Jill Terreri spoke by phone about the New York 26th Congressional District special election taking place on May 24, 2011. The candidates are Republican Jane Corwin, Democrat Kathleen C. Hochul, and tea party candidate Jack Davis. Candidates' campaign ads were shown.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
New Reports: Newt was "Cozy" with Freddie
As Newt Gingrich attempts to shrug off his political baggage, the former House speaker is under scrutiny for having close ties to health care giants and flip-flopping on his statements on health care.
The Center for Health Transformation, which Gingrich founded, raked in millions of dollars from heavy hitters like GE Healthcare and Wellpoint, as first reported by the Washington Post. The group says it does not lobby, but on its website, it touts its ability to build bridges between the federal government and private sector.
Gingrich no longer owns the company and left when he decided to run for president. But his work with the group shows that the former congressman from Georgia has yet to overcome the challenge of reconciling his two roles of businessman and politician.
He has blasted the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, saying in a video that he is “completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals,” and that he “fought it for two and half years at the Center for Health Transformation.” But the group, which Gingrich founded, actually supported imposing a mandate on those who made more than $50,000 per year.
Still, Gingrich hasn’t made that clear. In fact, he criticized opponent Mitt Romney for implementing such a “bureaucratic” mandate in Massachusetts.
Gingrich also broke from the right when he praised his client Gundersen Lutheran Health System‘s end-of-life best practice as one that “empowers patients and families.” At the height of the health care debate in which end-of-life care became a key dividing issue between Republicans and Democrats, Gingrich stood out alone in the Republican field.
Gingrich’s other businesses are also under the spotlight. Through Gingrich Group, the former House speaker consulted for reportedly $1.8 million for eight years for Freddie Mac, the federally-backed mortgage giant that most conservatives say should be eliminated. While Gingrich has denied lobbying for them, he hasn’t provided a viable explanation of what kind of services he provided to an organization that he himself recently said should be abolished. In 2008, he demanded that President Obama and other members of Congress return the money they received from them, and more recently said Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank should be jailed for having ties with lobbyists at those organizations.
On Wednesday, Gingrich's staff offered a fuller picture of Gingrich's activities after a Bloomberg article revealed that he made about five times more than what was originally stated as a $300,000 income in 2006.
"Gingrich was given a briefing by one of the company's economists," spokesman R.C. Hammond told Fox News. As for claims Newt never flagged to Freddie that a bubble was coming, Hammond said that Gingrich's reaction after the briefing was "that's a bubble. You are creating a bubble." Though he never told the CEO directly, he did tell the company representative.
Hammond added that a dozen companies hired Gingrich to provide similar consulting as provided to Freddie, and in almost all cases the client would provide challenges and he would give advice to them on how to solve that problem. The Gingrich Group had contracts with Freddie Mac starting in 1999 but none with Fannie. The amount paid was similar to the figure he got from other companies he consulted for during that time.
Freddie itself had a robust internal and external government affairs division on the 1990s and hired a number of outside firms for lobbying and consulting services, of which The Gingrich Group was one. In 2008, Freddie fired all of its external lobbyists and dramatically pared back its internal shop.
The connections with Washington insiders and multi-million dollar corporations makes it hard for Gingrich to cast himself as an outsider and clouds his campaign, experts say.
As he rises in the polls, Gingrich’s inconsistencies are increasingly coming under the spotlight. It remains to be seen whether Gingrich can overcome these hurdles but the results of this scrutiny could be damaging, experts say.
The Center for Health Transformation, which Gingrich founded, raked in millions of dollars from heavy hitters like GE Healthcare and Wellpoint, as first reported by the Washington Post. The group says it does not lobby, but on its website, it touts its ability to build bridges between the federal government and private sector.
He has blasted the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, saying in a video that he is “completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals,” and that he “fought it for two and half years at the Center for Health Transformation.” But the group, which Gingrich founded, actually supported imposing a mandate on those who made more than $50,000 per year.
Still, Gingrich hasn’t made that clear. In fact, he criticized opponent Mitt Romney for implementing such a “bureaucratic” mandate in Massachusetts.
Gingrich also broke from the right when he praised his client Gundersen Lutheran Health System‘s end-of-life best practice as one that “empowers patients and families.” At the height of the health care debate in which end-of-life care became a key dividing issue between Republicans and Democrats, Gingrich stood out alone in the Republican field.
Gingrich’s other businesses are also under the spotlight. Through Gingrich Group, the former House speaker consulted for reportedly $1.8 million for eight years for Freddie Mac, the federally-backed mortgage giant that most conservatives say should be eliminated. While Gingrich has denied lobbying for them, he hasn’t provided a viable explanation of what kind of services he provided to an organization that he himself recently said should be abolished. In 2008, he demanded that President Obama and other members of Congress return the money they received from them, and more recently said Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank should be jailed for having ties with lobbyists at those organizations.
On Wednesday, Gingrich's staff offered a fuller picture of Gingrich's activities after a Bloomberg article revealed that he made about five times more than what was originally stated as a $300,000 income in 2006.
"Gingrich was given a briefing by one of the company's economists," spokesman R.C. Hammond told Fox News. As for claims Newt never flagged to Freddie that a bubble was coming, Hammond said that Gingrich's reaction after the briefing was "that's a bubble. You are creating a bubble." Though he never told the CEO directly, he did tell the company representative.
Hammond added that a dozen companies hired Gingrich to provide similar consulting as provided to Freddie, and in almost all cases the client would provide challenges and he would give advice to them on how to solve that problem. The Gingrich Group had contracts with Freddie Mac starting in 1999 but none with Fannie. The amount paid was similar to the figure he got from other companies he consulted for during that time.
Freddie itself had a robust internal and external government affairs division on the 1990s and hired a number of outside firms for lobbying and consulting services, of which The Gingrich Group was one. In 2008, Freddie fired all of its external lobbyists and dramatically pared back its internal shop.
The connections with Washington insiders and multi-million dollar corporations makes it hard for Gingrich to cast himself as an outsider and clouds his campaign, experts say.
As he rises in the polls, Gingrich’s inconsistencies are increasingly coming under the spotlight. It remains to be seen whether Gingrich can overcome these hurdles but the results of this scrutiny could be damaging, experts say.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Herman Cain Ad Controversy
Telephone lines were open for comments on 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain's campaign ad featuring a testimonial from his campaign manager Mark Block, who was smoking a cigarette at the end of the message.
GOP Primary Race & Romney and Perry Campaign Ads
Molly Ball talked about the 2012 Republican presidential primary race. Topics included the role of "evangelical" voters, the latest polling data, candidates' electability, and President Obama. Campaign ads were shown.
Gerry Mandering Looking to Make an Appearance in 2012
Every decade, following the decennial census, the state legislatures of the United States are told how many representatives their state will send to the United States House of Representatives. Representation in the House is based on state population and there are a total of 435 representatives, so some states may gain representatives while others lose them. It is the responsibility of each state legislature to redistrict their state into the appropriate numbers of congressional districts.
Since a single party usually controls each state legislature, it is in the best interest of the party in power to redistrict their state so that their party will have more seats in the House than the opposition party. This manipulation of electoral districts is known as gerrymandering.
In the last 10 years, 78% of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, almost four out of every five members of Congress did not change party hands even once. In California, with 53 seats, the most in the nation, incumbents were kept so safe that only one of those seats changed party control in the past decade.
David Wasserman, a redistricting expert for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, says only 20 races for Congress are expected to be tossups in the 2012 election. That's only 20 out of the 435 seats in the House. "In general elections, it's almost rigged," he said.
The lines for seats in Congress are redrawn every 10 years after the U.S. Census measures population shifts. That process is going on now in states across the country.
Race has been used to create a political divide in the South. In South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana only nine Democrats are left in Congress. Only one is white. He is Georgia Democrat John Barrow, and Republican control in that state's legislature has led to his home city of Savannah being excluded from his current district.
In 2010, Republicans captured control of North Carolina's legislature for the first time since shortly after the Civil War. They drew district lines in a way to pack 49% of all of North Carolina's African-American voters in just three of the state's 13 congressional districts. That left the other 10 districts mostly white and predictably Republican.
After the GOP landslide in 2010, Illinois is the only battleground state winning or losing a seat where Democrats remain in control. Nowhere is gerrymandering more apparent than in Chicago's 4th District, where a grassy strip hardly a football field wide, stuck in between two expressways, connects the top and bottom halves of a district designed to keep a Hispanic in Congress.
In California voters have revolted. In 2010, they passed an amendment to the state constitution to take redistricting out of political hands and have a commission of citizens redraw the lines. It was forbidden to favor incumbents. As a result, more than half of California's 53 representatives were placed in the same district with another colleague for the 2012 election. As many as 15 could lose or else face retirement to avoid losing.
For three decades now, Iowa has had a nonpartisan redistricting system. Two legislative staffers draw the maps in secrecy without political interference. "In Iowa, it is understood incumbent protection is not the name of the game," one of those staffers said. Iowa, with its regular-shaped districts, will host the only 2012 House face off between Democratic and GOP incumbents. Iowa has the nation's only congressional race next year where a longtime Republican incumbent, Tom Latham, is paired against a longtime Democratic incumbent, Leonard Boswell.
Computers and GIS were utilized in the 1990 and 2000 Census by the states to make redistricting as fair as possible. Despite the use of computers, politics does get in the way and many redistricting plans are challenged in the courts, with accusations of racial gerrymandering tossed about. We certainly won't expect accusations of gerrymandering to vanish anytime soon.
Since a single party usually controls each state legislature, it is in the best interest of the party in power to redistrict their state so that their party will have more seats in the House than the opposition party. This manipulation of electoral districts is known as gerrymandering.
In the last 10 years, 78% of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, almost four out of every five members of Congress did not change party hands even once. In California, with 53 seats, the most in the nation, incumbents were kept so safe that only one of those seats changed party control in the past decade.
David Wasserman, a redistricting expert for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, says only 20 races for Congress are expected to be tossups in the 2012 election. That's only 20 out of the 435 seats in the House. "In general elections, it's almost rigged," he said.
The lines for seats in Congress are redrawn every 10 years after the U.S. Census measures population shifts. That process is going on now in states across the country.
Race has been used to create a political divide in the South. In South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana only nine Democrats are left in Congress. Only one is white. He is Georgia Democrat John Barrow, and Republican control in that state's legislature has led to his home city of Savannah being excluded from his current district.
In 2010, Republicans captured control of North Carolina's legislature for the first time since shortly after the Civil War. They drew district lines in a way to pack 49% of all of North Carolina's African-American voters in just three of the state's 13 congressional districts. That left the other 10 districts mostly white and predictably Republican.
After the GOP landslide in 2010, Illinois is the only battleground state winning or losing a seat where Democrats remain in control. Nowhere is gerrymandering more apparent than in Chicago's 4th District, where a grassy strip hardly a football field wide, stuck in between two expressways, connects the top and bottom halves of a district designed to keep a Hispanic in Congress.
In California voters have revolted. In 2010, they passed an amendment to the state constitution to take redistricting out of political hands and have a commission of citizens redraw the lines. It was forbidden to favor incumbents. As a result, more than half of California's 53 representatives were placed in the same district with another colleague for the 2012 election. As many as 15 could lose or else face retirement to avoid losing.
For three decades now, Iowa has had a nonpartisan redistricting system. Two legislative staffers draw the maps in secrecy without political interference. "In Iowa, it is understood incumbent protection is not the name of the game," one of those staffers said. Iowa, with its regular-shaped districts, will host the only 2012 House face off between Democratic and GOP incumbents. Iowa has the nation's only congressional race next year where a longtime Republican incumbent, Tom Latham, is paired against a longtime Democratic incumbent, Leonard Boswell.
Computers and GIS were utilized in the 1990 and 2000 Census by the states to make redistricting as fair as possible. Despite the use of computers, politics does get in the way and many redistricting plans are challenged in the courts, with accusations of racial gerrymandering tossed about. We certainly won't expect accusations of gerrymandering to vanish anytime soon.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Obama Vs. McCain Presidential Debate
Senator McCain and Senator Obama participated in the first of three presidential debates. Jim Lehrer moderated the debate which focused on foreign policy but began by addressing the current financial crisis and proposals for a federal rescue plan for U.S. financial markets.
"Super Committee" Deadlocked as Deadline Approaches
They have been meeting for two months, arguing over concepts and ideas already hashed out by three other groups over the past year. But just 10 days before the deadline, members of the congressional "super committee" created to forge a deficit reduction deal indicated Sunday that they remain hung up on basic issues of tax and entitlement reform that have previously stymied agreement.
Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the panel's Republican co-chair, told CNN's "State of the Union" that the only solution possible might be a two-step process in which the bipartisan committee sets a figure for increased tax revenue that congressional committees would then implement through legislation.
The continued political wrangling over how to reform the tax code and entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid as part of a broad deficit reduction plan causes consternation for two senators who were part of the "Gang of Six" that put together their own plan earlier this year.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma told CNN that a lack of leadership from the White House and top congressional Democrats and Republicans is preventing a compromise.
The panel created under the debt ceiling deal earlier this year has until November 23 to reach an agreement on at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.
If it works out an agreement, Congress must vote on the unamended plan by December 23. Failure to reach an agreement or gain approval by Congress and President Barack Obama would trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in 2013.
Hensarling said Sunday that the process will fail unless Democrats are willing to accept significant reforms to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the government-run health care systems for the disabled, poor and elderly.
Democrats, meanwhile, say any solution must be balanced with spending cuts, entitlement reforms and increased tax revenue.
Republicans oppose any kind of tax increase, particularly the call by Obama and Democrats to raise rates of wealthy Americans to increase their share of the tax burden. However, the Republican position has shifted to accept increased tax revenue through reforms that would lower rates by expand the number of payers and also end some subsidies and loopholes.
Republicans have offered a proposal with $1.4 trillion in deficit reduction, including $500 billion in new revenue from capping individual deductions while cutting all six income tax rates by roughly 20%. Under the proposal, the top rate would fall from 35% to 28%.
Democrats immediately rejected the plan as insufficient, saying it would end up decreasing revenue in the long run by permanently extending tax cuts from the Bush administration that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.
Both plans call for around $4 trillion in deficit reduction by a combination of spending cuts, tax increases and reforms to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Another deficit commission in 2010, headed by former White House Budget Director Alice Rivlin and former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-Wyoming, also called for a comprehensive approach including higher taxes, frozen spending and entitlement reforms.
A so-called "grand bargain" along those lines discussed by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, earlier this year fell apart over differences on tax hikes on the wealthy sought by Democrats and Medicare restructuring sought by Republicans.
Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the panel's Republican co-chair, told CNN's "State of the Union" that the only solution possible might be a two-step process in which the bipartisan committee sets a figure for increased tax revenue that congressional committees would then implement through legislation.
The continued political wrangling over how to reform the tax code and entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid as part of a broad deficit reduction plan causes consternation for two senators who were part of the "Gang of Six" that put together their own plan earlier this year.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma told CNN that a lack of leadership from the White House and top congressional Democrats and Republicans is preventing a compromise.
The panel created under the debt ceiling deal earlier this year has until November 23 to reach an agreement on at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.
If it works out an agreement, Congress must vote on the unamended plan by December 23. Failure to reach an agreement or gain approval by Congress and President Barack Obama would trigger $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in 2013.
Hensarling said Sunday that the process will fail unless Democrats are willing to accept significant reforms to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the government-run health care systems for the disabled, poor and elderly.
Democrats, meanwhile, say any solution must be balanced with spending cuts, entitlement reforms and increased tax revenue.
Republicans oppose any kind of tax increase, particularly the call by Obama and Democrats to raise rates of wealthy Americans to increase their share of the tax burden. However, the Republican position has shifted to accept increased tax revenue through reforms that would lower rates by expand the number of payers and also end some subsidies and loopholes.
Republicans have offered a proposal with $1.4 trillion in deficit reduction, including $500 billion in new revenue from capping individual deductions while cutting all six income tax rates by roughly 20%. Under the proposal, the top rate would fall from 35% to 28%.
Democrats immediately rejected the plan as insufficient, saying it would end up decreasing revenue in the long run by permanently extending tax cuts from the Bush administration that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.
Both plans call for around $4 trillion in deficit reduction by a combination of spending cuts, tax increases and reforms to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Another deficit commission in 2010, headed by former White House Budget Director Alice Rivlin and former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-Wyoming, also called for a comprehensive approach including higher taxes, frozen spending and entitlement reforms.
A so-called "grand bargain" along those lines discussed by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, earlier this year fell apart over differences on tax hikes on the wealthy sought by Democrats and Medicare restructuring sought by Republicans.
Podium Watch Presidential Debate (Contd.)
Presidential candidates George W. Bush and Vice President Gore met in Winston-Salem, North Carolina for their second debate. In this version, C-SPAN showed the two candidates in separate video windows to enable viewers to see each candidate and their reactions throughout the debate.
Podium Watch Presidential Debate
Presidential candidates George W. Bush and Vice President Gore met in Winston-Salem, North Carolina for their second debate. In this version, C-SPAN showed the two candidates in separate video windows to enable viewers to see each candidate and their reactions throughout the debate.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Perry's "Oops" Could Cost Him the Nomination
"I will tell you: It's three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the -- what's the third one there? Let's see. ... OK. So Commerce, Education and the -- ... The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with the Education, the ... Commerce and -- let's see -- I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops." Oops? Oops? That was Rick Perry’s comeback. He simply said, "Oops." And then the microphone went to one of his seven Republican rivals. Oops indeed. This was seriously terrible. You might say that blunders happen in debates. After all, Perry is not the first, nor will he be the last, to have a mental lapse in a debate. So the question is: How much damage will Perry's gaffe do?
Perry's mental block was very, very bad. One reason is that the question he was asked at the time wasn't even about cutting agencies. It was about how he could work with Democrats across the aisle. But Perry wanted to add some flair, so he looked at Ron Paul to brag about how he would cut three different agencies and then gave himself the self-induced wound.
Unfortunately, if you have been watching these Republican presidential debates, your first impression, along with that of many other viewers, is that Rick Perry does not have the best grasp of the issues and he has a difficult time answering questions. Fair or not, this may turn people away from voting for him.
Lately the entire focus of Perry's team has been trying to change the public's first impression of their candidate. They believed these upcoming debates would help. After all, Perry couldn't get any worse, right? Oops. It turns out he could. And since many in the public have an unfavorable first impression, Perry's performance fed right into that.
Because of his poor first impression, Perry was the candidate who could least afford a slip-up of this magnitude. Instead of overcoming that negative first impression, he did the opposite. He cemented it.
To some political observers, the Texas governor's legendary brain freeze went down as the worst unforced error in modern debating history. But Perry is actually starting to campaign off the gaffe in which he blanked on the third of three departments in the federal government that he would eliminate. And his campaign issued a fundraising appeal, saying the 2012 hopeful has just demonstrated that the federal government is so vast and unwieldy that the most-versed politician can't keep it all straight.
"I think we've had over 2,000 hits already," Perry said on Fox News during a Thursday afternoon appearance, the latest in a sweep of television media outlet interviews for the day.
Perry said he will also attend another GOP debate Saturday in South Carolina, but doesn't know his schedule after that. He has weighed whether to abandon the debate format for venues and events where he can excel in one-on-one contacts and long-form answers.
And he argued he has the best plan for an American recovery.
"I am hoping that the American people are the type of individuals that understand there are mistakes to be made, but what are you going to get done for us. Those people sitting around the dinner table, around the TV last night may not have a job, or are fixing to lose a job because of policies that have been put in place because of these federal agencies that are piling the regulations on," he said.
Perry's mental block was very, very bad. One reason is that the question he was asked at the time wasn't even about cutting agencies. It was about how he could work with Democrats across the aisle. But Perry wanted to add some flair, so he looked at Ron Paul to brag about how he would cut three different agencies and then gave himself the self-induced wound.
Unfortunately, if you have been watching these Republican presidential debates, your first impression, along with that of many other viewers, is that Rick Perry does not have the best grasp of the issues and he has a difficult time answering questions. Fair or not, this may turn people away from voting for him.
Lately the entire focus of Perry's team has been trying to change the public's first impression of their candidate. They believed these upcoming debates would help. After all, Perry couldn't get any worse, right? Oops. It turns out he could. And since many in the public have an unfavorable first impression, Perry's performance fed right into that.
Because of his poor first impression, Perry was the candidate who could least afford a slip-up of this magnitude. Instead of overcoming that negative first impression, he did the opposite. He cemented it.
To some political observers, the Texas governor's legendary brain freeze went down as the worst unforced error in modern debating history. But Perry is actually starting to campaign off the gaffe in which he blanked on the third of three departments in the federal government that he would eliminate. And his campaign issued a fundraising appeal, saying the 2012 hopeful has just demonstrated that the federal government is so vast and unwieldy that the most-versed politician can't keep it all straight.
"I think we've had over 2,000 hits already," Perry said on Fox News during a Thursday afternoon appearance, the latest in a sweep of television media outlet interviews for the day.
Perry said he will also attend another GOP debate Saturday in South Carolina, but doesn't know his schedule after that. He has weighed whether to abandon the debate format for venues and events where he can excel in one-on-one contacts and long-form answers.
And he argued he has the best plan for an American recovery.
"I am hoping that the American people are the type of individuals that understand there are mistakes to be made, but what are you going to get done for us. Those people sitting around the dinner table, around the TV last night may not have a job, or are fixing to lose a job because of policies that have been put in place because of these federal agencies that are piling the regulations on," he said.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Paul Rules Out Third Party Run
Texas Rep. Ron Paul is ruling out the possibility of an independent bid for the White House.
"I have no intention doing that. That doesn't make sense to me to even think about it, let alone plan to do that," Paul told Fox News on Sunday.
Paul said that if he's not the GOP nominee, he's not certain that he would support the GOP nominee unless he “sat down and spoke with the nominee and they shared common goals for America”.
Paul said his proposal for getting the economy back on track would be to cut $1 trillion in the first year of his administration, and balance the budget in three years so that spending would be 15.5 percent of the gross domestic product.
But that would put government's ratio of GDP at its lowest level since 1951, and think tanks like the conservative American Enterprise Institute argue those kinds of dramatic short-term cuts would send the country back into a recession.
Paul said that was the argument made after World War II, when the budget dropped by 60 percent and taxes by 30 percent while 10 million people returned from war.
Among the cuts Paul is pursuing is to reduce the National Institutes of Health budget by 22 percent, reduce funding for the Centers for Disease Control by 38 percent.
Paul said those are two examples of functions that government is not properly authorized to conduct and get caught up in special interests and lobbying.
Some Republicans are worried an independent bid by Paul would split the conservative vote to basically ensure the re-election next year of Democratic President Barack Obama.
Paul, who is making his second run for the GOP nomination, has held a steady middle position in the polls so far, below the top-tier candidates but generally getting double-digit support to top the rest of the pack.
He advocates sharply reducing the size and role of government, including the end of a U.S. military presence in many places around the world.
Asked Sunday about U.S. policy on Iran in light of reports that Tehran continues striving to build a nuclear weapon, Paul called for a diplomatic approach rather than any kind of harsh or militaristic response.
Instead of sanctions or backing an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Paul said, the United States should change its approach to the Iranian government by "maybe offering friendship to them."
In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post, Rasmussen Reports, and Quinnipiac polls, Paul remains in single digits behind Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry among those likely to vote in the Republican primaries or caucuses. And like Michele Bachmann, he’s dropped several percentage points since October, according to the latest poll.
But Paul continues to do well in the straw polls because of the way they’re designed and because it’s easier for his enthusiastic and very loyal supporters to take part.
At the Values Voter Summit last month, young Paul supporters showed up by the busload to vote for him in that straw poll. The result? He won 37 percent of the vote.
In Illinois over the weekend, Paul’s 52 percent win over his GOP rivals comes with interesting caveats.
Voters in the straw poll (who had to contribute $5 to the Illinois Republican Party for the privilege) could participate either in person or online.
"I have no intention doing that. That doesn't make sense to me to even think about it, let alone plan to do that," Paul told Fox News on Sunday.
Paul said that if he's not the GOP nominee, he's not certain that he would support the GOP nominee unless he “sat down and spoke with the nominee and they shared common goals for America”.
Paul said his proposal for getting the economy back on track would be to cut $1 trillion in the first year of his administration, and balance the budget in three years so that spending would be 15.5 percent of the gross domestic product.
But that would put government's ratio of GDP at its lowest level since 1951, and think tanks like the conservative American Enterprise Institute argue those kinds of dramatic short-term cuts would send the country back into a recession.Paul said that was the argument made after World War II, when the budget dropped by 60 percent and taxes by 30 percent while 10 million people returned from war.
Among the cuts Paul is pursuing is to reduce the National Institutes of Health budget by 22 percent, reduce funding for the Centers for Disease Control by 38 percent.
Paul said those are two examples of functions that government is not properly authorized to conduct and get caught up in special interests and lobbying.
Some Republicans are worried an independent bid by Paul would split the conservative vote to basically ensure the re-election next year of Democratic President Barack Obama.
Paul, who is making his second run for the GOP nomination, has held a steady middle position in the polls so far, below the top-tier candidates but generally getting double-digit support to top the rest of the pack.
He advocates sharply reducing the size and role of government, including the end of a U.S. military presence in many places around the world.
Asked Sunday about U.S. policy on Iran in light of reports that Tehran continues striving to build a nuclear weapon, Paul called for a diplomatic approach rather than any kind of harsh or militaristic response.
Instead of sanctions or backing an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Paul said, the United States should change its approach to the Iranian government by "maybe offering friendship to them."
In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post, Rasmussen Reports, and Quinnipiac polls, Paul remains in single digits behind Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry among those likely to vote in the Republican primaries or caucuses. And like Michele Bachmann, he’s dropped several percentage points since October, according to the latest poll.
But Paul continues to do well in the straw polls because of the way they’re designed and because it’s easier for his enthusiastic and very loyal supporters to take part.
At the Values Voter Summit last month, young Paul supporters showed up by the busload to vote for him in that straw poll. The result? He won 37 percent of the vote.
In Illinois over the weekend, Paul’s 52 percent win over his GOP rivals comes with interesting caveats.
Voters in the straw poll (who had to contribute $5 to the Illinois Republican Party for the privilege) could participate either in person or online.
Twitter Feed During Joint Session of Congress (Continued)
During a presidential address to a joint session of Congress, members comments on the social media network Twitter were shown. Footage begins with senators crossing Statuary Hall to attend the joint session.
Twitter Feed During Joint Session of Congress
During a presidential address to a joint session of Congress, members comments on the social media network Twitter were shown. Footage begins with senators crossing Statuary Hall to attend the joint session.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Cain Has a Whole Lot 'Splainin' To Do
Herman Cain has some serious damage control to do. This week Cain’s campaign has faced increased pressure over sexual harassment allegations from the 1990s, including calls to lift a gag order on a financial settlement with one of the two former female employees who filed complaints, as well as new allegations from a third woman.
Washington lawyer Joel P. Bennett, asserting he represents a woman who he says complained about Cain harassing her at the National Restaurant Association, says that his client wants to get her side of the story out. She is offended by Cain's claims that he was falsely accused and thinks he is lying.
At the moment, she has promised a copy of her original settlement with the restaurant association. Bennett probably will ask the association to release her from her confidentiality agreement so she can talk openly. Even if she does try for a release and the restaurant group refuses, it seems probable that the contents of the settlement will more than likely find their way into the media.
And at least one other accuser might be waiting in the wings: The New York Times reported Wednesday that the National Restaurant Association gave a second woman a full year's salary -- $35,000 -- as severance after she complained that Cain had behaved inappropriately toward her. A full year? That's a lot of money and suggests that she may have a story to tell, too. Once we see a real, live woman step forward and accuse a presidential candidate of sexual harassment, it will certainly become a circus with Cain smack in the middle of it.
The sexual harassment story is only one of the possible scandals brewing around Cain. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported this week that a private corporation has given the Cain campaign some $40,000 in goods and services. The report has been overshadowed, but it won't go away. If that happened, those gifts could be violations of the law.
Amid all the controversy, Cain’s fortunes have been bolstered by conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who have rushed to his defense. Limbaugh has sparked a familiar cry among tea partiers about "liberal media witch hunts." But no one, least of all the Cain forces, should believe he is getting this behind him. Far from it.
So far, the greatest source of concern among some conservatives is how inept Cain and his team has been in responding. He needs to put an end to the sex controversy and do it fast. If he permits this to continue through the weekend he could be toast.
What should he do? It may seem a hard call, but it isn't really. He should announce that he would be fine with the restaurant association releasing the accuser from her confidentiality agreement, and let each of them make their case to the public. He may have to suffer some embarrassment, but he has to show he is open, fair and ready to lead.
Cain may think that is asking too much of him, but he is asking people to entrust him with the most powerful office on Earth. Is it not fair to voters to get straight answers from a candidate about who he is and how he has acted in his professional life? Cain may bounce back and stay a contender, but conventional wisdom would say he has about 48 hours to get his campaign under control or risk falling out of contention.
Washington lawyer Joel P. Bennett, asserting he represents a woman who he says complained about Cain harassing her at the National Restaurant Association, says that his client wants to get her side of the story out. She is offended by Cain's claims that he was falsely accused and thinks he is lying.
At the moment, she has promised a copy of her original settlement with the restaurant association. Bennett probably will ask the association to release her from her confidentiality agreement so she can talk openly. Even if she does try for a release and the restaurant group refuses, it seems probable that the contents of the settlement will more than likely find their way into the media.
And at least one other accuser might be waiting in the wings: The New York Times reported Wednesday that the National Restaurant Association gave a second woman a full year's salary -- $35,000 -- as severance after she complained that Cain had behaved inappropriately toward her. A full year? That's a lot of money and suggests that she may have a story to tell, too. Once we see a real, live woman step forward and accuse a presidential candidate of sexual harassment, it will certainly become a circus with Cain smack in the middle of it.
The sexual harassment story is only one of the possible scandals brewing around Cain. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported this week that a private corporation has given the Cain campaign some $40,000 in goods and services. The report has been overshadowed, but it won't go away. If that happened, those gifts could be violations of the law.
Amid all the controversy, Cain’s fortunes have been bolstered by conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who have rushed to his defense. Limbaugh has sparked a familiar cry among tea partiers about "liberal media witch hunts." But no one, least of all the Cain forces, should believe he is getting this behind him. Far from it.
So far, the greatest source of concern among some conservatives is how inept Cain and his team has been in responding. He needs to put an end to the sex controversy and do it fast. If he permits this to continue through the weekend he could be toast.
What should he do? It may seem a hard call, but it isn't really. He should announce that he would be fine with the restaurant association releasing the accuser from her confidentiality agreement, and let each of them make their case to the public. He may have to suffer some embarrassment, but he has to show he is open, fair and ready to lead.
Cain may think that is asking too much of him, but he is asking people to entrust him with the most powerful office on Earth. Is it not fair to voters to get straight answers from a candidate about who he is and how he has acted in his professional life? Cain may bounce back and stay a contender, but conventional wisdom would say he has about 48 hours to get his campaign under control or risk falling out of contention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)