Moral equivalence is a tool of the devil.
Who is “John Ziegler” and why are supposed to “convalesce” around a candidate?
This stupid sexual harassment thing is equal to Jerimiah Wright?
FUJZ, you worthless turd.
I don’t agree with this article, but even if they have a point... I would rather try and lose with Cain, than win with Romney.
The word is "coalesce". And to compare Herman Cain to Baraq al-Husayn bin Obama is utterly ridiculous.
How about the Bloggers try thinking for themselves for once instead of just mindlessly regurgitating what ever Karl Rove says on Fox News?
It'd make a great neo-noir plot. Maybe get Bruce Campbell to play Drudge. Powerful crime syndicate boss (Jack Nicholson) pressuring Drudge to help install their boy (Josh Brolin) in power. Femme fatale (Christina Hendricks) mixed up in the mess tugging at his heartstrings. Does he do the right thing? Does he give in?
But I digress.
John Ziegler has some great points on his audio too!
**John Ziegler: The conservative media is helping Herman Cain through his “sex scandal”**
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ppZ-gnGG8s&feature=channel_video_title
—now beginning to convalesce around the man —
Circle the wheelchairs!
Ever see videos of this guy Ziegler’s antics, or his scorned-lover response when Sarah Palin said, in effect: Idiot puppy-dog, will you please stop following me around?
The guy is a freak.
Rather then fight for what is right supposed “Conservatives” like this author would rather peremptorily surrender to the Left
Ignorant, cowardly and politically clueless are the nicest thing that can be said about this blogpimp.
Wow, that is the mother of all pantloads, LOL!
This statement fails the common sense test. Obama is a charismatic speaker NOT! He has a good voice and he reads his teleprompter with passion. He is a good reader like many MSM newscasters.
Herman Cain does not need a teleprompter. Herman Cain is a genuine charismatic speaker! Many other assertions by the writer are unsupported.
Herman Cain, unlike Obama, will make a great President of the United States!
Now let’s talk about the differences. Cain is a self made man. He has run businesses and managed important people, money and processes. He has been accountable and proved successful.
What did Obama ever do where he had a boss or was the boss of someone else. Volunteering doesn’t count.
Was Obama ever held accountable for anything?
Interesting article. I don't think this is being stirred up by new media journalists (such as Drudge) just to give themselves something to write about, but I do think that the above point is an excellent one.
People here keep complaining that dirt came out on Obama, too, and it was never investigated and very often not even mentioned after the first report, if even then.
But that's just how it is, and any GOP candidate has to be ready for this. The fact that Cain wasn't ready for this, even though he knew he had this in his past, doesn't mean that he's guilty of anything, but simply that he is somewhat naive about politics. And it's not because he's black; any GOP candidate whose name was getting out there can expect this.
So here's another crucial difference: Obama was a career politician. He knew how to play the game, and he played it with remarkable viciousness. He had never done anything significant in his life except being a "community organizer" (i.e., what they used to call a "ward heeler") and get elected to office, ranging from head of the Law Review to elected offices from Illinois. Granted, he did absolutely nothing once he got elected to these offices, but that was because he was simply looking on to the next one, and he did indeed manage to get himself promoted - with no achievements and no public history - all the way to the top. This is at least in part because he was chosen by the radical leftists who had taken over the Dems as being the candidate they were going to support come hell or high water, and they did. And they promoted him solely on personal grounds. I never found him "charismatic," but apparently a number of people did, and the Dems seemed to think it was really neat that people swooned when Obama appeared. I found it creepy, but maybe that's just me.
Still, no GOP candidate is going to get that kind of support from GOP Central, so we can rule that out to begin with. They might get fanatical, near-swooning support from a group of the "base," as we are seeing with Cain, but that's not enough to win a national election.
I don't think that it means we're finished and no GOPer except one who's not (Romney) will ever win. But I think it does mean that we've got to be much, much more prepared and that any GOP candidate has got to remember that simple axiom, which is that the rules are different for GOP candidates.
I used to actually like John Zieglar and bought his excellent film, Media Malpractice. John would go on MSNBC and CNN and stand up to all the Palin haters and bimbo pundits. He laughed in their faces and made them look like fools.
Then something happened to him and he turned on Palin like a pitbull. Seems like he wasn’t getting enough attention from the Palins and he threw a temper tantrum. That got him a good 15 seconds of notice from the MSM as a once-Sarah-supporter-turned-critic. Now he has faded into oblivion, but keeps trying to claw his way back to relevance.
Ye blew it, Johnny.
You state that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama and then offer absolutely no evidence for that assertion.
Now, it is possible that some reading this are now saying, “Okay John, if you are right and this is going to play out like 2008, doesn’t that mean Cain would be the next president?” The answer to that is decidedly no; because the fundamental reality of presidential elections, the one which has prevented conservatives from finding their next Reagan, is that the rules in a general election are totally different for Republicans than they are for Democrats. The incredibly unfair treatment of Sarah Palin in comparison to Obama in 2008 should have, if nothing else, at least ended any question about that obvious truth.There is truth in that paragraph.
It is a different media world for conservatives and "progressives".