Herman Cain: Bellwether

Despite the fact that he's has been embroiled in scandal and controversy all week, Herman Cain still leads in the polls. And he's raising loads of money.

How is this possible?

Herman Cain has never held elective office, he struggles to explain his positions on important issues, and he's met with derision from powerful commentators on the left and the right.

Why has he continued to rise?

Perhaps Cain is exactly the sort of candidate we should have expected this election cycle.

For the past several years, the American voter has rebuked the political establishment at almost every opportunity. Republicans were punished in 2006, and again in 2008 -- and this was followed by a swift kick in the teeth for the Democrats in 2009 and 2010.

Along the way we've wrestled with The Combine over candidates like Sharron Angle and Arlen Specter at one end of the spectrum and Marco Rubio and Lisa Murkowski at the other end.

Of all people, perhaps Chris Matthews captured the sentiment best with this bit of commentary a few weeks before the 2010 elections:

I saw the strength of the flames that consumed him and will consume many others this rapidly approaching election night. I have waited all my adult life for an election in which voters have the fire to reach up and burn those who have been running the show for decades. But I didn't know it would come from the right and center.

2010 could be the first year in modern times when being in office in Washington and part of Washington is the worst possible credential when facing voters. I don't know how far the fire will burn. Based upon last night's returns, I expect it has a long way to go. It could topple the House and, yes, the U.S. Senate. It could bring the defeat of people who feel even now they are not endangered. It could produce an election night spectacle of name brand politicians standing before stance supporters saying their careers are kaput.

Why is this happening? Because this economic system is failing to produce the security and opportunity people have come to expect in this country. In this middle-class country, the middle class are scared and when people are scared, they get angry. They sense a rot at the top and are ready to chop it off.

If the plan of those in power to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can't vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed -- I expect the voter will say, "Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out there, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down as you have? If that is what you're telling me, that I have no choice, well, Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait -- stay up late election night and see what I have done."

Matthews was right, and it appears that the spirit of 2010 has not yet passed. Our elite politicians and pundits have lost credibility. Americans are marching to the beat of their own drums now.

Whether he wins or loses in the end, Herman Cain is a bellwether for the prevailing anti-establishment attitude.

RELATED: Legal Insurrection

x-posted at LCR

AK Senate Race: McAdams Endorses Murkowski?

Chicago-style politics in Alaska...

After her defeat in the GOP primary, incumbent Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski jumped back into the headlines by launching a write-in campaign. Her chance of winning is almost exactly zero, but if she's lucky, she could hand the race to the Democrat.

Interestingly, in Thursday's debate between the Democrat, Scott McAdams and Joe Miller, the Tea Party Republican, McAdams had nothing but good things to say about his write-in "opponent." Is Scott McAdams' statement tantamount to an endorsement? Watch and listen:

"I welcome [Murkowski]. I think she's a classy person with a good voice. I don't think that she is a liberal, as she has been framed as being. I think she is an Alaskan first and a party person second..."

"I think it's better for Alaska if Senator Murkowski has a dialog in the room..."

"If Senator Murkowski joins this thing, I welcome her. Her (sic) and I made an oath to one another that we would have a civic (sic), principled dialog on the issues, that we wouldn't lie about each other, that we wouldn't tear each other down..."

"If she does enter [the race], I hope that either Senator Murkowski or myself (sic) are the next Senator for the State of Alaska."

[emphasis added]

Aren't McAdams and Murkowski getting a little too cozy in this race?

Lisa Murkowski says she jumped back into the race as a write-in candidate to give Alaskans "a choice." But she's not really a choice. As a write-in candidate, her only chance at a meaningful impact on the race is to siphon off enough votes to sabotage Joe Miller. Murkowski knows she's only giving the Democrat a chance to win.

This exemplifies the problem with liberal Republicans.

Lexington Green over at Chicago Boyz provides brilliant analysis by introducing the idea of the Combine

:

In Illinois, there has long been an expression which describes the relationship between the two political parties: The Combine. Chicago Tribune writer John Kass seems to have originated this expression. See, for example, this article: In Combine, cash is king, corruption is bipartisan. Kass quoted former Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald: “In the final analysis, The Combine’s allegiance is not to a party, but to their pocketbooks. They’re about making money off the taxpayers,” Fitzgerald said. Kass went on: “He should know. He fought The Combine and lost, and the empty suits running the Republican Party encourage their friendly scribes to blame the social conservatives for the disaster of the state GOP.”

Sound familiar?

America, welcome to Illinois.

The way it works is this. The Democrat party is the senior member of the Combine. The GOP is the junior member of the Combine. The game is exactly the same, and whoever is up, or whoever is down, based on the random behavior of those rubes, the voters, does not matter. The game is always exactly the same, and the people who are in on the game, from either party, have a shared stake in defending the game.

The Combine is a term that should be more widely used in Illinois. It is also a word that should be more widely used in the USA in general.

Lisa Murkowski’s family, and her career, exist because of the Combine. Her interest is in preserving the existing game. She is preserving her stake and her family’s stake in a game they have benefitted from. There is no mystery about this at all. There is no need for psychiatry to understand why she is trying to stop Joe Miller. He threatens the game. It has nothing to do with the label “Republican.”.

This is why the Tea Party exists...to break up the Combine.

T

oo many of our politicians would fit just as comfortably in the Democratic Party as they would in the GOP. They'll go anywhere the quest for power takes them.

The political establishment on both sides of the aisle believes that it is above the law (i.e. the Constitution); and as the fight over ObamaCare revealed, the pols hardly feel the need to concern themselves with the will of the people either.

If the past 21 months opened up any room for doubt about the fact that the GOP is free from the burdens of principle, the statist Republican leadership laid those doubts to rest last week.

Concern trolls like Karl the Cannibal demonstrated a greater fear for the threat of unapproved conservative insurgents than for the disastrous policies of their "opponents" in the other party.

T

his, in turn, confirms the fears of the grassroots: the GOP tent, as it is currently configured, is not big enough for more conservatives.

Fortunately, the cannibalism confirms something else as well. Conservatives now know with certainty that their primary season gambles were prudent, for it is better to take chances with unproven Tea Party conservatives than to go with consistently untrustworthy establishment hacks. Chris Matthews, of all people, understands this quite well:

"If the plan of those in power is to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can't vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed, I expect the voter will say, 'Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out here, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down, as you have? If that is what you're telling me, that I have no choice... well Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait, stay up late election night and see what I have done.'''

Let there be no mistake. Neither Republican elitists nor Democratic elitists are happy with the defeat of liberal GOP incumbents. Now there's a chance (albeit a small one in some cases) that Conservatives will take more power from the Combine.

Update:

They keep pushing.

Roundup

A Delaware-themed roundup...

• Ruby Slippers: O'Donnell's a contender says ... Chris Matthews?
• The Lonely Conservative: We keep hearing that O’Donnell is unelectable. Isn’t that what they said about Marco Rubio?
• Jeri Thompson: Lest we forget, this was the seat held by a plagiarizing career politician incapable of keeping his foot out of his mouth, Joe Biden.
• Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Rachel Maddow Sexualizes Christine O'Donnell [Ew!]
• The Other McCain: Do you think Americans don’t masturbate enough?
• Moe Lane: “I’m glad he’s running. I just think the world of him. He’s my pet.”
• Left Coast Rebel: Cannibalism, masturbation and furry little pet coons
• Temple of Mut: Will the people of Delaware look kindly on a "Bearded Marxist?"
• No Sheeples Here: One thing is clear, the political climate has changed.

And a great one from Nice Deb that's a bit off topic: Don't believe the liberal media!

Slurs or Slander?

The Tea Party Movement: A multi-ethnic coalition of racist evil-mongers.

By now, most political junkies have heard the accusations:

The media claimed that members of the Congressional Black Caucus were called n*ggers and spat on by tea party protesters as they walked from the Longworth office building to the Rayburn office building. At least one report said that it was “a chorus” of racist hatred. Reporters from ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX News, (including Bill O’Reilly), MSNBC, etc. reported on this horrible story.

These actions have been repeatedly condemned by right-of-center media outlets.

But there's a big problem with these condemnations: We don't know what actually happened...

Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, claims that "tea party" protesters hurled racial slurs at fellow CBC member Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat. Mr. Carson said that "hundreds of people" were chanting, "Kill the bill," and he heard "at least 15 times" the "n – word" being thrown around.

[emphasis added]

Many have suggested that we should take the Congressmen at their word. Really? Congressmen? Their word?

Even if the Congresspeople sincerely think they heard racial slurs from protesters on Saturday, I'd like to know what really happened. Too bad no one has any video recordings. Oh, wait...cameras were everywhere:

In fact, a video was later released that proved that there was no “chorus” of racist hatred and no one screamed the n-word. It was all a lie.

Now here is more proof.

There were several cameras filming the democratic representatives as they walked to the Rayburn Office Building. And, the representatives had at least two cameras filming the entire event. (It was almost as if they were expecting something to happen?)

Is there still a little wiggle room that would allow us to give members of the CBC some benefit of doubt? Maybe. But no one making accusations has named any names...no arrests were made. Many videos of the events, many photos...no slurs captured, no bad behavior chronicled.

NO HARD EVIDENCE.

Accusations as serious as these should not be taken lightly. If the accusations are based on a shred of truth, we need to know who the offenders are and who they are connected with so the blame can be appropriately assigned. Let the good people of the CBC review the tapes. Point out the offenders...or take back the accusations.

No slurs.

More

Tea Party protesters deserve an apology.

Guards were right there. Was no one detained? Show me the person who was arrested. Otherwise, I’m assuming it’s a lie.”

Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy

Here's Some Bigotry That The New York Times, CNN & MSNBC Ignores

Chris Matthews: Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp...we’ll be there to watch.

Rep. Maxine Waters Calls Conservative Protesters “Teabaggers” …Again

Coakley in Trouble, MSNBC Despondent

Video of the day...

Obama's biggest fans, the propaganda meisters at MSNBC, are in tears. Watch as they analyze the Marcia Coakley campaign. Feel the tingle:

Chris Matthews should probably be on suicide watch.

Get election results here as they come in.

New Low For the Democrat-Run Media

MSNBC is apparently trying to compete with Al Jazeera for viewers:

"It seems like in this case, there isn't a lot of excitement," Matthews said. "I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."

[emphasis added]

Thanks for at least being honest, Chris.

Via Memeorandum

Who's in YOUR Wallet?

Obama discussing his favorite topic, i.e., himself: "...You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

How very true. Obama is quite unlike the presidents on the dollar bills — but in ways that go much deeper than the surface of his skin.

U.S. law, passed in 1866, prohibits portraits of any living person on currency. This reinforced the tradition established by the man who refused to be king, George Washington. Washington was vehemently opposed to displaying his image on coins, as that was what monarchies did. "I am certain it will be more agreeable to the citizens of the United States to see the head of Liberty on their coin than the head of presidents," Washington told Congress shortly after becoming president.

Times have changed.

Now we have a narcissist presiding over a citizenry that hardly values its liberty. Moreover, too many have lost any appreciation for decorum befitting a modern democratic republic. There are millions among us who are like Chris Matthews, Peggy Joseph and Charisse Carney-Nunes. Sobriety has given way to fanaticism.

This is very dangerous.

The ardent support of the NEA notwithstanding, our cities are not yet filled with giant Obama statues and there are no ten-story portraits of our Dear Leader. As far as I know, there are no immediate plans to put Obama on the $2 bill. But our prez does have a cult-like following. Led by their teachers, our school children sing and shout Obama's praises. Journalists are weak at the knees. Women swoon.

To date, Obama has done nothing to discourage any of the irrational, Obama-centric behavior.

Doctor Zero reflects on Obama mania:

The bigger the government, the greater its leaders. The unfortunate citizens of the biggest governments in the last century were told their maximum leaders were demigods.

Must we repeat the stupid mistakes of the 20th century?

More

The omnipresent leader

Your change has changed. Have you noticed?

The dollar is dead, long live the renminbi.

The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?