Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Saturday Night Card Game (Herman Cain isn’t their type of black)(Readers’ Choice Award)

    Saturday Night Card Game (Herman Cain isn’t their type of black)(Readers’ Choice Award)

    Herman Cain is bringing out the worst venom from the liberal media and entertainment complex, and the left-wing blogosphere.

    Just as we saw liberal feminists fall all over themselves to bash Sarah Palin as an insult to women, so too we see liberals who claim to be enlightened on matters of race fall all over themselves to bash Cain as an insult to blacks.

    There are so many examples just this past week so I’ll let you choose:

    1. Touré on The Dylan Ratigan Show, who called Cain a media whore and compared Cain to Flavor Flav:

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    2.  Bill Maher, who referred to Cain as a “token black“:

    BILL MAHER: Big news, of course, in the Republican ranks. There is a new – I say  this every week – but there is a new frontrunner:  Herman Cain, Herman  Cain. The Republican establishment is freaking out because their token black guy  is in the league now.

    3.  Pam Spaulding at Firedoglake who accuses Cain of shameless tap dancing for conservative white voters:

    But back to race. I’ll never understand Herman Cain and his relationship to the GOP establishment; like former puppet Michael Steele, they don’t see (or don’t care) how rancid race-based politics in the Republican party has become… [T]he Republican leadership has made its bed with the fundamentalists and nativist know-nothings, making Cain and other black Republicans curious cases that border on self-loathing.

    4.  Cartoonist Telnaes at The Washington Post who portrays Cain as Bull Connor holding an attack dog on a leash (h/t Dana Loesch):

    5. Ulli K. Ryder, a “visiting scholar” at Brown University in Providence, quoted in The New York Times calling Cain “minstrelsy” (h/t John Nolte):

    “It makes the hair on my neck stand up,” said Ulli K. Ryder, a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America at Brown University. “The larger issue that a lot of people have, and I certainly have, is that he uses a certain kind of minstrelsy to play to white audiences. Referencing negative stereotypes in order to get heard to a white audience in the 21st century is really a problem.”

    It’s a tough choice.  (Poll open until 5 p.m. on Sunday, October 23)


    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    davidinvirginia | October 23, 2011 at 9:25 am

    These comments by the usual suspects are disgusting (no surprise) and utterly predictable. Unfortunately, for the GOP, they don’t make Cain any more qualified to be the nominee or president. These people should be bashed for saying this crap, but please don’t let the sympathy for Cain convince you to vote for him. He beclowns himself with his own lack of knowledge about a wide range of issues almost every day on the campaign trail. He really doesn’t need any help for the resident idiots at MSNBC or Jon Stewart and their ilk to make himself look bad.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Viator in reply to davidinvirginia. | October 23, 2011 at 10:52 am

      Apparently a great many people disagree with you:

      “LAS VEGAS — Herman Cain placed first Friday in a straw poll of Republican activists at the Western Republican Leadership Conference.

      Cain took 31 percent of the more than 550 votes cast. Mitt Romney came in second with 29 percent, while Newt Gingrich’s 21 percent put him in third.

      Although straw polls are of limited use in predicting who will be the eventual nominee, they can be revealing indicators of whether candidates have grassroots momentum or appeal to certain populations.”

      http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/189171-cain-wins-straw-poll-in-nevada

      South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary
      RCP Average 10/11 – 10/16
      Cain 31.5
      Romney 22
      Perry 11.0
      Gingrich 7.5
      Paul 6.0
      Bachmann 5.5
      Huntsman 1.0

      Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus
      RCP Average 10/3 – 10/19
      Cain 28.2
      Romney 22.8
      Paul 10.8
      Gingrich 8.4
      Bachmann 8.4
      Perry 7.8
      Santorum 3.8
      Huntsman 1.2

      New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary
      RCP Average 10/2 – 10/16
      Romney 40.4
      Cain 18.4
      Paul 10.6
      Gingrich 5.8
      Huntsman 4.8
      Perry 4.2
      Bachmann 3.8
      Santorum 1.3
      Johnson 0.8

      Florida Republican Presidential Primary
      RCP Average 9/24 – 10/16
      Romney 31
      Cain 29
      Perry 8.3
      Gingrich 8.0
      Paul 4.7
      Bachmann 3.8
      Huntsman 1.7
      Santorum 1.5

      RCP Poll Average National
      2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

      Cain 26.0
      Romney 25.5
      Perry 12.5
      Perry 9.2
      Gingrich 8.5
      Paul 8.5
      Bachmann 4.8
      Huntsman 2.0
      Santorum 1.6

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html


         
         0 
         
         0
        Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 23, 2011 at 3:30 pm

        Neither post would seem to really address the topic at hand, but at risk of perpetuating the sin:

        What’s up with something calling itself the Western Republican Leadership Conference holding a poll that only it could only get “more than 550” Republican activists in vote in?

        That’s about as representative as the opinions at my monthly movie night.

        Is this the best we can do? Seriously?

      You overdid it. Its OK you don’t like Cain and won’t vote for him, but you justified it by parroting dhimocrat talking points. A classic mistake. That gives you a “fail” for believability at this site. The same exact things could have been said about our current president in 2007 IF our nation media had integrity. They don’t, so they weren’t said. But they coulda, woulda, shouda. And that makes your ranting irrelevant.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Mike Giles | October 23, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Cain presents an enormous problem, not to mention threat, to Democrats. The Democratic Party has received the majority of the black vote by playing upon fears of “racism”. How exactly do you exploit those fears when BOTH candidates are black. And especially when the Republican candidate has more in common with the general black experience in this country, and might be more appealing to the black electorate that Democrats depend upon. And of course the Dems charge that any opposition to Obama is racist based, begins to fall apart when that opposition comes from another black man. Their only fall back is to somehow show that Cain “really isn’t black”. A strategy that may founder on the fact that Cain is more authentically black than Obozo is. The hostility of the race merchants is self explanatory. Two black men running for the highest office in the land, makes their constant charges of “racism” everywhere a non starter. The hostility from the Republican establishment, is what ANYONE who isn’t part of the, inside the beltway, go along to get along crowd, gets.


     
     0 
     
     0
    reliapundit | October 23, 2011 at 11:33 am

    THE BOTTOM-LINE ON 9-9-9: IT SUCKS, BIGTIME
    47% of Americans pay no income tax and only pay 7.65% social security/medicaid tax.

    Cain’s plan raises this to 9%.

    That’s a tax increase of 1.35%. To 47% of Americans. Those on the bottom.

    On top of this, these taxpayers would have to pay another 9% on everything they buy.

    Most of these taxpayers are already living paycheck-to-paycheck; therefore Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would put them in the hole – if not bankrupt them,

    Now… weeks after introducing his plan, Cain admits he knows it sucks and is tweaking it with empowerment zones and all sorts of exemptions for this an exemptions for that.

    IOW: To make his idiotic 9-9-9 plan more palatable, Cain is picking winners and loses – just like those he claims he opposes.

    THE BOTTOM-LINE ON 9-9-9: it was a lousy plan that was poorly thought out and in the end only proved Cain ain’t ready for prime-time.

    Conservatives who deny this are humoring Cain and pandering.

    UPDATE: THIS POST FROM FOX IS DEVASTATING:

    Cain has sometimes appeared to be in over his head. Consider what’s happened over the past week:

    –He suggested electrifying a fence along the U.S. border with Mexico to kill illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States. Cain later called it a joke and apologized if anyone was offended by the remarks.

    –He said he would negotiate for the release of U.S. prisoners held by terrorists, then reversed himself and said he had misunderstood the question.

    –He muddied the water on abortion. He told CNN that while he strongly opposes abortion, “the government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.” He later issued a statement reiterating his opposition to abortion.

    –Amid criticism that his 9-9-9 tax overhaul would force the majority of Americans to pay more to the government, he reworked the plan to exclude the poorest people and to allow some deductions. Backers of Cain’s original plan had praised its simplicity, and carving out exceptions could erode that support.
    CONSERVATIVES WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS MAN BECLOWN THEMSELVES..

      So now we have the likes of reliapundit acting as the unwitting right flank of the leftist media complex.


       
       0 
       
       0
      OldJoe33 in reply to reliapundit. | October 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm

      Please go to http://www.hermaincain.com/999plan” and read the whole thing. Then, right under the “Let’s Get Real” quote, find the 3 small-font links:
      “9-9-9 Brochure”, “9-9-9 Scoring Report”, and “9-9-9 Scoring Tables”. Download and save these articles for some tough reading. These are summaries of the background research and recommendations. THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT AND ANALYSIS PUT INTO THE 999 PLAN. You can’t ‘tweak’ this into the plan on the fly.
      As he replied to a gotcha question on Fox (of all places! and paraphrasing) ‘It’s been there from the beginning. Read the entire proposal’
      I said it is tough going. The concept is simple, but the details are NOT. A smart Leader like Mr. Cain is not going to attempt to try to explain it on TV.
      At least, not in the early going.
      One of the provisions is that people under the official poverty level will get a return (details explained in 9-9-9 … links) that is calculated as ‘taxRate * povertyLevel’ for the individual family that qualifies. So, no tax raise on such families.
      Also, and I believe that this is an example of this man’s forward-thinking insight, the 999 plan is a gentle introduction to the “Fair Tax”. A transition that I believe to be absolutely necessary to get to an even better taxation plan.

    […] Legal Insurrection’s Prof. Jacobson points out the blatant hypocrisy racism when the leftist MSM and celeb talkingheads deal with the conservative ‘black’ man Herman Cain who won’t be chained to the liberal plantation and step-n-fetch the victim meme:   […]

    “the three tax bases for Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan add up to about $33 trillion. But the plan exempts from any tax people below the poverty line. Using poverty tables, this exemption reduces each tax base by roughly $2.5 trillion. Thus, Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 tax base for his business tax is $9.5 trillion, for his income tax $7.7 trillion, and for his sales tax $8.3 trillion. And there you have it! Three federal taxes at 9% that would raise roughly $2.3 trillion and replace the current income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax (employer and employee), capital gains tax and estate tax.

    The whole purpose of a flat tax, à la 9-9-9, is to lower marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. With lower marginal tax rates (and boy will marginal tax rates be lower with the 9-9-9 plan), both the demand for and the supply of labor and capital will increase. Output will soar, as will jobs. Tax revenues will also increase enormously—not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates have decreased.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576637310315367804.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

    “Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” tax plan has been attacked and denigrated by his conservative opponents. Liberals are having a cow. The media is up in arms. It seems everyone is upset. But the reality is, it was a great start. The only way you know something works in Washington is when all sides are angry.

    The 9-9-9 plan is simple, it’s memorable, it opened the conversation and it reminds me of Ronald Reagan’s plan to cut the tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. That, too, was laughed at and denigrated as “too simple.” No one believed it could ever work. Yet Reagan got it passed and, in record time, the worst economy since 1929 was turned into the greatest economic boom in world history.”

    http://www.newsmax.com/WayneAllynRoot/Cain-999-Plan-conservative/2011/10/20/id/415243

    “The influential anti-spending Club for Growth defended Republican presidential contender Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan against attacks from his GOP rivals, saying that those who warn the federal sales tax component would simply hand Congress another way to levy taxes on citizens “miss the mark.”

    “Mr. Cain’s plan, he said, may not be perfect, but “it is a truly revolutionary tax reform that would amount to a massive job creating tax cut on investments, savings and income.”

    “Instead of tearing down ideas that would create economic growth and jobs, the other Republican presidential candidates should produce their own plans to achieve a flatter and more growth-oriented tax code,” Mr. Chocola said.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/oct/14/club-growth-defends-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/


       
       0 
       
       0
      Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 23, 2011 at 3:39 pm

      Have you run your numbers? If so, what happened? If not, why not?

      “Tax revenues will also increase enormously…” But Cain said the plan was revenue neutral — so who’s right? If this is right, is this a good thing or does it just support more government expansion? (I think we know the answer to that.)

      The problem with Cain’s plan is all the used-car-salesman hand waving that is being done about it. Used-car salesmen can be really bold too.

      The plan is all about numbers. So run the numbers.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Viator in reply to Owen J. | October 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm

        What are you my auditor?

        The first third of the post is by Arthur Laffer, Phd in economics, Yale and Stanford. His numbers are probably better than mine.

        The second third of the post is by Wayne Allyn Root, VP candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2008 and classmate of B. Obama at Columbia.

        The last third of the comment is by the influential Club for Growth whose raison d’etre is to minimize taxes and government spending.

        The Tax Policy Center is a left wing think tank, a joint venture of the Bookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Both of those organization get money from George Soros. They are hardly a reliable source on cutting taxes or shrinking government power. So the leftist The Hill quotes the leftist Tax Policy Center, big deal.

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2625790/posts


           
           0 
           
           0
          Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 24, 2011 at 3:59 am

          Do I need to be?

          I ran my numbers — my taxes went up under Cain’s plan by 15% to 20%, except for one year when they nearly doubled.

          Laffer may have a Ph.D but some of his statements are contradicted by Cain’s explaination on his website. He either got bad data or he made mistakes in his analysis.

          This is about numbers — I don’t care who is affiliated with whom or what. Either their math is right or wrong based on the info Cain’s people have provided.

          So do the math yourself and see what you get. Do your personal taxes go up or down?

          Do you care which?


           
           0 
           
           0
          Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 24, 2011 at 4:28 am

          In case you missed it, Laffer said: “a 9% flat-rate tax on net business profits.”

          This is not true at all. The truth is that wages and employee benefits (like health insurance) are fully taxed at 9% (both the employers and the employee pay 9% of the full amount, BTW) under 999.

          Right now, payroll is taxed at less than 8% overall (for each party) and less than 7% given certain credits, and health insurance is not taxed at all for employers, being fully deductable.

          So marginal tax rates for business do not go down as asserted under 999; often — perhaps usually for most small business concerns — they go up!

          This single mistake alone invalidates Laffer’s main conclusions.

          So again — read the plan and run the numbers. If you are going to support something, take sometime to educate yourself on the actually affects instead of just quoting people who have already made elementary mistakes.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Owen J in reply to Viator. | October 23, 2011 at 3:59 pm

      Just read this over at the Hill: http://thehill.com/video/campaign/189127-cain-critics-of-9-9-9-didnt-read-my-plan-

      “The Tax Policy Center released a report stating that Cain’s plan would increase taxes for some Americans, to which the GOP candidate said is a “lie, L-I-E, lie,” and urged everyone to “take a look at the full analysis.” ”

      Does anyone have the full quote? Is the Hill’s reporting here being rather shoddy here or is Cain sticking his foot in his mouth?

      It’s not clear what Cain is saying is a lie, L-I-E: the whole report or the assertion that his plan would increase taxes on some Americans?

      Obviously it would increase taxes in some Americans (I’m one of them).

      If Cain is calling Tax Policy Center liars (as opposed to simply disagreeing with him), we ought to be sure what exactly he is talking about.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend