Herman Cain's AFP Association Sure to Set Off Koch-Obsessed Loonies

Far-left lunatics certain to target Cain over Americans For Prosperity

Quite often, politics is a game of non-revelations as much as it is a game of revelations.

Such is the case with the recent non-revelation that Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain has had a long association with Americans For Prosperity, a political advocacy group that has enjoyed generous financial support from Charles and David Koch.

For the far-left the Koch brothers are the favourite political bogeymen, supporting various conservative political causes. That they are also billionaires makes them easy targets for those willing to overlook the extent to which George Soros -- also a billionaire -- generously financing various left-wing causes.

It's no great secret that Cain's candidacy as a Republican was sure to trigger the deepest racial ethos of the far-left. No lesser a far-left whacko luminary than Janeane Garofalo would publicly surmise that Cain was being paid to run for President. Perhaps now she'll be emboldened to suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's the Koch brothers allegedly paying him.

Certainly, it's a hilariously stupid suggestion on its face. But Garofalo has been both a reliable and shameless source of this kind of commentary.

This is the kind of thing that one can expect to see now that the Koch brothers cat is out of the bag.

Of course, Cain's long association with AFP has never been a secret. In 2005-06, Cain was involved in the AFP's Prosperity Expansion Project, travelling the United States to speak to fledgling AFP chapters.

Any suggestion that the AFP was simply a front for corporate greed, or a stidently pro-Republican organization would be quickly swept aside that AFP opposed the automaker bailout administered by George W Bush.

Details, details.

For those among the American far-left who draw every breath obsessed with the Koch brothers, nothing so mundane as facts will be enough to allay their hysteria.

But in the end, that will likely be as much an asset to Herman Cain. Cain's fundamentally rational approach to economics will only appear more rational next to the crazed fantasy-based ideas set forth by those who will rave incessantly about Cain's remote connection to the Koch brothers via Americans For Prosperity.

In an era where politics is quickly becoming about sorting out rational people from the crazies, the reaction by the anti-Koch left will only solidify Herman Cain's standing in the former camp, and the anti-Koch left's standing in the latter.

Chauncey DeVega Triples Down on Stupid

Race-obsessed writer obsesses over... who else? Herman Cain

There's something unique about the racism issue in the minds of the far-left. It's especially unique when one considers the case of far-leftists who are also minorities.

Simply put: racism never applies to them. They cannot be racist, even when they are being racist, when the target of that racism is someone who disagrees with them politically.

Ergo, the unique place Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain occupies in the mind of the far left. Even though he is an African American, he is also a conservative. Ergo, he cannot be a victim of racism because he isn't "really" an African-American. Ergo, they can direct all their racial hostilities at him to their heart's delight.

Case in point: Alternet writer Chauncey DeVega. Earlier in 2011, DeVega dabbled in black-on-black racism when he suggested Cain was simply a "ministrel act" for CPAC. And while an intellectually honest writer -- at least one being intellectually honest with himself -- might stop to question his own motivations after a feat like that, DeVega instead appealed his sense of entitlement to the political loyalties of everyone whose skin is so much as a shade darker than beige. (People like DeVega also believe they're entitled to the political loyalties of women and the LGBT community.)

So on the heels of Janeane Garofalo's self-humilation in first claiming that the conservative movement was paying Cain to run for President, and later claiming that they only supported him as a "racism shield", DeVega has taken it upon himself to investigate these issues a little further.

In a recent Alternet blogpost, DeVega explores some white supremacist websites, all the while asking himself: "what are the white supremacists saying about Herman Cain?"

Literally. It's the title of his blogpost.

Of course, rational people know the answer to that question. The answer, of course, being "who cares?"

Apparently, DeVega cares. He cares more than he actually cares about what Cain thnks, or why.

Think the irony of this over for just a few seconds. That's all it takes. Consider it: a far-left, race-obsessed, race-baiting crusader for black people who cares more about what a white supremacist thinks than what an actual, living, breathing, black man thinks -- so long as the aforementioned black man is a conservative.

It's the only thing remarkable about DeVega's screed. That, and the unique patience to actually read what a white supremacist thinks, giving a shit all the while.

Of course, it isn't that DeVega is at all disinterested in what Herman Cain thinks, or why. The problem is that DeVega cares what Cain thinks only enough to be outraged about it, outraged at the utter gall of another black man to have a differing opinion.

If Chauncey DeVega wrote for a publication that deserves to be taken seriously, it would be one thing. Alas, DeVega has shown, through AlterNet's bizarre patience for his bizarre screeds, that AlterNet has abandoned the unique reporting that put it on the journalistic map, and abandoned the journalistic standards that would otherwise keep black-on-black racism off of its webpages.

Ben Quayle's Reelection Prospects Dim, Just a Little

Arizona redistricting changes game for Quayle

When Ben Quayle ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, he outraged Democrats when he did so on a message declaring President Barack Obama to be the worst President in history.

Running in a heavily-favoured Republican riding, there was little possibility they could defeat Quayle, thus punishing him for what they considered to be an offensive message. (As Obama continues to stumble toward the conclusion of this Presidential term, it's becoming increasingly clear that such individuals were offended by Quayle's words because they are so nearly true.)

But as the 2012 elections approach, Democrats will now have a greater opportunity to defeat Quayle. Following redistricting in Arizona, Quayle's district is no longer heavily Republican. However, his district retains a narrow Republican advantage in voter registration.

Some may entertain the notion that Quayle was specifically targetted by Democrats -- two Democrats and an independent on the redistricting commission voted against a single Republican to approve the changes -- but this actually does not seem to be the case.

While the changes in Quayle's district are clearly a disadvantage to him, it does create a heavily-Republican district which currently has no incumbent.

This isn't to say there will be no controversy surrounding these changes. This is the first redistricting conducted under a new law in Arizona that assigns the authority to determine redistricting to independent commissions, as opposed to the state legislature.

This is an improvement. However, the law also requires that respect "communities of interest" while still observing geogrpahic and municipal political boundaries. This could provide the impetus for significant political manipulation of the process, although there is no evidence that is what has taken place in this case.

The only thing that has happened is that Ben Quayle will have to work a little harder to be reelected in 2012. There's nothing wrong with that.

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good

Republicans need to rally under a candidate, and cannot allow ideological vanity to bind them

Writing in an op/ed in The Daily Beast, Meghan McCain sounds an important alarm for Republicans eager to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012:

Rally behind a candidate. Do it quickly.

"Sarah Palin accused [Herman] Cain of being the 'flavor of the week,' and this is one of the rare times I agree with her," she writes. "The Republicans are suffering from what Bill Maher recently dubbed a 'promiscuous' problem with our candidates. We keep having one-night stands with politicians we think we only want to marry, and then get cold feet."

"The short list includes the likes of Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry with a possible addition of Chris Christie," she continues. "All of this excitement is soon followed by a quick fizzle of disappointment when these candidates look flawed under the spotlight of the media, incapable of pleasing the temperamental Republican base. It is as if we are more concerned with the drama of the electing a new prom king than concentrating on who the best person to beat Obama is."

McCain is precisely right to point this out as a serious problem, but she seems to fall short on elaborating why. Republicans actually don't have a good reason for it, either.

The reason, far too often, has turned out to be ideological vanity.

To date the favourites in the Republican primary have shifted from Mitt Romney, to Rick Perry, and now to Herman Cain. Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann have been promising candidates, but really only pretenders.

At each turn, Republicans have agonized over whether or not each candidate is the ideologically perfect conservative. In turn, both Romney and Perry have been found to be imperfect. Now it seems that it's Cain's turn.

And Cain will be found to be imperfect. Because he is imperfect. So are Romney, Perry, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, et al.

In the search for the perfect conservative, Republicans may well cut themselves off from the best Presidential candidate. They should know this well already. In 2008, many conservative Republican voters didn't show up to vote for John McCain because he was deemed to be ideologically imperfect.

What was the result? President Barack Obama.

Republicans have already been bitten by this bit of political snobbery before. They shouldn't allow themselves to fall victim to it again.

To date, Cain appears like he may be the best conservative of all the candidates in the field, embodying each of the most important intellectual traditions of conservatism.

The remaining rational objections are not based on Cain's ideological characteristics, but of his political qualifications.

"We are a little more than three months away from the New Hampshire primary and Republicans need to start getting our act together. Cain has a very small window right now to utilize his momentum and prove that he should be the next GOP nominee," McCain notes. "But let’s face reality: as much as even I can find myself developing warm feelings toward Cain because he seems like a nice, charming and normal person, if that were the only qualifications for president, we should be nominating Zach Galifianakis. Although Cain has been outrageously successful as a businessman, he has almost no experience on politics and has never actually held public office."

"In the time of such extreme anti-Washington rhetoric, Cain may play like a good thing in the primary stump speeches. I admit that even I have found myself getting caught up in his moment," she continues. "But I assure you when the rubber starts hitting the road, voters are going to want someone with real experience in all areas of politics, especially when it comes to foreign policy, something Cain has quite no experience in (unless Godfather's Pizza delivers to Canada)."

Barack Obama didn't have any foreign policy experience either, and Americans still elected him President. Also, Cain's lack of experience in political office could prove to be refreshing for many voters.

Cain hasn't been subject to the horse trading that takes place on Capitol hill, and hasn't been subdued by the idea that everything is a matter of such horse trading.

This isn't to say that a relentlessly-uncompromising President is what would be best for America, or even that Cain would be such a President. Compromise that leads to, for example, a more equitable budget is far preferable than horse trading that leads to pork barreling.

Meghan McCain is precisely right that time is running out for the Republican Party to start giving its Presidential candidates a serious look. Hopefully she -- and all Republicans -- will remember that the search for the perfect candidate may well cost them their best candidate if they aren't careful.

Janeane Garofalo Starring In... Far-Left Racism-Obsessed Virtual Reality Moonbattery

When a would-be media figure is as marginal as Janeane Garofalo, they certainly face continual pressure to stay relevant.

For her own part, Garofalo has no idea how to do that. So when appearing on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, she decided to re-hash her greatest hits: accusing conservatives of racism.

It's something she tried before, when she accused the Tea Party of opposing the policies of US President Barack Obama out of "racism, straight-up". Her most recent dip into her arsenal of weaponized racism is a little more confusing. They support Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain out of racism.

Get it? If they oppose a black man politically, they're racist. If they support a black man politically, they're racist. Garofalo's argument basically amounts to "they're racist, no matter what."

"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same," Garofalo declared. "People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

Olbermann being Olbermann, he declines to offer any critical comment or question of Garofalo's comments, even the one that seems entirely elementary to any rational human being.

(Considering that Olbermann began the segment by noting that Palin didn't focus on what GOP hopefuls were doing wrong in the debates, it's pretty clear that Olbermann is allowing his personal bias to absolutely overwhelm ration.)

To describe Garofalo's argument as childish is beyond understatement. But examining it logically for any more than two seconds immediately reveals something abotu Garofalo that rathional people... already knew.

As an argument, this is intellectually lazy. It's exceedingly intellectually lazy. It essentially amounts to virtual reality reasoning.

Originally posited by Norman Mailer, virtual reality reasoning describes a closed system of thought. The virtual reality thinker locks themselves into a narrow, compact realm of possibilities. Not only may no answer to any question be found that is not already programmed within the system, but no question may be asked that isn't already programmed into that system.

For Garofalo, the question is "why are conservatives racist?" The answer is "because conservatives are racist, no matter what."

In a previous outing on Olbermann's show, Garofalo suggests that someone may even be paying Cain to run for President. She offers absolutely no evidence other than her own demand that any visible minority give her their undying political allegiance.

It seems necessary to wonder whether Garofalo herself is the nut or the dolt in the "nuts and dolts"-themed segment until one realizes that she's both.

Any information that Garofalo is presented with -- including an impressive level of support for Cain's ideas within the Tea Party -- will, in her mind, immediately be warped and twisted to reach one conclusion: the Tea Party, Republicans and conservatives are all racist. No matter what.

And yet Janeane Garofalo wants to be the absolute arbiter of who does and does not have credibility. It will be a sad day for American politics if she ever actually achieves that level of influence.

Can Herman Cain Break the Democrats' Hold on the Black Vote

Cain boasts black appeal amidst talk of "brainwashing"

Accusations of black-on-black racism against Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain may only be a matter of time.

In an interview with CNN, Cain suggested that black voters had been "brainwashed" into voting for the Democrats.

"African Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view," Cain said. "I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative. So it's just brainwashing and people not being open minded, pure and simple."

There should be little doubt that many Democrats have been quietly worried about the prospect of a Cain nomination, as it would rob them of their ability to accuse their Republican opponent of racism. Right now, it's become their chief political tactic.

They could always resort to accusing Cain of being a black-on-black racist. While such racism does exist, it lacks the instant credulity many grant to accusations of racism against a white candidate.

At best, Cain can hope to merely be accused of having a condescending attitude toward black voters. Some will even attempt to claim Cian has lost any confidence in black voters.

But this is simply not true.

Prior to his CNN comments, Cain speculated that he may be able to claim one-third or more of the black vote if he manages to win the Republican nomination. Without the black vote commandingly coming on side for Obama, Obama's chances of winning reelection in 2012 would narrow considerably.

“The African-American vote, I am confident, based upon black people that run into, black people that used to call my radio show, black people that have signed up on my website to support me. I believe, quite frankly, that my campaign, I will garner a minimum of a third of the black vote in this country and possibly more,” Cain said.

Even the possibility of this must have Democrats running scared. They're already keen to insist that Cain cannot win the Republcian nomination, let alone the Presidency.

Faced with the prospect of losing their grip on the black vote, they'll pull out all the stops to make sure that can never happen.

Herman Cain vs Morgan Freeman, Left-Wing Intellectual Laziness & Tea Party Racism

With the 2012 Republican Party primary elections dawning ever-nearer on the horizon, it's a charge one can expect to hear more and more often from an increasingly-unimaginative left:

Tea Party racism.

It's a mantra that dwells on the surface of the American left-wing psyche as their President leads the United States deeper and deeper into an economic morass, and as they find themselves increasingly bereft of any new ideas.

Looking for a way out of what seems like an inevitable defeat in November 2012, their imaginations will continually bring them down to what has been and remains their last, best hope. Charges of Tea Party racism.

In the past, they've come from such "luminaries" of the entertainment world as Janeane Garofalo. This time they're coming from someone far more talented and far more accomplished. Morgan Freeman's talents don't lend credulity to his accusations any more than his accusations diminish his talent.

"Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term," Freeman insisted. "What underlines that? Screw the country. We are going to do ... whatever we can to get this black man outta here."

"It is a racist thing," Freeman continued. "It just shows the weak, dark underside of America. We're supposed to be better than that. That's why all those people were in tears when he was elected."

Freeman apparently hasn't stopped for so much as an instant to consider the fact that the Tea Party opposes President Barack Obama because they disagree with his politics as if it were even a possibility.

But with the left unable to conjure any more than a handful of examples of Tea Party racism -- and always among individuals who either dwell on the periphery of the movement, or who are promptly banished forthright -- these are arguments that simply don't carry any credibility.

Herman Cain is a black man. But he isn't buying it.

He simply notes that Morgan Freeman has never been to a Tea Party event. His experience with the Tea Party movement has indicated the precise opposite of Freeman's comments.

"They know I bring my message from my heart and from my head, and they're responding to it," Cain declared.

In fact, it's Cain's success in front of Tea Party crowds that is more threatening to Morgan Freeman's narrative than anything. And it's likely one of the reasons that the left is determined to believe that Cain cannot win the primary election, let alone a 2012 showdown with Obama.

They're foolish to count Herman Cain out, and doubly foolish to do it merely to preserve what is a low-road political narrative in the first place.

What (Some) Ron Paul Supporters Don't Get About the Constitution

By now it's been seen and enjoyed by thousands of people on YouTube: a clip from National Geographic's Frontier Force in which a drunk driver hautily lectures Montana state troopers about the constitution.

After being put in the back of the police cruiser to be taken away, the man pronounces "Ron Paul 2012."

Whatever the constitution has to do with this individual driving while his blood alohol content is four times over the legal limit is something that the driver himself probably doesn't know. He's just that drunk.

But in the midst of his ramblings, the drunk slurs something that might give one pause to consider just how well this individual understands the US constitution at all. He declares, "constitution! Read it and... live by it."

Reading too deeply into it given the level of inebriation of this man may be a mistake. But it could be interpreted as a sign that this individual, for all his devotion to the constitution, doesn't understand it.

Simply put, the constitution is not actually a code for its citizens to live by. It's a code for a country's government to govern by. While there are numerous bodies of law by which the power of the state is used to bind citizens, the constitution is the body of law by which the power of citizens is used to bind the state. It simultaneously grants the government powers and limits them. It simultaneously assigns the state responsibilities and limits them as well.

The US constitution, specifically, is preoccupied with the freedom of its citizens. The US constitution actually offers no comment on how citizens should live their lives; rather, it grants them the freedom to do it as they will.

There's no reason to definitively believe that this individual really believes one should live by the constitution. There's also no reason to definitively believe that there are no Ron Paul followers who do not hold this belief.

It's likely a belief that Ron Paul himself would reject. Even so, there's some cause -- however slim -- for Americans to be concerned about such notions among his followers.

Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over

Rick Perry Is Running Out of Time

Perry's choice comes with a choice for conservatives

Texas Governor Rick Perry could be a contender.

As the governor of Texas, Perry already has a leg-up on many other Republican presidential hopefuls. Texas is the largest Republican stronghold in the United States, and Perry has already demonstrated that he can win there. Moreover, Perry enjoys a very positive buzz among conservatives, many of whom are still waiting for the right candidate.

Perry could be a contender. But first he has to decide if he's going to run for President.

With only fifteen months to go until November 2012, and only seven months until the February, 2012 Iowa caucuses, Perry is at risk of losing the precious time needed to build his base outside of dedicated conservative circles and the state of Texas.

Many American conservatives are still waiting for what they deem to be a "true" conservative candidate. Mitt Romney has been judged to fall far short of the expectations of these individuals, and many of them look to Perry as someone who can both satisfy their ideological demands and defeat President Barack Obama.

Perry currently has an exploratory committee exploring Perry's prospects as a Presidential candidate.

But those waiting on baited breath for word from Perry need to consider two basic scenarios: the first is one in which Perry decides to run for President, even with no guarantees.

The second scenario is one in which Perry -- who is already secure in the Texas governor's office for another two years -- chooses not to run for President, and these individuals will have to learn to make do with the field of candidates making themselves available.

These individuals will need to learn a pivotal lesson from 2010: the perfect is the enemy of the good.

In 2010, many conservatives turned their nose up at Senator John McCain, judging him to not be a good enough conservative for them. The result as President Barack Obama, one of the worst disasters the United States has ever seen -- by nearly any measure.

If American conservatives decide to stay home on election day 2012 and the result is another term for Obama, they may have no one to blame but themselves, and their fellow conservatives may have nobody to blame but them.

It's not unreasonable to suspect that they may already be to blame.

These individuals should start preparing themselves now to make a difficult choice that may be foisted upon them: put their ideological vanity, or watch the disaster continue.

Romney & West: The GOP's Dynamic Duo?

Democrats probably couldn't take an Allen West VP nomination

If speculation that Allen West is being considered for Vice Presidential candidacy wasn't heating up, it may well be now.

During an Independence Day event hosted by the First Baptist Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Representative Allen West was asked about the possibility of a Vice Presidential bid.

His answer was one of non-committal, and perhaps even surprise. "Why not?"

Reverend Larry Thompson suggested that West has been mentioned frequently as a possible Vice Presidential candidate. That seemed to be news to West, who didn't have much to say about it.

But as front-runner Mitt Romney -- regardless of how tenuous his lead may be -- continues to bid to extend his command over the Republican Party primary election, the notion that Romney may consider West doesn't seem that far off. Romney has expressed his admiration for West in the past.

West is a strong conservative, and a strong speaker. He has some truly remarkable ideas.

However, nominating Allen West as the VP candidate could also attract the feverish hatred of the American left. When the left came for Sarah Palin, they certainly didn't draw the line at sexism. Would they draw the line at racism?

If deflating the Democrats' claim to moral superiority were the only goal, that in itself could be worthwhile. Fortunately, the impending meltdown of the American left isn't even remotely the only asset West has to offer.

Tim Pawlenty: The No-Decline President

Pawlenty set to take on all comers regarding foreign policy

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Republican Party Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty auditioned a new mode for the primary election: the combative Tim Pawlenty.

In a speech on his foreign policy vision, Pawlenty took no prisoners. He relentlessly pursued the foreign policy missteps of President Barack Obama, and fellow Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and John Huntsman.

“America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment and withdrawal,” he declared. “It does not need a second one.”

Pawlenty excoriated Obama for not being prepared to support the famed "Arab spring" uprisings in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and Libya. (Only in the case of Libya did the US offer any significant amount of support.) He scathed Obama for failing to support an Iranian protest against a rigged Presidential election that could have brought a pro-democracy revolution (if that is, indeed, what the Arab Spring is) to the Middle East and Africa.

He teed off on fellow Republicans Paul, Huntsman, and Romney -- especially Romney. For a lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. Romney recently declared that the US has no business fighting another country's war of independence, seemingly forgetting that the United States and NATO invaded Afghanistan in a bid to dislodge a government that tolerated the operation of terrorist groups within its borders and eventually replace it with a stable, international-law-abiding, government.

That may not fit in with Ron Paul's "fiscally conservative at any cost" agenda, or Mitt Romney's "say anything to become President" agenda. It's what Pawlenty promised when he launched his bid to be President: the truth.

Pawlenty spoke strongly about the need for a US foreign policy that focuses on bringing democracy, and refuses to spare un-democratic US allies like Saudi Arabis is or Egypt was.

Ron Paul will inevitably confront Pawlenty with questions about how the costs of a strong interventionist will be controlled. He will be absolutely right to do so, and Pawlenty will need good answers.

But there is one thing the GOP can depend on: the Democrats are not having these kinds of debates as they roll toward the 2012 election. If the Republicans choose the right candidate, they can turn these debates into occupancy in the White House, and Tim Pawelenty -- whether he's President or not -- will have been key to it.

The Folly of Michele Bachmann's Minimum Wage Campaign Bomb

Bachmann stands by abolishing minimum wage

In 2005, Republican Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann made a bold declaration. She suggsted that the United States should abolish the minimum wage.

In 2005, Bachmann declared that abolishing the minimum wage “could potentially wipe out unemployment because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.”

There was plenty to object to in this statement in 2005, and there remains plenty to object to now. For Bachmann's taste for free-market economics to crowd out any role for anything as basely protective as a minimum wage signals a lack of serious consideration of the issue.

In many regards, the United States has already effectively abolished the minimum wage. In failing to properly address the issue of illegal immigration and the undocumented labour they provide, the US has opened a de facto loophole through which anyone who doesn't wish to pay a worker minimum wage actually doesn't have to.

When asked about the minimum wage, Bachmann responded by explaining her position on job-killing regulations. It doesn't seem unfair to conclude that Bachmann thinks of the minimum wage as just such a regulation.

But it isn't merely in this regard that Bachmann has mis-interpreted the minimum wage issue -- if there in fact is such an issue. But it isn't merely Bachmann who is misreading this issue.

Consider a candidate like Herman Cain, who is campaigning on an economic program that includes steep corporate tax cuts. These cuts would certainly benefit the US economy, making it more competitive with other countries for investment. The job creation benefits are clear.

But there is one criticism of corporate tax cuts that cannot be overlooked: it does absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earner.

Left-wing Democrats can be counted on to oppose corporate tax cuts and support raising the minimum wage. On each count they are miscalculating.

For one thing, a minimum rage hike actually does very little -- almost nothing -- to help minimum wage earners. Nor do higher corporate taxes do much to help the average American.

The reasoning is simple: corporations are not, by any stretch of the imagination, nice guys. They are businesses. Large, monolithic industries with an ownership structure that diffuses responsibility across various individuals and groups. Their goal is to earn profit, so they ensure they can do this by passing their costs along to the consumer.

The costs associated with a higher minimum wage are passed along to the consumer. Costs associated with higher taxes are passed along to the consumer. In each case, everyone pays. But some will pay more than others.

Minimum wage workers will see their additional costs offset by their wage increases. Those not earning minimum wage do not. Because a minimum wage increase is infationary, everyone loses. It's a social loss.

But imagine if the Republicans were to counter the Democrats offer to raise the minimum wage and maintain high rates of corporate taxation with a plan to actually increase the minimum wage, and do it in real terms by offsetting it with accompanying cuts to taxes on businesses, across the board, and to pass these changes with legislative provisions that would allow government to punish any businesses that raise prices to recoup their minimum wage "losses" with a fine or a tax increase.

There is clear peril in this. If not properly constructed, such a law could become a means by which "progressive" political forces within congress or the judiciary could increase taxes at the first sign of price increases. The idea is not to fix the price level, but to ensure that price increases are linked to actual inflation or to actual unoffset cost increases.

That would be an approach to minimum wage that is vastly superior to Michele Bachmann's reckless approach to the issue. It would be an eminently resposnible approach that nearly any Republican -- including Herman Cain, excluding Donald Trump -- could win with.

Herman Cain Warns Of Socialism By Stealth

Cain plans to stop "encroaching socialism"

In a previous post, this author noted that Herman Cain's speeches seemed to indicate that he might be paying attention to Canadian conservatives.

It should be no great surprise. After all, the Republican Party rooted its "contract with America" of the 1990s in many of the populist ideas being promoted by Preston Manning and the Reform Party.

As Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain winds his way through small-town America looking for votes, one may wonder if he's somehow acquired himself a Sun News Network subscription -- or if he's at least watching some of the coverage online.

In Marshalltown, Iowa, Cain delivered a speech warning of "enroaching socialism". In many respects it sounded similar to Brian Lilley's missives on the NDP's "socialism by stealth".

"The nation is at a critical turning point. It is currently heading down the track of socialism. And I said it," Cain declared. "The good news is it's not too late to get it back on the right track."

Cain pointed to President Barack Obama's health care reform package and a controversial National Labour Relations Board ruling regarding a facility Boeing was planning to build.

Cain noted that over-regulation was harming the American economy, and even leading to a situation in which natural resources -- as well as other factors of production -- are going unused, seemingly by government missive.

"I'm not anti regulation," Cain noted. "I'm just anti too much regulation. [But] It's as if this administration doesn't want to use all of our resources."

Of course, stringent management of economic production -- including such ideas as "supply control" -- are central to the practice of socialism. As Lilley notes, it's been seen in Canada already, and there are far-left elements of the NDP who want to take it even further.

Cain seems to be becoming more and more worried that these practices are seeping deeper and deeper into the crevices of the American government. He believes that he has the skills to put a stop to it, and he intends to do so as President.

A big part of that will revolve around taking so-called "problem solving" powers and responsibilities away from the government, and delegating it back to citizens.

"The people closest to the problem are the ones who can solve the problem," Cain insisted.

As President, Herman Cain's goal would be to seek to solve only the problems that government can be expected to be able to solve. He's confident he has the skills to do just that.

"My business problem-solving skills can help this nation," he announced. "America cannot wait."

Simple Messages Require Little Flash

While a few "teaser" internet videos have been circulating around -- one emulated by the Harper Conservative Party -- Tim Pawlenty has finally released his first official campaign ad.

Pawlenty's previous releases have been marked by dramatic tones befitting a nation in turmoil. To describe them as "flashy" would likely be considered an understatement.

Entitled "results, not rehtoric", Pawlenty points to what he considers a successful run as Governor of Minnesota, cutting spending, standing up to unions, appointing conservative judges, and passing "proper" health care reform.

Pawlenty is clearly seeking to brand himself as the candidate who will pass the conservative agenda and do it responsibly.

The left's response is actually rather laughable. They seek to counter-brand him as fiscally irresponsible, questioning his deficit-fighting prowess by alluding to a projected deficit after Pawlenty left office. (Someone should get these people a calendar.)

As opposed to his previous outings, which were dramatic and nearly frenetic in their tone, this ad is calm, and exudes the confidence Pawlenty seems to feel as a candidate.

The ad is the tip of the spear on Pawlenty's Iowa campaign, where he'll compete hard with Michele Bachmann for votes. With it's clear, concise and simple messaging, it just may appeal to the sensibilities of Iowa voters.

How Strong Would Michelle Bachmann's Three-Legged Stool Be?

Speaking to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Minnesota Representative (Republican) and Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann did what anyone would expect a Republican to do: she invoked Ronald Reagan.

Bachmann declared that in order to bring Republican leadership to the White House -- something she believes the GOP has in spades, and the Democrats lack -- conservative Americans have to build a three-legged stool.

The first leg, she insisted, must be peace through strength. The second leg must be fiscal conservatism. Bachmann envisions the third leg as social conservatism.

It's no different than what anyone should expect from Bachmann, but it demands that a pivotal question be asked: how strong would this particular three-legged stool be? Could it stand?



Should the three-legged stool become the dominant meme of the Republican primary election, the question will remain how other Republican candidates envision this particuar three-legged stool.

For example, would Ron Paul -- campaigning on the necessity of defence cuts -- envision "peace through strength" as one of his legs? Would Mitt Romney, whose health care reforms in Massachusetts so closely resemble Obamacare, be so eager to make a strong commitment to fiscal conservatism?

Yet the leg that could critically weaken the Republican three-legged chair is neither of these. It's likely that of social conservatism.

Social conservatives will quickly object to this idea. But the simple fact of the matter is that some of the episodes of American history remembered most fondly by Americans -- the civil rights movement, the end of slavery -- were (at least at the time) socially progressive events that are remembered as transforming the US for the better.

Social progressivism can run amok. The US federal government's funding of groups such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood are in need of thorough review if not outright abolition. The Democrat position on illegal immigration is simply too nebulous to allow for the emergence of sound policy.

Republican social progressivism wouldn't resemble Democrat social progressivism in many regards. It wouldn't outright pander to special interests, but would embrace conservative values of freedom and equal rights for all citizens. It should resemble the vision and thirst for justice possessed by Abraham Lincoln -- himself the founder of the Republican Party.

Peace through strength, fiscal conservatism and conservative-minded social progressivism is the three-legged stool that could hold the Republican Party solidly enough to climb back into the White House.

Michelle Bachmann may not be the candidate prepared to build it.

Hitwise: Herman Cain Leading the Internet, Mitt Romney Leading the Polls

Romney holds advantage despite net volume disadvantage

As the Republican Party continues its search for a Presidential nominee who can defeat President Barack Obama, traditional opinion polls and internet volume surveys are telling very different stories.

On the polling front, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is currently considered to be in a dead tie with Obama. According to an ABC/Washington Post/Langer Research poll, Obama and Romney would tie with 47% of the popular vote apiece if an election were held right now.

However, in terms of internet search volume, Romney has doubled up on Obama. (Sarah Palin has been the subject of six times more internet search.)

On its face, it looks good for Romney. However, when judged against the entire Republican field, Romney's performance is not quite as impressive.

According to Hitwise's analysis of internet search volume, Herman Cain is the Republcian candidate who has currently drawn the most interest. He has been the subject of 31% of total search volume. Ron Paul is in second with approximately 27%. Romney is off in third, with a still-very-formidable 25%.

Yet when one looks to Hitwise's fast-moving search terms, Romney holds the lead. His search volume shifted an astounding 2,478% over the period of the survey.

It's important to note that an internet search in no way constitutes a vote. In fact, what one discovers when they search for Cain or Romney could quite easily push a voter to vote for them or to find someone else.

With the "Obamneycare" label being attached to Romney's health care reforms in Massachusetts, it's hard to say whether Romney's blossoming search volume numbers could be a benefit or a hinderence.

The same certainly applies to Cain, as the American left pushes hard to make his expressed-reluctance to appoint a Muslim to his candidate a hot-button issue.

Social media and the internet are expected to be pivocally important in the 2012 Presidential election. Whoever wins the Republican internet battle -- whether it's Herman Cain, Mitt Romney or someone else -- will hold a massive advantage when it finally comes time to decide the Republican nominee.

Bachmann-Pawlenty Showdown Could Define Economic Policy

Michelle Bachmann declares candidacy for President

As the GOP Presidential field met in New Hampshire to compete for the hearts and minds of conservative Americans, Michelle Bachmann had a blockbuster announcement:

She's widening the field. The previously-six man field -- Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty -- now has a seventh member.

“This is the first day of taking our country back,” Bachmann announced. “I’ve worked very hard to bring your voice to the halls of Congress. Now, I want to take your voice into the White House, where it hasn’t been heard for a very long time.”

As it pertains to economic policy -- which will be the defining issue of the Republican primary -- Bachmann is every bit as qualified to carry the standard for the Austrian school of economics as any other candidate. This would only serve to facilitate the speculation-promised showdown with Tim Pawlenty, who favours the similar-yet-genuinely-distinct Chicago school of economics.

Austrian school economics focuses on the price mechanism. The Chicago school directs its attention toward the principles of monetarism.

The traditional battle of economists has, of course been between the adherents of Friedrich Hayek and those of John Maynard Keynes. Now, the GOP may be set to settle in for a year-long debate on who correctly interprets the theories of Hayek; a year-long debate pitting Ludwig von Mises against Milton Friedman.

Some will criticize this as distracting from what they regard as the more important Keynes-Hayek debate. But this should be considered an extremely welcome debate.

One thing that Bachmann cannot afford to do is take the Sarah Palin route. She can't fall back on intellectually-lazy "common sense" pronouncements. She needs to keep the ideas flowing. While her critics desperately try to turn the conversation toward whether or not she's stupid, Bachmann should continue to focus on something her critics don't have: ideas.

Naturally, they won't like it. People who have no ideas generally avoid -- to the point of outright refusal -- to talk about ideas.

If she takes full advantage of the advantages a Presidential run will present her with, Bachmann has the opportunity to mold the economic debate in ways that will confound these same critics. They'll rely almost exclusively on lazy ad hominem attacks. If Bachmann can stay above them, she could be the definitive candidate in the 2012 Republican primary.

But that's only if Pawlenty opts to engage on behalf of his Chicago school contemporaries. Bachmann only has the opportunity to mold the debate if Pawlenty takes her on.

This will force the other Republican candidates to sharpen their policies. Which makes the Tim Pawlenty-Michelle Bachmann showdown so pivotally important for the Republican Party.

Does America Need a Lion For President?

Speaking at the Faith and Freedom Coalition convention in Washington, Florida 7Represenatitive Allen West quoted Alexander the Great.

"I would not fear an army of lions if it were led by a sheep. But I would fear an army of sheep if it were led by a lion."

In President Barack Obama, it's hard to say whether nor not what the United States has for its President. He is certainly no lion. Nor is he really a sheep. But there is little question Obama has led the United States deeper into disastrous territory than ever before.

Speaking from the FFC podium, West declared that the American people are lions. If they had a lion to lead them -- something they have not had since Ronald Reagan -- the United States would again be a country to be reckoned with.

Quoting heavily from the Bible, West insisted that it would take a lion to rebuild the political foundations of the United States. The question is: does the Republican Party currently have a lion to offer the United States?

There are those who would describe themselves as lions: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich. There are those who others would describe as lions: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Herman Cain.

Whether or not any of them can truly claim possess el corazon de leon is something that has yet to be seen, and yet to be judged by the American people.

Simply put, not everyone can be a lion. The Republican Party will seal its 2012 fate if it offers the American people another sheep.

Class Warfare: It's Not Just Obama

American left pushing class war buttons hard

To announce an economic program at the University of Chicago is nothing if not making a statement.

In an era in which the failures of Keynesian economics are being paraded for the world to see, announcing an economic program on the historic turf of Hayek is bound to turn some heads.

That alone would have been enough to send Pawlenty's message. But Pawlenty had a serious bone to pick with President Barack Obama, one that is proving to be a defining issue between conservatives and progressives in American politics: simply that Obama seems more interested in playing ideological politics than in solving serious problems.

"President Obama is a champion practitioner of class warfare," Pawlenty declared. "He's spent three years dividing our nation, and fanning the flames of class envy and resentment all across the country to deflect attention from his own failures and the economic hardship they have visited on America."

It's not just Obama who's playing at class warfare in place of actually addressing America's real problems.

Consider Rachel Maddow. Now, it's hard to imagine she could possibly confused about how horrible her show's ratings are when her big "scoop" on Newt Gingrich is that he's on vacation in Grrece.

That, and a credit account at Tiffany's.

Maddow attempts to needle Gingrich over his fiscal conservative positions, essentially questioning why someone fiscally conservative would use credit. She (unshockingly) misses the detail that being fiscally conservative doesn't revolve around whether or not one uses credit, but what one does with that credit.

For example, making purchases on credit and then quickly paying them off is entirely permissable for a fiscal conservative. Continually driving up the credit account, and then conveniently increasing one's own credit limit, is not permissable to anyone with a lick of sense.

No one should be surprised to hear this kind of mendacious tripe from Rachel Maddow. This is, after all, someone who thinks that even the most vacuous drivel is made more compelling as long as it's delivered through a smug grin.

Maddow attempts to justify all of this by appealing to Americans' sense of outrage at hypocrisy. That no actual hypocrisy is actually present doesn't seem to be what Maddow considers a salient detail.

It isn't about "hypocrisy" at all. It's about Maddow pandering to her audience, and stoking the fires of a segment of the American population eager to engage in socially-destructive class warfare.

Barack Obama shouldn't have to carry the "class warrior" distinction all on his own. He's getting plenty of help.