Rules of Politics, #163

If you are talking to the media about a timetable for a decision on whether to stay in a race, you're dropping out.

Herman Cain said he will decide within a week whether to remain in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and plans to consult with family this weekend after allegations of an extramarital affair surfaced earlier this week.

"A week from now I will have made a final decision," Cain said on Fox News Wednesday afternoon.

In the interview, Cain said "obviously my wife was very disappointed and hurt" by the allegations.

Also, this snippet from Politico regarding Mark Block's glaring incompetence and self-absorption is also delicious.

As the (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's) veteran political reporter Craig Gilbert recounted in a reconstruction of Cain’s curious Wisconsin trip, Block called the Journal-Sentinel two days before the visit to offer up the candidate for an editorial board sit-down.

The strategy behind such an interview? Unknown. But Cain does reveal in the Gilbert piece why he was visiting the state in the first place.

“My chief of staff and my assistant, they wanted to go to a football game, and I said yes!” Cain told the paper, referring to Block, a Wisconsin native, and another aide.

So in addition to attending a fundraiser in Milwaukee, Cain trekked to Wisconsin to attend a tailgate party and Green Bay Packers football game.

To Herman Cain's credit, he's either too naive or too honest to conceal Block's idiocy.  Has Block been to Disneyworld yet?  No?  Let's send the candidate to Orlando, quick!

Walker sets right tone on recall

This is the right tone to take.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is facing a possible recall in his state, showed no signs Wednesday that he was fazed by voters who want him ousted.

Touting the economic growth and lower taxes that the Badger State has seen under his leadership, Walker said in an interview with CNBC that he would “look forward” the chance to campaign on the reforms he has put in place.

“If come next May or maybe early June, if they actually have the signatures and it forces a new election, all of those issues will be up on the ballot. But I look forward to that,” he said. “I’d love to have the chance to talk to the voters of Wisconsin again to tell that story.”

If you're staring down a recall election, you might as well put yourself in a position of strength and invite the challenge.  To the extent a candidate tries to litigate, delay, or disqualify signatures, it's always a sign of weakness.

After all, if you're confident you can win, it doesn't matter if 750,000 people sign a petition once or one person signs it under 750,000 names.

Democrats see the writing on the wall.

It may not be enough to save Obama in 2012, but slowly jettisoning blue-collar white voters is the right demographic play for the future.  Says Thomas Edsall...

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

Blue collar whites with a high school education are a dwindling portion of the American electorate.  It's a demographic being attacked on both fronts.  More white kids are going to college and moving into knowledge-based careers, and there's less demand for blue-collar workers in America.

These voters are angry and economically afraid right now, and for good reason.  Many of them are older and lack the economic mobility to move into a new career path should their jobs disappear.  Unfortunately, the thing that would best serve this bloc of voters - a more protectionist economic policy - also runs contrary to basic conservative economic principles, which tend to value the free market as being the best vehicle for consumers to obtain value.

By ceding this voting bloc to the GOP, the GOP will be left to continue fighting its own internal battle between free-market intellectuals and those who wish to pander to what these disaffected voters really want: old school populism under a new coat of paint.  It's the Mike Huckabee crowd.  Rural, blue collar, either socially conservative or socially ambivalent, and not particularly enamored with Wall Street.

The question then for the GOP is simple.  If you want to make a stronger play for that demographic, how can you be the party of protecting blue collar labor when you're also the party of the business owners who are eliminating their jobs through productivity gains or moving those jobs overseas?

Something's developing at DWD...

I'm just not sure it's the workforce.

Madison - An official with the state Department of Workforce Development who was dismissed in October said she had earlier filed a harassment complaint against a secretary of the agency.

A week before she was terminated, Administrative Services Administrator Allison Rozek sent an email to one of her bosses saying he had avoided her for two weeks and met with her staff multiple times without her present. She asked if his treatment of her was related to her filing a harassment complaint against former Secretary Manny Perez or her "prior connection" with then-Secretary Scott Baumbach.

Five days after she sent the email, Baumbach resigned as secretary, and Gov. Scott Walker appointed Deputy Secretary Reggie Newson as the head of the Department of Workforce Development. Three days later, on Oct. 27, Newson let Rozek go.

Less than one year in and DWD is already on its third secretary.  Guess we'll see about the fire, but who can be surprised that there's a little smoke here?

Friedman on Obama

I've never much understood Thomas Friedman's popularity.  He writes the same book over and over and somehow has spun it into a role as one of the wise men of the Republic.

Anyway, he's right today about President Obama.  If a president is getting his lunch eaten by Grover Norquist, he's probably doing it wrong.

The president will never get the near-term stimulus through that he wants and that the economy needs without combining it with a credible bipartisan, multiyear deficit-reduction plan like Simpson-Bowles. Moreover, “a free-standing stimulus that is not combined with a credible multiyear plan that truly stabilizes our fiscal imbalances would not solve our problems,” argues Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “because if nobody knows what is waiting around the corner, after the stimulus runs out,” many people will just take that money and stuff it in a mattress “rather than in investments or spending.”

Obama aides argue that so many G.O.P. lawmakers are committed to making his presidency fail, or have signed pledges to an antitax cult, that they would never buy into any grand bargain. I think that is true for a lot of Republicans in Congress. But I have some questions: Why are the Republicans getting away with this? Why are so many independents and even Democrats who voted for Obama sitting on their hands? Obama owns the bully pulpit of the presidency and he’s losing to Grover Norquist?

Some black people, like some white people, can be conservatives...

And some black conservatives, like some white conservatives, can be racist, xenophobic idiots.

(Herman Cain) did have a slight worry at one point during the chemotherapy process when he discovered that one of the surgeon's name was "Dr. Abdallah."

"I said to his physician assistant, I said, 'That sounds foreign--not that I had anything against foreign doctors--but it sounded too foreign," Cain tells the audience. "She said, 'He's from Lebanon.' Oh, Lebanon! My mind immediately started thinking, wait a minute, maybe his religious persuasion is different than mine! She could see the look on my face and she said, 'Don't worry, Mr. Cain, he's a Christian from Lebanon.'"

"Hallelujah!" Cain says. "Thank God!"

The crowd laughs uneasily.

I wish those conservatives who are still supporting this crackpot could have the awareness to realize how badly Cain hurts not only conservatives, but by extension their message, when he says crap like this.

Just because Herman Cain is black doesn't mean you can't call him an idiot.  He's not an idiot because he's black.  He's an idiot because he's an idiot.

Hillary, please.

There's an article in today's Wall Street Journal from two Dem pollsters who believe the party's only good path forward is for Obama to shelve himself in favor of Hillary Clinton.

I would, of course, not disagree.  I am not a fan of Obama and never have been.  But this article reminded me of all the naysaying I got on a post I wrote nearly four years ago that read in part as follows:

Obama tries to distract voters by using the word 'hope' in every other sentence. Like the magician, he waves his right hand wildly to distract you from his left hand - a left hand which holds a message about America that is profoundly negative and pessimistic. In speech after speech, Obama builds his rhetoric around the theme that anyone who is facing adversity in life should basically throw in the towel because the institutional obstacles that exist are far too great for any of them to overcome.

By blaming government for everyone's ills, he first liberates anyone from actually assuming any responsibility for their own lot in life. His is the message of victimization, the same one we've heard for ages from the far left reaches of American politics. He then immediately offers a solution: vote for me and let me do it all for you.

Don't kid yourselves. It's not really "yes, we can." It's "yes, I can." It's not "we are the change we've been waiting for." It's "I am the change you have been waiting for."...

And so the Playground endorses Hillary Clinton, because at least she talks to you like you're not in the crowd at a grade school assembly. She will acknowledge that change is not easy, that wishing for something or believing in something doesn't magically bring it into existence. She knows that come January 21, 2009, Republicans aren't going to roll over and go "oh gee, Barack, I can't believe we've been so wrong about all of this for so long. You're right, together we can do it... your way, of course."

Hope is easy, the opiate of the ignorant, downtrodden masses. Just turn your television on some Sunday morning, and you'll see a whole bunch of charlatans peddling hope. Walk through a Barnes & Noble and pick up some book by a guy with greasy hair and bonded teeth, like Joel Osteen or Anthony Robbins. They'll be happy to sell you hope for $24.99 plus tax.

Solutions are hard. And not only is Obama light on solutions, he has absolutely no idea how to get America to the utopia he's promising in vague, abstract terms. He sells hope because it's easy. He sells hope because it's the only thing he's got.

To which lefty readers responded...

"you and Owen... have serious Obama-derangement syndrome. You're as hysterical against him as you claim his supporters are hysterical for him. He scares you to death. Why? Because he IS the candidate who would change things."

"I personally plan to vote for Obama because I want a change of politics and a change of policy and he's the only candidate left that brings both. Clinton brings liberal policies and no change in tone. That's unacceptable to me."

"Obama shows great promise to bring out the best in America. He doesn't pretend to claim he can do it all by himself and that is why he says "WE". He will allow America to believe in itself again."

Three years in, and I think I'm confident enough at this point to say that I was right.  Can anyone truly keep a straight face and defend the Obama presidency as being decisive or effective?  The leadership and heavy lifting on Washington's only major initiative, health care reform, was punted to a Democratic Congress and only when passage became clear did Obama try to take his victory lap.  And there's a fair chance that whole thing is going to wash up on the rocks next summer.

I'm not saying any of the GOP options are fantastic.  They aren't.  It's possible some people will vote for Obama fearing a Republican president with a Republican Congress would be awful.  It's possible that might be enough to get Obama a second term.

But really... can anyone cast a ballot saying "I'm voting for President Obama because I think he's doing a great job?"

Hell hath no fury...

... like that of a self-righteous, socially conservative windbag who's been blown off by the GOP frontrunner.

Bob Vander Plaats, leader of an anti-gay marriage movement in Iowa, lashed out at Mitt Romney today for skipping a presidential forum that hundreds of evangelical conservatives will attend on Saturday.

“Mitt Romney has dissed this base in Iowa and this diss will not stay in Iowa,” Vander Plaats told Fox News today. “This has national tentacles. … This might prove that he is not smart enough to be president.”

Anyone who's smart enough to avoid a forum that will likely devolve into nothing more than gay bashing and fetus worshipping is plenty smart enough to be president.  Let Santorum and Bachmann fight each other for that tin crown.

Is the answer on the ceiling?

Because Herman Cain's sure looking at it a whole lot.

The Anti-Midas touch?

Last Thursday, Dad29 said "Cain is both an outsider AND extremely likeable. Not liking Cain is damn near impossible, and the outsider cachet is very powerful, indeed."

As Cain continued to drop the ball in terms of handling the sexual harassment allegations against him, Dad29 said this Tuesday that "Cain's problems will lead to a Perry nomination."

Tonight, we got this from Rick Perry:

Now, I can joke about this, as I've never voted for a successful presidential nominee.  I too am the kiss of death.  So Dad29, when are you going to recognize your gift and start saying nice things about Mitt Romney?

Two years later, is another party overreaching?

I'm not one to think that one night's election results portends some dramatic shift in the electorate.  But in light of the dramatic thumping of anti-union legislation in Ohio, or the rejection of a personhood amendment in socially conservative Mississippi, or the defeat in Arizona of anti-immigration crusader Russell Pearce in a special election by a Republican candidate with more moderate opinions on the issue, it's hard not to ask some questions.

I don't know that last night means that people are eager to suddenly embrace Democrats.  The American populace has had electoral PMS since 2006.  It's crabby, it's irrational, it cries a lot, it feels bad for itself.  It hates Republicans, so it votes for Democrats.  Then it decides it hates Democrats, so it votes for Republicans.  There's a real lack of clear-minded consistency out there among voters.

However, I do wonder if some of what we saw last night isn't a sign that, just as Democrats did in 2009, Republicans also made the mistake of viewing their big win the year before as some kind of mandate for change as opposed to taking it as merely a sign of frustration with the other party.

(Also, I don't buy that what happened in Ohio necessary translates to bad news for Scott Walker.  In the end, you can't beat the incumbent with the often-polled generic candidate.  The Democrats still need to find a willing and competent body to carry the torch, and until that happens I think speculation is pointless.  If the Democrats are dumb enough to think they've got so much momentum that they can win with someone like Dave Obey, I think they're nuts.)

Question of the day

Who needs competent, professional PR and crisis management services more: Herman Cain or Penn State?

No, no you're not.

I know Mark Block seems to think he's done talking about Herman Cain's myriad of sexual harassment allegations.  But here's some free advice: if you tell the media you're done talking about something, that doesn't mean they're done talking about it. 

And especially if Gloria Allred smells blood in the water.

High-profile attorney Gloria Allred appeared on CNN's "The Situation Room" Monday to defend her client, Sharon Bialek, who accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of inappropriate sexual behavior in a Monday press conference.

At the Friar's Club in Manhattan, Bialek became the first woman to publicly accuse Cain of sexual harassment. Bialek said the incident happened after she was let go from the National Restaurant Association and sought Cain's advice for a job. She said, "Instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg, up my skirt, and towards my genitals." She said that when she protested, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO asked, "You want a job, right?"

While I know some of you delusional conservatives don't want to hear it, let me spell it out for you clearly.

Herman Cain is done.  In terms of your own credibility, you should be less concerned about whether Herman Cain is the next Clarence Thomas and more concerned that he's the next Tiger Woods.  You remember Tiger?  The wheels came off the marriage, and once his first mistress came out, a dozen others wanted the spotlight as well?  What are the odds they were all lying?  Probably not so good.  Same here.  What are the odds there's this much smoke and not a fire somewhere?

It's okay though.  You can always ditch Cain for Newt.  I think that's the one horse on the merry-go-round you haven't ridden yet, and he's probably the most qualified candidate in the field.  As usual, the only way you'll make a good decision is if you stumble bass-ackwards into it.

The Justice League it's not.

CANNES, France (CNNMoney) -- The leaders of the world's most powerful economies have agreed on an "action plan" to boost economic growth and strengthen the global financial system, according to an official statement from the Group of 20.

That's an interesting definition of pro-family.

The Family Research Council would like to salute Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) for his "unwavering support of the family."

Republican Rep. Joe Walsh was the only Illinois congressman to be named a “True Blue” member of Congress for “unwavering support of the family” by the Family Research Council Action committee Thursday.

Walsh’s ex-wife says Walsh owes more than $100,000 in back child support for their three children. Walsh counters that he and his wife had a “verbal agreement” that he didn’t have to pay child support during years when he wasn’t earning as much.

His ex-wife also contends that while being too poor to pay child support, Walsh also loaned his congressional campaign $35,000 and developed a fondness for international travel.

Proving once again that to conservative interest groups, it doesn't matter how you live your life - it only matters how you vote...

What is it about Herman Cain?

A few days ago, Nate Silver explored the interesting phenomenon that is Herman Cain's campaign.  That is, that Cain polls well in spite of candidate skills and organization that would generally point to him being a second or third-tier candidate.  His current handling of sexual harassment allegations is just the latest evidence that he's either not politically savvy or that his message is not being well managed.

Cain's certainly a catchphrase-happy candidate, but in appearances and debates, it becomes quickly evident that Cain isn't particularly well-versed in dealing with actual substance or nuance.  He's certainly less capable than many of the people sharing the dais with him.
 

So my question is this: if Herman Cain were white, would conservatives as a whole tolerate him as much as they do?  Or would Cain have long since been kicked to the curb, like Michele Bachmann?

By no means am I suggesting that Cain is not sincere in his beliefs, or that black people can't be conservatives.  But I do wonder if, given Cain's obvious weaknesses as a candidate, conservatives aren't cutting him a lot of slack because they either recognize that Cain's skin color is a potential asset, or because they are hyper-reluctant to criticize any black conservative.

Funny that a party that wants so badly to think it's blind to race might be affording Cain special treatment precisely because of it.