Yesterday, Bruce e-mailed me an article about a straight rugby player who, after “breaking his neck and suffering the stroke”, woke to find that he preferred men to his fiancée.  After attempting a back flip, the then-straight man “fell down a grass bank” where he sustained the injuries:

He was taken to hospital where his fiancée and family spent days waiting anxiously at his bedside before he delivered the shocking news.

Mr Birch recalled: ‘I was gay when I woke up and I still am. It sounds strange but when I came round I immediately felt different.

‘I wasn’t interested in women any more. I was definitely gay. I had never been attracted to a man before – I’d never even had any gay friends.

It’s doubtful we could learn much about the nature of our homosexual feelings by studying images of his brain unless scans had been taken before he sustained the injury (then we could see what parts had changed).

And this is not the only case where strokes have changed individuals’ personalities — or given them (gave them access to?) skills which they previously lacked — or of which they had previously been unaware.  Wonder if there are other stories of strokes changing an individual’s sexual orientation — and what scientists learned from that.

Time to e-mail my favorite neurosurgeon (my older brother).

At a time when one might think the federal government had better things to do than further meddle is a sour economy, we’ve got bureaucrats imposing a new tax to promote Christmas trees:

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees — the Christmas Tree Tax — to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)).

Although not a Christian, I welcome those, including the Governor of Wisconsin who wish to dub a festive pine tree decorated during the days preceding and immediately followed the Winter Solstice as a Christmas Tree. The First Amendment protects those individuals’ free exercise of religion.

It is, however, none of the federal government’s business to promote this holiday symbol.  To be sure, it should protect the rights of those individuals who wish to display it. (And the ACLU who should be opposing this silly measure has yet to get injunctions against private homeowners who proudly decorate their trees.)  It’s not just the tax that’s the issue. It’s the waste of federal resources.

And it does seem that whenever governments starts “promoting” an industry, federal officials soon start meddling.  Ed Driscoll wonders if “the administration be raiding Christmas tree dealers, a la their raids on an other famous wood-based merchant?” (more…)

There are many things I would rather blog about than the Herman Cain proposal.  Newt Gingrich delivered a stellar performance in his debate with Herman Cain.  Mitt Romney released a bold plan to tackle federal spending, confront the debt and reform entitlements.  And yet the media have turned the coverage of the candidate into a circus.  So, we blog to put such sensationalism into context.

Barack Obama has been president for two-and-three-quarters years and we still don’t know the specifics of his plan to confront the debt — or reform entitlements.  Meanwhile, his White House stonewalls on Solyndra, refusing to provide documents requested by Congress.  And it’s not just Solyndra.  The White House won’t “cough up requested info” about other troubled companies receiving federal loans.

Now, we read that the White House Chief of Staff William M. Daley is turning

over day-to-day management of the West Wing to Pete Rouse, a veteran aide to President Obama, according to several people familiar with the matter. It is unusual for a White House chief of staff to relinquish part of the job.

Emphasis added.  ”Congressional Democrats,” reports Will Rahn

had criticized Daley, a former commerce secretary under President Clinton, for what some described as his imperfect understanding of the legislative branch, and his tense relationship with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This stood in marked contrast to his predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, a former Democratic congressman who is now Mayor of Chicago.

This is pretty big news, yet on Memeorandum, in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, it is relegated to the middle of the page far below the stories on Herman Cain’s accuser. (more…)

Sometime yesterday afternoon (Pacific time), after reading a brief summary of the details of Sharon Bialek’s accusation, but before finding out about f the affidavits, I wondered how much due diligence Gloria Allred had done.  Had Bialek named friends or acquaintances who could corroborate her story?  Had Miss Allred obtained affidavits from said individuals?  (Only when I learned she had did I begin to consider that there might be some truth to this tale.)

Had the female publicity hound contacted the hotel in Washington to see if Miss Bialek had rented a room?  Had Mr. Cain called to upgrade it?  Did she ask for flight records, etc.?

Now, to be sure, this happened fourteen years ago and most people don’t keep records that old, but still did she even try to track them down?  Well, seems a conservative blogger is doing the work she has apparently failed to do.  Jim Geraghty reports that he

put in a call to the Washington Hilton; one aspect of Bialek’s story should be fairly easy to verify, presuming the Hilton Corporation holds records from 1997: did Herman Cain rent a suite at the Capital Hilton in Washington D.C.?

As the multiple updates to my post yesterday indicate, I remain skeptical about Bialek’s credibility, neither convinced that she’s lying nor that she’s telling the truth.

If the charges are true, we do know that he behaved better than Bill Clinton had in similar circumstances.  When the woman said, “No,” he acceded to her request.  Mr. Clinton did not show such respect for the wishes of several women.  And yet feminists and women in the media rewarded him with their votes, support and enthusiasm while the media pillory Mr. Cain.  Mercilessly. (more…)

Among the many things I am currently reading about Sharon Bialek, the only woman to make public her accusations against Republican presidential contender Herman Cain, this one thing stood out, “Bialek does not intend to go forward with a lawsuit against Cain.”

If that’s the case, then why is Democratic attorney Gloria Allred on the case? That said, the publicity hound has “offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.”

That fact alone gives this accuser more credibility than the other alleged victims.  Indeed, as Jim Hoft puts it, citing twitter traffic, “she is as believable as Juanita Broderick (sic) was when she accused Bill Clinton of rape.”  And generating far more media attention for conduct far less offensive.

Cain, she alleges, “reached under her skirt in 1997 as she sought help in finding a job“, but did not persist when she rebuffed his advances.  Mr. Clinton persisted when Ms. Broaddrick rebuffed his.  This is not to diminish the allegations, but to wonder at the media circus.  As Andrew Klavan puts it:

Not only is the news coverage of alleged sexual misconduct different according to political affiliation, the consequences ofactual misconduct are often quite different as well. Republican congressman Mark Foley sent suggestive emails to male pages; he resigned under GOP pressure. Democratic congressman Gerry Studds actually had sex with one of the boys, then flung defiance at the House when they censured him; he was re-elected by Democrats until his retirement.

Via Instapundit.

Although I remain suspicious of Miss Allred’s motives, the sworn affidavits do cause me to take this charge more seriously than the others.

UPDATE:  Law professor William A. Jacobson reminds us that since the woman alleged that the sexual advance took place “after her employment terminated with a National Restaurant Association affiliate . . . the allegation is not one of workplace ‘sexual harassment’ but of an alleged attempt at infidelity“, adding that the “political damage will be significant”: (more…)

Watching the latest Obama campaign web video, Jim Geraghty observes, “Obama is dealing with the fact that he doesn’t have much of a record to run on by asserting that such a record is there — i.e, ‘progress’ and ‘change’ without ever trying to make the argument that Americans are indeed better off now than they were four years ago.”

“One year from now,” the ad warns, “all our progress could be erased.” Given how the Obama Democrats define progress nowadays, I agree with politicaljunkiemom who says, “Please, bring out the good erasers.”

The ad fails to specify what exactly that progress is, save the promise of change, whatever that means.  (Geraghty does identify some of the progress made since Obama took office.)  Ed Morrissey believes that the “ad reveals the core election strategy for Team Obama — fear“:

The ad reveals the core election strategy for Team Obama — fear.  “Oooh, without me, America will be scary!“  This strategy comes as no surprise, because after Obama’s record of incompetence and failure, fear is all they have left.

Wondering if more conservatives will be linking this ad to mock it than will Obama supporters to herald its message.

Seems those who supported Barack Obama with the greatest enthusiasm — and the highest percentage of their votes — are those who suffer the most under his policies.  Nearly three years after Obama became president, including two years with overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the “wealth gap,” according to the AP, “between young and old is widest ever”:

The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.

The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.

Despite all this, “younger voters still backing the president by much greater margins than older generations.” Well, guess their lack of experience in the world causes hope to trump. That said, reports Mark Blumenthal at the Huffington Post, the “political enthusiasm and engagement that younger voters demonstrated four years ago is ‘substantially depleted.’”

Maybe now that young voters realize Obam policies aren’t creating more opportunities, they may switch their allegiance.  Or maybe not.  Does seem a lot of the Democratic appeal has little to do with the party’s record  – or its policies — but its image.  More on that anon.  Much more.

Still the waning enthusiasm doesn’t bode well for the Democrat’s reelection prospects.

Given her record, we can pretty much guess that this has more to do with politics than sexual harassment:

The AP reports that Democratic activist (though they don’t identify her as such) “Gloria Allred said Monday that another woman is accusing Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment and will appear at a news conference in New York City later in the day.”

They call this gal a “High-profile discrimination attorney”. High-profile partisan is more like it. Does seem that whenever California Democrats want their dirty work done for them, they call ol’ Gloria.

Now, the lady is going national.

UPDATE: Given the woman who is trotting this accuser forward, we should demand corroboration before taking her seriously.

Byron York has a fascinating post this morning in the Washington Examiner addressing the question of why former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is running for president.  Despite having visited 97 of the Hawkeye State’s 99 counties, he still lags in polls, far behind Mitt Romney and Herman Cain who have spent far less time in the state:

The problem is Santorum isn’t close to the lead here in Iowa.  According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, he is the choice of 3.5 percent of Iowa Republicans — seventh in a field of eight candidates.  No matter who has led the field — Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain — Santorum has stayed near the bottom.

Yet Santorum is the most powerful voice on behalf of the conservative social positions that many Iowa Republicans hold dear.  It’s his bad luck to be running in a year dominated by economic concerns and to face opponents who more or less share his views on social issues but are perceived as stronger candidates on economic matters.  Santorum is stuck in a moment that’s just not made for him.

For all the bluster we hear from know-nothings on the left, particularly the gay left about the GOP being dominated by social conservatives, the social conservatives aren’t doing so well in this presidential cycle.  Michele Bachmann’s campaign never took off and she’s down to single digits in national polls.

Social conservatives, to be sure hold sway in the GOP, but don’t dominate it.  It’d be nice if the media abandoned their narrow narrative and took note of this fact.

When announcing that this blog had endorsed Patrick Forrest for Virginia State Senate, I reported that when asked “if supporting an openly gay candidate like Forrest will hurt him or other Republicans in rural parts of Virginia“, the Commonwealth’s Republican governor responded “emphatically” in the negative,

. . . pointing out that “Patrick Forrest is all about creating jobs, controlling government spending.  He’s a fiscal conservative.  He has his finger on the pulse of what’s going on in the Fairfax and Arlington communities.  He’s a great messenger for the fiscal conservative message and that’s what people care about right now.”

Forrest has done a great job uniting the diverse factions in the Virginia GOP.  Not only has he won the backing of Governor Bob McDonnell, often seen as a social conservative, he has also won the endorsement of moderate former Congressman Tom Davis, who, in 1999, was the first member of the House Republican leadership to address a gay gathering.

Former Governor and U.S. Senator George Allen is also a supporter.  He and his wife each organized a fundraiser for the openly gay Republican.  Washington veterans like Congressman Frank Wolf, first elected with Ronald Reagan in 1980, as well as Republicans in Richmond have joined Forrest’s team, with Virginia Board of Education Vice President Dave Foster offering his endorsement.

Does seem that if a gay Republican supports a small government, pro-growth platform, he can win the support of leading Republicans. These conservatives are more concerned with his policies than his private life.

If you haven’t already, please join me by contributing to this fine man’s first bid for elective office.  And if you live in Virginia’s 32nd Senate district, make sure to vote for Patrick Forrest tomorrow, Tuesday, November 8.

As I was closing some open windows on my desk top, I caught this comment from former GE CEO Jack Welch on what the president could do to right a listing economy, contrasting that with what he has proposed to do:

Oh, he can do a lot about the economy.  He could look at drilling for oil.  He can, by himself, can drive that posture.  He could put a moratorium on regulation until we’ve got unemployment below a certain level. He could do it.  And he could, most importantly, change the posture. Everything we do in this administration is more punitive than it is incentivized.  Let me give you a perfect example.  Let’s take the jobs bill. They put in there Section 371.  That is an ability to sue for unemployed people who are out looking for a job to sue for $300,000, for example, if they hire Andrea who has a job and don’t hire me, unemployed.  It’s crazy.  They, they give a $4,000 incentive to hire an unemployed person, then they give a $300,000 penalty if you happen to discriminate against an unemployed person. Come on, you’ve got to get a positive framework.

Emphasis added.  Sounds like some pretty sound advice.

Over the weekend, Glenn quoted a comment from Matt Welch which helps explain why I stay with the GOP despite a number of concerns with the Republican Party, notably its imperfect record on gays and its often inadequate commitment to Ronald Reagan’s small government ideals:

MATT WELCH COMPLICATES WILL WILKINSON’S NARRATIVE: “But here’s the thing that non-Republican, gay-marrying, pro-immigration, pro-choice, anti-empire potheads like me (and Will) need to grapple with if we insist on talking about the relationship between ourselves and various large political blocs: The GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas these past couple of years.” And the Democrats, not so much, despite all the “liberaltarian” hype.

He’s right. At least the GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas in recent years.  Heck, even the establishment candidate is starting to sound like a Tea Partier, proposing major cuts in federal spending.

In his post (which is well worth your time), Welch adds:

honesty compels the observation that among the governing classes, if you find an economic libertarian he/she is more likely to be a social con than a RINO (or DINO). The Gary Johnson crossover dream is still just that. Which makes me no more likely to join Team Red, but it does suggest that certain libertarianish traditions within the broader right have staying power, at a time when the libertianish tendencies on the broader left seem to be receiving little or no expression in the governance by Team Blue. That I wished things were different doesn’t change the basic facts.

I have noticed the same thing among a good number of social conservatives; they hold libertarian views on a great many issues.  It’s why some gay people are willing to work with these folks in common purpose — reducing the size of the federal government. (more…)

“We can,” Stacy McCain contends with examples abundant, “no longer tolerate media assertions that this is a non-violent movement.”  Media cluck-clucking and left-wing blogging notwithstanding, he’s not talking about the Tea Party.  In this case, he’s referencing violence instigated by the “Occupy” movement outside the “Defending the American Dream Summit” hosted by Americans for Prosperity where a 78-year woman was knocked down cement stairs.

And it’s not just in Washington, D.C. where the various Occupy movements — and their various members acting individually — have engaged in violence — just as many in the chattering classes, in highest dudgeon, warned us about the Tea Party.

Well, those in the chattering classes did exult in the rise of the left-wing movement, seeing it as the left-wing Tea Party!  Does seem like the Occupy movement has become just like the Tea Party of the left-wing narrative.

UPDATE: Calling this “The Worst Media Double Standard in Recent History“, Ed Driscoll writes:

In 2009 and 2010, the media trashed the Tea Party, using the crazied, hyperbolic language possible — and yet were envious of their success at the polls last November, and wanted a Tea Party of their own. Hence, Occupy Wall Street. Richard Fernandez asks a great question at the Belmont Club. Did the MSM’s intensely negative reporting cause them (directly or indirectly) to amp up the craziness at OWS to waaaay past 11 on Nigel Tufnel’s Marshall stack, or is that simply what happens when a mass of people with an ill-defined cause co-habituate in an urban Burning Man festival for months on end?

But regarding the MSM’s coverage, since so much of what passes for “liberalism” boils down to “It’s Different When We Do It,” the amount of double-standards in the MSM is bottomless.

Read the whole thing.

Well, the current Governor of New York once did serve in the cabinet of the immediate past Democratic President of the United States. But, unlike the Democratic incumbent, he does seem to understand the legacy of the former, the most legacy-obsessed chief executive. He appears to recognize that the shibboleths of his party’s left-wing won’t help win the hearts of the American people.

He’s not buying into the class warfare rhetoric of Barack Obama or the president’s intellectual allies in #Occupy Wall Street. “You are kidding yourself,” the New York Democrat said, “if you think you can be one of the highest-taxed states in the nation, have a reputation for being anti-business — and have a rosy economic future.”

Via Instapundit.  Seems this Democrat learned well from his former boss.  His party’s path to victory cannot be on terms which worked in the early parts of the last century.  You can’t treat business as the enemy; the corollary to that notion being that free enterprise is the engine which drives our economy.

Seems this man may succeed where his father failed.

Ed Driscoll, however, thinks Andrew Cuomo Is Kidding Himself (h/t to Insta for this as well).

Seeing “videos of youths burning things in Oakland,” Victor Davis Hanson . . .

. . . was told that it “was a small minority” and atypical of the protest. Not long ago I saw no clips of anyone spitting at black congresspeople wading into the Tea-Party demonstration, but was told they did and that it was typical of tens of thousands of racialists on the Mall.

(Via Instapundit.) A Democratic president faults Republicans vying for his job because they failed to condemn an isolated boor at a candidates’ debate.  A self-important (and self-righteous) Democratic Congressman insists that his GOP colleagues need to “‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech” of their supporters.  A lunatic with no apparent political agenda attacks a Congresswoman, murdering a number of people with her, and conservative rhetoric is held accountable.

Why is it that, in the eyes of Democratic politicians, liberal pundits and the mainstream media, a small, often fictional, fringe minority speaks for conservative/libertarian movements and the Republican Paty, but radical, often violent, extremists don’t speak for liberal/left-wing movements or the Democratic Party?

UPDATE:  Over at Reason, A. Barton Hinkle builds on this point:

So consider the disparity in coverage of OWS and the Tea Party. A single (still unsubstantiated) allegation that someone in the crowd at a 2010 Tea Party rally in Washington hurled a racial slur at Rep. John Lewis sufficed to prove the entire movement a kissin’ cousin of the KKK. But that “Google Wall Street Jews” guy? A lone nut. As for the signs calling for the “death of capitalism” and telling Wall Street bankers to “Jump, you [expletives]” and declaring “capitalism can’t be fixed—we need revolution”? Unrepresentative, surely. Ditto the 5:30 Oakland seminar on Marxism 101, and the dude in the Lenin T-shirt, and. . . .

Don’t feel bad if you missed such tidbits on the nightly news. Every movement has its whack jobs, but those on the left get politely overlooked.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Budding Economist reminds us of how one Tea Party critic was treated by the #Occupy Movement.

“A single (still unsubstantiated) allegation that someone in the crowd at a 2010 Tea Party rally in Washington hurled a racial slur at Rep. John Lewis sufficed to prove the entire movement a kissin’ cousin of the KKK.”

And the entire General Assembly of Occupy Atlanta isn’t accused of anything when they refused to allow Rep. John Lewis to voice his solidarity.

UP-UPDATE: Allahapundit offers:

This can’t be repeated enough: With a few exceptions, foremost among them the New York Post, the coverage of OWS protests compared to the coverage of tea-party protests is the worst media double standard in recent history. Nothing compares, because nothing else involves this much distortion on both ends of the coverage. It’s not just that most press outlets (like the protesters themselves) look the other way at depravity happening inside Obamaville, it’s that for years they treated the tea-party movement as some sort of feral mob that was forever on the brink of rampaging through the streets — like, say, Occupy Oakland just did.

Via Instapundit.

Alone among the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination Newt Gingrich, like Ronald Reagan in 1980 (and 1976 for that matter), has already made a significant contribution to the conservative movement.  As the Gipper helped articulate an upbeat conservative vision long before launching a bid for the White House, so did Gingrich make the 1994 mid-term elections turn, in large part on that small-government ideal, helping elect the first Republican Congress in forty years.

Not just that, he became in the 105th Congress the first Republican Speaker to serve consecutive terms since Theodore Roosevelt’s Cincinnati son-in-law relinquished the gavel to Democrat John Nance Garner in 1931.

Having once interned for Newt, I didn’t take him too seriously as a presidential candidate.  He seems more a man of ideas than a leader of men.  And more often than not, he’ll articulate any idea which pops into his head, even those to which he has given little thought.  He didn’t often seem to have the focus necesary to serve as chief executive.  He didn’t have a desk in office when I worked for him .  Sometimes, he seemed he couldn’t sit still.

Maybe age has mellowed him.

I haven’t been following the debates, but have read (in posts by bloggers and pundits I respect) that he has acquitted himself quite well.  Well, last night, as I was preparing to watch Captain America (should have seen it on the big screen), I caught the former Speaker on Greta van Susteren’s On the Record.  I found him so compelling, I delayed staring the movie.

True to what I’d read in the blogs, he didn’t attack his fellow competitors for the party’s nod, critiquing Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, to be sure, but praising the businessman for his boldness in penning such a proposal.  And he faulted Romney’s plan for not being bold enough.  (In fact, I’m pretty sure I heard him praise the quality of the debate he and his fellows were conducting, raising real issues of substance related to the current crisis.)

What impressed me the most was the same thing which impressed me when, as a college freshman, I first heard Newt speak.  Like the Gipper, this guy can see the big picture. (more…)

In a post today on PJmedia, Alexis Garcia notes how in all the media hullabaloo over the Cain kerfuffle, “we’re losing focus on the narrative.” (Well, maybe that’s the point.)  She lists several issues raising issues related to the administration’s actual record in office that have not received the same scrutiny this “scandal” without specifics has generated

Two of the items on Miss Garcia’s list parallel issues on my list of questions for Politico (to see how much attention they devoted to scandals involving Democrats).  Since posting that piece, I’ve begun to wonder about other issues which the left-leaning journal has all but ignored, say, Joe Biden’s fabrications in the 2008 vice presidential debate.  Did Politico address those (some commentators identified those fabrications)–and inquire into the then-36-year Washington veteran’s pattern of making things up?

Now, today, the lawyer of one of the woman accusing Mr. Cain has come forward to tell us that he won’t tell us anything, leading Stacy McCain to quip that “Lawyer ethics” meanings holding “a press conference to announce that you don’t want to discuss your smear-job against your client’s former boss.”  As Jim Geraghty puts it, the lawyer in refusing to specify the charges, “is arguing, ’I won’t say what he did, but trust me, he’s guilty of wrongdoing.’“

This is one heckuva way to run a witch hunt.

From the National Restaurant Association (NRA), we learn two (very) salient facts:

1. “Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint.”
2. “The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement.”

So, we’ve got Cain disputing the allegations, the lawyer for the accuser refusing to specify the allegations and confirmation that Mr. Cain was not party to the agreement, suggesting the NRA was more interested in resolving the matter than in disciplining its then-employee.

Even without specifics, Politico has run 90 stories on the kerfuffle. (more…)

At least since the 2008 Republican candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, I have been impressed with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s ability to talk about the economy.  I have been particularly impressed with his critiques of Obama’s economic policies starting with the very introduction of the “stimulus” at the outset of the Democrat’s administration.

But, like many conservatives, I have concerns.  Is Romney really one of us?  Would he, if elected, stand true to conservative principles and make major cuts in domestic spending and initiate bold reforms?  Is it up to the task of cleaning the accumulated muck in the Augean Stables of our nation’s capital, repealing not just legislation passed by the current administration, but also, as his rival Jon Huntsman has promised, bad laws passed in a previous Republican administration?

In this current crisis, we don’t just need a competent administrator in the White House (though that alone would be a welcome change), we also need a bold leader, able to propose major changes and stand firm for such reform when savaged (as any principled Republican invariably will be) by the political and media opposition (which tend to march in lock-step).

Now, perhaps following the lead of one of Washington’s few grownups, Paul Ryan, Romney has, in an op-ed in USA Today, spelled out some bold actions he would take if elected, including reforms to entitlements.  Commenting on those proposals (in a post which is well worth your time), Philip Klein outlines his “major beef with Romney” which nearly perfectly parallels my own:

My major beef with Romney, aside from the health care plan he enacted in Massachusetts, has been that his record of changing his positions on so many issues makes me skeptical he’d have the political courage to tackle controversial issues as president. That overall skepticism still remains. But it’s positive that he’s at least taken a minimum half step forward during a GOP primary.

Should Romney win the White House in 2012, he will all but certainly be facing a Republican Congress — in contrast to the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature he faced when governor of the Bay State.  He’ll effectively have Paul Ryan setting the legislature’s fiscal policy.

Is this enough to overcome my concerns about Romney? (more…)

And this is why I was so furious this week that I donated $1000 to Herman Cain’s campaign. This political fascism from the Left has got to come to an end.

I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Mr. Cain during the first-in-the-South GOP Primary on January 21.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As I was preparing for bid, this story led the headlines on Yahoo!’s main page: Republican sexual harassment furor boosts Obama:

The longer the Republican presidential hopefuls battle over sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain, the better things look for President Barack Obama as he mounts his campaign for re-election. . . . .

The rare instance of infighting in a party known for its unity comes just as Obama, a Democrat, is gaining some traction in opinion polls and the U.S. economy is showing signs of improvement.

Huh, Republican presidential hopefuls battling over sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain? Infighiting What? The Republicans aren’t battling over this. (Most of the candidates aren’t event talking about it.)  About the only “infighting” there is  –  and the only thing Reuters “reporter” Patricia Zengerle is Cain accusing “Rick Perry’s camp of being behind the story” and Perry denying that claim.

Yeah, there is some modest signs of improvement in the economy, but no indication that we’re enjoying the type of recovering that normally follows a severe downturn.  And the traction the president is gaining is in one poll, not some polls — and that poll appeared to oversample Democrats.

That said, maybe Miss Zengerle is onto something.  Maybe the folks in the media hope this story will make the Republicans appear to be insensitive to women — while the brouhaha keeps stories about scandals in the Obama White House off the front burner.

UPDATE:  Commenting on the same article, Jim Geraghty holds it “offers a somewhat plausible theory without citing much direct data to support that idea“:

Now, it is true that time spent discussing what Cain did or did not do with several former employees is time not spent making an argument against Obama. But if Cain doesn’t get the nomination, this is largely moot — I remain unconvinced that some Cain-backing conservative will stay home on Election Day 2012 to protest how some GOP rival treated this issue — and if he is, it suggests that this story, with all of its remaining known unknowns and unknown unknowns will be a larger factor in voters’ minds than, say, Obama’s performance since taking office.

FROM THE COMMENTS: ILoveCapitalism quips, “So Jonathan Alter was right, after all. The Obama administration is “scandal free”. (Not in reality; but in the media.)”