Apparently the plan for the left is misrepresent Herman Cain then run away.

When I posted my questions for moral arbiter extraordinaire Oliver Willis he answered with a “you don’t like Muslim” tweet and then ran away, when I repeated the questions on twitter we discovered that answering questions is apparently above his pay grade at Soros and company.

Meanwhile anyone even slightly informed about the Herman Cain campaign is aware that his fundraising arm is “Friends of Herman Cain.” Yet days after he pointed out that his old PAC is inactive MSNBC reports that Cain only has $15 bucks or so because that is all that’s in the old PAC.

What does this tell you? It tells you that the Cain campaign has the potential to break out and the left is desperate to make sure this doesn’t happen. They rightly fear that between the Cain campaign and speeches like this the race card is now crashing and burning.
The day voters stop loaning on the race card is doomsday for the democratic party.

Today the AP released yet another poll declaring that the Republicans are in trouble and the public doesn’t believe that Medicare and Social Security the cuts are not necessary

They’re not buying it. Most Americans say they don’t believe Medicare has to be cut to balance the federal budget, and ditto for Social Security, a new poll shows.

The Associated Press-GfK poll suggests that arguments for overhauling the massive benefit programs to pare government debt have failed to sway the public. The debate is unlikely to be resolved before next year’s elections for president and Congress.

And in this same poll the president has a 63% of those responding with a favorable opinion of him. Sounds pretty ominous for the GOP doesn’t it?

Unfortunately for those who actually like to be informed when reading what is supposed to be a news story you have to go deep into the AP numbers (not included in the story) to discover that the AP polled almost 2 democrats for every 1 republican (35% vs 18%). That’s not a poll that’s Psy-ops!

So lets ask the question: In a poll where the ratio of republicans to democrats are 2-1 how would you expect President Obama to do?

While you’re considering lets ponder something else: Including leaners Republicans made up 29% of this poll. That being the case if I’m the White House I’d think I’d be worried with 52% of respondents thinking the country is going in the wrong direction, wouldn’t you? With 29% of a sample being Republicans and 39% percent of the people asked disproving of the president that’s an awful lot of non-republicans disapproving isn’t it?

And with a sample at best a 3-2 democratic ratio and at worst a 2-1 we should expect democrats in this poll over republicans by at least a 60-67% shouldn’t we? Yet in this poll less than half the respondents trust democrats to manage the Deficit, Taxes, the Economy or protecting the country.

And with those same advantages what are the Trust numbers over 50% for dems in the poll? Social Security and creating Jobs 52%,Healthcare 53%, Medicare 54%.

If this is the best Democrats can do with a 2-1 or a 3-2 margin in polling what will they do in an actual election when the proportions will not be so favorable? Cripes George Bush has a 50% favorable rating in this poll!

If the MSM has to skew poll samples this badly to get the results they need, how confident must they be?

So when the MSM throws this poll in your face as part of their Psy-ops campaign there is only one answer:

Ride Right Through them They’re Demoralized as hell!

Question: Why have Oliver Willis and Think Progress both decided to attack Herman Cain this weekend?

Although Morning Joe and the MSM are enamored with John Huntsman, Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels (Mr. Cain doesn’t warrant a mention) they do not have a vote in this primary season (and in fact as Krauthammer points out they wouldn’t be voting Republican anyway).

Herman Cain managed to draw 15 thousand people in Atlanta (the most liberal City in Georgia) to make an “announcement” that was no surprise to any person in that crowd.

As Stacy put it this weekend:

The discomfiture of “Republican insiders” is a very good thing. Can we get a show of hands of anybody who thinks “Republican insiders” (you know, the guys who backed Dede Scozzafava and Charlie Crist) have a clue as to how to win elections? Anybody?

The left will tell you who they fear. Right now the attempt is to ignore Mr. Cain in the MSM while attacking him on the net. If he continues to draw crowds, expect the MSM to hit him in the same way they go after Palin and Bachmann.

Yesterday I posed some questions for Oliver Willis concerning his paid declaration of Herman Cain as a bigot.

The only answer I got was this tweet declaring that I don’t like Muslims.

You know if I was George Soros or Media Matters I’d expect more that a simple race card (or religion card in this case) for my money, but I guess when you are rich you can throw it around any way you want.

But that is the left in a nutshell, challenge them, and all they have is name calling.

I’ll let you know if Mr. Willis finds his tongue to answer my questions, perhaps I’ll tweet them to him.

Jim Nolte makes some good points in this piece, particularly this one:

To Chris Matthews, Detroit equals a particular skin color; a failed city equals a skin color that’s not his own. Why?

Detroit’s problems have nothing to do with race and everything to do with failed government.

Matthews equating a failed city to a particular skin color is not only perpetuating the very worst kind of racist stereotype, it’s factually wrong. Anytime Chris or Joan want to come out to Los Angeles, I’d be happy to take them on a tour of Ladera Heights (drinks and dinner on me — bring Ebert!). Maybe a good hard look at the “Black Beverly Hills” will convince these “progressives” that “failed city” doesn’t equal “Black city.”

Nothing reveals more about someone’s character more than how they behave in a desperate situation, and in their desperation to protect Obama, we are learning a lot about the likes of David Gregory, Joan Walsh, and Chris Matthews.

Are these examples signs of racism, paternal racism, colonial “we have to protect our poor black inferiors” brand of racism? Perhaps, but whenever dealing with humans you won’t go too wrong going with the stupidity explanation first. The stupidity that is illustrated by the title of this unrelated post at Althouse:

“Have you ever had a thought on the topic of race that isn’t set generations into the past? Have you ever thought about the future?”

That is the bottom line for the left and the MSM, they live in an eternal 1955 only with Republicans in the role of democrats. They will never get over it because many of them, in my opinion, believe they are not talented enough or worked hard enough to deserve what they have, and frankly many of them might just be right.

I woke up at 4:30 this morning (no Willie I don’t know why) and caught the end of a re-peat of Meet the press. What did I find? the MSM Psy-ops is still in progress.

When discussing the Huckabee decision the panel considered two factors, on the “likeability” front they gave Tim Pawlenty the explicit advantage. Then they mentioned his strength among Christian Conservatives and said such candidates appealing to that demographic might gain from his departure, but didn’t name any names.

Really, the media panel hasn’t heard of any Christian conservatives who might be running? Maybe I can help them. Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann ring a bell? Oh and perhaps you might have heard of some woman by the name of Palin, I’ve heard she has sold a book or two over the years.

Perhaps they must all be Politico readers because in their story on Huck’s decision I noticed they gave the conservative candidates the short shift.

In a thirty-two paragraph story here is what they had to say:

Several strategists predicted that grassroots conservative activists — drawn to Huckabee’s seat-of-his-pants, outsider campaign — would take a good look at Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.

That’s paragraph 12 are they mentioned again in one sentence in paragraph 22 like so:

Republicans there said that, without the defending caucus-winner in the race, it was now anybody’s game. Pawlenty, who has been working the state hard, could get a fresh look, along with Bachmann, Cain and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

That’s it. Two sentences in a three page story. Meanwhile John (I have absolutely no prayer of winning the Nomination but don’t tell the MSM that) Huntsman gets this:

South Carolinians pointed to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as candidates who could benefit there from Huckabee’s withdrawal. Huntsman already has Richard Quinn, a South Carolina strategist who also flirted with Huckabee, working for him, and could stand to pick up more of the Arkansan’s admirers.

“I would very seriously consider [Huntsman’s] candidacy,” said former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, suggesting that Huntsman could capture voters who were drawn to Huckabee’s sheer newness on the national stage. “When Jon expressed an interest in running it definitely caught my attention because he might be just the fresh face on the field that’s needed at this time in the Republican primary process.”

Somehow the Politico also manages to leave out it there is any effect on a certain former Alaska governor. Meet the Press and the Politico feeds Morning Joe we can be almost certain that we won’t see much if any of the names, Palin, Cain or Bachmann this morning.

We shall see if they join the operation this morning, as Rush has said, the MSM will tell you who they fear and these omissions speak volumes.

In Time Magazine Mark Halperin handicaps the 2012 republican nomination. Forgetting that there is no actual scientific way to measure these things there are three points I’d like to note:

1. The Mike Huckabee announcement automatically makes this graphic obsolete.

2. Assuming his bookmaking is correct (it’s not) If the odds of Mitt Romney’s nomination are 3-1 that means there is one chance in three that he will win the nomination, conversely that means there are 2 chances in 3 that he will not. Michael Graham will be pleased.

3. Any chart that shows Jon Huntsman in the top 5 (now top four) republicans to win the nomination is not to be taken seriously.

These points concerning the latest attempt to spin this election are all important, but the most important points concern who is missing from this chart and who is at the bottom of the list. Open up the Graphic in another tab and look at it again.

Rule one in the MSM is strong republican women have to be marginalized or mocked and ridiculed. Note that the strong republican woman on the list are put at the very bottom. This is highly necessary, we can’t have anyone thinking that the GOP might be thinking of nominating a woman let alone a strong one.

Note also that the more conservative the candidate, the farther down the list. Can’t suggest that a conservative might win the nomination, have to discourage that kind of thought.

And finally note who isn’t even included, the Republican candidate who has made the most splash lately in campaigning and in debates. Herman Cain! We don’t dare mention Cain, or show Cain or give any odds on Cain. What would the readers of Time Magazine or the viewers of Morning Joe say if the it was admitted that a Black Republican, who unlike the current president has an actual record of accomplishing things before he ran, is a GOP base favorite? It would not only mess up the template but it would bring out the racists on the democratic side who would populate the comment sections of these stories with cries of “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo” etc etc etc. Can’t let the public see democrats for what they are.

The bottom line, this graphic and these odds are simply a democratic wet dream, it has the same purpose as this tweet I saw this morning:

Yet another declaration of GOP impotence. What is it for, to try to convince the GOP and the base that we can’t win. With President Obama at the top of their ticket their best chance for victory is to demoralize us because they don’t have a record of success to run on and the one signature success this crowd has managed invokes memories not only of another president but of policies that they abhor.

This is all Psi-ops and bluff, considering the realities that’s all they have. Our best response?


Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!

Update: Stacy Links and tweets and says:

Don’t outsource your political thinking to a bunch of know-it-all pundits.

Don’t fall for the Psi-ops.

Update: Et Tu Fox?

You’ve likely already heard about the terror arrests in NY.

Two men arrested in relation to an alleged terror plot in New York City were of Moroccan and Algerian descent, FOX News reported Thursday.
Moroccan Mohammad Mamdouh and Algerian Ahmed Serhani were arrested late Wednesday and were expected to be charged under the state’s terrorism laws

So if you read the Other McCain you would know who the suspects were and their cultural nationality. How about HotAir?

Two Americans of North African descent have been arrested, apparently on charges that they plotted a terrorist attack on at least one New York City synagogue:

Yup you know that if you read Hot Air, how about Pam Geller?

More Muslims planning to blow up Jewish houses of worship. The media describes them of “Algerian descent” — no mention of Islamic Jew-hatred and the motivation that drives this war on the West. The media dares not speak its name.

Not only does Pam inform us, but she hits the nail on the head. If your only source for this news was the AP report linked at Stacy’s site that is what you would have heard.

Authorities in NY have arrested a pair of men allegedly plotting a terror attack against a Synagogue in the city.

Go back to Stacy’s site and listen to the whole thing, You will notice that the names of the men and their nationality is never mentioned.

When listening to WCRN today while driving I noticed the same thing. I heard the CBS news report on the story, never once were the names of the suspect mentioned. That’s when I knew they were Muslims.

It’s the religious version of the “Name that Party” game.

Guys if you don’t want to actually tell us the news, please find another line of work.

Israpundit had an interesting report on Sarah Palin in Denver concerning the use of force by the US:

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America’s finest, into harm’s way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.

And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.

Pretty significant set of policy opinions. I’m sure the media with an election coming up decided to examine it carefully.

Well not quite, instead they decided to focus on something much more important:

Sarah Palin gave passing praise to President Obama’s “decisive leadership” in the operation to kill Osama bin Laden, though in a speech here Monday night the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate did not once use Obama’s name.

“We want to thank our president,” Palin said, but then she quickly shifted focus to the previous administration for having laid the groundwork.

Some on the left don’t even give her that much credit:

However, making a specific point not to mention President Obama (and, yes, it must have been a specific point. I doubt she and her speech writers just forgot his name) was a bad move. It’s just a distraction.

Of course we must assume the left believes that when she says “The President” she must mean Jefferson Davis.

Now as John Notle points out, the MSM doesn’t want to focus on the substance when it comes to Sarah, can’t paint Palin as a dunce that way, so they invent a meme. Why? Remember the Golden Palin rule.

watching Palin in context tends to make people like her.

Thus forget the policy stuff, let’s re-define what she means by “The President.”

The MSM will tell you who they fear.

Update: Instalanche, thanks much.

Update 2: Put update 1 in the right place, and Linking Ann Althouse who looks at Huff Po’s latest “gotta” moment and notes:

Those White House Correspondents’ Dinner “attendees” who “had no problem coming up with answers” were journalists giving laughably self-interested answers like “my boss, Arianna Huffington.” And there were plenty of attendees who couldn’t come up with an answer or who changed the question to “my favorite journalist.”

(Ask me who the most influential law professor is, and my answer will say something about me as I decide to promote my own school, suck up to some particular individual, highlight somebody obscure, or drivel about how there are so many wonderful law professors.)

Don’t go looking for the Palin Doctrine list there, after all Ariana doesn’t pay them for that.

Saturday April 23rd on DaTechGuy on DaRadio my guest is John Nolte Editor in Chief of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood and contributor to Andrew’s other sites such as Big Journalism.

We will be talking the Wonkette mess, #trigscrew and the media’s reaction (or non-reaction) to that and the Palin speech.

As always you can listen to us live at the WCRN website, and we welcome your calls at 508-438-0965

and remember you can e-mail your comments to the show here

And remember we have the Wesley and Weston report at 6 a.m. Conservatively speaking at 7 a.m. and Carol Ann Brown at 9 and the now resurgent Red Sox with the pregame starting at 8 p.m. so keep that dial right on WCRN all day Saturday.

Update: Bob Belvedere has been confirmed as a call-in guest for our 2nd hour panel YOWSA!

Oh and don’t forget Next week Join me at Linguini’s Italian Eatery at 1 p.m for a post show lunch and round table featuring YOU.

Update: BTW if you aren’t familiar with the Trig story check out this great piece by Susannah Fleetwood who NAILS it:

Every liberal entertainer, professor and pundit that most liberals respect call Republicans “teabaggers” and “racists”, say horrific things about Sarah Palin, and even spread internet rumors about her son not being hers, or her husband sleeping with her daughter (and yes, Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher are both mainstream liberal figures–they are not the fringe). Therefore, many of them don’t know anybody who thinks that this is unacceptable behavior, so they assume that “everyone is doing it” or would approve of it.

Bazinga!