Twitter is full of morons. But today, the Moron of the Day is Politico senior writer Steve Freiss, who tweeted:
.@goproud issues statement: “as federalists, we do not believe in 1-size-fits-all” on gay marriage. But aren’t federalists pro-federal govt?
— Steve Friess (@SteveFriess) January 18, 2013
No, Steve, they’re not.
This is why we’re up crap creek without a paddle these days—because people just do not understand what terms used in politics actually mean. It is true that in the very beginning, back when we were still under the Articles of Confederation, that federalists wanted a stronger national, federal government. But they did not want “one size fits all” policies for the states, and were very adamant about having power distributed across the states, and between the states and the federal government.
Read up on Madison, Adams, and Jefferson, man. It’s not that hard. Or take a look at the Cato Institute. Or hell, Cornell University Law School. Or any number of other places. It’s pretty obvious what federalism means, and Steve Freiss is an ignorant fool to completely miss it.
Yet, as I’ve noted, he’s a senior writer at Politico. And these are the guys writing stories and feeding information to the masses—people who have absolutely no idea about American politics and what words actually mean. These are likely also the same reporters and writers crafting stories that are subtly pro-gun control.
Can we stop taking them seriously, now?
By now you’ve seen or heard about the sexual harassment story that Politico dropped last night on Herman Cain. The allegations are that while he was running the National Restaurant Association (NRA), Cain made unwanted sexual advances towards two women, who later monetarily settled with the organization.
Though Cain’s supporters are crying foul at the Politico story and blaming the media. But Politico certainly seemed to have carefully proceeded with the story, even tipping the campaign off at least a week in advance. So it shouldn’t have come as a surprise, and that’s one reason why the initial fumbling responses from Cain’s campaign team are so unacceptable. And blaming the media, as Philip Klein wrote this morning, just isn’t going to work in the long run.
What does the story mean? It’s hard to say right now. The candidate himself seems to be handling the issue well today. Yesterday, however, Cain handled it poorly when he didn’t deny the accusation four times and then responded to the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”
Eight of the candidates seeking the Republican nomination will square off tonight at the Reagan Library in California. It’s Rick Perry’s first formal debate since joining the field of candidates. All eyes will be on him as he tries to live up to the hype.
What to watch for:
- Ron Paul and Mitt Romney may try to go after Perry on various issues, including support for Al Gore and HillaryCare. Romney may raise concerns with Perry’s electability and criticize his positions on entitlements and immigration.
- Jon Huntsman, who was invited to the debate despite very low poll numbers, may also try to distinguish with Romney on jobs; as he has done with his new ad.
- We’ll see what Michele Bachmann does to try to reestablish her relevance in the race since Perry has and largely stolen her thunder.
Despite heavy lobbying, Politico reported this morning that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who crafted an utterly pointless amendment with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) to expand background checks to gun shows and online gun sales, doesn’t have the votes to pass his measure today:
“We will not get the votes today,” Manchin told NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, according to a message she posted on Twitter.
But when Manchin appeared minutes later on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he had a slightly more optimistic take.
“We hope so,” Manchin said when asked if they had the votes, adding: “We have over 90 percent of the Senate Democrats that will vote affirmative. If we just had 20 percent of our Republican colleagues — that’s not a heavy ask, it’s not a heavy lift, only 20 percent, that’s nine members, nine members — this thing would be home.”
Roll Call notes that Manchin needs as many as eight votes to pass the amendment, and that he’s lost a lot of potential support since the Senate voted last week to proceed on the the gun control bill, including several Republicans who voted to end the conservative-backed filibuster.
It’s not a surprise that politicians use a a time of heightened fear or a tradegy to pass legislation or pursue policies that aren’t necessarily in the public’s best interest.
Just after the 2008 financial crisis, President-elect Barack Obama was making a push for his $830+ billion stimulus package. His subordinates were making the rounds on cable news shows and in the press as they tried scare Americans into supporting the plan. In a rare moment of honesty from a politician, Rahm Emanuel, who would later serve as President Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, told reports that using the recession for political gain was imperative.
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste,” Emanuel said. “And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
During a trip to the European Union in January 2009, the newly minted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience in Brussels that the global recession provided an opportunity for countries to rebuild their economies with so-called “green energy.”
“Never waste a good crisis,” Clinton said, as quoted by Reuters. “Don’t waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security.”
The on-going push for new and expanded gun control measures in the Senate is largely based on the same political games — pushing long-held policies at a time when Americans have a sense of uncertainty. While there aren’t many members who’ll say that outloud, the media is certainly highlighting point for them.
Among the major talking points from President Barack Obama and Democrats that are often repeated in the media has been that the public agrees with his calls for higher taxes on the wealthy as part of any “fiscal cliff” deal.
In their story on a new poll conducted with George Washington University, Politico ran with the headline, “Battleground Poll: Hike taxes on rich.” The poll showed that “60 percent of respondents support raising taxes on households that earn more than $250,000 a year and 64 percent want to raise taxes on large corporations.” Again, not surprising. It fits the narrative that we’ve constantly heard, even though it’s a myth.
But buried deep inside the story — seven paragraphs down — was this gem:
According to the poll — taken from from Dec. 2 to Dec. 6 — 69 percent of respondents oppose raising taxes on small businesses that earn more than $250,000 — a group that the GOP is trying to protect with its push to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Republicans have argued thoughout the course of the “fiscal cliff” negoitiations that they want to protect small businesses — entities employing less than 500 people — in a “fiscal cliff” deal. They’re getting hammered by the White House and Democrats for not wanting to raise taxes, but here is their affirmation on the issue as nearly 70% of respondents agree with the GOP’s position. The headline should have been “Battleground Poll: Don’t raise taxes on small businesses” or something along similar lines.
Back during the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama promised Americans that he would keep lobbyists out of his administration. Unfortunately, like so many other promises he made, Obama hasn’t quite lived up to the “hope” and “change.” But don’t tell that to Anna Palmer of Politico, who recently wrote that lobbyists are “ready for a comeback under Mitt Romney.”
This piece caught the eye of Tim Carney, who frequently shows the connections between big business and big government — what many would call “corporatism” — at the Washington Examiner. Carney took Palmer’s assertion that Obama has run a lobbyist-free administration completely apart, numbering 55 different registered lobbyists who have work for the Obama Administration — ranging from inside the White House to important cabinet-level positions.
Here’s a taste of Carney’s epic takedown of Palmer (numbers next to the names are part of the count of lobbyists in the administration):
Palmer writes of the possibility of Romney
“Allowing lobbyists back into the White House”
You mean after he kicks out the lobbyists in Obama’s White House like Patton Boggs lobbyist Emmett Beliveau (7), O’Melveny & Myers lobbyist Derek Douglas (8), and Pfizer’s, AT&T’s lobbyist at Akin Gump Dana Singiser (9)?
Romney would have to toss out Obama’s orders, which shook up how President George W. Bush did business and let Obama claim his agenda wouldn’t be hijacked by special interests.
“We go from having a crush to being crushed,” said former Green Czar Van Jones in Politico:
After taking heat from his fellow candidates and conservatives, Herman Cain finally addressed, in a very direct manner, the allegations of sexual harassment by several women that have be raised in the last week:
Addressing the controversy before a throng of reporters in suburban Phoenix, Cain said he had no recollection of ever meeting Sharon Bialek, the woman who went public Monday and accused him of groping her in a car after the two dined together in Washington 14 years ago. Cain called her account “baseless, bogus and false” and said Bialek and three other women who have accused him of sexual harassment are part of a coordinated effort to attack his character and derail his campaign.
“We are not going to allow Washington or politics to deny me the opportunity to represent this great nation,” Cain said, adding that he would be willing to take a lie-detector test. “As far as these accusations causing me to back off and maybe withdraw from this presidential primary race — ain’t gonna happen.”
Cain’s campaign is taking the Bill Clinton approach by trying to tear down her credibility by pointing out her past financial and legal issues. But as Allahpundit notes over at Hot Air, this falls flat:
It has certainly been a bad week for Herman Cain. Instead of Cain’s campaign getting a handle on the story past allegations against him, it has only gotten worse as more allegations have surfaced; including a more recent claim made by a influential talk show host based in Iowa:
A third woman considered filing a workplace complaint against Herman Cain over what she deemed aggressive and unwanted behavior when she and Cain, now a Republican presidential candidate, worked together during the late 1990s, the woman told The Associated Press on Wednesday. She said the behavior included a private invitation to his corporate apartment.
The woman said he made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against Cain, who was then the head of the National Restaurant Association.
This woman isn’t bound by a non-disclosure agreement since she didn’t file a formal complaint. As noted another accusation came from talk show host Steve Deace:
In a cryptic comment made at National Journal’s Election 2012 Preview event Tuesday, Mark Block, Herman Cain’s campaign manager, made reference to an incident involving Cain and a receptionist for a radio talk show host.