Political kiss of death?

So let’s talk about Herman Cain again shall we? I want to return to the controversies surrounding him, most notably yesterday’s allegation by an Atlanta woman that she had a 13-year extramarital affair with Cain.

Ginger White went public with her accusation yesterday shortly after Cain’s interview with CNN. Cain apparently bemoaned the allegation saying, “here we go again,” according to CBS. He did not challenge the claim, according to CBS, but rather dismissed it.

“Cain denied the allegation, insisting that he -- and the American people -- would rather talk about more important matters. And with that in mind, his campaign is so far chugging along, hoping to sweep all the controversies surrounding Cain to the side. The candidate is scheduled to give a foreign policy speech this evening.”

The CBS article went on to explore the outlook of Cain’s campaign with yet another weighty accusation on the table. It’s grim to be honest. As CBS point out:

“Still, Cain may be coming to grips with the seemingly inevitable fate of his campaign: The National Review reports that Cain told his staffers this morning he is "reassessing" whether to stay in the race.

The latest allegations may or may not be enough to sink Herman Cain's campaign -- given the flaws of his Republican rivals, he could maintain some base of support. That said, the newest charges only serve to underscore that the collection of sexual harassment charges leveled against him in the past month, combined with a series of other campaign missteps, had already quashed his chances of emerging as a truly viable candidate.”

However, I want to back up a minute and stop focusing on if his “goose is already cooked”, as CBS put it, or not. I think we’re missing a major point here. Throw out his political ideologies and whether you agree or disagree with them. Heck, throw out the sexual harassment charges; let’s simply explore the extramarital affair and Cain’s comment—that he and the American people would rather talk about more important things.

But do the American people want to talk about more important things? (And believe me there are more IMPORTANT things going on in this country)

They say nothing sell like sex and unfortunately I believe that is true. Should Americans give more attention to the national defecit and our foreign policy? Yes. Will they? No.

The point of today’s post is to gauge whether or not the amount of attention sex scandals get is deserving or not. Look at Anthony Weiner this past summer. He was crucified politically for the crotch shot he tweeted out to young ladies—none of them being his wife.

He did this on his own time, from his own computer, his own accounts and yet the end result was his resignation.

Now let me pause a moment to clarify, I’m not justifying or supporting what he did in any way. This is not a morality debate; I’m want to look at the logic behind the event and the ramifications.

As a friend jokingly pointed out this summer, “if you are a public figure, you have a public penis”. True, but does his sex life or extramarital affairs affect his ability to represent his constituents and contribute to the functioning of this country?

Another case in point, look at Bill Clinton. The married president was one of only two presidents in the history of our nation to be impeached. The basis of his impeachment was his perjury to the grand jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

It may seem strange to you that he had to testify about his sex life to a grand jury, indeed it is. That’s because what started out as a tax investigation somehow became an investigation into Clinton’s personal life.

Funny how Nixon managed to escape impeachment, but an extramarital affair and bam! Again, I’m not justifying it. I am in no way supporting the behavior. I think it’s boorish, degrading and an absolutely selfish act. Not to mention you follow that up by waving your finger at the camera and denying everything to the American people, but hey that aside, why does that affect his ability to lead this country?

I’m honestly asking because I actually don’t have a concrete opinion on it. Are these actions wrong? Do they infuriate me? Make me question the moral values of these men? Yes to all of the above. But do they affect one’s ability to make foreign policy, balance a budget, etc.? I don’t know.

What do you think? Is inappropriate sexual behavior an automatic scarlet letter for you on a politician and if so why? And I’m asking beyond simply the moral scope. What about those errors do you think affects their politics?

Social media's gray area of ethics

When reading about the New Haven Independent's coverage of the 2009 murder of Yale student Annie Le, it is refreshing to see such a small, online, grassroots organization take the helm of coverage in a major case. However, their access to Jessica Del Rocco's social media account raises some difficult questions for journalists.

On the one hand you agree with the side that says, Del Rocco did accept Bailey's friend request and did not deny her access once she discovered Bailey was a reporter. Yet on the other hand you have to think about the implications of running the content gleaned on Facebook as well as the precedent you were setting. Do we assume consent based on what is NOT said or done?

Despite the difficulty of these questions I think there is a very clear path The Independent had to follow, not only to cover this story, but also to set the best possible standard for future situations in a perpetually gray area of news coverage.

First off Bailey already admitted that, were she able to do it all over again, she would have identified herself as a reporter when she initially friend requested Del Rocco. That is a definite precedent that journalists in the future should follow. Still she did acknowledge herself as such eventually and that paired with the fact that although their are certain privacy settings, the Internet overall is a public domain, makes a compelling argument for use of the material.

You have to weigh how integral they are to the case and to the story they are providing the readers with. If the information is not useful there is not sense in running it and risking not only hurting someone, but also dealing with the ethical dilemma it entails.

I think however in this case the information is compelling, it provides a history and a context for the events that have taken place and the people involved. The Independent had up to this point set the bar in case coverage and tread the line of ethics carefully where other organizations had not. But all things considered, they should not shy away from this coverage.

What you put on the Internet is public at the end of the day, no matter how you cut it. The Facebook posts provide excellent context to a national story. It's what it can provide outweighs withholding it, especially when the OVERALL privacy of Del Rocco would be protected.

That being said I think they owe it to Del Rocco to make it aware that they plan to discuss her use of Facebook to express her thoughts on the case and her history with the accused. They should once again offer her an interview to better explain her posts or give more context if she feels uncomfortable with their use of the content.

That is the best way she can make herself and her statements absolutely clear. If she still declines and interview then readers will have to determine the context based on what they have.

I think that although these are tough decision to make, decisions that I am sure many will disagree on, the Independent has shown a respect for the process of reporting, the sources involved and their readers. The fact that they stopped and thought through using Del Rocco's Facebook content further proves that. At the end of the day they have to continue to weigh that respect against what is necessary, even when it is tough.

Obama's outlook

Let’s change our point of view and direct the looking glass to President Obama for a change shall we? Never before in the history of this nation has a member of a party seriously challenged its incumbent for the party nomination (not counting the occasional activist who figures ‘why the hell not’).

Despite the early whispers and ads released for Hilary Clinton a year ago, it appears that the 2012 elections will fall in line with history. Obama has not yet begun to campaign, and rightfully so—it would be a poor decision for the leader of his country to begin seeking re-election so early given the current state of this country.

To be honest, had I written this post two days ago I would have said Obama must be feeling pretty at ease right about now. If you thought the 2008 election was a circus, I hope you’re ready for the 2012 elections; because based on the GOP campaign so far it’s going to be a joke.

Between Romney and Parry jabbing at each other constantly, Herman Cain’s sexual harassment charges and Ron Paul, well, being Ron Paul (I love the man, but the party does not respect him) I thought Obama must feel pretty cozy in that oval office.

However, with the advent of new polls indicating that Romney is more favorable than Obama in New Hampshire and both Romney and Gingrich have more sway with independent voters than Obama…maybe it’s time for Mr. President to start thinking about what his strategy is going to be come next year.

It’s funny to think that despite all the GOP shenanigans, the election could be a close race. As an undecided voter not sold on any candidate, including the incumbent, I guess it really just is proof of how dissatisfied Americans are with the state of things.

Here are a few things I think Obama needs to bear in mind as he moves forward. Be forewarned, they are biased because they are things I would like to see in him, you may disagree.

1) Obama needs to find where his political views lie and stand by them. He campaigned in a much more liberal fashion in 2008 than he has proved to be in his tenure as President. I’m fine with a moderate stance but gosh darn it, stand by it! I’m tired of a wishy-washy president. Yes you have to maintain balance as a politician and a leader, but there are times when you need to stand strong, whether it’s on the debt ceiling, social issues like gay rights, etc. Stand by what you believe.

2) Seriously get together a stronger foreign policy game plan. What’s going on in the Middle East? Also, I am among many Americans who believe that although it is ideal, we can’t be involved in EVERY foreign conflict, it’s just not feasible.

3) And this is a huge personal bias…get your act together on the future of space exploration! NASA can’t do anything until they have a concrete plan from Congress. I don’t care what anyone says, space exploration is vital to our nation. We are already lagging behind in the math, sciences and technological areas. With China, Iran and Russia amping up their space programs we need to do the same to ours.

4) Take a harder line on social issues. doing away with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not progressive enough.

Like I said, personal opinions, but things that I would really like to see from a candidate in general.

Actions speak louder than words

Okay, so let’s talk about something that we can’t get around: the now numerous allegations against Herman Cain. Before you read on, understand that I am going to talk about this in the sense of whether he is guilty or not. I obviously don’t condone sexual harassment but this blog isn’t about that. It’s about the campaign, and how he handled such an important event that cropped up in the middle of his.

I’m going to delve much into what I think of him based on these allegations, but rather the way he handled them. Cain who has always pushed himself as an honest candidate, a straight up politician who won’t dodge the tough questions, has built up some success on that image.

I think it is that image that could have helped him most in this situation. Suddenly the man who challenges others to face him with tough questions, completely clams up when the allegations initially came forward.

I’m not interpreting this as a sign of guilt or innocence, and I understand that if he is guilty he obviously can’t hold steadfast to that “straight up politician” image. What would he say? ‘Well, yes I did sexually harass several women I used to work with.’ Obviously not, that would be a PR nightmare for Team Cain and would end any hope he has of grabbing that GOP nomination.

But likewise clamming up about it or flat out verbally attacking the women, but not denying the claims doesn’t do much for you either. According to Politico, this was the first statement released by Cain’s people:

“Fearing the message of Herman Cain who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain,” Cain’s campaign said in a statement. “Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr. Cain’s tenure as the Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts.”

As always there is emotionally charged rhetoric trying to divert the issue. This statement may make out Cain as a, dare I say ‘maverick’, challenging the oppressive political landscape of current D.C. but it doesn’t really address the accusations.

And that is where you lose your credibility. Not that I think Cain has much after this given that by all accounts and reactions there is some truth behind these accusations. However, he never gave himself the opportunity to maintain credibility with us.

Again I am not defending or prosecuting him for the allegations, I’m simply examining how he has handled it. As Politico put it, Cain has since been faced with many media events and eventually had to talk about it, something he should have done from the beginning.

Acknowledge the accusations, give some kind of feedback, don’t lambast these women in hopes of avoiding public eye, it only made it worse. Given the fact that there has been no countersuit filed for slander or libel I again acknowledge that there very well may be validity behind the claims. Although I could not tell you what the PERFECT response would be, I can tell you that verbal counterstrikes and blatant refusals to answer questions

If you're gonna play dirty, do it the right way

So I’ve been wanting to talk about the rivalry between Romney and Perry for some time now. I hesitated for fear that my blog would be too much of a Romney/Perry-fest. However, I think now is the perfect time to discuss it, given Perry’s slide down the slippery slope in the GOP race.

Let’s be honest, the jabber between the two was getting embarrassing for a while. I get that it’s competitive and you at times have to be pointed in order to show voters that you are the better candidate. However, when debates become catty and echo to a middle school girls’ locker room, voters have every right to lose respect for candidates.

Furthermore, if you ask me the GOP race is already a three-ring circus, so the catty banter not only hurts the candidates, but the party as a whole. You may be rivals but you also supposedly represent the same party and work towards to good of the same nation.

Obviously Romney is going to be the focus of much mudslinging given his consistent position at the top (until recently threatened by Gingrich), but every debate seems to get out of hand between what Washington Post referred to as “Technocrat Romney” and “Preacher Perry ”

PBS described the October 18^th debate in Las Vegas as “combative” between the two candidates and predicted it was “a tone likely to stay with us for the next few months”.

They couldn’t have been more right and I believe that combative tone has played a role in Perry’s decreasing popularity. Although the two may have bantered consistently, Perry was always on the offense—rightfully so, seeing as he was behind Romney in the polls.

However, Perry’s blatantly caustic tone lost him the respect of the voters. Every post-debate feedback I’ve seen with audience members has always easily favored Romney. Why? Well people generally seem to think he handled his situation with grace as far as I can tell.

They knew he was under fire, they thought he responded well, and if the banter got out of hand or particularly childish…well Perry is the one that started it, right? If Perry’s attack’s had been more thought out and calculated I think he would have had more success.

Team Romney may have learned from Perry, as they have since removed any videos from their ‘counter-Perry’ site that mocked the Texas governor according to PBS. Politics is a dirty game for sure, and the public knows that. But they are quite particular about kind of dirty tactics you use—the subtler the better.

Now the nation not only sees ‘another Texas governor’ but they also see a child who get’s into belligerent little tantrums with the other candidates. I think this perception, paired with Perry’s views, and poor performance in recent debates (come on if you have three points, make sure you KNOW them all) has played a major role in Perry’s loss of popularity amongst GOP constituents.

I do have to give Romney props. As many articles have pointed out this week, he has gave little attention to his GOP rivals and continued to focus on Obama. That is a smart tactic because he avoids the risk of falling down Perry’s trail, he encourages a more unified GOP and he keeps the nations focus right where he wants it: the presidential election.

From Romney’s stance, in November of 2012, the publics’ options will only be he and the president. He’s exuding a confidence that isn’t overbearing and constantly reminding the NATION that he is what they need, not a PARTY.

According to an early New Hampshire poll released this morning, Romney leads Obama…so maybe the president shouldn’t relax and watch the circus. But that’s for another blog.

Gingrich is ACTUALLY here

Back in 2007 during the onset of the presidential campaign, SNL was, as we all know, rampant with political sketches. I remember one very clearly that I watched one Saturday night while hanging out with my best friend.

It was an animated sketch from the ‘TV Funhouse’ edition and Oprah Winfrey was interviewing the horde of candidates. As they went from candidate to candidate, mocking each of them they came to Newt Gingrich who merely said, “I’m not actually here,” and with a snap of his fingers, disappeared.

It was funny because it was so odd, and to be honest, although I had been keeping up with the campaigns, I knew very little about Newt Gingrich. Four years later his name is not so unfamiliar, as I have become aware of his political history. Still his presence in the current campaign has not been strong—until recently.

In a McClatchy-Marist poll released today, Newt Gingrich is apparently considered the strongest Republican candidate to take on President Obama in next year’s election. According to the poll Gingrich trails Obama by two percentage points, 47 to 45 percent.

The runner up is Mitt Romney, who trails by four percentage points, 48 to 44 percent. Followed by Ron Paul who trails Obama by 8 points. Following Paul is Cain, then Romney and lastly Bachmann (thank god).

Last week, as Perry continued to fall from favor, Gingrich jumped then runner-up Herman Cain for the second spot behind Romney, but this latest polls indicate a further shift in the GOP spotlight.

According to an article by the Miami Herald, the continued success of Romney and rise of Gingrich is due to the political stance of the two:

“One reason why Gingrich and Romney do better than other Republicans against Obama is that they both win independent voters, who swing back and forth. Gingrich wins independents by 47 percent to 41 percent over Obama. Romney does even better with that swing bloc, carrying them 55 percent to 39 percent.”

That would suggest that, given Gingrich’s recent popularity, he still appeals to more Republican voters than Romney. This too is supported by the poll as well, according the article.

“Gingrich does better among Republicans than Romney, though, winning 84 percent of their support, vs. Romney's 80 percent. They both get the support of 83 percent of tea party voters. They also have identical support among conservatives, each getting 73 percent of conservative support in a hypothetical general election faceoff with Obama.”

However, we can’t focus too much on these two candidates. It is still early in the campaign and so far Romney is the only candidate to consistently stay near the top of the GOP. It will be interesting to see if Gingrich can maintain his new found lead.

Either way I look forward to seeing the rest of the race play out. I think there is still a lot to be learned about the candidates and who knows who can emerge at the head of the race next?

Watch your language

Well it’s refreshing to say we will be discussing a new GOP candidate today: Herman Cain. Although I guess his true status as a candidate is questionable at this point. Since he has been in hot water for some issues close to home I will stay clear of those at the moment and focus instead on other issues.

To be honest when I first really saw Herman Cain in the first collaborative GOP debate hosted by FOX and Google, I didn’t think much of him. His moving story of overcoming cancer in an of itself is memorable, but his use of it as a launching point to bash Obamacare was weak and, as Politico would later prove, his points were inaccurate.

Regardless, he has since launched himself as a viable candidate in this GOP race, perhaps eclipsing Perry, as some polls would indicate, especially after his most recent debate performance. So, as is fair, I would like to explore who Herman Cain is as a candidate.

One of my biggest issues with Cain as a candidate, outside of his tax plan, is his grossly misinformed, or rather negligent, comments regarding Planned Parenthood. Cain has accused Planned Parenthood of placing abortion clinics in African-American communities as part of a “planned genocide” to kill black babies before they are born, according to Fox News.

Cain told CBS’ ‘Face the Nation’ that "Seventy-five percent of those facilities were built in the black community. In Margaret Sanger's own words, she didn't use the word 'genocide,' but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born," Cain told CBS' "Face the Nation."

According to the interview he also added that many groups besides Planned Parenthood "offer sincere counseling" whereas Planned Parenthood would rather "facilitate" young black women getting abortions. Cain accused them of not trying to counsel women to not get abortions.

First off, let’s point out the hyperbolic use of the word ‘genocide’. People in Rwanda are undergoing genocide. The imprisonment of the Jews by the Nazis was genocide. Abortions are not genocide because by definition genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group”, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Next let’s look at the fallacies behind Cain’s statement against the definition of genocide. How are abortions in any way deliberate systematic attacks, especially when according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, less than one in 10 abortion clinics are placed in predominantly black communities? In fact, 63% of the nation’s abortion clinics are located in predominantly white communities.

It is irresponsible for a candidate to use such a false, pathos-driven rhetoric in regards to an already emotionally charged topic. Especially when it also undermines all the good work Planned Parenthood does, outside the abortion debate.

Margaret Sanger was a eugenist, this is true and unfortunate; but as Cain himself said, “in Margaret Sanger's own words, she didn't use the word 'genocide’…” so then don’t use the word GENOCIDE! It’s completely inappropriate, not to mention disrespectful to all the victims of genocide in the world. You are leveraging the emotional connotation of the word—a connotation developed from their suffering their pain—as part of a political move. Not to mention, get your numbers straight before you make such weighty assertions.

Fro m y perspective, if you’re willing to use such a heavy fallacy in a social issue, what are you going to do on an economic or health care issue?