I don't usually do follow-up posts to the monthly AOSHQ Straw Polls. The results are mostly self-explanatory and the poll post serves mainly to give us a place where we can hash out big-picture questions about all the candidates at once.

But we've got some serious issues to hash out this month. Newt Gingrich has never scored better in our straw polls than a fraction---a tiny fraction!---of a single percentage point. Until yesterday, that is, when he jumped to almost 19%.

So what's happening? I'll tell you what's happening. The Not-Romney supporters continue to run from candidate to candidate looking for someone they can get behind. They got real excited about Michelle Bachmann for a few weeks when it looked like she wasn't a flake. Then came the Tardasil fiasco. They were super-excited about Rick Perry for a few weeks. Then came his "you don't have a heart" comment. Next it was off to Team Herman Cain, who we now discover has a sexual harassment allegation problem.

Yes, it's a problem. It's going to be a problem for everyone except Mitt Romney right up until Cain drops out of the race. Tell me, I beg you: name one substantive policy issue that got any coverage, whatsover in the GOP candidate race this week. No googling, now. Just spit it out, what's going on this week with Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann . . . hell, anybody heard from Rick Santorum?

This is great for Romney, since he's the frontrunner. He can mark time until January and no doubt would prefer to. This, of course, is bad news for those of us who would rather he not be the GOP nominee.

Cain's defenders have a curious array of arguments that this whole problem is a "smear," from Ann Coulter's race card to the extremely odd claim that Cain's fumbling should be excused because the NRA accusers have chosen to remain anonymous. I say "extremely odd" because, while the NRA accusers are anonymous to the public, Cain certainly knows who they are, the claims they made, and the contours of the settlements. And he still couldn't muster a response other than his implausible explanations followed by inconsistent clarifications.

That might be my biggest issue. If his latest statement blaming Perry is to be believed, he had years to prepare for this issue, not just the 10 days that Politico gave him. And he still came out fumbling and generally doing everything you do when you think you have something to hide. Maybe it's just me, but I'd think I'd remember a bit of details if I were ever accused of sexual harassment. At a minimum, I would know what the person was claiming against me. You're telling me that Cain has so many confidentiality provisions in claims against him, he can't remember which claim is which?!

The Cain defenders say that this is all a "distraction" and they're absolutely right. It is a distraction from the issues that matter: jobs, the economy, Obamacare, etc. It's a distraction of Cain's own making. Unlike the rest of us, who had no idea this was waiting in the wings, Cain knew about the whole thing. He's not the "victim" of sexual harassment allegations; at this point, he's a "volunteer." Everything about this story was in Cain's power to control and he whiffed. This will continue---drip, drip, drip---for weeks.

And in the meantime, Obama will continue to rack up populist cred by bashing Republicans in Congress. In the meantime, when we could have been gaining ground on Republican issues---cramming them down the throats of the reluctant MSM---we're going to be talking about stupid harassment allegations instead. The Not-Romney people will continue to display their displeasure and we'll be another step closer to the Obama vs. Romney race that we've never wanted.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:32 AM | Comments (357)
Post contains 642 words, total size 4 kb.

I donÂ’t actually know the man; I have no reason to believe he wouldnÂ’t lie like a rug.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:54 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

People get killed. A lot of people. Because this is eventually where riots lead (incidentally, nice work on the rapes and assaults, you OWS knuckleheads. Much twinkles. Good setup. Well done.)

Occupy Oakland gets all crazy over the price of arugula and teaches a Whole Foods Store a lesson they won't soon forget.

Watts, 1965. 34 killed, over a thousand injured. Chicago, 1968. 39 dead. Hundreds of cities across the nation that same year. Kent State in 1970. Go back fifty years, go back a hundred and fifty years. Uncontained riots lead to a lot of people dying.

This will not end well. Hell, it's already awful. And the people who own it are the Dem-led municipal governments who refuse to put an end to it, who instead embrace it for political advantage. And by own it I mean the blood is on their hands.

People will die because of the nonsensical rantings of thousands of ninnies and the invisible hand of Karl Marx. Terrific.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:48 PM | Comments (174)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome to NaNoWriMo: National Novel Writing Month

Think you have a novel inside you trying to bust out like Kane in Alien?

Well now's your chance: November is National Novel Writing Month and that's a challenge to you to crank out a 50,000 word novel by the end of the month.

If you've never heard of NaNoWriMo, it stands for National Novel Writing Month: a 30-day challenge to writers everywhere to pound out one (1) novel of 50,000 words or more by the end of November. If you follow any blogger or writer types on Twitter, Facebook, or the like October is a time full of lamentations about the upcoming grind, how horrific it's going to be, and the excitement of taking on the challenge. It's not unlike running a marathon, except you sit for pretty much all of it.

Now given that there's 29 days left in November, that comes out to just 1724 words per day. And I figure most ONT regulars probably write at least that much every night so why not turn your moron-to-moron musings into something semi-worthwhile.

Does it have to be great? Nope. Fully fleshed out and formatted correctly? Hell no.

The first step is just to get it all spewed out on paper. And then start polishing that uh, nugget of prose.

And if you do manage something to excrete something remotely interesting, then you can get it edited and published cheaply at Lulu.com. Fame, fortune, and self-published-novel groupies await. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:47 PM | Comments (816)
Post contains 535 words, total size 6 kb.

Correction on my dumb belief the "positive development" he spoke about was the attack on Perry. (Looking back, that doesn't even make sense. What a dummy I am.)

He says a report will be released, clearing him.

In a meeting at the Capitol Hill Club, Cain said he and his campaign had found out who was purportedly leaking word of his behavior toward female employees at the National Restaurant Association and that a report was coming out that would disprove the charges, according to the chief of staff to one of the Georgia members.

Cain boasted about how one must stand firm when they've done nothing wrong and that all will right itself.

I assume this will be from the National Restaurant Association? Assuming it is, I'm not sure how credible it will be. It's not like the NRA wasn't invested in the question itself.

I'm also thinking that, if it does come out, won't that be the end of the confidentiality agreement among all the parties?

Anyway, I look forward to seeing this.

Un-Corrected: Wait a minute, people seem to think that by "report" he is in fact referring to the claim that Curt Anderson leaked the story.

How the hell does that vindicate him?

Well... I already put this up so.... For the moment, until he clarifies, I'm assuming he means some report that actually clears him.

Posted by: Ace at 01:57 PM | Comments (721)
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

FBI investigation. JohnE., I think, has been emailing this story for a few days.

Jon Corzine, now the center of an FBI investigation into the handling of hundreds of millions of dollars invested in his securities firm, was one of the leading Wall Street fundraisers for President ObamaÂ’s campaign and suggested to investors that he might take a top administration post if the president were re-elected.

His new legal troubles, sparked by the bankruptcy filing of his investment firm, MF Global, could complicate the presidentÂ’s efforts to raise money from the financial community given CorzineÂ’s central role in those efforts.

...

“He’s one of our volunteer fundraisers,” said the campaign official when asked about Corzine, adding that the president’s is the only presidential campaign that discloses the identities of its bundlers.

Oh, is that all he is? just one of your volunteer fundraisers. Cute little note: Corzine's company issued bonds that promised a 1% extra bounty if Cozine were called to DC by Obama to take a top administrative job (Treasury, it is assumed).

But he's just one of our many, many volunteer fundraisers.

The investigation into CorzineÂ’s firm, MF Global, was triggered by reports of hundreds of millions of dollars in missing funds and findings by regulators that MF Global may have broken rules requiring it to keep clientÂ’s money and company funds in separate accounts.

Okay, so this guy was comingling funds, it is alleged, and worst yet, lost those funds. That's always where the problem comes in. See, you can commingle until the cows come home. As long as you don't lose it. Then no one's the wiser.

It's really the losing it that gets ya.

Now the Obama campaign says maybe it will return funds from this volunteer fundraiser.

President Barack Obama's re-election campaign would return the donations made by embattled MF Global chief Jon Corzine if he were charged with any wrongdoing, a campaign official said on Wednesday.

If.

I think it's a good time to ask Obama and Nancy Pelosi again if some Wall Street guys, like, specifically, Jon Corzine, should just be carted off to jail.

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (90)
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

Likely to take place, if at all, after a November 8 report on Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Posted by: Ace at 01:05 PM | Comments (151)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

AllahPundit tipped this vague "positive development" from Camp Cain.

Erick Erickson hears it will be a "full-court press" on blaming Perry for the disclosures.

Um, personally? I don't care. If this lurking out there, it needs to be out there before the general election.

I expect the press conference will look something like this:

Thanks to Star Chamber Maid for that video clip.

Cain Accuses Former Adviser, Now Adviser To Rick Perry: Um, but...

I don't see how that makes Cain innocent or anything.

In the summer of 2003, Cain recalls briefing Anderson—his general campaign consultant at the time—that sexual harassment claims were brought against him while he was chairman of the National Restaurant Association from 1996 to 1999.

“I told my wife about this in 1999 and I’ve got nothing to hide,” Cain told me Wednesday. “When I sat down with my general campaign consultant Kurt Anderson in a private room in our campaign offices in 2003 we discussed opposition research on me. It was a typical campaign conversation. I told him that there was only one case, one set of charges, one woman while I was at the National Restaurant Association. Those charges were baseless, but I thought he needed to know about them. I don’t recall anyone else being in the room when I told him.” ...

Aside from knowing about the alleged sexual harassment accusations, Cain campaign officials point to the timing of AndersonÂ’s hiring by Perry as evidence of his involvement. The campaign announced AndersonÂ’s role on October 24, just a week before Politico broke the story.

Uh, yeah, I heard about this in late September/early October.

Denial: Kurt Anderson (the former Cain aide turned Perry aide) denies being behind it and says he only knew of the story when Politico published it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Comments (225)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Still no names and no details.

Beyond this little bit, I mean: AP: "She says the behavior included a private invitation to his corporate apartment."

This is still all Eye of the Beholder stuff. The stuff alleged, so far, isn't definite come-ons. It's stuff someone could take as a come-on, but that doesn't mean Cain intended it as a come-on.

The next level of question is "When is a come-on objectionable?" Sure, he was married. But as far as "sexual harassment" -- well, that would mean more than a come-on, wouldn't it?

Unless the behavior is provable and definitely more than merely being uncomfortable, or unless a whole string of women offer up similar complaints, I suppose he can survive.

A short AP piece has now been published. It doesn't offer anything more, except to say that Cain made unwelcome comments about her appearance. (And the private apartment invite thing.)

She considered filing a sexual harassment claim -- but did not. So in her own mind this was not at that threshold of seriousness.

The problem here is that I just don't consider all awkward moments a cause of action, but I know that some feminists do, and so does the media, at least when the alleged cause of the awkwardness has an R after his name.

If you're a Democrat, you can chat up sixteen year old girls on Twitter, no problem.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's any there there. At some point this is going to have to get more serious or I'm going to need it to go away.

I have suspected this would become serious. I still sort of do. But if it's going to be this kind of a thing, these minor bits of social discomfort, well.

I actually do believe that there is such a thing as sexual harassment. But it has to be actual harassment. Not just this sort of "I felt awkward" stuff.

The old joke about sexual harassment is that it's sexual harassment when the woman doesn't dig the guy. If she does dig the guy, it's a date.

I need this to move away from that joke area if I'm going to bother covering it. Either he did something not just awkward but bullying -- something I can say is objectively bad, an attempt to harm someone, or not caring if they're harmed. To actually leverage power into coercion.

Not just "he thought I was cute and that wigged me out because, ew."

Meanwhile, Cain has changed his media-handling tactics, and now is refusing to answer questions on the matter.

Posted by: Ace at 12:05 PM | Comments (282)
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

Really!

Really. See, it's a victim, as the headline puts it, of its own "obnoxious Islamophobia."

Maybe some Christians should extend that principle to Time Magazine. We'll see if his endorsement of firebombing holds up then.

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren't going to tell “us” what can and can't be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

The difficulty in answering that question is also what's making it hard to have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot. Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your loss, Charlie, and there's no justification of such an illegitimate response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.

Don't quote that "no justification" thing for me. That's just ass-covering. The guy's gist is a sarcastic soooo sorry. Like I said, the web-based headline -- that continues in the URL -- is:

firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/

So the original headline was: "Firebombed French Paper: A Victim of Islam, Or Its Own Obnoxious Islamaphobia?"

The new headline answers that question -- Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr So it's the latter, then. Islam didn't do this; Islamaphobia did this. The paper provoked the Islamists; how could they do other, than to resort to violence yet again?

The chief complaint about radical Islam isn't that it's backwards and often barbaric. It is that, frequently, but it was always that, and yet people didn't often comment on it.

The chief complaint about radical Islam is that it preaches that violence and murder are not only acceptable but required in response to "insults" against it.

So, this newspaper mocks radical Islam for just that. And radical Islam proves them right (apparently -- police aren't sure who firebombed the office, but they have suspicions).

And this guy concludes, then, that the paper indulged in "obnoxious Islamaphobia."

Here's my version of Islamaphobia, of which I do suffer: I fear that radical Islamists will attempt to kill me or the ones I love or my fellow countryman because they feel their murderous religion demands it.

Am I obnoxious for having that fear?

Or am sentient?

Islamists (apparently) firebomb a peaceful newspaper (funny, OWS is "peaceful," but a simple newspaper is guilty of... something) and this proves, of course, that that newspaper was just silly to suspect Islamists of doing things like firebombing a newspaper.

Thanks to Miss80sBaby.

Posted by: Ace at 11:14 AM | Comments (217)
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.