Republican Herman Cain suspended his campaign Saturday, saying that allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace and an extramarital affair have "sidetracked and distracted" a run for the White House.
The accusations of personal misconduct, which he repeatedly denied, "had a tremendous painful price on my family," he said.
But while he added that he has "made mistakes," Cain insisted he's "at peace" with his God, himself and his wife, who was on stage at the event.
Newt Gingrich, who has recently emerged as the current leader in some polls, lauded Cain for "for having the courage to run and for having the courage to have big ideas," Newsday reports.
The former Speaker of the House added that he "appreciates why under the current circumstances, he decided to go back to being a private citizen."
Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy
Given the steady beat of Gingrichs's hypocrisy, Newt should throw in the towel as well. Please play the following short video.
Gingrich Willing to Lobby for Anything for a Price
Newt Gingrich is adamant that he is not a lobbyist, but rather a visionary who traffics in ideas, not influence. But in the eight years since he started his health care consultancy, he has made millions of dollars while helping companies promote their services and gain access to state and federal officials.
Ludicrous GOP Get-Tough Talk
Peggy Noonan at the Wall Street Journal writes discusses the A Kettle of Hawks
We have a projected deficit over the next 10 years of $44 trillion. A group of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill were charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in cuts. Just 1.2 out of 44. Not that hard. And they couldn't do it.
To the Republicans, who met in debate Tuesday night in Washington. A note on the presentation of the debate itself. The videos each cable outfit now makes to introduce each debate have taken on a weird, hyperventilating tone. Tuesday's theme-setter included bombs dropping, jets roaring, presidents sweating, machine guns, screaming dictators, explosions and street demonstrators. Then, in urgent and dramatic tones: "The Republican National Security Debate begins—now." Guys, get a grip. Republican National Committee, start asking to OK the videos beforehand. This is a major-party nomination for the presidency, not a trailer for "Homeland."
Here are just a few phrases and sentences that were lobbed about for two hours. "Protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually but would take out entire cities," "expanded drone campaign," "they can't be trusted," "strong special forces presence," "hot pursuit," "slapped new sanctions," "no-fly zone over Syria," "nuclear weapon in one American city," "break the Iranian regime," "sabotaging the oil refinery," "crippling sanctions," "centrifuges spinning," "covert actions within Syria to get regime change," there is an "imminent threat" in Latin America, "we have been attacked," "doctrine of appeasement."
At one point Wolf Blitzer asked Newt Gingrich: "Would you, if you were president of the United States, bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power?"
Messrs. Blitzer and Gingrich, longtime Washington insiders, live in a cultural cosmos in which things like this are chattered about with no more sense of import than if they were talking about the Redskins. In fact it's exactly what they talk about after they talk about the Redskins game. But should we be discussing those things so blithely and explicitly in such a public way? You have to wonder what the world thinks when it hears such talk—and the world is watching.
It would have been nice to hear one of the candidates say, "You know, Wolf, I'm not sure it's a good idea to talk the way we're talking at a time like this, with the world so hot and our problems so big. Discretion isn't cowardice, so let me give you the general and overarching philosophy with which I'd approach these challenges, and you can infer from it what you like. I prefer peaceable solutions when they are possible. I think war is always a tragedy, sometimes necessary, sometimes even inevitable, but always tragic, and so I don't speak lightly or blithely of taking up arms . . ."
By the end, some of what was said sounded so dramatic that Ron Paul seemed like the normal one. He very much doesn't want new wars or new military actions. This is not an unreasonable desire! Jon Huntsman was normal too. They both seemed to think our biggest foreign-policy challenge is the American economy, which pays for our arms and diplomacy but has grown weak. It has to be made stronger, because without it we can afford nothing.
The tone of the debate seemed to me another example of the perils of Republo-world, where politicians, consultants and policy professionals egg each other on in hopes of reaching the farthest points of the base.
On Foreign Policy, Ron Paul Is More Mainstream Than His Opponents
In Peggy Noonan's latest column, discussed here by my colleague James Fallows, the Wall Street Journal columnist responds to the most recent GOP foreign policy debate by remarking on its bellicosity. "By the end, some of what was said sounded so dramatic that Ron Paul seemed like the normal one," she wrote. "He very much doesn't want new wars or new military actions. This is not an unreasonable desire!"
It's good to see an establishment columnist coming around to Paul's foreign-policy thinking, even if it's hedged in the condescending frame of they're so crazy they make even Ron Paul sound reasonable. Perhaps she'll go even farther in a future column if presented with evidence that Paul doesn't just "seem" like a normal candidate on foreign affairs, he is a normal candidate.
Remember when Paul belonged to the minority in Congress that opposed the Iraq War? Now, 62 percent of Americans say fighting the Iraq war was a mistake. You know the Republicans who criticized President Obama for presiding over the end of America's military presence in Iraq? Well, like Paul (and unlike Obama) 78 percent of Americans support full withdrawal. And in Afghanistan, another country that Paul wants to leave, two thirds of Americans want to see troop levels reduced. "Just one in three Americans believe fighting there is the right thing for the U.S. to do," CBS News found, "while 57 percent think the U.S. should not be involved in Afghanistan."
Like Ron Paul, Americans are also overwhelmingly against bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure. And although I'll bet he wants to cut the Pentagon budget more than the average American does, a majority of the public prefers defense cuts to other kinds, and as Rasmussen found earlier this year, "Nearly one-half of Americans now think the United States can make major cuts in defense spending without putting the country in danger. They believe even more strongly that there's no risk in cutting way back on what America spends to defend other countries."
Comparing Paul's positions to those of either the American people or foreign-affairs experts in the State Department and academia, it is clear that his views are closer to normal than most of his Republican opponents' (that is to say, closer to normal than everyone but Jon Huntsman). On the biggest, most consequential foreign policy issues, he is averse to war, as are his countrymen. It is only when they are compared to the views of the Washington establishment, where the Washington Post op-ed page, the Weekly Standard, and the American Enterprise Institute are regarded as mainstream institutions, that Paul's foreign-policy views seem like the abnormal ones.
Romney is another war mongering fool and his trade policy positions will be as disastrous as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were in the Great Depression.
Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble hatched a plan to siphon off a huge chunk of sovereign debt for every country in the EU and pretend to do something about it, not now of course, but over the next 20 years.
Allegedly the siphoned off debt would be paid back via a "National Redemption Fund".
Of course the only way to pay that debt back is by raising taxes or cutting spending for 20 years which means it has a snowball's chance in hell of actually working.
Wolfgang Schaeuble outlined his plans under which states would effectively siphon off a chunk of their debt to a special national fund and pay it off over about 20 years while committing to reforms to keep debt levels on target.
Schaeuble believes his proposal, which has won qualified support from Chancellor Angela Merkel, would boost confidence as states would be sending a signal they were serious about limiting debt levels to 60 percent of gross domestic product.
"We need a redemption fund in every single country of the euro zone," Schaeuble told the Passauer Neue Presse.
"Each of these countries should put into a special fund that part of its debt which exceed 60 percent of its GDP, and should pay that off with tax revenues. Over a period of 20 years, the debt should be reduced to 60 percent," he said.
In Germany's case, the fund - covering federal, state and municipal debts - would amount to about 500 billion euros ($672 billion) as German debt is around 80 percent of its gross domestic product, said Schaeuble.
Merkel's spokesman welcomed Schaeuble's proposal as "interesting," saying it could help rebuild investor confidence.
Just One Catch
Schaeuble's plan has already hit opposition from Austria. Finance Minister Maria Fekter said on Friday any proposals that resulted in gathering billions of euros from taxpayers would encounter problems in national parliaments.
Duh? Ya think?
Bear in mind the idea is progressively harder for countries already under extreme difficulty with various austerity measures imposed to pay back French and German banks.
This is another one of those dead-on-arrival ideas that might even be agreed upon, but will never succeed.
Postări
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu