Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Herman Cain Attacked From the Left

Ms Janeane Garofalo asks if someone is paying Businessman Herman Cain to run for the Republican nomination for President.  I am assuming that Ms Garofalo assumes that Mr Cain is, for some reason, not capable of having an interest in elected office, and that the only reason he would run is if someone paid him.  This raises a number of questions:
  1. How much would you have to pay Mr Cain to make it worth his while, considering he is already well off from his former gigs?
  2. Would someone be willing to pay me to run for the Republican nomination to oppose Representative Niki Tsongas?
  3. How much is Ms Garofalo being paid to put forward this smear?
My supplemental question is, has there ever been or will there ever be an African American that Democrats will accept as being both authentically Black and authentically Republican?

I would note that Mr Cain is not new to our political process.  And, Kad Barma may not like him, since he (Mr Cain) spent some time on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Regards  —  Cliff


kad barma said...

Repeating Janeane Garafalo is about as useful as repeating Glenn Beck, and, besides, if your stuff echoes Michelle Malkin's on any given day, you know for sure you're just part of the pointless side of political discourse.

Not news. Why give irrational polemicists the benefit of your bullhorn?

C R Krieger said...

I think it was more about "how you can be Black and Republican", like I used to hear from Baptists about "How can you be Saved and Catholic?"

That and a chance to bring up the Fed one more time.

And, not every bad idea can be ignored; sometimes they manage to get traction.  Look at Germany in the early 1930s.

Regards  —  Cliff

Jack Mitchell said...

Cliff, some of your GOPer friends may love to pontificate about getting off the plantation. But we all know that is a bunch of hooey.

Though, I'll give you, it really isn't about skin color. It is about class. The elites of the world subsist on the life blood of the working class. It's just so blatantly obvious when elite blacks opt to sell us all out. We are better conditioned to get hosed from "Whitey."

nealcroz said...

The BASIC question is: "Why does ANYTHING Garafalo says mean ANTHING?" AND...she is an even worse actress than she is political commentator.

For Kad, "Is there a point side to political discourse?" First and foremost, discourse only remotely if at all describes the blather that passes by the same name. Today, it is all about "I'm right, you're wrong, unless you agree I am right, and if you're wrong, you don't deserve to live."

Finally, just when one thinks that the abject stupidity of race identification has been put away as a childish thing unsuitable for adults, we have to consider whether or not its possible for a black/green/red/yellow person to belong to a given political gang. I always wonder why a person's skin color has ANYTHING at all to do with politics. And, for the record, I do NOT subscribe to the posit that the ghetto breeds liberals and democrats any more than the ghetto breeds NOTHING but criminals.

C R Krieger said...

I grant you that it isn't about race, but about class, but I think the point is that the Middle Class, those WASP-like creatures who actually made this a great nation, are the key.  They come in all sorts of hues and creeds and they endure problems imposed by the rich, but they are the bedrock of the nation.

This great Middle Class is divided along three axis:
1)  Is Keynes correct or not?
2)  Do we have to make major changes in the economy in order to save the planet?
3)  Do people need to be nudged (or herded) or can they draw the proper conclusions for themselves?  I wonder if the Batman movie Black Knight touches on that?

Regards  —  Cliff

nealcroz said...

In re: the three axes: question 1: Keynes is wrong as has been proven over and over again since his original pontification. Success is when you discover a problem and shoot it down in glorious flames never to appear again. Keynes just keeps shooting down the same problem over and over and over. Which leads to question 2. A healthy market economy responds to wants and needs of the market place. If the market place wants a sterile environment, it will be a demand that will be met by supply. Simplistic, perhaps, but then,1 + 1 = 2. What is happening today is that a few academic purists who spend their lives telling everyone else how to live theirs are creating a "need" that isn't supported by the market place and are getting rich off of it....and in the process exposing their fraud. Witness Algore.

Finally, the idea that people are incapable of making rational and beneficial decisions on their own is the foundation of dictatorship in which a person or oligarch holds the power to tell everyone else what to do, and how, and when. I personally vehemently reject the notion that folks can't think for themselves BECAUSE I believe in FREEDOM.

Jack Mitchell said...

"Finally, the idea that people are incapable of making rational and beneficial decisions on their own is the foundation of dictatorship in which a person or oligarch holds the power to tell everyone else what to do, and how, and when. I personally vehemently reject the notion that folks can't think for themselves BECAUSE I believe in FREEDOM."

Neal, your corporate feudal masters greatly appreciate your passionate adherence to their mantra. This is exactly how they enslave the masses, as they claw for their FREEDOM.

Just imagine if the wolves could sweet talk their dinner to walk away from the herd.

Keep repeating to yourself, "I am a special snowflake."

Jack Mitchell said...




kad barma said...

Neal, I think we're saying the same thing: The "point" side is the side where people respect the responses they receive, and improve their opinions based on the conversation. Folks like Janeane and Glenn (and far too many others) ostensibly spout to hear themselves spout, and add nothing to the discussion. My disappointment is when people find it necessary to repeat the nonsense pointing out what nonsense it is, thereby giving it a longer shelf life than it otherwise deserves.

Ironically, I love(d) Janeane as an actress...

kad barma said...

The crowning irony being Janeane, in her blind partisan "outrage", just did more for Herman's presidential aspirations than could an army of right-wing publicists. If she keeps her mouth shut, Herman is no story today.

nealcroz said...

Kad, I agree. We are saying pretty much the same thing. I think it fair to say that much if not most of the "political discourse" today is little more than self promoting personal attacks and scripted demogoging. Calling out others using various demeaning epithets has nothing to do with advancing knowledge through intelligent, dispassionate discourse with a wide variety of ponta of view. As it turns out, nobody is ever all right or completely wrong. One's position on anything should never become immutable.

Jack Mitchell said...

The take away from this, is that the Right thinks JG means anything to the Left. Their confusion comes from the homage they pay to folks like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, who are JG's peers on the partisan ideological scale, though obviously on opposite sides.

Ignore the fringe, folks. They are toxic to governing.

We the people are getting creemed because of the stupid distractions.

Marie said...

Former Massachusetts AG and US Senator Ed Brooke?