The November 9 Republican presidential debate in Detroit highlighted the utter economic cluelessness of the overwhelming majority of CNBC hosts and another Rick Perry debate mental lapse.
CNBC host Maria Bartiromo began the debate by claiming, "We will be joined by an all-star lineup of the smartest people on CNBC."
But the debate only proved again why CNBC is the most economically ignorant "financial network." The bad predictions by CNBC hosts during the housing and financial bubble led comedian Jon Stewart to quip on Comedy Central's The Daily Show in 2009, "If I'd only followed CNBC's advice, I'd have a million dollars today... provided I started with 100 million dollars."
CNBC hosts and guests routinely mocked and laughed at sober analysts of the housing bubble, such as EuroPacific Capital's Peter Schiff. Schiff's fans famously put together YouTube videos of analysts mocking Schiff entitled "Peter Schiff was Right," and were able to put together a CNBC-only edition of bad economic advice being given against Schiff's sober analysis during the economic bubble.
Last Friday a superior court in New Jersey held that a “marriage equality” suit may proceed. The ruling had the effect of partially denying a motion to dismiss filed by New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow. The complaint against the state was filed by Lambda Legal on behalf of Garden State Equality (GSE), a statewide “gay rights” organization. Joining the suit as co-plaintiffs are seven homosexual couples and their children who all claim to have suffered under various provisions of the Garden State’s current civil union statute.
The complainants have requested that the court declare the civil union law unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement of it. Specifically, the suit argues that as applied to citizens of the state of New Jersey, the law at issue violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as similar provisions of the New Jersey state constitution.
On Tuesday night, GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain issued a formal response to the sexual harassment allegations levied by Sharon Bialek and his other accusers. During a news conference held in Phoenix, Cain declared the accusations to be “baseless” and in the case of Bialek, motivated by money. Any claims asserted by Bialek, according to Cain, “simply did not happen” because he contends he does not recognize Bialek.
Days ago, Bialek became the fourth woman to come forward and make charges against Cain, and the first to go public. During a New York City press conference on Monday, the Chicago woman claimed that Cain made aggressive sexual advances toward her in July 1997 after she had asked him for help finding employment. The Washington Post reports:
After being let go by the NRA foundation, Bialek, who had met Cain on several occasions during conferences and at a dinner, reached out to Cain to obtain guidance on getting a new job. The NRA confirmed on Monday afternoon that Bialek had worked for its education foundation from December 1996 to June 1997.
According to Bialek, Cain put his hand under her skirt and reached for her genitals. She adds that Cain pushed her head toward his crotch while they were in a car. She claims that she responded to these advances by saying, “This isn’t what I came here for, Mr. Cain.” She claims that his response to her statement was, “You want a job, right?”
Government programs often begin with limited, easily identifiable purposes, then grow over time to become expensive, wasteful, and even dangerous monstrosities. Such is the case with the federal War on Drugs, which began with little fanfare under a modest 1914 anti-narcotics law and has since grown to enormous proportions, eviscerating the Bill of Rights and entangling the United States in countries all around the globe in a futile effort to eradicate the supplies of highly sought-after commodities.
The National Education Association (NEA) held its most recent convention in Chicago in July 2011. While they expressed some dissatisfaction with President Obama and his Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, they decided to endorse the President for a second term as the lesser of the two evils. Nevertheless, the delegates did not hesitate to approve of a resolution directing the NEA’s president to “communicate aggressively, forcefully, and immediately” to President Obama and Secretary Duncan that the NEA was appalled with Duncan.
According to Phyllis Schlafly’s Education Reporter: “The resolution went on to lay out 13 charges against Duncan, including focusing too heavily on charter schools, failing to respect and honor the professionalism of teachers, weighing in on local hiring decisions, and focusing too heavily on competitive grants (i.e. Race to the Top).”
The resolution was endorsed by the union’s board of directors, which gave it its highest priority. The union has been screaming bloody murder over the lay-off of teachers and support staff due to budget cuts. But even the NEA has had to trim its own budget by $14 million by downsizing its national staff.
The radical Left in Congress is pressing Secretaries of State across the nation to oppose state changes to election laws that require voters to prove they are who they claim to be and are eligible to cast a ballot. Nearly 200 Democrats, led by Maryland leftist Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democrat Whip, signed a letter that went to Secretaries across the country. States that pass photo-identification and other laws, Hoyer disingenuously argues, are “suppressing” votes and undermining “democracy,” at least as he and some of the most radical Congressmen define “democracy.”
Nate Silver’s article in the New York Times on President Obama’s reelection chances looked carefully at three major influences that could determine the outcome in November of 2012 and concluded that the President is a slight underdog: “It is early, and almost no matter what, the election will be a losable one for the Republicans. But Obama’s position is tenuous enough that it might not be a winnable one for him.”
A skilled forecaster, Silver looked at three major factors that he thinks will influence the election: approval ratings, the economy, and the President’s opponent’s ideology. At the moment the President’s negative approval ratings across the spectrum of pollsters doesn’t concern him, and he thinks that even if the economy dips further as many are increasingly predicting, the electorate is suffering from bad news “fatigue,” and more bad news won’t really count for much. When it gets to ideology, however, it is clear that if the President’s opponent can make a strong case against him, then the election is over and the President will lose.
Days after news broke of Herman Cain’s alleged cases of sexual harassment, new updates continue to flood news outlets. The story began by revealing that during Cain’s tenure as president of the National Restaurant Association, he was accused of sexual harassment by two women. Following that story, however, other women came forward to make similar accusations against the GOP presidential contender. The latest woman to make such an accusation is Sharon Bialek, who is the first to voice her allegations publicly.
In Washington, D.C. on Nov. 4, Mitt Romney promised attendees at the Defending the American Dream Summit that if elected, he would end funding for several federal programs. Conservative Republicans, however, may not have been comforted by Romney's reasons for denying these programs federal funding. At the event, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, he stated: For each program that we have in the government, I'm going to look at them one by one. I’m going to ask this question: Is this program so critical, so essential, that we should borrow money from China to pay for it? Now, for example, I like Amtrak. But I’m not willing to borrow $1.6 billion dollars a year from China to pay for it.
The New York Times called the November 5 "debate" between Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain — supposedly styled on the Lincoln-Douglas debates — "congenial." That was an understatement. The Los Angeles Times came a little closer, calling it a "Vulcan mind meld."
Go ahead, ask this commentator: What was the main difference between the 1858 Illinois Senate debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas and the Gingrich-Cain "debate"?
The main difference was that Lincoln and Douglas actually disagreed about a few principles, such as the expansion of slavery into the U.S. territories of Kansas and Nebraska. The tone of the entire Gingrich-Cain "debate" was ably summed up by Herman Cain in his first statement after Newt Gingrich's opening remarks: "At this particular juncture, I'm supposed to have a minute to disagree with something that he said, but I don't." And it didn't get any more testy than that.
As a debate, this event — so fervently sought by Gingrich since the race began — was a real snoozer. The point of debates is to draw out the differences between candidates. Cain and Gingrich hardly disagreed on anything. They might as well have called it a joint press conference. Cain actually hinted that Gingrich would be his vice presidential choice, asking Gingrich (in what was probably the toughest question of the night): "Mr. Speaker, if you were the Vice President of the United States, what would you want the President to assign you to do first?"