Just caught this in a post at one of my favorite blogs:
While I appreciate Herman Cain’s charisma and his Reaganesque ability to articulate the small government/personal freedom message that has animated our party at least for the last thirty years, I have several concerns about the personable businessman and do not back him for the White House nor do I share my co-blogger’s enthusiasm for the candidate.
In many ways, I see his appeal on the right in the 2012 cycle as similar to Barack Obama’s appeal to the left in 2008 cycle. Both are charismatic men, running as outsiders to the political establishment.
Only Cain has made clear his commitment to conservative principles in his campaign while Obama obscured his advocacy of big-government notions in his. And Cain has a record of accomplishment in the private sector — with the concomitant executive experience. Oh, and the media has scrutinized the Republican’s record with a fine-toothed comb while paying little, if any, attention to Obama’s.
Hugh Hewitt sums it up:
Herman Cain is fun, and he’s generally right. He has enormous energy and a sense of humor. He may not be ready to be president, but he was certainly ready to run for president, just like then Senator Obama in 2007. The big difference is that in 2007 MSM supported Obama’s ambitions and that in 2011 MSM pushes back against Cain’s, reflecting the media elite’s valuing of Obama’s Harvard Law/University of Chicago credentials, time in the Illinois State Senate and cup-of-coffee years in the U.S. Senate much more than Cain’s decades in the private sector. (more…)
Remember how when just one protester at a Tea Party rally hoists a sign with a comment that appears racist or a handful call out a mean-spirited epithet or one boor behaves rudely at a Republican debate, the media (and even leading Democrats) in the highest of dudgeon remind us of the racism, bigoted and hateful attitudes on the right, demanding that Republicans, “differentiate themselves” from such language lest it define them.
Heck, even an organizer of OccupyLA refused to say whether the “occupation movement” (at 3:20 in video linked) disavowed a protester’s anti-Semitic rant. The violence that was supposedly an integral part of the Tea Parties appears to become increasingly manifest in the #OWS movement, with one protester threatening to stab a Fox reporter as a nervous police union warned “the Occupiers in Zuccotti Park that any assaults on police officers — or at least sergeants — will result in lawsuits.”
The police wouldn’t be issuing such warnings if they weren’t worried. Now, you could saw that that threat isn’t legitimate as the police union is issuing the warning, but a flier at OccupyPhoenix asked, “When Should You Shoot A Cop?” Alerting us to this flier, Ed Morrissey is
. . . curious to see how the media in Arizona and the rest of the nation approach this development. They went into convulsions retroactive to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting that killed six other people because Sarah Palin used crosshairs on a map once (as had Democrats on a number of occasions), which the media used to paint the Tea Party and conservatives as somehow responsible for the massacre conducted by a madman with no discernibly rational political posture. Will they hold the Occupy movement to the same ridiculous standard? I’m betting …. no.
So the question of the day is, if Democrats fail, to borrow the expression of one of their number, to “differentiate themselves” from the violent threats at these rallies, does this mean they favor assaults on members of the press and law enforcement? (Particularly when said Democrats have explicitly endorsed — or otherwise praised — the gatherings.)
The president and his team often whine about the bad set of circumstances the Democrat has had to deal with, you know all those problems they “inherited” (as if their was the first administration to face problems left unresolved by the previous president.) The Democrat’s chief of staff put it recently, “Considering the debacle that he came in with, the tough choices he’s made and how there have been few, if any breaks, he says it himself all the time. . . .”
President Obama, as Jim Geraghty (who linked the quote above) reminds us:
. . . has been using the “run of bad luck” line on the stump, too. He cites the Arab Spring as an economic headwind, but let’s face it, Egypt or Libya or Syria or one of the Gulf states could have completely collapsed from internal uprisings. He mentions the tsunami in Japan, which as we all recall was so traumatic to the president he could only cope by going over his March Madness picks with ESPN. Yet obviously that could have been much worse, spreading much more serious radioactivity over more-densely populated areas of Japan. He cites the European debt crises, and again, it’s not hard to imagine that circumstance turning out much worse – such as a collapse of the Euro or serious social unrest in Greece and elsewhere.
Nothing is ever the fault of Obama and the team around him. It’s just that the universe seems to enjoy disappointing him, I guess.
Emphasis added. Maybe the president wouldn’t be as upset with the universe if he took the advice of that politician who told Jay Leno that “one of the things” he was “trying to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.“
The president recently told a crowd of supporters that he had kept a majority of the promises he had made in the 2008 campaign:
“We’re through about 60 percent of [the list], which isn’t bad for three years,” Mr. Obama told a crowd at a fundraiser in Denver on Tuesday night. “So we know change is possible. But here’s the thing. There are a lot of people who are still hurting, and there’s still a lot more work to do. And so that other 40 percent that is not done, I’m going to need you because I need five more years. I need five more years to get it done.”
Politifact says that in fact he has kept only 151. And how, pray tell, with a likely Republican Congress in 2013 (which we, alas, do not, Democratic talking points notwithstanding, enjoy today), will he ever get any of his big-government initiatives through?
Now, what about one promise that candidate Barack Obama himself claimed he’d been talking about “throughout” the 2008 campaign, you know, proposing a “net spending cut”?
He hasn’t put that in any of the budgets he’s proposed; indeed, every proposal he’s authored to “jump start” the economy has a included a net spending increase, oftentimes a pretty substantial such increase.
As many of you already know,a “Virginia tea party group is demanding a refund of about $8,000 from the city of Richmond, claiming it was unfairly charged for rallies while Occupy protesters have used the same space for several weeks for free.” Love it when a right-of-center group calls out the double standards under which our liberal friends live — and often thrive.
Let’s hope tea party groups in other cities, who have had to pay to use public space, do the same.
Allahpundit elaborates on the double standard:
And so it came to be that the “angry mob” lost eight grand by playing by the rules while America’s Sweethearts get to build their own communes on public land with no interference from the police, even with crime happening right in front of them. Good times. I ask this in all seriousness: Has there been any more egregious double standard towards the right over the last five years than the commentariat’s treatment of OWS versus the tea party? They spent late 2009 and the entirety of 2010 treating conservative protests as a form of domestic terrorism, punctuated by the horrible right-wing attack on Gabby Giffords that wasn’t a right-wing attack at all. And now suddenly their own side is in the streets and behaving vastly worse, yet somehow they’re the last, best hope of the middle class. See Treacher’s post here for just one example of what I mean. Honestly — any worse double standard?
*(and which one gets better treatment in the MSM?)
NB: Tweaked this to indicate that I added emphasis to one passage in the quotation above. Apologies for neglecting to indicate this earlier.