Herman Cain is, if he can be believed, convinced that a conspiracy from the Left is responsible for the accusations of sexual harassment against him. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.

In Cain's eyes (and in Cain's supporters' eyes), a grand conspiracy of the Left and those faithful minions of the Left, the Liberal Media, are undermining him because he is a strong black conservative. The Left can't stand strong black conservatives, this thinking goes, and so must do everything in its power to attack and destroy his chances of becoming president.

As I said, this is just patently ridiculous, because of one simple fact: the Left would dearly love to see Cain as the Republican nominee next year. Beating Cain would be a lot easier for President Obama than beating Romney. Polls have consistently shown the truth of this -- Obama polls much much better against Cain than against Romney. This was true before the sexual harassment charges were made, by the way. So why would the Left want Cain gone? Why would the Left choose a harder route to keeping the White House? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Continue Reading »

Every so often, I am so impressed by a comment to one of my columns that I offer to just turn my column over to the author, and let them have my soapbox. This doesn't happen often, usually around once per year.

I've written a few columns so far about the Occupy Wall Street protest, and what I like to call the 99 Percenter movement. But when I threw the subject open to my own blog's commenters as to what the next phase of the movement will (or should) be, I got one very interesting comment in response. So I asked the author to expand her comment slightly, and rewrite it as a column.

The author, when contacted, described herself thusly: "I am a longtime Netroots political junkie, avid reader of multiple 'left wing' or 'progressive' blogs and information sites, and I am following the OWS movement with great interest and deep satisfaction. Like many OWS sympathizers, my day job consumes my primary energy, but I am with the protesters in spirit. I've visited Occupy DC in McPherson Square where I've donated supplies, and I will continue to donate to the movement. I will participate in OWS when I can in actions nearer to home."

She has chosen to identify herself by her screen name "Paula." In the communitarian spirit of letting everyone have their say, I'm turning today's column over to her.

-- Chris Weigant

Occupy Wall Street is Not the Tea Party of the Left

I've read literally hundreds of articles and posts about Occupy Wall Street, and one recurrent idea is that OWS is or should become the "Tea Party of the Left." I think that's a misreading of both the movement's origins and its evolving aspirations.

Continue Reading »

I just read an extraordinary article at (are you sitting down) RedState, written by Erick Erickson -- one of the right-wingiest writers at one of the right-wingiest websites around.

I couldn't help myself -- the title of the article drew me in: "Mitt Romney as the Nominee: Conservatism Dies and Barack Obama Wins."

The author's basic premise is that Romney is a flip-flopper who can't be trusted by conservatives. He'll win the Republican nomination, and then go on to lose to Obama next year. The article (and the hundreds of comments) make fascinating reading.

It bears pointing out: this is not some liberal fantasy written on a left-wing blog. This is exactly the opposite.

It does raise an interesting question, though: if Romney is the nominee, will the Republican base be so disappointed that they either (1.) stay home next November, or (2.) flirt with the third-party route? Or will their desire to unseat Obama overcome such disappointment if Romney is the candidate?

Personally, I'm not sure what to think about this scenario. But I am considering the source -- if conservatives are already grumbling about Mitt being nominated, what's going to happen next year if this plays out?

Call this an "open thread" for discussion (this is a euphemistic way to say "I am too busy digging in libraries today to write a full column, sorry").

What do you think?

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Today, it seems, is an appropriate day to delve into American history. Specifically, the long history of politicians' sex scandals, and the media who are always willing, ready, and eager to use them to sell newspapers.

While the subject of which American politician's sex scandal came first is a debatable one (such as: did Benjamin Franklin's dalliances in Paris count?), most agree that the sex-and-blackmail scandal of Alexander Hamilton was the first with any impact, from George Washington's time onwards.

Ironically enough for historians, America's main philosophical political battle (big versus small government -- which we continue to fight to this day) began within Washington's administration, and the two men driving this argument were both caught in their own sex scandals. Alexander Hamilton was George Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, and he was the champion of the "big government" school of thought. Opposing this was another member of Washington's cabinet, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who would face his own public sex scandal (the Sally Hemings story) at a later date.

But this political divide isn't germane here, and neither is Jefferson. What was extraordinary about the mess Hamilton got himself into was how he responded -- what has to be the ultimate gold standard in "getting the information out" in American politics.

Continue Reading »

Like many Americans, I watched the events unfold in Oakland this week with some trepidation. Occupy Oakland tried two new tactics in protesting, and both were very successful at achieving a key goal -- that of getting your message across. Both the general strike and the temporary port shutdown were successful, in this regard. Later in the night, however, a group of jerks came close to ruining all this, by their criminal behavior.

I was not present -- I live too far away from Oakland to have taken part. In fact, like most Americans, I watched the news coverage on television. And, finally, the video images which the news media has been waiting for occurred -- video of idiots vandalizing anything they felt like, setting bonfires in the streets, and battling with cops.

What was missing from the media coverage (at least the coverage I witnessed) was a spokesman for the Occupy movement denouncing the violence and calling on all their supporters and fellow protesters to do the same.

This is a weakness in the movement. In fact, it is a critical weak point. Not the lack of denunciation per se (I did actually see people interviewed at the Occupy sites who strongly disavowed the violent jerks), but the fact that there is no media contact for the movement.

Continue Reading »

Flat lines

Once again, we present a rather foreshortened version of our Obama Poll Watch column this month, for which we are going to use the excuse "not much happened." If something had indeed happened, we would have had to come up with a better excuse, but that'll have to do for now.

Barack Obama's job approval poll numbers in October were flat. Very flat. So flat, in fact, that he tied his own "flattest month ever" record, which he initially set back in November of last year. Obama's change in approval and disapproval combined last month totaled only a single tenth of a percent -- which is almost as flat as numerically possible.

This flatness, however, was good news of a sort for Obama fans, because it halted a sharp slide which began in June. The daily numbers also had some good news for Obama, heading into November.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's take a look at this month's new chart:

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

October, 2011

Continue Reading »

Championing fatherhood rights for rapists would seem, at first glance, to be a politically suicidal position for any candidate for office in America. After all, who would champion any rights for rapists? Rapists aren't exactly a powerful political lobby in Washington, one would think. But this year's Republican nomination race seems to be testing this, in a big way. Maybe they're trying to get out the rapist vote, or something.

I am speaking, of course, of the position many Republicans have taken on the abortion issue. Such as Herman Cain's newfound position in favor of making abortion illegal in all circumstances. No exceptions would exist for rape victims, incest victims, or for the health of the mother -- abortion would not be a legal option in any of these cases.

Now, I realize Cain is currently having other problems in the "women's issues" arena, but I for one refuse to get sidetracked. If you're interested in Cain's other problems, I would direct you to the entire rest of the media universe, who seem to be doing a more-than-adequate job of covering Cain's problems on this front today.

Instead, I'd like to focus on Cain's evolving stance on abortion. When first asked about abortion, Cain gave a reasonable answer -- one that even fits in with standard conservative "get the government out of our lives" orthodoxy. Cain said that it was a personal decision (he even used the word "choice") to be made by the family involved, and their doctor.

Continue Reading »

Chalk one up for the consumers. Bank of America has just announced it is aborting plans to slap a five-dollar monthly fee onto consumers who have the effrontery to access their own money.

This is not only a victory for consumers (and the Occupy Wall Street folks, incidentally), but a triumph of mathematics and economics. Because it is ridiculous that big banks should even contemplate these fees in the first place.

Continue Reading »

[Cue: Rattling chains and spooky organ music, topped off with a terrifying high-pitched scream...]

Gather 'round, ghosts and goblins, for our annual Hallowe'en tales to turn your blood cold, whether you hail from the Left or the Right side of our metaphorical political divide. Those on the Right, I'll begin with the spine-tingling fact that "left" and "right" come from where folks sat after the French Revolution -- meaning when you say you're on the Right, it actually comes from France! We haven't checked, but this may technically mean you are speaking French when you use the term.

[Cue: Crashes of thunder, flashes of lightning, and groans and moans from the crypt...]

For those of you on the Left... well, you're still recovering from the 2010 midterms a year ago, so I see you're already properly shaking in your boots. Heh.

[Cue: Shrieking wind, Zombies gibbering: "Brains... must eat brains!", and lunatic-asylum-grade mad scientist laughter...]

Now that we're all in the mood, let's sit back and enjoy two horrifying Hallowe'en nightmares, stitched together from the corpses of insane thoughts in my own brain, cooked up in a big black cauldron just for you.

Continue Reading »

We'd like to begin today with an issue that we regularly get incensed about here, mostly because it flies under the radar of just about everyone -- including the entire media universe. Because for once, Democrats are making the attempt to use the issue to make some political hay (even though, in this regard, they're admittedly almost as bad as the Republicans).

The Republican House leadership just released the tentative work schedule for the House of Representatives for the next calendar year. It contains only 109 days of actual work. That's for the entire year, folks. That is less than 30 percent of the days a year actually contains. To be fair, it is almost 42 percent of the average number of workdays in a year (in other words, discounting weekend days). But still -- 42 percent?!?

Stated another way, 109 days is one day short of 22 work weeks. There are, in case anyone's forgotten, 52 weeks in a year. This conveniently leaves a whopping 30 weeks off -- 150 work days -- for vacationing and fundraising and campaigning and for all the other things these so-called "public servants" do in their voluminous spare time, instead of the job we are paying them a six-figure income to perform.

Continue Reading »