Former Bill Clinton Douglas Schoen polls Occupy Wall Street [but see the actual poll and this critique] and offers some useless advice to the Democrats - keep your distance from these hard left-outs:
President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.
...
Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.
The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies.
...Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.
Well, we all saw this coming. But it is not as if the Democrats can maintain a stretegic distance from this crowd. A moth is to flame as a Democrat is to a youthful protestor. Occupy Wall Street is inducing one huge 60's flashback amongst the left even (perhaps especially) for people like Barack Obama who had their 60's in the 80's. On that side of the aisle everyone wants to party like its 1969.
BACK IN REALITY: The actual poll results don't align that well with the Schoen column.
It is critical in any movement that you have spokesmen that don't alienate the very people you're trying to reach.
It's interesting that the Dems recognize this, as evidenced by their trying to demonize the Tea Party (instead of attacking the substance of the complaints)... yet they attach themselves to the OWS crowd, a group of people that turns off (my guess) somewhere north of 50% of the voting population.
I am puzzled why the Dems think that the mushy middle is going to rally round a bunch of professional agitators who can't even articulate the particulars of what they're angry about and (proudly) refuse to put forth a coherent solution.
Yeah, the shop owner and the plumber and the office worker and the soccer mom are all going to look at this crowd and say 'darn tootin, these people speak for me!..... not.
Posted by: steve | October 18, 2011 at 09:59 AM
Some pictures from OWS Denver.
"Remember the Guillotine"
After we kill all the rich, are we gonna be forced to have dreadlocks & tattoo our faces?
Posted by: Janet | October 18, 2011 at 10:04 AM
I posted this in another thread, but it would fit here too, as a way to really throw a monky wrench into the entire OWS movement:
I've been playing with an idea called the "Pay America Back Act" that would assess how much Higher Education costs at the institutional level, and what salaries at the individual level "should" be, vs. what they are today, then computing how much "excess" has been paid over the years, starting at a baseline of say 1950. Once that "excess" has been calculted, that becomes the institutional and individual debt that Bid Ed owes back to the United States. You would then also calculate what students should have been charged, based on inflation adgustement to base tuitions as they were charged in say 1950. The "excess" is then collected into a trust fund, that is used to pay back students the "excess" they were charged for tuition. Of course, you could never actually get such a program going (its blatantly unconstitutional), but it would be fun to show the academy what would happen if their own ideas of "fairness" were applied to them.
My guess is that the numbers would shock the American population, and you would see a massive demand for a reduction in both tuition and the overall cost of higher education.
And how could the Dems ever oppose this kind of "fairness"?
Posted by: Ranger | October 18, 2011 at 10:06 AM
Clarice linked this on the other thread -
Thieves Preying on Wall Street Protesters
I guess lawlessness, redistribution of wealth, & no private property isn't such a Utopia.
Posted by: Janet | October 18, 2011 at 10:09 AM
I pray every night Obama and Harry and Nancy ignore Schoen, and like TM's moths, move toward the light of OWS. I pray the Obamaniac goes all-in OWS, and gives the counntry a clear choice in 2012. Everyone here at JOM knows how that will turn out -- it will be nasty and ugly, maybe even some incidents of Alinsky contrived violence,but the "progressive" brand of politics in the US will be ruined for a generation. It would be worth it.
Posted by: NK | October 18, 2011 at 10:10 AM
Ranger I saw your response in the earlier thread and I think your point is well taken. In fact with all the out of work PhDs I'm surprised some statistician hasn't made an effort to quantify it.
A moth is to flame as a Democrat is to a youthful protestor.
It's pretty embarrassing to have a bunch of limousine libs who've been dogmatically repeating "Fight the Power" well past the point that they became "the Power".
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 18, 2011 at 10:16 AM
Schoen should just button his lip.
Posted by: Clarice | October 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM
I hope the NYPD is making it clear to their informants in other parts of the city that Zucotti Park is an arrest free zone from dusk until dawn. No true communist could ever deny someone asserting a higher need to communal property and the commies in the park assert a total belief in non-violence.
The word should be passed to the homeless and derelict concerning all the free food and bedding as well.
ZUCOTTI PARK - NO PRIVATE PROPERTY
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 18, 2011 at 10:22 AM
The Democrats have always wished for a "Silent Majority" of their own.
Posted by: Neo | October 18, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Janet,
After looking at those pictures, it is clear why they are unemployed.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM
There's some concern that the Occupy St. Louis vermin are going to disrupt the World Series. Dare we hope?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM
They better not mess with my World Series.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Sue, don't get greedy -- you had a world series last year. Besides a Texan (Berkman) will be on the winning side even if the Texans aren't. Hopefully OWS will mess with MO and uncle joe, and leave the series out of it.
Posted by: henry | October 18, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Just like the whole 60's thing - it will end with an ugly "Altamont" (Stones, Hell's Angels) scene rather than a glorified Woodstock or Monterey scene. Take that to the nearest bank of America branch that hasn't been terrorized yet.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
Posted by: LibertyAtStake | October 18, 2011 at 10:55 AM
The one counter protester sign at OWS Denver said -
"Deadbeat, Potsmoking, Hippies for...
Whatever we're FOR!" LOL!!!
Posted by: Janet | October 18, 2011 at 11:04 AM
John Tamny of RCM doesn't like Rick Perry of Texas.
Posted by: Ignatz | October 18, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Schoen should just button his lip.
He was on Morning Joe talking about this today. Mark Halperin disagreed that OWS would alienate regular people, which made my heart soar.
Just as long as it doesn't get lumped in with the tea party...
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM
A good post & video at Newsbusters about how the leftist propaganda is produced.
Reminds me of Bonfire of the Vanities...
Posted by: Janet | October 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Jane wrote:
Just as long as it doesn't get lumped in with the tea party...
It suddenly occurred to me that the Dems have the Coffee Party they've been yearning for!
Posted by: Barbara-Lurking | October 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM
Have there been any lip-biting soundbites from Pelosi on how she witnessed..sob...violence and these...sob...protesters remind her of that...sob...violence?
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM
A trip down memory lane; OWS Jimmy Carter addition via Kids Prefer Cheese.
I had forgotten about this.
Posted by: Ignatz | October 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM
What is with the puppet heads & stilts??...& the dread locks & colored hair now???
'We are really mad & bored, so lets dress as ludicrous as possible & get on everyone's nerves.'
Posted by: Janet | October 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM
Perfect:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Maybe they could disrupt the ball game, then mash an apple pie into some mom's face and drive over a US flag as they make their getaway in a BMW. Too much to hope?
I am now missing the Yankees more than ever. Occupy Yankee Stadium, indeed.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | October 18, 2011 at 11:41 AM
oh hell yeah! - get on that social media and let's convince them this would be a good idea! Maybe Moochelle could link toned arms with them in front of the stadium. Nothing says we're with the people more than blocking the start of the World Series.
Posted by: Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign | October 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM
From The Politico, a different view:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 18, 2011 at 11:54 AM
Just read where Obama in Virginia is talking about the 99%. IOW's he has jumped the shark and totally accepted OWS as his army and voice for the 2012 campaign. No other way out.
I only pray that Cain or whoever else is in Vegas tonight makes a big mention of this and draws the JEF into the OWS picture as chief sympathizer and cheerleader. I do not think the Duke and Duke merchants will even know how to capitalize on these remarks and do ads nationwide.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 18, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Adam Grayson's guy, yes what could go wrong following his advice. He does have a point,
almost in spite of himself. The issue of 'crony capitalism' that has been in the news of late. I'm struck by how poorly they the OWS choose to portray themselves. luckily they
did not learn the lesson of Jobs and Wosniak.
Posted by: narciso | October 18, 2011 at 12:04 PM
narciso,
You mean Fat Alan not Adam, right? He continues to run his mouth and is going to try and get his seat back. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 18, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Just read where Obama in Virginia is talking about the 99%. IOW's he has jumped the shark and totally accepted OWS as his army and voice for the 2012 campaign.
Just when I think that imbecile can't be any more clueless, he does something even more mindcrushingly idiotic. How soon does it dawn on him that the only thing that will save him will be a Kent State moment? And how will he make it happen?
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM
Jane:
"Just as long as it doesn't get lumped in with the tea party..."
While it pains me to agree, I'm not thrilling to the schadenfreude here. If Democrats successfully sell the OWS/Tea Party equivalence, no matter how false, that association in the public's mind could end up hurting the Tea Party as much as the Democrats. The lack of any identifiable OWS game plan is an advantage which allows Democrats to be really selective about their embrace. Spinning OWS as the incarnation of Americans' frustration with favorite Democratic whipping boys is a political no-brainer, especially when they don't have to defend an itemized list of demands.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Debate focus tonight from executive producer:
"Feist said the debate would focus on subjects of interest in the West, but he would not be more specific, not wanting to give away questions that might tip off the candidates."
Cain will have to explain his "fry 'em fence" and Perry will have a chance to revisit "heartless". Romney will be asked which is his favorite Disney character.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Via a Malkin tweet:
May have to click on the image to get the full picture.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM
That's such a timely cartoon.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 18, 2011 at 12:16 PM
How do you unspin a lie, JM, that was the question you never answered in that long coloquoy we had about three years ago, When the truth doesn't matter, what is the point of the exercise. You found Tina Fey's caricature endearing, I'm sure you'll think
the same of what Kenan is doing with Cain,
and whatever doofus they have for Perry.
Posted by: narciso | October 18, 2011 at 12:16 PM
If Democrats successfully sell the OWS/Tea Party equivalence, no matter how false, that association in the public's mind could end up hurting the Tea Party as much as the Democrats.
I hope I don't have to eat these words but I'm counting on the voters to be smarter than that. The Tea Party actually achieved some success in getting people elected *and* moving the debate away from the jugeared fellow's trajectory. It was far from an unfocused rant which is exactly what OWS is and how I believe most people are viewing it..
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM
ranger-The real story on higher ed is beyond sickening. It took me a while to even figure out how to be snarky. A serious abuse of trust between higher ed admins and the students they have been well paid to educate. It is what I am working on now. I cannot imagine what it will be like to read these documents and reports if you have debt from your intentional miseducation to boot.
CH-OWS were heavily influenced in K-12 by the 1990s Outcomes Based Education which was more affective in intent. Bad PR like Columbine might foster a name change in education but it does not slow down the drive to put theory into practice.
Kim-Did the Climategate email release and other slowdowns in implementation affect the Decade of Sustainable Devt's plans? I came across a most troubling alliance recently that indicated UNESCO was reaching out to all known radicals at about the halfway point. I was not shocked at the alliance so much as waiting until 2010 to recruit. It looked like an attempt for reinforcements.
Posted by: rse | October 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM
i dunno, rse. All revelations have had the effect of a landslide on the track of the speeding train. Sustaino Jones, you better watch those falling rocks.
=========
Posted by: Ooh kooka choo choo. | October 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | October 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Much of this Sustainable Development/AGW agitprop was seen in an early 90s 'dramatized
documentary' of the future, 'After the Warming' by James Burke, although I first heard of the global warming panic in the science fiction of Strieber and Kinetka,
Posted by: narciso | October 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM
TOTUS has been heard from :)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM
I don't think the Dems are going to try to equate OWS and the Tea Party. They need to keep the Tea Party around to demonize later, if need be.
Obama wants to ride the OWS and use it to attack Wall St. and big business, thereby drawing the left closer and maybe picking up some gullible independents. If Romney is the nominee this will be especially helpful.
If at any point OWS brings negative attention on itself, MSM will simply drop coverage of it.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM
"There were no Obama signs — in fact, no signs supportive of either party."
CPUSA doesn't need signs.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | October 18, 2011 at 12:34 PM
BTW, OT, but this may explain why we sent troops to fight the LRA:
Kenya troops 'advance into Somalia near Afmadow'
I'm not sure if the 100 troops in Uganda is a distraction from this, or an effort to prepare the US population for future joint operations in Somalia (a name that still leaves a bad taste in the average American's mouth after "Bill and Hillary's excellent adventure in Mogadishu").
Posted by: Ranger | October 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM
If at any point OWS brings negative attention on itself
and that should read *enough* negative attention. For their purposes, the current level isn't considered damaging yet.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM
I don't think the Dems are going to try to equate OWS and the Tea Party.
It's not the dems I'm worried about.
This is tea party week for me. Tonite I attend a meeting in the next town and tomorrow is my own meeting. We'll see if we get more or less people.
But here's what I worry about: Every two weeks we do a standout in a surrounding community. We carry flags and signs and cars drive by and beep their horns. The point is to remind people we exist. I am very concerned that people will see us and think we are OWS. I plan to talk to the organizers tonite to see if they agree.
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM
That's a dilemma, Jane. I'd think flags and patriotic attire would be enough to show y'all aren't OWS folks, but in MA idk.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 18, 2011 at 01:00 PM
I am very concerned that people will see us and think we are OWS.
I gotcha, Jane. Sorry I misunderstood. I would think that US and Gadsden flags would be distinctive enough, but I can understand the concern. Maybe a little more overt Tea Party branding is in order? A couple of Sturbridge Tea Party signs?
Posted by: Porchlight | October 18, 2011 at 01:01 PM
Or maybe skipping a few weeks
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2011 at 01:09 PM
Don't know how many of you follow the MOTUS blog, but she has a great photo which she zoomed in on.
Some support systems, don't give much support.
Posted by: centralcal | October 18, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Captain:
"How do you unspin a lie, JM, that was the question you never answered in that long coloquoy we had about three years ago, When the truth doesn't matter, what is the point of the exercise. You found Tina Fey's caricature endearing, I'm sure you'll think the same of what Kenan is doing with Cain, and whatever doofus they have for Perry."
I'm not clear on where and how I left that question unanswered, but I assume you're talking about the "I can see Russia from my porch line?" Yes, I thought Tina Fey's caricature was entertaining, and I'd be willing to bet that no one here found it particularly objectionable when SNL absolutely skewered Obama on the death of bin Laden. Political caricature is an art with a long history and an obvious future.
I don't blame Tina Fey for the glee with which the left leapt on that line. That's where it took root as a lie, that's where you have to fight it, and that's why I do think the kind of carelessness with which the putative "partnership" of Romeny and Holdren has been bandied about is a real world offense. So I'd say you can find my answer in my own attempt to unpack that slam for examination, in the belief that sometimes, even if not always, such efforts can make a difference. I suppose the question I would ask is what's the point of giving up?
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 18, 2011 at 01:21 PM
JMH, that was narc, not me, that posed that question.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 18, 2011 at 01:24 PM
Ccal, what is that a picture of?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 18, 2011 at 01:30 PM
He hired some of these people, and consulted others, who were not notably different, re Bill Pizer, their imput led to policies that were implemented in Massachussetts with bad consequences, which was made worse by succeeding
administrations, the same can be
said of his other big policy breakthrough.
They were all properly credentialed 'Top
Men (and Women) in their field, that's what
worries me. That is his legacy, maybe out of naivete,
Posted by: narciso | October 18, 2011 at 01:32 PM
DoT, you're better off not knowing. Try to put it out of your mind because I wish I could::shudder::
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 18, 2011 at 01:32 PM
--We carry flags and signs and cars drive by and beep their horns. The point is to remind people we exist. I am very concerned that people will see us and think we are OWS. I plan to talk to the organizers tonite to see if they agree.--
Jane,
As long as the flags are American and aren't flying upside down, aren't burning and don't have hammers and sickles on them I think people will be able to tell the difference.
Posted by: Ignatz | October 18, 2011 at 01:33 PM
I don't understand. Did Romney not hire Holdren?
Posted by: Porchlight | October 18, 2011 at 01:33 PM
Too much to hope?
I don't think so. Here's a news story about the DCCC telling its members they should support OWS, and here are pictures of OWS demonstrators defecating on a cop car and an American flag.
"Democrats: We Take Your Money. We Shit On Your Flag."
Posted by: bgates | October 18, 2011 at 01:34 PM
'goggles they do nothin. nothin' Captain.
Posted by: narciso | October 18, 2011 at 01:35 PM
DoT: FLOTUS, wearing an oxford style shirt (trying to appear normal in dress) as she painted a wall. However, as she extended her paint roller up the wall to the ceiling, her shirt lifted to reveal . . . ?
I am guessing, the elastic on her thong underwear.
Posted by: centralcal | October 18, 2011 at 01:37 PM
DoT, I'm not cc, but that picture seems to be of a side of thong underwear.
Posted by: Clarice | October 18, 2011 at 01:38 PM
The way to reconcile Politico
Despite deep suspicions on the right, Occupy Wall Street is not a left-wing electoral force, and the culture of the occupiers is one that profoundly distrusts electoral politics.
and Kevin Williamson
I’ve been spending as much time as I can down at Occupy Wall Street....Almost every organization present at OWS is explicitly communist or socialist. Almost every piece of literature being handed out is explicitly communist or socialist. I don’t mean half, and I don’t mean the overwhelming majority — I mean almost all of it.
is to recognize that the communists know they couldn't even win a rigged election, so they'd rather just include elections as part of "the system" they're committed to destroying.
Posted by: bgates | October 18, 2011 at 01:44 PM
If Democrats successfully sell the OWS/Tea Party equivalence, no matter how false, that association in the public's mind could end up hurting the Tea Party as much as the Democrats.
I share that concern, JMH. Anecdotal, but. . .
Yesterday a voting but not-very-political friend emailed me a pro-OWS article he had read and thought I'd like. I believe his intentions were good; he knows of my participation in the Tea Party here and assumed I'd enjoy reading about the genesis and good intentions behind OWS, my "sister" protesters.
Did my best by writing back to enlighten him, but it did make me wonder how many others have formed the same assumption. It may be more widespread than we know, and clearly a cause for anxiety if not (yet) alarm.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | October 18, 2011 at 01:47 PM
Oops, sorry Captain!
I take clips for replying, and sometimes paste them into the wrong spot on my running template.
narciso:
Please see my comment at 1:21 in response to your earlier question.
I would add what might really be the most important part of the answer. Effectively combatting political lies is a lot harder when we spend more time talking to each other than confronting the actual liars. I worry about that, but I'm sorry to admit, I would have to plead guilty, guilty, guilty to my own charge.
Posted by: JM Hanes | October 18, 2011 at 01:49 PM
AB,
That was me. And yeah you got it just right. The media wants to paint us as related, and those that pay little attention are happy to make the leap.
Paranoia is generally not my style but I am very protective of the tea party.
I'm not cc, but that picture seems to be of a side of thong underwear.
Either that or a jock strap.
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2011 at 01:53 PM
I can live a bit better with Jane's answer, for some reason.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 18, 2011 at 01:55 PM
I don't blame Tina Fey for the glee with which the left leapt on that line. That's where it took root as a lie, that's where you have to fight it
I can't help but remember the glee with which the left used to claim that Reagan confused movies with reality (a claim that I partly refuted here). But somehow when the left confuses SNL with reality it's perfectly acceptable. All in furtherance of the cause, I guess.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 18, 2011 at 02:01 PM
Jane: Over at Insty, he has a reader comment that struck a chord with me about the media. Using push and pull as his metaphors, he describes the information we go seeking via the internet, etc. as "pull" - we went looking for it. The "push" is what we are subjected to all day every day, via the radio, TV, newspapers (even entertainment shows) that gives us information the way they (liberals) want it.
We still have a long way to go before the push and pull are more balanced out among the populace. Too many only get the push.
Posted by: centralcal | October 18, 2011 at 02:01 PM
Jane, the tea parties stand for worthwhile ideas that have worked in practice while OWSers sit for everything else.
Clear choice.
If people can't tell the difference, tell them to look elsewhere for their news.
Posted by: sbw | October 18, 2011 at 02:02 PM
Now Cain might not have been joking about the electrified fence. There is something about Cain...
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 02:03 PM
So, Jane, staying on the push/pull theme - tonight Jake Tapper's interview with Obama (yes, another one) airs. In it, Obama equates the OWS and the Tea Party as being the same kind of folks - I kid you not. And, of course, he just has to support these OWS folks.
Posted by: centralcal | October 18, 2011 at 02:05 PM
Clearly, FLOTUS is not one of those Mormon girls we were discussing the other day.
Posted by: MarkO | October 18, 2011 at 02:07 PM
What, MarkO? That isn't one of the typical "garments" you all were referring to?
Posted by: centralcal | October 18, 2011 at 02:10 PM
Either that or a jock strap.
Maybe a chastity belt?
Posted by: jimmyk | October 18, 2011 at 02:14 PM
I didn't get that impression, but things chnage everywhere everyday.
Posted by: MarkO | October 18, 2011 at 02:15 PM
Obama equates the OWS and the Tea Party as being the same kind of folks - I kid you not. And, of course, he just has to support these OWS folks.
I just find that so bloody offensive. Yesterday that worm rep from MA went on and on about how he supported the tea party because he believed in protest altho he didn't agree with that we stand for. (So he is against the constitution). That's absolute bull!
Maybe I need a sign that says: Mr. President, we aren't anything like OWS
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2011 at 02:19 PM
I can't imagine how uncomfortable that thing is if it is all the way up to her waist. Eeeewwwww....
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 02:21 PM
Romney is going after Perry again. I wonder what their internals show? It would seem he should be going after Cain, wouldn't it? Unless my conspiracy is correct and Romney and Cain are tag teaming Perry.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 02:24 PM
Or my theory, that Cain is on a book tour.
Posted by: MarkO | October 18, 2011 at 02:27 PM
Back on topic for a moment, did anyone see the clip (it was either on Greta or BOR) of that OWS "lady" from LA talking about how the Zionist Jews control everything and they should be "run out of this country"? Ok, no surprise, but what was most striking was the fact that this lady identified herself as an employee of the LA unified school district. I presume she did that because she knows she can't be fired? I hope she's mistaken in that.
http://hillbuzz.org/2011/10/14/jew-hater-at-ows-in-l-a-they-need-to-be-run-out-of-this-country/
Posted by: jimmyk | October 18, 2011 at 02:30 PM
Other than Sue, most Republicans seem to like Cain personally. Since most don't like Romney, he'd be "kooky" to bash Cain, especially when the msm is more than willing to do it for him. Unless he has a great debate outing tonight, Perry is in danger of becoming an object of pity, and Romney hitting him while he's down makes no sense.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 18, 2011 at 02:32 PM
Wasting money going after someone polling 3% in Florida seems ridiculous. But what do I know? I voted for Perry for governor of Texas, a very blue...err...red state.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 02:39 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | October 18, 2011 at 02:43 PM
Perry has $15 million to keep on keeping on for some time. If Cain self-destructs, a real possibility imo, Perry may rebound despite himself as the last line of defense between us and Mr. Inevitable.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 18, 2011 at 02:43 PM
tonight Jake Tapper's interview with Obama (yes, another one) airs.
Ah, no wonder is poll numbers are going down. He's been getting a lot more air time lately. More Cowbell!!!
Posted by: Ranger | October 18, 2011 at 02:45 PM
While waiting the a doctor’s office, I read the latest (dead tree) TIME. They seem to enjoy that OWS has higher favorability numbers than the Tea Party, but, of course, the OWS haven’t had weeks of 24/7 onslaught by the MSM calling them every possible ad hominem possible.
Also noticed that Joe Klein brings up the “new” Silent Majority, who just want everybody to just get along (and agree with the Democrats).
Posted by: Neo | October 18, 2011 at 02:48 PM
What if Sarah Palin comes out and endorses Rick Perry? She thought him worthy enough to stump for him during the last election. What changed for her if she doesn't support him now? I think it would further hurt Perry with the squishy middle if she did, but would it make the TEA party take a second look at him?
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 02:49 PM
Britt Hume was on early this morning, saying that basically Herman Cain has no, zero, zip, nada staff or campaign structure in any of the early primary states and that it would be almost unheard of for him to really compete there with no boots on the ground, etc. etc.
Naturally there is always that one-in-a-million chance that popularity alone will keep Cain aloft in primary voting, but I am wondering what his game plan is.
Posted by: centralcal | October 18, 2011 at 02:50 PM
I'm starting to think a second look at Newt might be in order.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 02:51 PM
Palin can't save Perry, but Perry can save himself if he performs well tonight, releases with concrete plans that make sense, and stops hiding behind Anita's skirts.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 18, 2011 at 02:52 PM
but I am wondering what his game plan is.
I'm tellin' ya' he's tag teaming with Romney to rid themselves of Perry. To what end I haven't yet made up, but everything Cain does seems odd for someone sitting so close to 1st in the Republican primary.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 02:54 PM
Interesting snippet posted at NRO. Steve Moore (WSJ) in a Kudlow interview tells how he and Art Laffer helped Cain develop the 999 plan and that he will have to make one change to it:
Posted by: centralcal | October 18, 2011 at 02:57 PM
I am wondering what his game plan is.
Sing and soundbite his way to the nomination?
Re Newt, I hope he has another stellar debate and gives Mr. Inevitable someone else to worry about.
Posted by: DebinNC | October 18, 2011 at 02:57 PM
Palin may not endorse at all, but my guess is that if she does, she's not going to waste her endorsement on a candidate who has no chance. Perry will have to turn things around on his own to prove he's viable.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 18, 2011 at 02:58 PM
President Obama, who has become a target of the Occupy Wall Street protests sweeping the country, today embraced the economic frustration voiced on the streets and said in an exclusive interview with ABC News that his vision for the U.S. economic system is best suited to resolve protesters’ concerns.
When did I miss this ? LUN
Posted by: Neo | October 18, 2011 at 03:00 PM
I don't like his wife very much. Not even really sure why, but something about Anita Perry has never made me comfortable with her.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 03:02 PM
I can see you need staff to manage (that is, corrupt) the votes in caucus states. Are we really at a place where without huge sums of money and boots on the ground. it is impossible to win primary elections?
I suppose that's where the smart money is, but I think people are fed up with the spinsters, managers, creeps passing out walking around money .
Cain gets more favorable publicity on his own than most candidates can get with lots of media butt kissers.
Posted by: Clarice | October 18, 2011 at 03:02 PM
Sue, I agree with you that Cain's behavior is odd. I can only conclude he's positioning himself for a Romney VP slot. To help Romney doesn't have to win; he just has to be enough of a spoiler to keep Perry from winning.
This way he can end up VP without having to mount much of a campaign. Nice work if you can get it.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 18, 2011 at 03:02 PM
I saw it Jimmy - repeated several times.
that worm rep from MA
Capuano, the snake. He's the guy who called for bloodying the tea party.
Posted by: Jane | October 18, 2011 at 03:03 PM
Palin may not endorse at all
Not even for her friend and someone she stumped for already? She wasted her endorsement on some who had no chance in 2010.
Posted by: Sue | October 18, 2011 at 03:04 PM