Monday, October 31, 2011

Herman, Deny or Die! America understands Humor but hates lies

Without going into details, and regardless of what i think about the candidate or analyze the effect it might have on the Republican race over the next few months, here is why I think, a strong denial of the story is a necessary step to be taken for a candidate looking to become the next President of the U.S..

Following the publication of the story, Herman Cain's immediate response via his spokesman J. D. Gordon is troubling, not so much for the content of the statement which I very much disagree with, but with wavering away a strong denial of the story, portraying the Media as intentionally wanting to bring down Herman Cain to distract the American public from engaging in a serious discussion over his policies and tax plan, not only makes no sense, but raises serious questions on character and a sign of trying to hide something or trying to brush off some serious baggage Herman Cain might have hidden somewhere.

Here is Cain's spokesperson J.D. Gordon's statement:
“Since Washington establishment critics haven’t had much luck in attacking Mr. Cain’s ideas to fix a bad economy and create jobs, they are trying to attack him in any way they can,Sadly, we’ve seen this movie played out before – a prominent Conservative targeted by liberals simply because they disagree with his politics.."
And in a phone interview with Fox News, Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon repeatedly evaded questions about whether the trade group made payments to two female employees who expressed discomfort with Cain’s actions. Pressed by host Geraldo Rivera as to whether there had been any cash settlements, Gordon said:
"All I'm going to tell you is this is a typical attack…"
which reminds me of the Late Anthony Weiner in the early stages of the Wienergate story, in a awkward attempt to prove the media that the story is nonsense and that he was not who sent the pic, rather claim that his focus is on his Job in congress, telling this to CNN reporter Dana bash: "If I was giving a speech to 45,000 people and someone in the back of the room threw a pie or yelled out an insult, would I spend the next two hours responding to that? No. I would get back.."

and we all know who ate up the pie at the end.

All I can advise Cain is: Herman, if its not true,just simply Deny it and run..end of story.. if its true, don't blame the Media, blame yourself, make up a story, and spin it around...

America understands Humor but hates lies.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Republican presidential candidates staunchly united in support Israel, but who is realistic?

In exclusive interviews to Sheldon Silver's Israeli published newspaper - Israel Hayom, the Republican leading candidates for the GOP nomination seemed to agree on one issue - Israel, a expected campaign issue they all are staunchly united in support of israel.

Getting to know the candidate through the primary vetting process, its also interesting to examine each candidate's different approach toward this sensitive issue.

For example when it comes to an often made promise by previous presidential candidates promising to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, they all seem to be supportive of that idea, however Mitt Romney is the only candidate that chooses not to offer a direct promise.

While Herman Cain responds with a direct "I would... without any hesitation," Rick Perry restating his promise at the NY press conference: "if you want to work for the United States State Department under my administration, you’ll be living in Jerusalem. That’s as clear that I can make it. You’re the only country that I know of that has our embassy not in the capital city," Newt Gingrich going a step forward saying he would fire the entire State Dep. staff if the would object such a move, Mitt Romney took a very moderate and thin line answer to that question, leaving it wide open for discussion, promising that his "inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist".

Herman Cain in another Long way to go, showed his lack of knowledge of US foreign policy on a very important matter, a hawkish statement that might draw applause among the far right settlers in hebron, but would not reflect the traditional US policy,and undermine US influence as a broker for the peace process, by saying this: "I think that the 'so-called Palestinian people' have this urge for unilateral recognition because they see this president as weak"... hmmm... Imagine a President Cain at the UN.. even PM Netanyahu when he stood before the US Congress recognized that "The Palestinians share this small land with us".

At Least on Iran, all of them agreed that there must be a credible military option to force Iran to halt developing deadly nuclear weapons.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

A tough choice - Herman is loved, Mitt is wanted.......

finally it was a debate, enough material and red meat to feed the media until the next front-runner emerges, I was put off by the amount of personal attacks,but hey! there is no love between the candidates, and everybody is fighting over what looks like a winnable race.

Mitt Romney did something i wouldn't expect him to do, it cracked his presidential - running against Obama campaign gig, but it helped him in expanding his support base, and opening up a lead above 30 percent.

Last Night, Mitt Romney got Shvitzy.. he pronounced well the Jewish often used word: Chutzpa.. i don't blame him, after being thrown back time and time, as the party was searching for a Romney alternative,somebody that can steal away his so wished position,untill for a moment it looked like the mission of crushing down Romney came, Rick Perry the only candidate i thought can really beat the S..t out of Romney rose to steal the crown, yet after being exposed his image just started fading - he started looking like a sleepy Bush, after all these shaking up moments, Romney's hair still in place and  still standing his ground, the enthusiastic conservative base had no choice but to rally around the nine-(yes)-nine-(we)-nine-(can)  candidate - Businessman Herman Cain.

I can understand the frustration, this is a vetting process, hence the personal attacks on Romney i think went a lil too far,last night it just took another nasty hit - stabbing him right in his back, Rick Perry from one side, and Rick Santorum from the other side, both calling him a liar and a hypocrite.

I still think Mitt Romney is solid, he is viewed as the best candidate to beat President Obama, and in a time of crisis he is the guy that voters, not only those voting in the Republican primaries, think he can turn around things and fix the mess we are in, he may not fill a stadium of 20 thousand cheering supporters, and may not have the best speech lines or slogans, Yet Mitt Romney is a wanted candidate for the Job, not only a loved candidate (Like Cain) to take us through the election season with a chuckling smile over our face, or a shameful bowing head trying to cover up for gaffes made.

And here is another point: Yes, Mitt Romney was on the defensive last night, something i know is not helpful for a winning candidate, yet he stood his ground, because he was only defending his past, not his current offered proposals to lead this great nation, in a time that Herman Cain was forced to defend his offered solutions, and as always stumbled on Foreign policy, the burden of naivety we cannot carry on our backs for four more year, not to mention Rick Perry, trying to defend his Immigration policy and his support of TARP, in attempt to just climb back to the top.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Simple inquiry: Are You Better off than you were $4 trillion ago?

Yea let's talk about the Debt, and not about Wall Street for a minute.

President Obama says that taxing Millionaires and Billionaires is the way out of our economic crisis, lets do the Math:

Fact - according to the Social Security Administarion in 2009 only 78,000 individual American Earners had income over $1 million.

Fact - total Pre-tax income for + $1 million plus U.S. earners was $184 Billion dollars in total.

President Obama says if we made millionaires and Billionaires pay a little more it would help turn around the economy.

Fact - We are now paying almost $500 Billion a year in interest alone towards our enormous $14.6 Trillion dollar national debt.

Even if the U.S. Taxed its millionaires and Billionaires at 100% of their total aggregate income of $184 million, we would not even offset 50% of the Interest owed on our debt.

$184 Billion is less than 2% of our enormous $14,600,000,000,000 Debt!

Taxing millionaires is not the solution to our economic problems, any more than borrowing more money to spend on more government jobs is, Our problem is over-spending.

So if Obama and the Dems, oh and now their new movement the occupy Wall Street cause, want to point fingers and play the blame game, there are plenty to blame for starting the crisis, but we are living in the present and a look over to our future, President Obama is in office almost 3 years, and the simplest of the simplest way of fact checking his influence and responsibility of solving this crisis rather than making it worse is by examining our past and measure it with our present situation - The fact is that : President Obama Has Now Increased Debt More than All Presidents from George Washington Through George H.W. Bush Combined.

Here is a Worth reading article written by Terence P. Jeffrey on
"The Obama administration passed another fiscal milestone this week, according to new data released by the Treasury Department. As of the close of business on Oct. 3, the total national debt was $14,837,099,271,196.71—up about $44.8 billion from Sept. 30.

That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.

This $4.212-trillion increase in the national debt means that during Obama’s term the federal government has already borrowed about an additional $35,835 for every American household--or $44,980 for every full-time private-sector worker. (According to the Census Bureau there were about 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010, and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 93,641,000 full-time private-sector workers.)

When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.

At the end of January 1993, the month that President George H. W. Bush left office, the total national debt was $4.1672 trillion, according to the Treasury. Thus, the total national debt accumulated by the first 41 presidents combined was about $44.8 billion less than the approximately $4.212 trillion in new debt added during Obama’s term.

As of Monday, Obama had been in office 986 days—or about 32 and a half months. During that time, the debt increased at an average pace of $4.27 billion per day. Were that rate to continue until Obama’s term ends on Jan. 20, 2013, the debt would then stand at about $16.86534 trillion—an increase of more than $6.2 trillion for Obama’s four years.

That would equal nearly $53,000 for each American household or more than $66,00 for each full-time private-sector worker.

That total national debt did not exceed $6.2 trillion until 2002, when George W. Bush was president."
Best line of the season is from Sen. Jim DeMint on Twitter: “The real question for everyone is: Are you better off than you were $4 trillion ago
Americans should ask themselves: Are We better off now, than we were before Obama added the burden on us and our children - the $4 trillion in increased debt? is mass spending the solution towards our recovery? Americans vote out of their pockets, some say, Vote Smart, they say.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Romney is best choice for Republicans, because he's best choice as President

This might not be the most welcoming endorsement for Mitt Romney as he enters final countdown, eager to break to 305 support bloc, but a point said is a point made, and especially when it comes from a guy that has already abandoned the Obama sinking ship.

Here is what David Brooks, New York Times columnist writes on Tuesday:
Over the past several months, Mitt Romney has been an excellent presidential candidate. He has performed superbly in the debates. He has outorganized his rivals. He has relentlessly stayed on his core theme of putting Americans back to work. He has taken Rick Perry apart with a cold ruthlessness that is a wonder to behold.

The central problem is that Mitt Romney doesn't fit the mold of what many Republicans want in a presidential candidate. They don't want a technocratic manager. They want a bold, blunt radical outsider who will take on the establishment, speak truth to power and offend the liberal news media.

They don't want Organization Man. They want Braveheart.

The question is: Are they right to want this? Well, if they want an in-your-face media campaign that will produce delicious thrills for the true believers, they are absolutely right. But if they actually want to elect an effective executive who is right for this moment, they are probably not right.

Whoever wins the nomination will be leading a party with a cohesive ideology and a common set of priorities: reform taxes, replace Obamacare, cut spending and reform entitlements.

The challenges ahead are technically difficult...These are complicated issues that require a sophisticated inside game -- navigating through the special interests, building complex coalitions. They are issues that require executive expertise.

Romney's skills are not to be underestimated. Romney does not take excessive risks. He doesn't make decisions without advance preparation.

Romney may be able to guard against ideological overreach. Each successive recent administration has overread its election mandate. Romney may be inauthentic, but he is rarely overzealous.

Finally, Romney can be dull. Political activists like exciting candidates. But most people, who have lower expectations from politics and politicians, just want them to provide basic order. They want government to be orderly so they can be daring in other spheres of their lives. Romney is the most predictable of the candidates and would make for the most soporific of presidents.

It's exciting to have charismatic leaders. But often the best leaders in business, in government and in life are not glittering saviors. They are professionals you hire to get a job done...The strongest case for Romney is that he's nobody's idea of a savior..."
This brings me back to a phrase floating in my mind since i have been active in political campaigns, for the candidates to stress to voters - "when the mics are turned off, when the camera's are shut off, and the door is closed, I'll will sit in that room fighting for you, and working on your behalf"...

This is what i believe candidate Romney can assure all of us, yes his rallies might not draw such crowds as Obama and Palin in 2008 (depends who the VP pick is - a Herman Cain VP slot or Marco Rubio cud exit the base like crazy), he's not so slicky and so blunt as Christie, but here is the thing : when this campaign is over - Mitt Romney is trusted by most Americans as to be the man that can actually get the Job done and use the Oval office as an executive war room, not just as a campaign office, checking out Twitter updates on the secured Blackberry..

In a winnable election - Christie ran away from a risky run

Seth Mandel makes a great point in the Commentary Magazine:
"With Christie, there is much to lose by running for president and losing to Obama–or, far worse, losing the nomination fight. It will damage his re-election bid in New Jersey. It would probably put his reform agenda on hold during the election–a hold from which it may never resume.

It may be Christie’s moment....In many ways, he seems the perfect candidate for this election. But it must be asked: What if he loses?"
Here is why a Presidential run at this moment might not have worked out so well - Christie, as a blue-state governor and moderate, would have to split the conservative/Moderate vote between him and Romney, a base that has proven to be less eager to split, and a solid Romney that wasnt forced to open his war chest yet ,hard to beat (Rick Perry is the latest example). while not even getting the chance to destroy Perry and diminish Cain's rise from the right, which gives Christie a very limited space to make it to the finish line.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released today showed Christie winning only 11 percent of the Republican vote, in fourth place behind Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain, which is not too much of a welcome note - for a winner takes it all candidate.

Let's not fool ourselves, elections are risky, and even more riskier against an incumbent, nevertheless Obama as polls show is more than vulnerable, so to clam down the base so eager to win, all Christie should of done, and its better late than never (Palin - still hasn't decided...or not done with her teasing business) is, to come out there and tell those concerned citizens - Help is on the way - rally behind a running candidate , all of them attractive in some way, and march united to Victory... I'll be there to make sure we make it.

Monday, October 3, 2011

NY Mag profiles Eric Cantor - leading the Republican party as an efficient opposition

Speaking to my devastated friends right after the 2008 election, when it all looked so bad for the Republican party to revive, and return to power in the near future, most of them took James Carvile's assessment and confident prediction as as a reality to face and as a prophecy certain to become true, In a GMA interview following the publication of his new book, '40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation', Carville based his prophetic words on History: "the growing demographic is trending Democratic and, I think, we're probably on the verge of another 40-year era of party dominance here..."

I took them aside, tapped them on the shoulder and said: If the Republican Party will be smart enough, to take this opportunity to build itself up as an alternative to the President, by being a vocal united Opposition to the president's policies, fight over every bill, no matter how many hands will be raised in favor of those legislation's, let them pass only with the help of his fellow democrats, then the time will come, that the American Public will view them as their representatives to reject Obama's liberal agenda and job killing policies.. and fall back in the Republicans arms, to offer an alternative direction and fight on their behalf for that cause. (took that from my close follow of  Israeli politics experience playbook, Bibi's 2009 comeback).

Cantor took that advice and as it turns out, the election of Scott Brown in 2009 was just the start of that reemergence, followed by the midterm elections in 2010 with the takeover of power of Congress, and the starting point to a presidency and Senate takeover in 2012.

Here is the NYMag's description of Cantor's opposition role:
A few weeks after Obama won the White House, Cantor was elected House minority whip, the No. 2 seat at the Republican leadership table. The timing was not particularly auspicious. “It sucked,” Cantor says. “It was not a nice time to be around here. Faces were long, and people were upset.” With Obama’s approval rating up near the seventies, the question confronting Cantor and other Republican leaders was not whether the new president would be able to enact his ambitious stimulus package but how many GOP votes he would get for it. Some in the GOP—including, according to several sources, Minority Leader John Boehner—were fearful almost to the point of resignation that they would lose a sizable number of House Republicans. That’s when Cantor made a decision that has set the tone for American politics ever since: He made it his mission to deny Obama any Republican votes for the stimulus.

Cantor, with his finely tuned political radar, then picked up on—and, in turn, helped initiate—what has become the Republican Party’s most profound cultural shift: its belligerent intransigence. Cantor, as one prominent Republican told me, “is not a tea-party guy. He’s a business guy, a business Republican.” But he has managed to successfully elide this difference and, perhaps more than any other Republican in Congress, has politically positioned himself to take advantage of the GOP’s new obstructionist ethos.

Since the 2010 election, of course, Cantor has had a much more lethal weapon at his disposal, one that he played a major role in creating: the 87 freshmen who make up more than a third of the Republican’s House majority. In the run-up to the midterms, Cantor, along with McCarthy and Ryan, used their “Young Guns” candidate-recruitment program to find Republicans who could capitalize on the growing tea-party backlash against Obama and Washington. “We wanted to bring ‘cause’ people to Congress,” says Ryan, “not people who were looking for political careers.”
This is the Republican party i see emerging as the next ruling party, and to James Carville's dismay, its even expanding to overtake some Century long Democratic strongholds, NY9th CD special election on September 13th with the election of the first Republican to get elected in 90 years, Bob Turner was only the start.

Republican Presidential candidates talk Israel

GOP Hopeful (Former Frontrunner) Texas Governor Rick Perry got this week an extraordinary chance to express his position on Israel and the Middle east, not in a high profile appearance on national stage, but to a 10 year old girl in NH.

From the LAtimes:
Saturday in New Hampshire, Texas Gov. Rick Perry got a question he wasn’t expecting. Well, it wasn’t the question that was surprising so much as the person who asked it.

During a morning meet-and-greet in the banquet room of the Atkinson Resort & Country Club, a public golf course in a bucolic part of southeast New Hampshire, a little red-headed girl raised her hand.

“What is your policy on the state of Israel?” asked 10-year-old Maya Levine, a fifth grader at Atkinson Academy, the second oldest co-educational school in America. Maya had come with her parents and little brother, Ilan, to hear the aspiring Republican presidential nominee.

“Our allies do not know where America will be on any given day because of the muddled, aimless, wavering foreign policy that we have coming out of the White House today,” Perry said.

“Iran is one of the great problems in the Middle East, They are, I would suggest, the greatest threat to the future of Israel. And in ‘09, we naively were having conversations with the Syrian and the Iranian governments, rather than supporting that civil uprising in that country.…We should have been using everything that we had available -- our diplomatic abilities, our economic sanctions, overt, covert and civic -- to impact and help overthrow one of the most oppressive regimes that there is in the world, and we failed.”

“The idea that the Palestinian Authority was at the U.N. last week was a failure of American diplomacy, This administration has sent such weak messages about where America stands with the longest-serving democracy in the Middle East, our oldest friend in the Middle East: Israel.

“I will tell you one thing, that when I’m the president of the United States, our allies are not going to have to worry whether America is for them…We will be supporting them militarily, economically and otherwise, and particularly in Israel."
 Another GOP hopeful, and the current Frontrunner (till Chris Christie decides whether to jump in), Mitt Romney will deliver a major foreign policy speech in Charleston, South Carolina at The Citadel Friday, where he'll discuss changes that he believes will "keep America the leader of the world."

Romney made the announcement about the upcoming speech on talk radio host Sean Hannity's program 77WABC Monday afternoon.
"I think our president has pursued a series of strategies that have lead to our decline economically and militarily, and so in that context I'm going to be talking about a very different vision," said Romney. 
Romney discussed peace negotiations with Israel and Palestine, and delivered a hard-line stance on Iran's move toward nuclearization. "Of course you have to have a military option that's available to us and I don't think this president has communicated to the world that that's an option we would consider, I think you have to let them know that a military option is something that is very much on the table for us and that it is unacceptable for the world and to America for Iran to become a nuclear nation.