Live Blog: *Another* Republican Debate?! Haven’t We Suffered Enough Already?

Who will crash and burn tonight? Will Perry have another brain freeze episode? Will Romney avoid flip-flopping? What embarrassing, tasteless remark will Cain make about women? What ghastly, nighmarish thing will Santorum say about gay marriage? Will god finally make an appearance and choose which of these nutcases is really the divine choice for president?

Tonight’s debate is sponsored by CBS and the National Journal and will take place in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The topics will be national security and foreign policy. You can watch it beginning at 8PM on CBS TV or at the CBS website.

CBS has more tips about what to watch for. First on the list, of course, is whether Rick Perry “can clear the low bar of expectations.”

Almost every debate has been a challenge for the Texas governor, but after Wednesday night’s face plant in Michigan, there’s really nowhere for him to go but up. He’s tried to make light of he stumbles and turn them into strengths, saying he’s not slick, that he speaks from the heart. That’s all well and good, but the danger for Perry is that voters already have formed an opinion of him–and that based on his past performances, they lack confidence that he is either capable or can persuasively carry the conservative message to victory. Debates matter to voters: In our new poll, 76 percent of Republicans said the candidate’s performance was important in deciding their vote.

You don’t have to be a championship debater–the pundits and the media never gave the debate points George W. Bush. But Bush clearly passed the threshold that he was qualified to be president. In debates, he was able to connect with voters and communicate his message in a way Perry so far has not.

I really do hope that god shows up and tells Rick to go back to Texas and deal with drought and wildfires.

I plan to watch as long as I can stand it. I’m hoping for another horrible goof by one or more candidates. If you’re watching too, please join me in the comments.


Thursday Reads

Good Morning!! There was another Republican debate last night. It was on CNBC, but I just couldn’t stand to watch. Luckily, Andrew Sullivan live blogged it at the Daily Beast. Sullivan isn’t too happy with the Republican choices:

9.51 pm. At this point, I have begun to really lose it watching this crew. There are only two faintly plausible, credible presidents up there, both Mormons. The rest is beyond an embarrassment, and at this moment in history, the sheer paucity of that talent is alarming. Did anyone up there give you confidence he or she could actually lead the world countering this metastasizing debt and unemployment crisis? At best, there were noises about removing burdensome regulation on businesses and a simpler tax code. But who up there could actually bring that about?

Two other things: Romney’s claim that Democrats hate profitable companies. It’s an absurd statement on its face, but as a comment on reality, it’s surreal. Profits are at record levels. If lack of profits is the reason for our employment crisis, there would be no crisis. Second: the boos for questioning a man in power who is credibly accused of sexual harassment and has settled such cases in the past is a sign of real contempt for women in such a situation. Both reveal to me a party hat has completely lost its way.

I’m beginning to wonder if these debates are helping Obama more than his own primary debates did in 2007 and 2008. Next to these doofuses, he seems reassuring. The losers of this debate: Perry and Cain. The winners? Gingrich and Obama.

Earlier, Sullivan wrote Rick Perry’s epitaph:

9.18 pm. Perry collapses. Cannot remember a list of three federal government departments he wants to abolish past the first two. Seriously. And then he says “oops.” He has all but disappeared inside his suit in this debate and is now basically done. And notice the casualness with which he intends to abolish whole government departments. Has he thought through the consequences? Or is he just a bad performance artist?

Watch it:

I’m so glad I didn’t watch!

Actually, I really don’t watch much TV, so I totally missed out on the new nationwide emergency alert test at 2PM yesterday. The Washington Post is very concerned that people like me will miss a real alert if one ever happens. They want an emergency alert system for the internet and phones.

FEMA launched a national alert system for phones in May, called PLAN, that reaches some smartphones on some national providers. The program sends out free text messages about emergency situations. However, only about 50 percent of Americans own smartphones and the program has not fully been adopted across the country.

As for Internet alerts, they work mainly on an opt-in basis. FEMA has an iPad and Android app and Twitter and Facebook accounts. However, this system of requiring Americans to actively seek out FEMA differs dramatically from the PLAN system or the Emergency Alert System. The alert system pushes messages out to Americans whether they want them or not. FEMA works with cable providers to get the word out.

It would be interesting to see the agency undertaking something similar in partnerships with major Internet companies. Could it be possible for the Google logo to turn into an alert message? Or for Twitter’s promoted ads — which appear in user timelines — to be a message from FEMA?

It may not be that long in the future for a truly integrated nationwide alert system. FEMA is working on an Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) that will employ all communication devices.

Ugh. I’d almost rather miss the warning of a nuclear attack or whatever FEMA wants to alert me to. I doubt if I’d be able to do anything to get out of the way of a nuke or a terrorist attack.

We’re hearing more about the Super Committee as the days tick down to the deadline. Supposedly, they’re supposed to figure out $1.2 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving. Reuters has a gossipy piece on the committee’s secret inner workings: Inside Room 200, home of the “super committee”

Deep beneath the Capitol is a red-carpeted room that recently reverberated to the sound of Democrats and Republicans singing together, and then to their angry exchanges over how to fix the U.S. budget.

Welcome to Congress’s “super committee” room….

“At this point, the most serious adult conversations going in Congress are at the super committee,” a senior aide said.

“Members are driven by a sense that this is a very precarious time in U.S. history that beckons a solution,” the aide said. “But at the same time, members wrestle with political loyalties that they can’t divorce themselves from.”

Democrats are pushing to cut the deficit by up to $3 trillion over 10 years, much higher than the super committee’s target, with a mix of spending cuts and new tax revenues. But Republicans deeply oppose raising taxes, warning of job losses and damage to an already fragile economic recovery.

Read the article if you’re interested in which committee members are making friends and hanging out together. {shudder}

Whiny old Mitch McConnell claims the White House wants the super committee to fail.

After leaving the Republicans’ weekly policy luncheon, McConnell was asked about Senator Charles Schumer’s prediction yesterday that the Super Committee would likely fail to strike an agreement on a plan to cut $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years “because our Republican colleagues have said no net revenues.”

Responding today, McConnell said Schumer (D-NY), the Democrats’ primary messenger, is indicative of how Democrats and the White House want this committee to fail.

“It’s pretty clear when Chuck Schumer speaks, he’s speaking from the most partisan Democratic position,” McConnell said today. “And it does raise your suspicion that the folks down at the White House are pulling for failure. Because you see, if the Joint Committee succeeds, it steps on the story line that they’ve been peddling, which is that you can’t do anything with the Republicans in Congress.”

McConnell said the six Republicans on the 12-member committee from the House and Senate want an outcome and “do not believe failure is an option.”

Because of course McConnell and his pals aren’t the least bit partisan, and all they want is what is best for the country. /snark

Meanwhile, President Obama is getting the hell out of Dodge and leaving Congress to its own devices.

The so-called super committee will be busy with final negotiations while President Obama travels to Hawaii, Australia and Indonesia and the White House says President Obama will be getting updates on what is happening.

He likely won’t be receiving extra briefings, but the latest on the super committee meetings will be a part of his regular updates he gets while he is traveling.

Obama is going to Hawaii first for the APEC summit, then Australia for a re-scheduled trip from last year, and then Bali, Indonesia for the East Asia Summit. He leaves Friday for the week-long trip that will have a heavy emphasis on jobs and national security, which the White house says fits right into the president’s number priority – jobs.

The NYT has an op-ed by John Quiggin called Euro Crisis’s Enabler: The Central Bank. Quiggin blames ECB policies for the Eurocrisis.

Far from struggling to manage a “one size fits all” monetary policy, the bank has pursued a “one size fits nobody” policy of monetary contraction, at a time when no European economy is growing strongly. With great reluctance, the bank has agreed to support the markets for European sovereign debt through purchases of government bonds. But, unlike the policy of quantitative easing pursued by the Federal Reserve — in which the United States’ central bank amassed Treasury securities to push down long-term interest rates — the European Central Bank has insisted on “sterilizing,” or neutralizing, its purchases of government bonds by selling the securities to private-sector banks. Such a policy cannot be sustained on a scale sufficient to stabilize financial markets.

This is part of a broader problem: the European Central Bank’s conception of its own role. The bank was established in 1998, at a time when memories of the inflationary surge of the 1970s and 1980s were still fresh. It was therefore given a mandate that focused primarily on inflation, and has interpreted that mandate very narrowly.

Unlike any previous central bank in history, the bank has disclaimed any responsibility for the European financial system it effectively controls, or even for the viability of the euro as a currency. Instead, it has focused almost entirely on the formal objective of keeping inflation rates to a 2 percent target.

Quggin says that the new head of the ECB, Mario Draghi must

announce that the central bank will stand behind the sovereign debt of euro zone members, if necessary at the expense of the 2 percent inflation target. This would give governments the financial resources they needed to recapitalize banks. Since the crisis is largely one of confidence, it is likely that bond markets would stabilize without the need for large-scale bond purchases, once there was a credible commitment to intervene where necessary.

Coach Joe Paterno and President Graham B. Spanier are gone from Penn State.

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Graham B. Spanier, one of the longest-serving and highest-paid university presidents in the nation, who has helped raise the academic profile of Penn State during his tenure, stepped down Wednesday night in the wake of a sexual-abuse scandal involving a prominent former assistant football coach and the university’s failure to act to halt further harm.

Spanier’s departure came as the university’s Board of Trustees also ended the 84-year-old Joe Paterno’s career, denying him his wish to finish out the season, his 46th as the head football coach and his 62nd over all at the school.

The defensive coordinator Tom Bradley will take over as interim head coach.

The university’s most senior officials were clearly seeking to halt the humiliating damage caused by the arrest last Saturday of the former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, a man who had been a key part of a legendary football program, but who prosecutors have said was a serial pedophile, one who was allowed to add victims over the years in part because the university he had served was either unable or unwilling to stop him.

Here’s a piece by addiction expert Stanton Peele about the link between “disregard for societal constraints and college sports.” Reacting to the Penn State scandal, Peele writes:

Do I really mean college sports teams encourage sexual abuse of children? Not exactly. What I mean is, college sports are so dominant at American universities that even the most heinous sex crimes will be covered over rather than being allowed to disturb the giant university-sports complex. This is perhaps especially evident at Penn State, where 84-year-old Paterno has side-stepped all criticisms during his career, and proceeded to rack up the all-time leading victory total for a major college football coach. This has “established him,” according to the Times, “as one of the nation’s most revered leaders.”

This same man declined to report Sandusky directly to police and thus permitted him—as did other university officials—to continue to use the school facilities for “chicken-hawking” (a technical term for seducing children) for 15 years! Pennsylvania officals were disbelieving that their great university could allow such a state of affairs for so long. In the words of the Times, these officials felt that while Paterno may not have committed a crime, he “might well have failed a moral test for what to do when confronted with such a disturbing allegation involving a child not even in his teens. No one at the university alerted the police or pursued the matter to determine the well-being of the child involved.”

Ahh, but the greater glory of Penn State sports was preserved!

That’s it for me. What are you reading and blogging about today?


Looking for President Goodbar

It’s hard not to be depressed these days when a manic Texas Governor can still get applause for giving a speech while sounding like he’s on something and an entire group of voters puts a serial sexual harasser that has no idea that China has had nukes for decades as the leader of a pack of serious bunch of no nothings. An NBC poll shows exactly how out of alignment the political class is with the American people.   The current political races shows how unable our current two party system is when it comes to actually delivering worthwhile candidates.  While the country needs jobs and economic growth, a committee of congressional power brokers looks to be as connected to both political donors and ideological fundamentalists as any of its predecessors.  What this country needs is a leader.  There appears to be none in sight.  Do we really have to embrace more of the same?

Heading into 2012, America is looking for a populist. According to the poll, a whopping 76% agree with the statement that the current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country. However, another 53% of respondents agree with the statement that the national debt must be cut significantly by reducing spending and the size of government. By the way, nearly 40% of all those surveyed agree with BOTH statements about the unfairness of the economic system and the size of government issue. Also, half of all respondents in the poll identify with either the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Tea Party (and 4% of all respondents identify with both). There’s an angry electorate out there, ideologically spread across the political spectrum. If the major party nominees are Obama and Romney, can either be seen as a convincing populist that will fill this void? Or are we headed for a multi-candidate field with 3rd and 4th party candidates for the general?

My guess is that both parties feel they can continue to eek out elections by positioning their people to independents as the lesser of evils or as change from the current evil.  Is that a real choice?  How about these confusing results from the party faithful that provide idiots to general elections including their last one that is arguably one of the worst presidents ever.

Beyond the big headlines from our new NBC/WSJ poll (the public’s pessimism, President Obama’s upside-down approval rating, Romney and Cain leading the GOP race and the president’s surprising leads over his potential GOP foes given the pessimistic views of his presidency), there are three important storylines you shouldn’t miss. The first: Rick Perry’s candidacy is in serious trouble and he might not be able to recover. In our first survey after the sexual-harassment allegations against Herman Cain surfaced, it’s Perry that actually lost ground in the Republican horserace (from 16% in October to 10% now) — while Mitt Romney (from 23% to 28%) and Newt Gingrich (from 8% to 13%) gained ground, and Cain actually stayed steady (from 27% to 27%). In addition, in a hypothetical two-way GOP race, Romney leads Perry by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, 62%-33%. (By comparison, Romney runs neck-and-neck against Cain in a similar two-way race, 49%-48%.) And Perry’s fav/unfav among REPUBLICAN primary voters is a pedestrian 33%-23%, versus Cain’s 52%-19% and Romney’s 46%-17%. Re-read those last set of numbers: Perry has HIGHER negative ratings than either Cain or Romney (at least before yesterday’s new Cain allegation).

It’s hard to feel sorry for Republicans whose southern strategy brought racists, religious whackos, and old style plantation economics supporters into their fold.  I’m just waiting for a pro-slavery plank to come out of their next platform at the convention.  But, it’s hard to see a good side of this craziness in a democracy that relies on two parties.   The policy of divide and conquer must be working for the parties some how; even if it’s not working for the American people.  Identity politics still can move an election and we won’t change anything until that changes.

While some Beltway chatter and commentary has suggested that the president is losing support with these voters, our NBC/WSJ poll — which included an oversample of 400 black respondents — paints a very different picture. According to the survey, 91% of them approve of Obama’s job (versus 44% among all poll respondents); 49% of them believe the country is headed in the right direction (versus 19% of all respondents); 92% would vote for Obama over Romney (versus 49%); 93% would vote for Obama over Cain (versus 53%); and 59% of them say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in 2012. If Obama wins re-election next year, he can thank this support from African Americans and (to a lesser extent) Latino voters. By the way, the president doesn’t lose any African-American support even in the hypothetical three-way matchups with Ron Paul or Michael Bloomberg. The president does NOT have a problem with African-Americans; folks should stop wasting news ink and bandwidth on that topic. Beyond one or two grumpy members of the Congressional Black Caucus, there’s no ACTUAL evidence in the community at-large.

It seems that Rick Perry’s God really didn’t send his wife that message after all and the black community is going to stand by their man despite record unemployment, foreclosure rates, and numerous state-based voter suppression activities.   So, it’s looking more and more like will have a yawn inducing presidential race between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama.  These are two men that couldn’t find a side of an issue they couldn’t support at one time or another if it helped them with the right demographic.  Both are clearly not the populists the American populace seeks.

Frankly, I’ll stay home and miss my first presidential election ever over that choice.  I will however, go out and vote for Obama if the Republicans do manage to send their whackiest of the whackies to the big show.  Isn’t this just ducky?  The economy is still waffling, the Iranians are working on weaponized nukes and the Israelis have a trigger finger itchy PM, the Eurozone is in crisis, and the best we can come up with is Obama and Perry?  Well, at least I’ll get my nap on,  come the debate season.  It’s at least a change from the evil clown horror show that’s been the Republican Presidential Primary.


Let’s Just Tell It Like It Is…

Sharon Bialek

Herman Cain is a sexual predator. Here, from Politico is a portion of Sharon Bialek’s description of what she says Herman Cain did to her. Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of “inappropriate” behavior and the first to come forward publicly and talk about what he did to her.

“I met Mr. Cain in the lobby of the bar at the Capitol Hilton at around 6:30 p.m. We had drinks at the hotel, and he asked how I liked my room, which is kind of normal, and I said I was very surprised. I said, I can’t believe it, I’ve got this great suite, it’s gorgeous. Mr. Cain kind of smirked, and then said, ‘I upgraded you.’

“He then took me to an Italian restaurant where we had dinner. During dinner, Mr. Cain looked at me and said, ‘Why are you here?’ I said, ‘Actually, Herman, my boyfriend, whom you met, suggested that I meet with you ‘cause he thought you could help me because I really need a job. I was wondering if there’s anything available at the state association level or perhaps if you could speak to someone at the foundation to try to get my job back, perhaps even in a different department.’ He said, ‘I’ll look into that.’

“While we were driving back to the hotel, he said that he would show me where the National Restaurant Association offices were. He parked the car down the block. I thought that we were going to go into the offices so he that could show me around. At that time I had on a black pleated skirt, a suit jacket and a blouse. He had on a suit with his shirt open. But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch. I was very, very surprised and very shocked.

“I said: ‘What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for.’ Mr. Cain said, ‘You want a job, right?’

“I asked him to stop and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel which he did, right away.

Is this rape? No, but it certainly fits the definition of sexual assault:

Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person’s body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person’s consent.

It may also fit the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Bialek had been working for the organization that Cain headed and was seeking his help in getting a new job with the organization. Therefore, Cain was in a position of power over Bialek.

Quite a few writers seem to be unclear on these concepts. At the NYT Caucus blog Cain’s actions are called “lewd behavior.” CBS calls it “sexually inappropriate behavior.” The AP calls it a “bold sexual advance.” Let’s start calling it what it is: sexual assault. No one has the right to touch another person in a sexual manner without permission, period.

I found this bizarre rationalization for and misrepresentation of Cain’s behavior at a right wing blog called Legal Insurrection, operated by William A. Jacobson of Cornell Law School.

Summary of press conference: Woman alleges that in 1997 after her employment terminated with a National Restaurant Association affiliate, Cain made a single sexual advance at her which she rebuffed and which he stopped after she said no. So the allegation is not one of workplace “sexual harassment” but of an alleged attempt at infidelity.

A variety of people on Twitter are characterizing this as a “serious sexual assualt,” but that is farfetched. Assuming what she says is true, he stopped when she said to stop and she did not allege any actual sexual touching, only an attempt. She says she mentioned to two people at the time that Cain was sexually inappropriate, but did not mention to details to them.

Wrong. Bialek says that Cain “suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch.” Despite what Jacobson thinks he heard, Bialek clearly said that Cain touched her in a sexual way. The fact that he stopped when she told him to doesn’t change that.

Bialek is a Republican and a Tea Party supporter, not a liberal who wants to destroy Cain’s campaign. This should be really bad for him, but so far he isn’t backing down; and many Republicans like Jacobson are still making excuses for him.

At The Grio, Zerlina Maxwell argues that the fact the Bialek is white will finally destroy Cain, but at the NYT, T.R. Frank says not so fast.

…if you think the end of the Cain campaign is at hand, remember this: The end of the Cain campaign has been at hand for months. And yet the end doesn’t arrive. In fact, inspired by Cain’s example of thrusting face exuberantly into fan, I’ll offer my own face: the end isn’t about to arrive now either. I believe that Cain will weather this latest storm. He will suffer embarrassment. People will cringe at what emerges. And he will continue to poll far better than reason should allow.

And check this out:

is it any wonder that Herman Cain has shed a lot of high-level campaign staff members, both within his national organization and in crucial early states like Iowa and New Hampshire? Most of these former staff members have signed nondisclosure agreements, and others would speak to me only off the record. None of them recall their former boss as a sexual harasser. But they do speak of a man so egotistical that careful self-policing would never really enter into the realm of consideration.

They also speak — bitterly — of a candidate with zero interest in policy. They speak of events canceled at the last minute to accommodate any available television interview. They speak of unrelenting self-absorption, even by the standards of a politician.

But they don’t speak of someone who can’t win.

Personally, I think Cain should be gone already. But maybe Frank is right. The latest Gallup poll has Cain still tied with Romney for the lead in the race for the Republican nomination. And we know how much Republicans don’t want Romney.


Breaking: Herman Cain Accuser Releases Statement Through Attorney

Herman Cain

Here is the statement one of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in the 1999. The statement was made through her attorney Joel Bennett. Via Politico (emphasis added):

In 1999 I was retained by a female employee of the National Restaurant Association concerning several instances of sexual harassment by the then CEO.

She made a complaint in good faith about a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from the CEO.

Those complaints were resolved in an agreement with her acceptance of a monetary settlement. She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now, nor in discussing this matter further, publicly or privately. In fact it would be extremely painful to do so.

She is grateful that she was able to return to her government career, where she is extremely happy serving the American people to the best of her ability. She looks forward to continuing to work hard for them as we face the significant challenges that lie ahead.

She wishes to thank the media for the restraint that they have shown, her family – especially her sisters – for their love and support, her colleagues and supervisors for their patience and forbearance and her advisors for their wise counsel, and most of all, her dear husband of 26 years for standing by her and putting up with all of this.

Everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace. Sexual harassment is unfortunately very much alive and with us even today, and women must fight it in all kinds of workplaces and at all levels.

My client stands by the complaint she made.

According to Politico, the National Restaurant Association “waived the confidentiality restrictions to allow Cain’s accuser to speak through her lawyer and confirmed that her complaint had been filed against Cain.”

No doubt, more information will be coming out about Cain’s harassment of women. Abusers don’t just do this once. There is generally a pattern of similar incidents over time.


UPDATE:
TPM has more from Joel Bennett

Cain has said that the one payout he was aware of was closer to a severance package than any kind of settlement over inappropriate behavior. Bennett said that was inaccurate and that the agreement was clearly tied to the sexual harassment complaint. Asked whether it was possible Cain didn’t know about the settlement, since has only acknowledged one of the cases, Bennett said it may have been resolved after he left the NRA but that it still was highly unlikely he wouldn’t be informed.

“I would be astounded if the complaint was not brought to his attention,” he said.

While he said he was not aware of the other woman who filed a complaint against Cain, he indicated the existence of other accusers bolstered his client’s claim that Cain sexually harassed women.

“There’s an expression: where there’s smoke there’s fire,” he said. “the fact that there are multiple complaints tells me that there was probably some sexual harassment behavior by this man at that time.”