox. He said that Romney’s answers scream “Polling, polling, polling”. The sentiment from the panel is that Romney is a well polished panderer.
This does not surprise me, they did not want Perry to be first and Romney second. So they decided to put their votes behind someone with very little support in the general public to help diminish Perry. As was shown in the last debate, to the Romney camp everything is a political calculation and that is very revealing.
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X