Last Call

This afternoon not only did a fourth woman come forward to accuse Herman Cain of sexual harassment, not only did she hold a public press conference with her lawyer Gloria Allred, but the accusations themselves really were nothing short of sexual assault.

Sharon Bialek alleged at a news conference today that Herman Cain reached under her skirt in 1997 as she sought help in finding a job. 

The Chicago-area mother, who is described as a Republican, urged the GOP presidential candidate to “come clean” and admit how he was “inappropriate” with her and other women.

Bialek’s story was immediately denied by the Cain campaign, which sent out a news release as the woman spoke publicly at a New York City news conference with her lawyer, noted defense attorney Gloria Allred, by her side. The stories of three other women have been reported by Politico and the Associated Press.

Oh, it gets worse.

Bialek described an incident in July 1997 where she and Cain were in a car and her offered to show her the trade group’s headquarters. 

“Instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and … put his hand on my leg, under my skirt toward my genitals,” Bialek said.

“He also pushed my head toward his crotch,” she said.

Bialek replied that she was married had a boyfriend when Cain allegedly did this, his response was “You want a job, right?”


And if the unremittingly awful context of “You want a job, right?” doesn’t sum up the entire Republican Party over the last several years, then I don’t know what else could.  Cain’s stated policies are disgusting as it is, but this pretty much seals the deal.  Big gorram line between sexual harassment (which is never okay) and sexual assault, and Herman Cain just sailed over it.

Oh, and if that’s not enough to make you try to dent your monitor in with your fist, El Rushbo’s response to the presser will do it, if not Dick Morris's response.

Worst Kasich Scenario

The latest polls in Ohio before tomorrow's election shows GOP Gov. John Kasich's law to strip collective bargaining rights from public workers is about to go down in epic defeat.

Public Policy Polling (PPP) found that 59 percent of voters oppose SB 5, while just 36 percent plan to approve it during Tuesday’s election.

“What might be most remarkable about the 23 point margin in this poll is that it’s exactly identical to what we found the first time we polled on this issue all the way back in March,” PPP’s Tom Jensen noted. “Voters were furious then and that anger has continued all the way to November.”

Democrats were prepared to vote against the bill 86-10, while Republicans are more divided on the issue. Only 30 percent said they will vote against it.

If approved, SB 5 would strip most collective bargaining rights from public employees in Ohio. Police officers, firefighters, teachers, and other state employees could still negotiate for some benefits, but not wages. Public employees would also be prohibited from striking.

Gov. Kasich’s own approval numbers have tanked since he has signed the bill. He was elected by a 55-37 margin over former Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland, but now only 33 percent of voters approve of the job he’s doing, making him one of the most disliked governors in the nation. 

Things are looking pretty good, but if you're in Ohio, we still need you to vote tomorrow in order to make this a reality.  It's no sure thing in an off-year election.   Both Kasich and the No On Issue 2 folks are running tons of commercials in the state, but in the end I think having Kasich be the face of the pro-Issue 2 folks was a massive mistake, as people hate this bill as much as they hate him right now.  National Republicans were smart enough not to cut any commercials in Ohio for this mess.

I guess Zombie Reagan wasn't too telegenic.  Having said that, let's not take this for granted.  Get out there and vote tomorrow, Ohio.

Back To The Empty Well

Who says that conservatives don't recycle?

Apparently the Big Idea for defeating the President in 2012 is trying the exact same strategy that failed in 2007 and 2008 by pulling up Obama ads from 2004 for "new material" to show that President Obama doesn't have any new material in 2012.  You get all that?  Good.  Seems the alarm's being sent out to reactivate the Hillary Clinton Irregulars in the name of party purity and demoralization of the Dems, and...well, Obama 2004 = Obama 2012, or something.

No really, that's the entire plan.  Take it away, Daily Caller!

A rediscovered video from Barack Obama’s 2004 Senate race shows him road-testing his current rhetorical techniques, pitching far-left policies, and depicting business and the marketplace as negative forces.

“We all have a set of mutual obligations towards each other — we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper — and that those mutual obligations have to express themselves through government policies,” he said at the tail end of a soft-focus, five-minute autobiographical video entitled “Introducing Barack Obama” that he released during his 2004 campaign for U.S. Senate.

They’re “the kind of values that I’ve been trying to promote through my career,” he says.
Obama won the primary in a landslide. He easily won the 2004 election against a weak GOP opponent, after his main GOP rival quit the race when a Democratic-appointed judge unsealed damaging divorce testimony.

The 2004 video also showcases several recurring features of Obama’s speeches — his use of the passive tense to glide past controversial issues, his passive-aggressive portrayal of himself as the reasonable moderate among extremists, and his promises of benefits without costs.

Yeah, I like how it was "rediscovered" just like it was trapped in amber, mined out of a Costa Rican jungle and scientists had to painstakingly reconstruct the data bits using spare processing power from Google's server farm.  (They filled in the lost sequences with frog DNA.)

The larger problem of course is right now this is all the Right Wing Noise Machine has: dragging up US Senate candidate Obama's videos from back then to prove he's got nothing "fresh and new" now, in a weak effort to try to demoralize Dem voters with cries of OBAMA FAILED YOU, STAY HOME IN 2012!

Of course it also re-engages the PUMA forces, eager to refight the lost battles of 2007 and 2008 so they can do the right's work for them.  They're more than happy to take up that banner once again.  It worked so well for Republicans in 2010, after all.

The Michael Jackson Case

I have always loved Michael Jackson.  I loved his voice, but that was probably the least thing I loved about him as I grew up with him through his many phases as an artist.  I truly admired his dancing, the fact that his body just randomly fired into action, and his ability to carry any rhythm is something professional dancers spend lifetimes honing.  He was on target from five years old, and never so much as stumbled in his art.

But there was a dark side to the Jacksons, and over decades we have watched it unravel.  We know his father beat them all brutally, and that their mother's love was conditional on meeting her expectations.  All of the kids were damaged from this, but Michael did seem the most affected of them all.  He never had a childhood, and spent his adult life chasing a childhood that he imagined as perfect and free of responsibility.  We'll never know for sure about the accusations against him, but in my heart I felt he was innocent, lost and exploited.

He was also looking for an escape.  This isn't the behavior of  a man who discovered a drug late in life.  These are the actions of a man who has spent a lifetime hiding and looking for a way to escape his world.  He built a property around lost youth, and was obsessed with returning to childhood.  The drug was nothing but a way to not worry.  To get away.

Michael Jackson was a desperately unhappy man.  I don't think he knew this was a form of suicide, but I don't see how it could have ended any other way.  He wasn't determined to die, but to escape.  Through Conrad Murray he got the release he wanted, and in the end he escaped this world for good.  Murray is guilty, but in a way he is a victim too.  He served a patient who wanted the impossible.  He should have refused to go along, but the reality is someone would have provided, and this would have ended with the same results.  The only thing that might have changed was the doctor on the stand.

It also bothers me to see the family milk his death through merchandise and lawsuits.  They act pained, they are really panicked.  Their cash cow, the golden goose, the guy who brought it all together, is gone. I hate to sound jaded, but it's so clear to me that they loved him but they loved the money and fame a whole lot more.  It all seems to be fear regarding money and how they will continue, not missing their beloved Michael, the little boy with the million dollar smile.

This is a sad story for everyone involved, no matter how you tell it.  Conrad Murray is surely guilty, but Michael Jackson's tragic life was headed towards an inevitably tragic end.  I expect Murray to be found guilty, but his prison time won't put anything right.  The Jacksons say they want justice, but justice would have been a little boy getting the love and support he needed decades ago.  He wasn't just allowed to be a child, he was never allowed to be a human being.

Andy Williams Cancels Christmas Shows

I read a couple of days ago that Andy Williams was not going to be doing his regular Christmas shows (which is a big old deal in Branson).  I wondered then if he was sick or if something was going on, because Christmas is one of his biggest celebrations.  Yesterday, he broke the news that he has cancer.

When Andy Williams performed at his Moon River Theater in Missouri on Saturday, fans came out for what was supposed to be a special Christmas celebration. Instead, the "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" crooner made a health announcement that was less than festive.

"I do have cancer of the bladder,” Williams, 83, said, according to the Branson Tri-Lakes News. "But that is no longer a death sentence. People with cancer are getting through this thing. They’re kicking it, and they're winning more and more every year. And I'm going to be one of them."

I'm actually a fan of Williams and his show. I hope he's back up soon and making the world a better place, two hours at a time.

Orange Julius, Defender Of Our Most Precious Resource

America's really, really rich people?  Rest assured that you have exactly the tireless defender of your wealth that you deserve in Speaker John Boehner.

“You look at Occupy Wall Street, I think you said you understand their frustrations,” ABC’s Christian Amanpour told Boehner. “People such as, let’s say Eric Cantor, called them a mob not so long ago. Do you agree with that? Are they a mob?”

“Listen, I understand people’s frustrations,” Boehner replied. “I understand their concerns. And I, frankly, understand that we have differences in America. We are not going to engage in class warfare. The president is out there doing it every day.”

“It’s not so much that redistribution of income the president is talking about,” Amanpour noted. “It’s a shared and much fairer sense of sacrifice. And there doesn’t seem to be the sense among people here that the sacrifice is being shared. Because they point to taxes and tax cuts and who it benefits and who it doesn’t.”

“Come on,” Boehner protested. “The top 1 percent pay 38 percent of the income taxes in America. You know, how much more do you want them to pay? Let’s take all the money the rich have, it won’t even put a dent in our current budget deficit, much less our debt.”

Yeah, back when the rich were paying 39.6% instead of 35% top marginal tax rates, all we did was balance the budget and run a surplus for a few years. Won't make a dent!   Well, that is before Republicans decided to spend trillions on wars and then the housing bubble and then banks.  But they're the party of fiscal responsibility and all.

Under Boehner's logic, why tax the rich at all?

Oh wait.

Nader's Latest Nadir, Part 2

It seems Ralph Nader really wants to turn the Occupy Together movement into "Primary Obama!" but as usual, he's having trouble with that whole Step Two Question Mark thing and has taken to kicking around the house in his slippers.

It's not exactly clear what direction the Occupy movement will take, or what course Nader himself will take.

In September, he joined forces with Cornell West, a Princeton University professor and progressive agitator, in a public letter to distinguished Americans calling on them to step forward and challenge President Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.

However, he told McClatchy that the effort was now effectively dead, despite fielding what he said was a "pretty good slate" of candidates, because the New Hampshire primary filing deadline was moved up to Oct. 28.

Nader, who looks remarkably the same as he did when he first became a public figure and still lives on $30,000 a year, could possibly be cajoled into another run, say longtime associates. But for now he's doing what he's always done — support citizen agitation and hawk a book.

This month his 16th book, "Getting Steamed to Overcome Corporatism," will be released.

"He's looking for the strategic and tactical advantage in the current situation," said Steven Schier, professor of political science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. "This should be grist for his mill. You'd think he'd capture some of the energy of that movement for his causes."

You'd think that.  Of course, maybe it's not working because people still remember the 2000 election and what that meant to the country, or maybe they realize Nader's just trying to sell books, or hanging out with fellow grifter Cornell West, or that the idea of primarying an incumbent Democrat in the White House is a sure way to hand the country over to the GOP a year from now.

And it's not Nader's ideas I have a problem with.  I'd love to see a completely balanced public financing system for candidates, free of corporate influence and lobbying.  I also know that handing over the country to the GOP isn't the way to get that, either...especially in the name of self-aggrandizement.

StupidiNews!

• Convicted terrorist "Carlos The Jackal" is back on trial this week in a French court for a series of bombings near Paris in the 1980s.
• A four-hour general strike in Israel was called Monday as talks between trade unions and the finance ministry broke down over the weekend.
• Several thousand protesters surrounded the White House Sunday in an effort to convince President Obama to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline from being built from Canada to Texas.
• In the wake of Greece's government collapse, Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi is finding himself in much the same situation, facing calls for resignation before a tough austerity budget vote.
• Wednesday represents the first test of the country's new Emergency Alert System as every radio, TV, and satellite channel in the country will participate at 2 PM EST.

Last Call

If you actually thought o'l Boss Hogg down in Mississippi was really going to vote against the state's odious and rabidly unconstitutional "personhood" amendment on Tuesday's ballot in the state, then you haven't been paying attention to the GOP for the last decade.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour offered his support Friday for an amendment to the state constitution that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, saying he cast his absentee ballot for the measure despite struggling with its implications.


"I have some concerns about it," he said in a statement issued Friday, a day after casting his ballot. "But I think all in all, I believe life begins at conception, so I think the right thing to do was to vote for it."

On Wednesday, Barbour, a Republican, said that he was still undecided and that the measure was "too ambiguous."

Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

Though the text of the amendment is simple, the implications if it passes couldn't be more complex. If approved by Mississippi voters on Tuesday, it would make it impossible to get an abortion and hamper the ability to get some forms of birth control.

Of course he grudgingly supports ignoring Roe v. Wade and decades of judicial precedent, not to mention removing the right for women to determine their own bodies.  The only problem he has with the measure is that it's not law already.  Part of the problem is that Initiative 26 takes the oxygen out of the room for discussing Initiative 27, which would immediately disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters in the state.

Mississippi lawmakers argued about voter ID for more than 15 years before Republican Sen. Joey Fillingane of Sumrall started the petition drive that put Initiative 27 on the ballot. Supporters say requiring ID would protect the integrity of elections. Opponents say there's been little proof that people are trying to vote under others' names, and that requiring ID be a way to intimidate older black voters who were once subject to Jim Crow laws.

The National Conference of State Legislatures says 30 states require all voters to show ID at the polls, many of them in the Deep South. Fourteen of the 30 require photo ID.

Nsombi Lambright, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, said that in poor, rural areas, many people might lack any form of government-issued photo ID. She also worries a voter ID law would be applied unevenly, and perhaps unfairly, by poll workers who might not be well trained.

"Voter ID is one of those unnecessary barriers to the voting booth," Lambright said. "We believe it's going to represent a strong deterrent for communities of color, for the elderly and for poor folks to go to the ballot box."

Don't get me wrong, Initiative 26 is awful.  But it's a smokescreen to get Initiative 27 passed with a minimum of fanfare, and yet another red state will be able to throw up economic and social barriers to voting.  That's just as big an issue in the Magnolia State and across the US.

They Said He Had To Go To Rehab, I Said No, No, No

The reconstructive surgery on the Bush 43 presidency continues as McClatchy's Jim Rosen would like you to know that Dubya is the "forgotten man" behind the Arab Spring (according to Huckleberry Hound and the AEI, at least.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a military lawyer who's served active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, thinks that's a premature judgment pending the outcome of fast-moving events that may take a decade or longer to play out in the Middle East.

"President Bush deserves credit for creating a spirit that even in the Middle East, where grudges are held forever, things can change and Islamic governments can accommodate the rule of law, tolerance, democracy and other concepts we take for granted," Graham said.

Daniele Pletka, a foreign policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, said the replacement of repressive regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with democratic governments, however fragile, is a historic triumph for Bush.

"Of course he should be getting credit because he socialized the world to the notion that somehow democracy was possible in the Arab world," she said. "This was an almost ridiculous notion before his presidency. And we shouldn't discount the liberation of 50 million Muslims who'd lived under oppressive Afghan and Iraqi rule."

Granted, Rosen does put a number of very valid reasons as to why Bush continues to be ignored in the article.  But at best, it's "Earth is flat, views differ" journalism at its finest.  The real tell is while the notion in the article involves whether or not Dubya should get credit, President Obama isn't mentioned at all in the piece.

Kind of telling if you ask me.

It's Not That They're Crooks, It's The Fact All This Is Legal

Some 30 major US corporations have not paid taxes in 3 years.  They made $160 billion collectively.  You paid more taxes than they did.  All of that is 100% legal.  And they gained $10 billion collectively in tax credits.  Not only did they make plenty of money, as a US taxpayer, you gave them more money.

One of the driving forces behind the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests is the fact that corporations have not been paying their fair share in taxes. A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice will no nothing to alleviate the protesters’ frustration.

CTJ looked at 280 companies, all of them members of the Fortune 500, and found that “while the federal corporate tax code ostensibly requires big corporations to pay a 35 percent corporate income tax rate, on average, the 280 corporations in our study paid only about half that amount.” And those who paid even half the statutory corporate tax rate paid far more than many of their competitors.

Here's the list:





Boeing, GE, Wells Fargo, even Mattel. Not a dime in taxes. But we gave $10 billion to these "job creators" over the last three years.  Republicans want to make this arrangement permanent.  GE alone got nearly $5 billion in tax credit over three years and made $10 billion on top of that.  Well Fargo got over half a billion in tax credit on top of the near $50 billion they made in the last three years.

But we don't dare tax the "job creators".  If we did why we might have an unemployment rate of 9 percent or something.

Follow Up: Restaurant That Banned Kids Sees Growth

We posted about a restaurant that banned kids under six.  Some parents were outraged, some people said it was great for a business to exercise choice.  As always, the logical response was more moderate.  It does make sense that kids not be allowed in every single eatery in the world, and those who prefer a kid-free environment should have somewhere to go.  That restaurant has made a successful go of it, increasing revenue by 20% since the rule went into effect.

MONROEVILLE, Pa. -- In July, McDain's Restaurant started a ban on children younger than 6. The story quickly spread from Monroeville and went viral on the Internet, being featured on CNN and Yahoo!

Four months later, owner Mike Vuick told Channel 4 Action News that he has seen a 20 percent increase in business at his eatery on Broadway Boulevard.

"People came from as far away as Detroit, Columbus, D.C., identifying themselves as people to congratulate me on the move," Vuick said.

Released By Mistake, Inmate Turns Himself In

Luis Lopez fled a crime scene where he hit two cars while intoxicated.  Because he fled, his sentence was more serious and he went to jail for a year.  He went through the legal process and was serving his punishment so he could get on to the next chapter in his life.  And then he was released unexpectedly.

OCALA, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Luis Lopez has spent the last three months at the Marion County Jail. He was arrested last August for his second DUI, driving with a suspended license, hitting two cars then leaving the scene.

He pleaded guilty on all counts and was just sentenced this week to a year in jail, followed by a year probation; but then, the most bizarre thing happened.

"I was released from jail," said Lopez. "For some reason, I just listened to what they had to say."

At first, Lopez, 37, questioned the guards, but after they assured him they had the paperwork from the courts ordering his release, he followed their orders and walked out of jail.

Citing his desire to stay on the right side of the law, he consulted with his lawyer just to make sure, and got the devastating news: it was a mistake.  He had to go back.  Lopez immediately turned himself in and will complete his sentence.  He showed great composure and proactively did the right things to make sure this didn't backfire and create an even worse situation.  I feel for the guy, just because it has to be hard to have that moment of joy taken away so quickly.  I admire him for doing the right thing despite the obvious temptation to just go and stay off the radar.

Running The Numbers Wrong, Part 2

On Thursday I pointed out the weird subjective holes in Nate Silver's usually solid objective logic where he declared President Obama's re-election chances to be 50-50 at best, and basically doomed even against Rick Perry unless the economy picks back up.

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who noted that particular incongruity in Silver's work as Jon Chait picked up on that later on Thursday in NY Mag as he points out Bush 43 was in the same approval ratings boat in 2004 and still won (barely and because of seriously messy voting problems in Ohio, but that's another story) after attacking John Kerry.

If that’s correct then Obama has a chance to have his approval rating rise simply by drawing a sharp contrast against the Republican nominee. In other words, incumbent approval rating isn't something that's independent of the opposing candidate. Voters may shape their view of the incumbent by making a comparison.

I don’t want to overstate this. It may be wrong. (Or, as a great man once put it, "I don't have the facts to back this up.") But I think that we have to be a little cautious about interpreting the importance of Obama’s mediocre approval ratings in the face of a polarized electorate and a still-discredited opposition party.

In turn, Steve Benen took Silver to task as well as he finds Chait's number were indeed correct.

And why did Bush’s support grow from the mid-40s to the low-50s? Chait argued, persuasively, that voters starting seeing the president “within the context of a partisan choice,” and decided they liked him more after taking a look at the wealthy Massachusetts challenger with an awkward personality and who was often accused of flip-flopping.

Ahem.

Republican-leaning voters who weren’t sold on Bush — weak economy, awful job growth, etc. — became more inclined to support him after evaluating the alternative. Could that happen again with Democratic-leaning voters and Obama? Of course it can. As Chait put it, the president “has a chance to have his approval rating rise simply by drawing a sharp contrast against the Republican nominee. In other words, incumbent approval rating isn’t something that’s independent of the opposing candidate. Voters may shape their view of the incumbent by making a comparison.”

If Republicans were a popular party with a popular agenda, this would be a very different story. Likewise, if Obama were a poor campaigner facing a charismatic GOP frontrunner, I’d have a different set of expectations. But I’ve seen a lot of Obama political obituaries, and at this point, none of them have proven persuasive to me.

Michael Stickings over at The Reaction also disputes Silver's supposition.

Simply put, "Obama: Yes or No" is much different than "Obama or Romney/Perry." In the latter case, that is, in the election, the president will have an enormous advantage given the unpopularity of the Republican Party and its extremism and the lack of strong appeal of the Republican candidate to any constituency outside a certain part of the GOP -- for Perry, the right-wing base; for Romney, the somewhat more moderate but still deeply conservative establishment.

As well, Obama is an outstanding campaigner. He will draw sharp distinctions between himself and his Republican challenger, shaping the election's dominant narratives, and will likely energize voters much as he did in '08 -- perhaps not to that degree, but I suspect more than his detractors expect. He's got appeal that no one on the Republican side can even approach.

 

And that's the basic issue there.  An incumbent's approval ratings aren't equivalent to re-election polling of the incumbent against specific candidates.  Nate did everything to draw the correlation between the two but in order to bridge the gap, he filled the blanks in with some really silly Village "conventional wisdom" that liberals are disillusioned with the President enough that they will turn the White House over to the Republicans.

There are plenty of people who aren't happy with all of President Obama's policies.  I'm one of them, specifically he's dropped the ball on some economic and a lot of civil liberties issues in order to triage the country for the first two years, and I accept that.  I'm still going to vote for him over any of the specific Republicans in the race right now based on policy.  I suspect a whole hell of a lot of other people are out there in my situation as well.

More importantly, as more people begin to see the list of the President's accomplishments despite the GOP saying "Hell no you can't" to everything, they are starting to come around.  Hell, watch five minutes of any of the GOP debates and you'd want to vote for Obama too.

Greek Fire, Part 44

And Greek PM George Papandraeou is out as a new Greek transitional government will be formed.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou will resign after the makeup of the nation's new coalition government is decided, officials said Sunday.

Sunday's Cabinet meeting will be the last with Papandreou as prime minister, a government spokesman said in a statement. The meeting will focus on issues relating to Monday's Euro group meeting, at which Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos will represent Greece, the statement said.

A spokesman for Papandreou's Socialist PASOK party said the prime minister will resign after the government is announced.

Venizelos is likely to remain in his post as finance minister in a new government, sources told Greek television. Candidates for the prime minister's job include Petros Moliviatis and Loukas Papaimos, according to Greek television.

The new government will have a life of four months, according to Greek television, citing sources, and elections will be held in early spring.

Papandreou won the no confidence vote on Saturday, but he's stepping down because opposition leader Antonis Samaras insisted that he did in exchange for winning the no confidence vote (which is kind of odd, because if Papandreou lost, the same process would have happened.)  I guess it was done in order to take the markets by surprise, maybe?

Either way things just got even more strange in Europe.  Batten down the hatches.  Monday's going to be crazy.