Showing posts with label The Daily Show. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Daily Show. Show all posts

Thursday, October 18, 2012

2012, Debate # 2 analysis & how late night comedy writers will select our next President

While Tuesday’s debate was definitely a win for Obama, it left me with some very ambivalent feelings afterwards…  The following is compiled from my Facebook posts that evening:

Yes, he's not my guy, and I wasn't rooting for him, but from as an unbiased as a perspective as I can manage, I just need to say this...

I think Mitt Romney's debate tonight was the worst performance I've ever seen by a presidential candidate from either party ever. (Well, since the first one I watched in 1984, at least).

Yeah, the post debate “Who Won Tonight?” polls are close, because about 95% of those polled will say their guy won, no
matter what. And don't give me that undecided voter crap on a spot poll taken in the five minutes before the candidates have even left the stage.

But this was a bad night for Romney. It may take a few days for that really to emerge. But it was bad. Bad Bad Bad Bad. Bad.

Bad candidate. Bad. "Was he just trying to help Paul Ryan feel better?" bad.

Going to the mat, standing by his misquote of the President, and then getting fact checked on the spot by the moderator, basically at his own request? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!

This man wants to be the leader of the free world? Oh hells no.

See, this pisses me off. Yeah, I want Romney and Ryan to lose, but this shit is just bad for America, PERIOD.

I WANT two qualified candidates. I want a tough, close election because there is a real choice, not because of blind party loyalties. I want to be able to take both the GOP and the Democrats seriously.  While I rarely vote Republican, I want the option!


I take Obama seriously. Everyone else can pretty much piss off and die at this point. American politics? Dead.

Yeah, I was typing with fists on Tuesday… 

As for the Town Hall format, the moderators (though a big thumbs up to Crowley, it’s not like she busted in unsolicited), and the debate coverage in general…  In response to this post, “BTW, am I the only person that thinks regular Americans seem to ask better questions than paid reporters?—Dave” on The Pragmatic Progressive Page, I spat out, “Of course they do. Journalism is dead.”

Not a good campaign cycle for America.

Considering Romney’s train wreck of a performance on Tuesday, he is lucky that the takeaway is the “binders full of women” comment.  This will not help him, but there were far worse gaffes in the evening than this one.

So, Obama supporters, yes it is funny, but shut up about it.  People forgive legitimate jumbles of words in high stress situations.  Instead, pound on him for the real mistakes. 

Women in the workplace?  Sure, and we’ll even try to get them home in time to cook dinner.

Getting fact checked by the moderator, at his own request, and losing a point where he actually has some valid concerns and questions about a serious national security failure?

Saying that gun violence would be reduced if only there were more two parent families?

This is what noise should be made about, not the “Binders Full of Women.”  These jokes are funny, but they actually help Romney more than hurting him by distracting from his real gaffes on Tuesday.  Gaffes that might actually work towards changing public perceptions about the GOP contender.

This first clip illustrates a couple points I've been making in several of my posts.

First, people are going to think their candidate won no matter what happened in the debate.

Second, those on the fence are going to be swayed not by what happened during the 90 minute debate, but by the sound bites they hear on a two minute news segment, or by the jokes they hear on late night shows, Facebook, and other sources.

These people are shown supporting their candidate, declaring it a win for their guy, spouting pre-debate buzz about debate expectations, without realizing that the debate has not even happened yet. 

And people like this are going to be the one who decide this election, not the well informed voters who, on a regular basis, actually follow the issues being discussed in the debates. 

This election will be won by whomever attracts the least attention from the comics.  In elections that are not close, the jokes probably serve more as a barometer of public opinion, but in close elections, or even elections at decisive turning points, these jokes can actually shape public perceptions enough that they can change the outcome of an election.

A lot of words have been written over the years about how so many in the younger generations get most of their news from The Daily Show, Colbert, and other such sources, but this is not really a new phenomenon.

More than being the source for news, late night comics have provided the analysis of events that really tend to define how many Americans perceive their candidates.  Dukakis was slayed by these folks, losing his lead in 1988 after a series of gaffes that gave the comedy writers a bushel of full of material.  That election ended up not being as close as the last few, but…

Gore and the lock box in 2000?  Probably worth at least a few hundred votes in Florida.

Kerry / Bush in 2004?  Both were hammered about equally as hard.  Well, in these cases, we see that the tie goes to the incumbent.   

In 2008, one of the most masterful pieces of the Obama campaign was staying out of the late night headlights.  McCain, wandering around the town hall debate, Palin’s, well, everything?  These jokes sealed the deal for Obama.  The piling on as the outcome of the election looked more and more certain through the month of October?

This year, we see this playing out again.  Obama broadens his lead after a series of humorous gaffes by Romney, the race tightens after Obama is hammered in late night after the first debate, and now?  Well, over the next few nights, we’ll see, though I think we know where this will go.

So, the winner of the debates is pretty much decided by headlines and short sound bites on the evening and morning news shows.  The fallout, the shifts of momentum in close races, especially after conventions and debates?  Decided by the late night comics.

A lot of people are saying that the damage done by the first debate to the Obama campaign may have been irreversible.  Not necessarily ensuring a Romney victory, but ensuring a very close and tense election night.  And it might have been the deciding factor if Romney had been able to settle down and keep a low profile for the next two debates and not make any more bad mistakes.  Staying on script, never freewheeling it in public, let alone in front of cameras…

He didn’t do that. 

Earlier, I mentioned The Daily Show, and they have always (deservedly, my bias) gone harder after the GOP than the Dems, but this show does not have the influence of Saturday Night Live, Leno, and Letterman because its viewers tend to be progressive anyway.  Same for Fox News.  Whatever these two outlets are saying about the candidates may influence the

passion of the GOP or Democratic base, but they don’t have much of an influence on the almost completely apolitical swing voters who decide close elections.

I was hoping to post up the Leno and Letterman monologues from last night, but I couldn’t find them anywhere yet.  Apparently, CBS and NBC like to not post them online anywhere until they are stale and irrelevant. I haven’t seen them yet, myself. 

So here’s Conan instead.

 

Related Posts

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

GOP: Selling the American Dream and Winning Elections

This morning on OPB, the local NPR radio station, they had a brief clip from the president of the Portland State University Republicans...

Her main argument for the GOP and Romney, her main attraction to the GOP, was her perception that the Republicans’ primary ethic was success through hard work.  She said that this fit well with her family's worldview, since her parents were immigrants who achieved "the American Dream." She also felt the Republicans were more pro-American, more patriotic.

Occupy Portland: F29 - Occupy The Corporations.  Portland, Oregon.  February 29, 2012.  12:21 PM Of course, “arbeit macht frei” sounds familiar...  Where have I heard that before?

So, through all of the noise and clatter, what she is taking from the campaigns so far is that the idea of working really hard to achieve success is a Republican ethic.  I suppose, for the Democrats’ ethics, she probably shares Romney’s stated view on 47% of America, though, to be fair, she did not mention the Democrats at all.

This is how the GOP gets so many to vote for them, to vote against their best interests.  The message is to work hard, keep doing what you are doing, and we’ll get the government to quit supporting those who aren’t working as hard and to remove those who are standing in your way on the path to success.

2011-10-06 Occupy Portland Of course, in reality, most GOP policies do nothing to help these folks at all.  If anything, especially with the current platform, it harms them and takes away many of their protections.  And, likely, a Romney victory would result in these folks paying higher taxes, one way or the other, and students, perhaps even the one interviewed on the radio this morning, no longer being able to attend college due to higher costs and reduced financial aid availability.

I would spend the morning collecting stats and historical trends from Republican Congresses and Presidencies, but lets face it…  For voters like this young woman, those stats mean nothing.  They had her at "work brings freedom."

To be fair, this sounded like the ideas of someone very young who has not really had any real world experience.  I don’t know, but it’s what she sounded like to me. 

Now, I have no problem with people who are Republicans because they feel that the specific policies and platforms, economic plans, etc. are right for America.  I usually disagree with them, but they have their vote and I have mine.

What bothered me here was that she did not talk about economic plans or specific ideas on solving real issues our country was facing, she spoke only of vague generalities and meaningless, emotional slogans.  And, to her, the GOP is the party supporting the American Dream.

Of course, this young woman’s vote was probably never up for grabs this year.  Her reasons for being a Republican may be silly, but she is one and it is unlikely that she ever considered voting for Obama this year.  Party faithful tend to look for reasons to continue to support their candidate, even through disaterous campaigns, rather than looking for reasons to switch their vote to the other guy.

But this clip still tells me a lot about how this election is going, and how recent elections have gone down.

To me, this is a really clear example of how the two parties different ideas distill down to many people, dripping down through incompetent or biased media sources, through tea party / extremist sloganeering, to arrive, stripped of any meaning or sense, to wash and water the preconceived biases of the ordinary voter who does not spend hours, not even every day, but every election, picking their party and candidate…

Occupy Portland: F29 - Occupy The Corporations.  Portland, Oregon.  February 29, 2012.  12:34 PMWhat dripped down to this student was that the GOP is the party protecting the American dream.  Details on how they are doing this?  Not necessary.  She trusts the signs.

This election will be decided by 5% of the voters in five or so states.  If they have not made up their mind yet, they are probably relying on semi-hysterical and mostly meaningless sound bites on the evening and morning news shows, vague notions bantered about by late night comics, Facebook graphics, and water cooler talking points for their information. 

What is distilling down to these people is important.  It will decide this election.  It is easy to laugh and dismiss people who sound like this student sounded this morning, and that is a huge mistake because whichever candidate does the best job at targeting voters like her, albeit ones who have not made up their minds, will win every time.

Historically, the Republicans have the process down.  The Democrats are slowly catching up, but still tend to fall into the trap that they can win on the intelligence and strength of their ideas and that sound bites are petty and worthless.  No, they can’t win this way. 

It is why so many Democrats were baffled by Romney’s “defeat” of Obama in the first debate.  Obama brought the facts, Romney brought the persona, and Romney “won.”

As much as I hate to say it, to win, the Democrats must become masters of the very broken, very evil, sound bite and slogan driven PR machine that removes all thought and depth from their arguments and promises everyone success and happiness and ponies as a reward for voting Democrat. 

Unfortunately, for the last twelve years or more, the Democrats seem incapable of actually winning elections.  The only times they actually win, including the mid-term congressional elections as well as the presidency, is when the GOP screws up so bad that the voters come crawling back to give the Dems one more chance. 

Before the first debate, the widening lead in the polls was not due to the strength of the Democrats’ arguments, but due to the ineptness of the Romney campaign.  He seems silly, I am not voting for him!  Tax codes?  Health care?  Foreign policy?  Nope.  Mitt looked silly.  Now that Mitt doesn’t seem so silly, these voters are torn again.

This election will be decided by Leno and Letterman and the like, not even by Fox News or The Daily Show, whose viewers were never really in play to start with.  The candidate who wins will be the one who provides the least fuel for the jokes, not by the campaign that offers the best, or, at least, the most coherent, ideas for the future of our country.  It is sad and it is why, I can’t see for a long time, calling this blog anything but Democracy In Distress.

Related Posts

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Mitt Romney & Class Warfare, the 47%

UPDATE: September 24, 2012 Apparently I was in a bit of a hurry when I posted this, linking to TYT playlists and not to the specific Romney videos that I intended. So, the first two videos are going to be off topic. Lesson learned, I will watch for this in future posts and try not to repeat the mistakes of the past...

I've been all over this on the Facebook page, but I thought I'd post these up here, just for the hell of it... It's been awhile, so why not?

 

 

Related Posts

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Marriage Equality: President Obama & North Carolina

Pride Parade.  Seattle, Washington.  c. 1997.

I think the President does a nice job of explaining his evolving position on marriage equality in the following email:

Friend --

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,
Barack

Unfortunately, President Obama’s shift on this issue, while important, does little to change actual policy.  In fact, while this counts as one in the win column, in North Carolina, there is not only a set back on marriage equality, but yet another example of poorly written legislation coming out of the far right wing of the GOP. 

It’s one thing to write laws that I disagree with, entirely another issue altogether to put poorly written laws in the books…   One is politics, the other is incompetence.

4 Worst Media Misrepresentations of North Carolina's Anti-Gay Amendment One | Media | AlterNet:

UNC-Chapel Hill law professor Maxine Eichner has spoken extensively to delineate the definite consequences of the Amendment as well as the possible consequences. She says the Amendment definitely bars the state from passing same-sex marriage or civil union legislation, which extends rights to same-sex couples, in the future. Furthermore, it bans the State from passing domestic partnership laws, which extend legal rights to unmarried couples, no matter their sexual orientation. Not only that, but it invalidates “existing partnership benefits by municipalities for all unmarried couples,” no matter their sexual orientation. In other words, as Protect All NC Families, the coalition organization set up to fight Amendment One, explains on its website, the Amendment eliminates “health care, prescription drug coverage and other benefits for public employees and children receiving domestic partner benefits."

Of course, there is always the possibility that this new amendment does exactly what its authors want, limiting the legal rights of people who are immorally shacking up regardless of gender… 

Considering the recent birth control debates, would this really be an unexpected development at this point?








video platform
video management
video solutions
video player
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Lord of the Rings - The Right Side of History
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Barack Obama's Gay Blasphemy
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Endless Suffrage 2012 - States' Rights Edition
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Barack Obama vs. North Carolina on Gay Marriage
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

 

Related Posts

Monday, April 23, 2012

The war on women & Santorum’s choice

As for this last image, on Facebook I wrote:

There is truth here. Not that these men are necessarily misogynists, they probably are not. But their campaign strategies are geared towards solidifying support of demographic groups who will actually vote for them, and in the general election the majority of women will vote Dem pretty much no matter what these fools do, so pissing them off really doesn't change the game for them at all.

Appealing to Non-College Educated White Males, however, the GOP's most dominant demographic, is a huge part of their game plan. The more heavily they dominate this segment of society, the more they can alienate these fellows from the democrats and Obama, the greater their chances of victory in the primaries and in November.

Being worried about what women think is a losing game for them, there is no reason for them to care what they think at all.

Since then, Romney has wrapped up the nomination.  This came a little earlier than I thought it would.  I actually suspected that Santorum would not give up until the convention, allowing the GOP as much of a chance as possible to try to get out of nominating Romney.

However, I think Santorum had a real moment of clarity leading to his withdrawal from the race.  Brace yourselves, I am actually going to say something nice about this fellow.

I do suspect that staying in the race as long as humanly possible was Santorum's plan.  I think, on the Friday before he dropped out, that he had every intention of still being in the race a week later.

I believe there were two factors that made him change his mind.

One, of course, was the fact that he was apparently looking at an embarrassing loss in his home state of Pennsylvania. 

Santorum as the GOP’s next frontrunner

At this point in his campaign, politically, I think he should have been looking more towards the future than any real chance of being sworn in as president in 2013.  Of course, he still had a long shot at widening the cracks between Romney and the, quite frankly, bigoted far right wing of the Republican Party to create some convention drama and an even longer shot at still derailing Romney’s nomination, either becoming the nominee himself or creating the possibility of another candidate stepping into the role.

But the odds of creating any of these scenarios were shrinking fast.  Getting shellacked in Pennsylvania would have lowered the odds even further.

And I don’t think his eye should even have been on the nomination this year, at least for the last couple months.  He should have been looking at 2016 or 2020, depending on Romney’s fate this fall.  For Santorum, staying in the race as long as possible should have been all about positioning himself for the future.  The longer he hung in there, collecting headlines if not delegates, he was building a solid foundation for a future run at the Presidency.

The GOP has a track record of elevating those who make a good showing one year to frontrunner status the next.  Santorum’s campaign, for the last month or two, could have been following a John McCain strategy. 

In 2000, McCain stayed in the race far past the point where Bush had locked up the nomination and was rewarded with front runner status for almost the entire duration of the 2008 Republican primaries, fairly easily wrapping up the nomination his next time out.  Of course, he managed to stay in the race that year without becoming a joke. 

In 2008, the McCain role was played not by Romney, but by Huckabee.  However, since Huckabee decided, early, to sit this one out, Romney slid into the 2nd place role this year and, like McCain in 2008, has now completed a fairly easy primary season and secured the nomination without too much fuss or muss.

Let’s face it, the GOP primaries this year were not a close thing.  Romney owned them.  Most of the noise about any real competition this year was just that, noise from the media trying to keep a blowout interesting through the end of the fourth quarter.  This is not to say that what competition there was wasn’t interesting, it was, and it revealed a lot about the nature of the GOP and its different demographic elements, but the race itself was not a close one at all.

If Santorum really wants to be president, he has a real chance at becoming the GOP front runner the next time around.  Like McCain and Romney, he needs to spend the next four to eight years quietly organizing and he can, pretty much, claim early frontrunner status the next time around.  Especially if the far right continues to dominate the party like it has, which is almost inevitable if Obama wins re-election.

However, this future front runner status depends on Santorum maintaining his credibility this year.

By pulling out when he did, the former Senator is ending on a relative high note, while he is still seen as a strong candidate.  The story, however, could have changed if he stayed in the race and suffered an embarrassing loss in his home state. 

So far, the humiliating 17 point loss of his Senate seat has remained out of the national press, for the most part, and has been forgotten by almost everyone. 

After another brutal home state loss, I suspect that his past political failures would enter into the national conversation and the story would change from his relatively successful presidential campaign this year to his repeated failings as a candidate for political office.

In other words, the press about his campaign would turn from being mostly positive to mostly negative.  By getting out now, as I said, he ends this year’s run on a high note and 2012 becomes a bright spot on his resume, not a hurdle to be overcome in the future.

Santorum’s Priorities

All of these considerations set aside, I still suspect that Santorum was in the race for the long run this year, until the weekend before he dropped out. 

He was still seen as being a factor in this year’s nomination process, his campaign was still receiving decent press, though it was starting to turn a little negative as Pennsylvania approached, and, let’s face it, a part of me really wonders if Candidate Santorum is really savvy enough to consider the arguments I made above in defense of his campaign to this point and how it poses him for a future run for the nomination.

If there was ever a candidate to stay in the race far past the point of respectability, ruining his reputation and future in a blind run towards an unreachable finish line, it would seem to be the former Senator.  This would be a move right out of his playbook, blind self-immolation.

Though I am sure his campaign advisors saw what I saw for the last couple of months and have been talking to the former Senator quite a bit about how long to stay in and when to drop out.  In fact, I would strongly suspect that these voices in his ears were whispering that, in order to position himself properly for the next campaign, that he should drop out before the Pennsylvania contest.

And I am pretty sure that Santorum was ignoring these voices until his daughter was hospitalized the weekend before he dropped out.

That weekend, I bet, Rick got in touch not only with some big doses of reality but that he also took a long look at his priorities in life. 

Whether or not he really believed that he still had a shot at the Presidency this year, I do not know, but even a rock would be having doubts by that point.  But I think he was still having fun.  I think, whether or not he believed he still had a chance, that he was enjoying the spotlight that was shining not only on himself but also on his (crazy, crazy, terrible, awful, horrible) political beliefs.

And, of course, inspiring national conversations about beliefs that are important to oneself would be a difficult role for anyone to walk away from.  I suspect that as long as he was inspiring these conversations that Santorum wasn’t going anywhere, even if staying in the race eventually cost him his own political future. 

Until his daughter’s hospitalization, I don’t think Santorum would have dropped out of the race until his campaign faded from the spotlight, until it resembled something like Newt Gingrich’s, and then I think he’d probably stay in the race until the money completely ran out or even longer, until, like Newt, he could sit there with his toe still in the pond while doing very little active campaigning.

But that takes a lot of time and effort and I am sure that even Santorum was beginning to see that his 2012 run was over.  It is one thing to be taking time away from one’s family and an ill child when one has a real shot at the White House, it is quite another to take that time for what amounts to little more than political noisemaking and rabblerousing.

I think Santorum made a very healthy choice here for himself and his family.  I applaud him for it.  Sure, I wanted the man out of the race.  Amusing (and infuriating) as he was, any chance he has at ever reaching the Oval Office needs to be shut down as soon as possible.  But I also am glad to see him (or anyone) putting his family first like this.

Yet my applause are a little bitter sweet here.  By making a great choice as a human and a father he has also, accidently, made a great political move.  I would be very surprised if we are not dealing with frontrunner Santorum the next time out, and that is not a good thing for America at all.

I see his exit as coming about through the following process… 

My advisors keep telling me that it is getting close to the time where I should walk away, but I am not there yet myself.  Wait, I need to be with my family now.  Oh, okay guys, let’s schedule a press event.  Why are my advisors so happy?  I though we were admitting defeat and going home?  Why are they so happy about losing?  Why are they chanting “2016… 2016…  2016…”?  Boy, that volunteer has a cute butt, I wonder if he works out?  Holy cow, I’ve got to go pray now! 

Okay.  I tried to keep those sorts of jabs out of this post.  But I couldn’t resist just one.

See you the next time around, Rick.  Though I can’t say that I look forward to it.

Facebook, Snip.it, & Pinterest

Yeah, it’s been way too long since I posted here.  I’ve been throwing a lot of links up on Facebook, Snip.it, and Pinterest, but I have not had any time at all to write for the last several weeks.

Follow me on those sites for more content between my posts, and from the links I share, you can get a pretty good idea of what is distressing our democracy on an almost daily basis.

Related Posts

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

From The Daily Show… All three parts of the interview with Jonathan Macey

2011-10-06 Occupy Portland

This was really choppy on the show last night.  Considering the length, I now understand why.  But I thought it was a really worthwhile conversation. The clip at the end illustrates why the issues discussed matter.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Jonathan Macey Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Jonathan Macey Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Jonathan Macey Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Bain Man
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

 

Related Posts

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Is the GOP really this anti-Romney? Rick Perry, intoxicated?





TRENDING: Perry: I wasn’t drunk or on drugs – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs:

...the longtime Texas governor said he did not take pain medication or consume any other substance before Friday's Cornerstone Action annual dinner.
"I've probably given 1,000 speeches," Perry told the newspaper Wednesday. "There are some that have been probably boring, some that have been animated, some that have been in between."
When asked about comedian Jon Stewart's suggestion that Perry drank alcohol before the event, the Texas governor said, "It wasn't that either."
"It's not that I wouldn't love to sit down with Jon and have a glass of wine," Perry said. "If he'll buy."
'via Blog this'

Not his first time looking out of it...


Boy, he's come a long way from these days, way back in September, though...






Is the GOP really this anti-Romney? Herman Cain, sexual harrassment, and "a perfect scandal"


Herman Cain allegation: Sources reveal new details - Kenneth P. Vogel and Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com
The new details—which come from multiple sources independently familiar with the incident at a hotel during a restaurant association event in the late 1990s—put the woman’s account even more sharply at odds with Cain’s emphatic insistence in news media interviews this week that nothing inappropriate happened between the two.
'via Blog this'





Herman Cain meets Washington's 'scandal industrial complex' - CNN.com:
STORY HIGHLIGHTSHerman Cain has repeatedly denied sexually harassing women
Ari Fleischer: If he is lying, he's in big trouble
But if Cain is telling the truth, the response to story is disconcerting, Fleischer says
Fleischer: Washington's scandal industry has kicked into full gear
If Herman Cain committed sexual harassment and is now lying about it, his goose is cooked and it should be. But if he is telling the truth, there is something terribly disconcerting about the way the Washington "scandal industrial complex" -- full of reporters, former campaign workers and pundits -- has reacted to this sad story.
After the story broke in Politico, Cain the next day denied that he sexually harassed anyone, which after all, is the core issue. Since then, other anonymous sources claim they too were harassed, without anyone really knowing what the alleged harassment entailed. He has been consistent, unwavering and on the record in his denial.
But that's not good enough for the way things work in Washington, where the manner in which he reacted to the news is said to be a sign of whether he would make a good president.
'via Blog this'