In an announcement that can come as no surprise, Herman Cain drops out of the presidential race.
Does this mean the charges against him are true? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s certainly no admission of guilt on his part.
I certainly hope they’re true at this point, because if not, this sets a terrible precedent for forcing someone out of the running.
Why is it that so many people seem to care less about Newt Gingrich’s serial infidelities than those (alleged or real) of other politicians?
Is it because it’s old news?
Is it because no one can imagine having sex with Newt, so it’s hard to believe he cheated on his wives even though we know it’s true?
Or is it because—in an archaic phrase—he made honest women of his paramours by marrying them (at least, the ones of which we are aware)?
Today’s a slow news day so far. Herman Cain promises to say something later about whether he’s going to drop out of the race. Newt Gingrich is still Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney is still Mitt Romney. Fancy that.
So I went to my drafts file to come up with an idea for a post to expand on and publish, and found one that interested me. It was about famous the Anne Frank quote “I still believe people are good at heart,” and how the truncated version with which most people are familiar is far more optimistic than the full quote.
I began to research the subject and was halfway through writing the post when I came to a source that was number six on the Google list. Hmmm, I thought; that certainly looks vaguely familiar. Yes indeed, folks, I had already written and published a post on that very subject almost exactly two years ago and had no recollection of doing so.
That’s blogging for you. The output required is so relentless that at this point—although it’s hard for even me to believe—I’ve got 5,224 published posts and over 200 unpublished drafts or ideas for posts. Although it’s disconcerting, I suppose it’s not all that surprising that I might forget quite a few of them.
What’s this bot got against Guy?
Guy Pierce looks like he’s finally gained 50 lbs.
Now, I must admit that although I thought I’d never heard of “Guy Pierce,” this caused me to look him up. So I guess the bot got at least part of what it wanted—although it’s always difficult to know the true motivation of bots. Bot waters run deep.
From my research I discovered that Pierce is actually Guy Pearce, an Australian actor known for his ripped torso. And I’d seen him in the film “Memento,” an intriguingly-themed although ultimately disappointing flick:
I think the bot’s a liar as well as spell-challenged, because I can’t find any gossipy pieces about how much weight Pearce has gained.
Next thing you know the bot will say it had an affair with Herman Cain.
December is here, and that means the gift-giving pressure increases.
And so does my urging you to use neo-neocon as your friendly Amazon portal. Got to any of the widgets on the right sidebar (or links to Amazon in the body of my posts) to click through and order, and you’ll be giving me a teeny (or even not so teeny, depending on how much you buy from Amazon) donation to brighten my holidays as well.
I should post more suggestions for actual products, but I keep forgetting. That’s the kind of salesperson I am! But I think this newish offering by Stephen King sounds interesting. It’s a time travel book where the main character goes back to try to prevent the Kennedy assassination (review here).
I don’t read much King as a rule, and I haven’t read that one. But on the few occasions when I have read him I’ve found that he’s a good writer, not just a good read. And I don’t just say that because he’s a New Englander!
Also, I’m glad that King didn’t succumb to the popular assassination conspiracy theories. In King’s book Oswald acted alone, which shows King’s great good sense, at least in that regard. However, be forewarned: the book is extremely long, and some Amazon reviewers mention that King pushes a bit of left-wing politics in it, although some disagree on that.
Here are some other special deals from Amazon, if you don’t happen to like King.
Of course, this may mean that more people have dropped out of the search:
“You’d like to see the unemployment rate coming down when people are coming into the job market, not disappearing,” James Glassman, senior economist at JP Morgan Chase & Co. in New York, said in a radio interview on “Bloomberg Surveillance” with Tom Keene.
They seem to be the frontrunners right now. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that they may be the ones to ultimately duke it out for the nomination, and I very much agree with Krauthammer when he writes this:
My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Unfortunately, none is running. You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).
Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?
But therein lies the rub. Who is that person, Newt or Mitt?
Krauthammer doesn’t directly answer the question (although it sounds like he leans to Romney), but he knows how to pose the dilemma:
Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other is a man more conservative by nature but possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience…
Newt is not likable, but Romney isn’t especially likable either, for completely different reasons. They both have flipflopped on issues, but (as Krauthammer points out) Gingrich is seen as having advanced a true conservative agenda years ago, whereas Romney is seen as “ideologically unreliable.”
Our own commenter “kolnai” has some observations of his own on the subject:
1) At this point in time, I’d put Romney’s chances against Obama at about 45%, and I’d put Newt’s about 40%.
2) We have (re-)learned from the Cain fiasco that voters can tolerate the devil they know, as opposed to finding out that an apparent saint has devilish qualities right now.
Romney has no skeletons, but his comportment and his sarcasm-laced insecurity are highly off-putting, and most people haven’t experienced that yet (the feeling of “not liking” him).
Gingrich has many skeletons that make him a known devil (people already know the feeling of “not liking” Newt), but if he continues to act mature and positive, sticking to policy and vision, he can activate the American urge to forgive the fallen ”“ for we do love ourselves some redemption narratives. And I think Newt is skilled enough to manage the building of such a narrative.
Which is to say, the negatives of Romney will tend to be fresh but the negatives of Gingrich will tend to be old news. People will thus be comparing Romney’s flaws and virtues “in real time,” as it were, while they’ll be comparing Gringrich’s past failings with his present virtues. It’s a trust question in both cases, but the modality of it is different for the two of them. (This is an aggregate statement of course ”“ many people will be learning about Newt for the first time, but everyone will be learning about Romney for the first time.)
3) Therefore, it is a risk to nominate either Romney or Gingrich (whereas the Romney pumpers don’t think it is risky to nominate Romney AT ALL ”“ they act like his victory was every bit as foretold as the birth of Christ). Both could fall apart given the “gut” dynamics of the American center. Both, I believe, are more likely to lose than to win. So my question has simply been, Who has more of what I’d like? Newt does, because at least he is willing to articulate a vision.
As for me, well, I don’t like either of them. I think I dislike Newt somewhat more, but that may be a remnant of my having been a Democrat during his heyday in the 90s. When I try to imagine the reaction of the bulk of independent voters to either candidate, I agree with kolnai that Romney will pull more of them. But do I think he can win? I just don’t know. I know that’s not a very satisfying answer, but it’s the truth. I continue to think that Obama will be a stronger candidate that many people believe.
Thanksgiving weekend in NY, and what to do? As in many years past, this year I spent a couple of hours at Rockefeller Center drinking in the season. It’s a classic: the skating rink, the holiday decorations, the huge crowds, the festive atmosphere, the towering art deco buildings.
I took a different subway train than usual, one that brought me to the surface through the GE Building, otherwise known as 30 Rock (yes, like the TV show of the same name, about a fictional TV show that’s supposedly filmed there). Somehow I’d never been inside till now, and what a sight! Pure art deco inside and out, with spectacular floors, shiny black with brass decoration that goes on and on seemingly into infinity:
And then there are the Sert murals decorating the upper walls with their sepia messages of progress and optimism, a celebration of our culture in a heroic mode. Nothing like them could, or would, be attempted today. Here’s one on the conquest of disease:
This one over the information booth opposite the main entrance has an unusual history:
The story is that Rockefeller had originally wanted Picasso or Matisse to do the mural, the centerpiece of the lobby. But they either declined or were unavailable (reports differ), and Diego Rivera was brought on the scene. But he pulled a sly one. A Marxist, he snuck in an admiring portrait of Lenin that had not appeared in the approved draft, and titan of capitalism Rockefeller was not amused. The mural was destroyed, and in its place Sert painted a more acceptable and appropriate vision:
More than 16 feet high and 41 feet long, “American Progress” was installed in 1937 behind the information desk. An allegory for the building of contemporary America, the scene includes statues of the muses of poetry, music and dance, their arms reaching toward the men of action with laborers in the center and Abraham Lincoln, wearing a top hat, resting his hand on the shoulder of Ralph Waldo Emerson.
It’s hard to get an idea of the scale of the thing from the photo, but it’s mammoth.
Afterward I wandered out and admired the outside of the building, magically lit in the night:
A crowd had gathered, facing the facade of a building opposite. It was Saks Fifth Avenue, and in a few moments this light show began to play on the wall:
Early election results indicate the Muslim Brotherhood is doing well in Egypt:
The party formed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s mainstream Islamist group, appeared to have taken about 40 percent of the vote, as expected. But a big surprise was the strong showing of ultraconservative Islamists, called Salafis, many of whom see most popular entertainment as sinful and reject women’s participation in voting or public life.
Analysts in the state-run news media said early returns indicated that Salafi groups could take as much as a quarter of the vote, giving the two groups of Islamists combined control of nearly 65 percent of the parliamentary seats.
That victory came at the expense of the liberal parties and youth activists who set off the revolution, affirming their fears that they would be unable to compete with Islamists who emerged from the Mubarak years organized and with an established following.
Anyone—anyone—with even a smattering of historical knowledge going back to Iran in 1979, and knowledge of the history of Egypt and the influence of the Brotherhood there, should have had no trouble whatsoever predicting this. It is simplicity itself. The only real question (and that question remains a question) is how far they will go and how restrictive and Islamist Egypt will become. There is no question, however, that a sizable and powerful percentage of those in charge of Egypt would like it to go very very far and become very very Islamist.
And yes, I know that Iran is overwhelmingly Shi’ite and Egypt overwhelmingly Sunni and that the two branches have some differences. But I also am aware of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it’s not a pretty one.
I claim no special prescience here in having predicted this from the very moment I heard Mubarak might be in trouble, and in harping on it thereafter. It took no particular insight to see it.
Here is the very first article I wrote on the subject, back in January of 2011, in which I said:
I have been concerned from the start about the possible influence and popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood [in Egypt], a currently-banned Islamist fundamentalist group that has its roots in Egypt in the earlier part of the twentieth century. And here’s some background on the position of El Baradei, who might (accent on the “might”) be in a position to take charge in a while.
The Egyptian people are protesting in favor of democracy. As a person who remembers the turmoil of the Iranian revolution of 1979””the different groups temporarily united for the Shah’s overthrow and then jockeying for position (vainly) against the fundamentalist Islamists who quickly established their dominance””I have to say the situation makes me nervous.
Here’s another long article I wrote on the subject, one of many. And I was hardly alone.
I still don’t know how the situation could have been improved, however. It’s the same old question: do we support repressive dictators or encourage democracy in countries that are unready, unwilling, or unable to guarantee liberty and human rights for their citizens, and who are likely to democratically vote in governments that could be worse than the dictatorships they replace, both for us and for their own citizens? I’ve written tons on that subject, too (see the category “neocons” in the right sidebar, and especially this 2-part series). Feel free to weigh in.
…Ginger White indicates she didn’t keep any memorabilia from her alleged affair with Cain. No gifts, no notes, nothing. I guess she’s just not a sentimentalist.
And she admits she libeled her former business partner, calling it a “mistake” and saying she has apologized.
(#1) He’s likely to be the last man standing except for Romney—and Republican voters just don’t like Romney.
But they don’t like Gingrich either; so why might he win? That brings us to:
(#2) He’s not afraid to confront Obama.
In fact, that’s been Newt’s emphasis from the start of the campaign, in most of the debates. Even now, when the focus is on the fight among the Republicans, Gingrich is taking it to Obama.
One of the many reasons so many Republicans are still angry at John McCain for the campaign he ran in 2008 was his almost palpable fear of criticizing Obama. Gingrich will have no such problem, and it’s because Gingrich is unlikable rather than despite that fact.
(#3) His skeletons have been out of the closet and rattling around for so long that they’ve almost turned to dust.
I haven’t a clue whether Gingrich can actually pick up enough moderates to win the 2012 election. But right now he seems to be on track to get the chance to find out.