2012 USA Presidential Election - Who's The "Best" Choice?

motokid wrote:

Obviously jager can't comprehend - so I'll repeat the VERY FIRST POST of this thread that defined what I was looking for.

As a moderator one would think some basic reading comprehension and basic forum etiquette would be part of the job description.

Your username of "kid" is well chosen indeed.

Looking through the thread, it's apparent your kid-like whining about "Republicans only" just started when the heat got a bit too much for The Big O. Prior to that, you at times were musing about Libertarians, Independents, Obama's chances, etc and so forth. You constantly claim you're not an Obama fan, never voted for him (McCain... really?)... which leaves us wondering just why the hell you care about observations about him as a candidate anyway? Does it stop you or anyone else from posting about Republicans? No it does not. What's the problem... don't like the comparison when you're ragging on a Republican about something or other?

You keep starting these threads to stir the nest that just keep coming back to bite you on the ass. Remember the "Would you vote for Bush or Obama" thread? Remember the thread on extremism in Montana? And then, they don't work out the way you expected, and you have yourself a little temper tantrum. I might have even cut you a little slack on this if you hadn't repeatedly indulged yourself calling Republican candidates "shit", "twats", etc. The thinly veiled ruse that this was just about discussing the merits of one party pretty much had the rags fall off with the attack dog routine.

So I'll tell you the same thing I told one of your other protaganists that you were laying a licking on at the time concerning another issue I was in no way involved in, when they were unhappy their thread wasn't going their way: We don't change or modify or delete threads here to save you from yourself.

Of course... this is "Off Topic" - so what could be off topic in the first place?

I have a Hurt Feelings Report form here, little boy. Would you like me to send you a copy to fill out?

Otherwise, for you, I prescribe Midol.

Cuty Jager, the sole owner of morality. Talking about things he only know the first two steps. Look everywhere there are more than two variables to the world. The one who think they are above all the others are the same ones who commits exactions against humnity. The owners of the truth, let me laugh as there is nothong else to do with prehistoric minds.I think that when the distribution of brains has been done there were only peas left for you., small and light .

In Québec the minority has more services than any minority in all the other provinces. Many people do live, work and do all their things in english without any problem. There is no other provinces that respects the two official languages of Canada as Québec does. And this kind of criticism coming frrom someone who like to state the Supreme court is another show of limited judgment. The Supreme court approved the use of the notwitstanding clause. And by th way, this clause has been approved by those who are now criticising it. You make another show of how you are incohent with the values you wisch others to think you share. When it fits you the courts are ok, when not the courts are corrupted or not acting correctly.

Yes people of a nation has to work together. Yes when there are more and more people living closely together, it takes new solutions. Living with others when you live in an area where there are 2 people by suqare miles is not the same as livong in one where there are more than 500 in the same space. And there are also other things to be considered and a lot much more than the two you know.


And to answer Motokid about Ron Paul, I wouldn't be able to say because I didn't follow individuals in US actuality. I think that whoever is able to do team work, be it a republican or a democrat is always a best choice over the one who thinks he owns the whole truth. Tho who are able to work as a team are better at helping the population to act together. Those who only promote division are only that, dividers.

clicky <-- funny as all get-out


I am a bit interested in hearing some more about Herman Cain's "9-9-9" plan.

I like the fact that he's talking about something completely new and not just more of the same tired old bullshit.

Dancamp wrote:

Cuty Jager, the sole owner of morality.

Because I wouldn't happily hop into bed with anyone, as you would do regardless of their intentions, doesn't mean I'm the sole keeper of morality. It just means I have a clear idea of some things which are wrong, and no amount of "Kumbaya" from you will make it okay. You would be have to be counted among that remarkable group of people who would try and convince us that, yes, it is quite possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. While lecturing others that it really isn't that bad, of course.

Quote :

Talking about things he only know the first two steps. Look everywhere there are more than two variables to the world.

Sure.

Do you leave your kids with a child molester? Yes or no? Oh wait... maybe we can compromise, find a third option? Maybe just leave ONE with him?

I believe you'll compromise on anything, through some twisted belief that therein lies the higher moral ground. I'm not arguing with you on that point. I simply don't agree with your belief that you compromise on everything. You can find common ground with kiddy diddlers, I can't.

Quote :

The one who think they are above all the others are the same ones who commits exactions against humnity.

Yes, Quebec, for example, where their English speaking fellow citizens were deliberately and legally disenfranchised of some of their human rights. Had to declare part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply to English speaking fellow Canadians first, of course, but after that the rest was easy.

And proudly continues to this day, no less. Needs regular tuning of course, but The Program is moving along nicely. While wondering why so many big businesses and their jobs have left the province, making it even more of a welfare province. Sun Life, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, etc...

Quote :

In Québec the minority has more services than any minority in all the other provinces. Many people do live, work and do all their things in english without any problem.

Well, the fact that "many" manage to get along okay must be a real relief. For that 30, 40, 50%... what a break! What a test of the extent of your human rights!

Kinda sucks for the rest who it doesn't work for after their rights of expression and equality rights have been deliberately removed by act of law by the elected governments of Quebec, of course. To give those minority English speaking fellow citizens "more services" of course!

Quote :

There is no other provinces that respects the two official languages of Canada as Québec does. And this kind of criticism coming frrom someone who like to state the Supreme court is another show of limited judgment.

Right. Quebec - which respects language rights more than any other province in Canada - is the only province in Canada to invoke the "notwithstanding" clause of the Canadian Constitution to eliminate freedom of expression and equality rights, so that its law prohibiting English speaking citizens from using English in public in some situations would not have to face the test of the courts. In fact, for about five years, Quebec put the "notwithstanding" clause in ALL their legislation. Quebec continues to appear almost yearly before the Supreme Court, answering challenges to their ongoing attempts to force parents to have their children educated in French, rather than have a choice.

No other province in Canada is doing this, or EVER used the notwithstanding clause to restrict freedom of expression and equality rights, particularly pertaining to the freedom of speech and attempting to force parents to educate their children in French, even if they were English speaking. Quebec did however - and Dan figures this is a sign showing the rest of us how much Quebec respects both official languages better than anybody else. And those of us who don't understand how that piece of logic works are the dummies in the room.

Quote :

The Supreme court approved the use of the notwitstanding clause.

No they didn't. And no such SCC decision exists.

All the Supreme court can do is adjudicate whether the province opting to eliminate civil rights is doing it in a piece of legislation it is within their authority as a province to pass in the first place. For the confused, that means that Quebec could not use the notwithstanding clause to eliminate the rights of accused persons in Quebec to opt for trial in English - because the Criminal Code and its sections is not law that Quebec has the power to pass, modify, etc. The Supreme Court can no more remove sec. 33 of the Charter than it can sec. 7, or any other. It simply determines whether the legislation that you want to use to violate peoples' human rights is legislation you have authority to make or amend in the first place. That's it.

Quote :

You make another show of how you are incohent with the values you wisch others to think you share. When it fits you the courts are ok, when not the courts are corrupted or not acting correctly.

Right Danny. Just like telling Francophone parents they can't educate their children in English if they want to do that is "another show" of just how your province shows more respect for both official languages than any other province. Which leads to the question: Why can Francophone parents in Quebec be forced to educate their kids in French, but Anglophone parents in BC, AB, etc face no restrictions or government intervention if they choose to put their kids in a Francophone school? And yet Quebec according to you is the enlightened province?

You're right Danny - I really don't get your logic, but I certainly understand why you have no grasp of why some things are simply wrong, no matter how you massage them and which end of the turd you pick up. And that stands whether it's a province forcing parents to educate their kids in another language against their will, or a Marxist president working at "fundamentally changing America" to something more in line with his Marxist principles. I find nothing to compromise on with either government or those who support their statist actions. It would be like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Quote :

Those who only promote division are only that, dividers.

Words of wisdom from the center of open bigotry in North America, Quebec - where people are divided along linguistic lines, and people continue to elect governments who continue to make discriminating against English official provincial policy.

Some things are just wrong. And compromising on those things is wrong as well. But I'm not surprised to find that a Quebecker like you is very receptive to the kind of ideology that Obama brings. The parallels of statism and "we know what's good for you and your children" are remarkably similar. As is the contempt for the principles underlying the respective constitutions.

Find anybody willing to scratch the sole of your foot yet, Danny?

oh boy - another rep/conservative/tea party debate tonight.

Quote :

Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- A battle over Social Security launched last week between the top two GOP presidential contenders doesn't show any signs of quieting down as candidates prepare for round two at the first-ever CNN/Tea Party Republican Debate on Monday night.

The debate, which will take place at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa, will also give the six other candidates on the stage a chance to change what many are portraying as a two-person race between Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Will Rick Perry continue to call SS a ponzi scheme?
Will Michele Bachman's sinking ship go all the way under?
Will Herman Cain get a chance to explain his 9-9-9 plan in more detail?
Will Ron Paul continue to be ignored?

Is it truly a Perry or Romney fight now?
Or do any of the others still matter?

Yet another show of ignorant rhetoric. The Supreme court did pronounce itself on the notwithstanding clause. As it pronounced itself on french schools in Manitobal or french Hospitals in Ontario.

And yes there are things that are black or white but not all. A binary brain can't understand that obviously. Keep on with your blind propaganda. It's form and content is in line with any dictator's speech.



An extract from a Supreme court decision.

Quote :

1. Are section 214 of the Charter of the French Language, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C‑11, as enacted by S.Q. 1982, c. 21, s. 1, and s. 52 of An Act to amend the Charter of the French Language, S.Q. 1983, c. 56, inconsistent with s. 33(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore inoperative and of no force or effect under s. 52(1) of the latter Act?

Answer: No, except in so far as s. 214 is given retrospective effect by s. 7 of An Act respecting the Constitution Act, 1982, S.Q. 1982, c. 21

Some parts of the Québec's law has been modified to suit the judgment but the purpose and legality of the law has been confirmed. And now the notwithstanding clause is not used for it.

Dancamp wrote:

Some parts of the Québec's law has been modified to suit the judgment but the purpose and legality of the law has been confirmed. And now the notwithstanding clause is not used for it.

Yes indeed. Quebec has managed to twist some of it's laws around so that it can continue to legally discriminate against people on the basis of their language preference without having to use the notwithstanding clause any more to suspend peoples' civil rights. But they still have the language police out there, controlling how you use English and what language you can choose to educate your kids in.

For Danny, this is a step up on the intellectual moral high ground he thinks he hold against the lower social orders. They've managed to figure out how to discriminate against your freedom of expression and equality rights in a legal manner. Can you imagine how it would go over if them crazy Texans passed a law saying whites could not send their kids to Spanish only schools?

Got anyone to scratch the sole of your foot yet, Danny?

Morality from old dino. When it fits my view it's ok. Even the supreme court isn't right when it doesn't fit my view.

Again there is no other province where the minoroties have their rights more respected than in Québec. There are places with a few red necks like you that whine allways when they don't have it all their way. After that they speak of living in society. Society of a few yes but not one where thare are a lot diversity.

Anyway, we can't change a dino. The pea has stopped it's evolution.

Any chance you two could get a room?


HOW ABOUT GETTING BACK ON TOPIC???????


Anybody watch the debate last night? Any thoughts?
Rick Santorum - best masturbater of the bunch?
Michele Bachman - yesterday's news?
Newt - just there to keep people focused on the end game?


I like Huntsman, but he seems to be an also-ran that just doesn't get the respect he needs.
Herman Cain is likable, but will run into a "lack of experience" problem if he's still in the fight 6 months from now.
That, or Cain has something horrid in his agenda that I've not heard about yet.

Ron Paul is still my favorite guy there.

Best political news of the weekend:

Herman Cain won the straw poll in Florida.

Are people, real people, not just the wack-job fringe, starting to get their collective shit together?

Perry is nothing more than a shooting star that's burning out?
Bachmann has finally been relegated to complete and total irrelevance?


Is Herman Cain the Ross Perot of 2012?

motokid wrote:

Best political news of the weekend:

Herman Cain won the straw poll in Florida.

Are people, real people, not just the wack-job fringe, starting to get their collective shit together?

No.

Part of the whack-job fringe are still supporting Obama. Even as he runs around the country, race baiting and engaging in desperate class warfare.

Quote :

Perry is nothing more than a shooting star that's burning out?
Bachmann has finally been relegated to complete and total irrelevance?

And the remainder of the whack-job fringe dismiss anyone who is truly conservative and/or shows any religious beliefs whatsoever. They want a RINO - if they can't have a Democrat/"progressive", they'll take a RINO. But not a conservative, and certainly not anyone openly religious. Now THOSE people are permanently set on full-auto retard. If a Bachmann or a Perry dropped a gold brick in their pocket, about all they could think of doing is complain about how heavy it was. Yes, they really are that whacked.

Both of those segments of the whack-job fringe don't get it. Just like they couldn't figure out the results of the last election, or why people would actually vote for Bush again before they'd vote for Obama.

The GOP RINOs and back room boys don't get to anoint a candidate. They tried that in the last election and mostly were stopped in doing that by Tea Party activists who replaced anointed RINOS with conservatives. The left wing media doesn't get to pick the candidate, no matter how much they blather about who the front runners are. And no one state will pick the Republican candidate either. Apparently, these people haven't noticed the voting is actually well in the future, and there is a process that will be run before then.

The problem with Perry - and Romney - is that they're only conservative on some issues, and blatant RINOs on others. Their policies and past history are the problem - their religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Just like the fact that Obama attended church services conducted by a racist, anti-Semite for two decades has nothing to do with his incompetence.

A diseased turnip would be a better choice than the current Marxist/class warrior in the White House. Which means either Romney or Perry would be a much better choice than Obama. But they aren't the best choices among the Republican candidates. Not for conservatives, anyways. Ditto for Huntsman.

Quote :

Is Herman Cain the Ross Perot of 2012?

Not even close - aside from the fact Perot never ran as a Republican.

Perot is a strong supporter of the EPA and gun control - one more person who can't wrap his head around the words "shall not be infringed". Not exactly conservative values.

If Cain were like Perot, he would be totally unsuitable as a conservative Republican candidate.

Unclench for a second, open your eyes, and look past the fringe where you live.

Is Cain a career politician?
Has Cain ever held an elected position in any kind of government job at all?
Is Cain more widely known as a businessman/entrepreneur?
Does Cain typically not stoop to the same basic bullshit lines as others when debating?
Does Cain prefer to offer reasonable and concise alternative plans?


Sure - if you want to split pubic-hairs they are not the same. Perot isn't a black guy.

motokid wrote:

Unclench for a second, open your eyes, and look past the fringe where you live.

"Open my eyes"????

Coming from the guy who so blithely believed people would vote for Obama before they'd vote for George Bush again? And you with your eyes wide open, how did that poll go for you?

The guy who just had to post a story talking about extremists in Montana - while failing to notice his home state has twice as many hate crimes, both in numbers and per capita as Montana?

That kind of "open your eyes"? Just who is blundering around on "the fringe" here? Tell me: do you even have ONE conservative political conviction in your body?

What, you want to get a room or something?

Quote :

Sure - if you want to split pubic-hairs they are not the same. Perot isn't a black guy.

I'll have to defer to your personal expertise on manipulating pubic hair.

Other than that, as Republican candidates, they are worlds apart.

Let's see: for starters, Perot never ran for a position anywhere as a Republican, much less worked for the GOP. He did serve with a Democrat state government, however. Cain ran for the Republican presidential nomination previously and a position in Congress as a Republican. Cain was instrumental in defeating Billaries health care plan. Perot has never been associated with the GOP or conservatism in any way. Now, I know your idea of an ideal Republican is a RINO (which, to a conservative, is like putting lipstick on a pig), but Perot's policies are hardly Republican in any way, shape, or form.

Perot supports gun control. He's a big fan of the EPA having their fingers in pies everywhere. He endorses trade protectionism and opposes NAFTA. He has said the Constitution is outdated. And... he made a name for himself with racist slurs about Asians.

So we're supposed to believe Cain is like him. Supports gun control, likes unaccountable government bureaucracies meddling in business, wants NAFTA shut down, thinks the Constitution isn't particularly relevant anymore... oh, and likes to sling around racist sneers?

I see no similarities at all in their political philosophies and beliefs. But I'm not surprised, given your past track record on perceptiveness, that you would think they're similar.

What's particularly amusing is that Cain has been a regular commentator on FOX for years now AND is a practicing Baptist minister. FOX and religion - given your comments on those two subjects, for a guy like you Cain should be like sunshine to a vampire.

Candidate Obama this week:

Obama: Holder "Not Aware" Of What Was Happening With Fast And Furious

Now, with respect to Solyndra and Fast and Furious, you know, I think -- you know, I have been very clear. That I have complete confidence in the Attorney General Holder in how he handles his office. He has been very aggressive in going after gunrunning and cash transactions that are going to these transnational drug cartels in Mexico. There has been a lot of cooperation between the United States and Mexico on this front. He's indicated he was not aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious. Certainly I was not. And I think both he and I would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America," President Obama said at a news conference on Thursday.

... however...

Holder received at least 5 memos on Fast & Furious

Attorney General Eric Holder received at least five briefing memos about Operation Fast and Furious, which runs contrary to what he told Congressional investigators in sworn testimony.

Holder is in the spotlight because of emails and other documents the administration released to Republicans in Congress that show the attorney general seems to have known about the gun-trafficking operation much earlier than he said.

At a hearing in March, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa asked: "When did you first know about the program officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?"

Holder replied: "I'm not sure the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

The newly released documents show Holder received five weekly updates on the operation starting in July 2010.

The memos were released today by House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Fast and Furious was a program run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that allowed thousands of guns to "walk" into Mexico, where they fell into the hands of drug lords -- several of the guns were found at the scene of the murder of a U.S. border agent.

“With the fairly detailed information that the Attorney General read, it seems the logical question for the Attorney General after reading in the memo would be “why haven’t we stopped them?” Grassley said in a statement. “And if he didn’t ask the questions, why didn’t he or somebody in his office?”

Issa added that, Attorney General Holder has failed to give Congress and the American people an honest account of what he and other senior Justice Department officials knew about gunrunning and Operation Fast and Furious. The lack of candor and honesty from our nation’s chief law enforcement officials in this matter is deeply disturbing,” Issa said.

The documents released included five highly redacted memos that mention the program, the earliest dating back to July 2010. In his May Congressional testimony, Holder said, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

CBS first reported on some of the documents earlier this week. At that point, DOJ back tracked on Holder's testimony, saying that he misunderstood the question of the committee. DOJ now acknowledges he knew about the existence of the program, but says he wasn't aware of the details.

Well, given he got his start serving under Presidents with Bill "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is..." Clinton, why would anyone be surprised that now, confronted with copies of memos going back a year and a half prior to when he testified he first heard of this, he now says he didn't understand the question?

No doubt the same problem that caused him to be a tax evader who didn't pay his taxes until confronted with it?

Holder isn't running for president, of course. But his boss, Candidate Obama, is. It remains to be seen how much Obama knew about Operation Fast and Furious as more and more memos are uncovered. But we can see from the first two plus years of his presidency, Obama will not only give us appointees who are criminals themselves (tell the IRS you "overlooked" paying your taxes and see if that saves you from tax evasion charges), but will defend them as they perjure themselves in testimony to Congress. This is the "transparency in government" that Candidate Obama promised Americans the last time around?

Is this kind of presidency and Executive Branch the "Best Choice" for Americans in the next election?

Ah shit...Herman Cain shows he might very well be just another typical GOP-type idiot.

Quote :

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks," he continued. "If you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!"

Wonder if he'll try to back-track and fix this, or if he'll stick to what he's said?

motokid wrote:

Ah shit...Herman Cain shows he might very well be just another typical GOP-type idiot.

He will certainly be commented on in that manner by all the barking mad left wing morons out there, who couldn't buy an original thought, and spend their lives preoccupied with demanding the government regularly change their diapers for them. After all, when your outlook on life is that your circumstances are always somebody else's fault and if anyone is better off than you it is because they are "fortunate" - not because they worked their asses off while you didn't - how else could you see it? People taking responsibility for their own lives and their own future is a very, very scary thing to your typical Dem/socialist/statist-type libtards. It's like... you'd have to live like an adult or something.

In fact, I'm surprised that any barking mad left wing morons out there showed any interest in Cain at all, ever. After all, he's:

• A self-made rich black who grew up poor and didn't just sit on his ass with his hand out demanding the handouts he's entitled to.
  
• Got rich by successfully running large multinational corporations
  
• Worked as a military contractor
  
• Is a regular contributor on Fox News
  
• Is not only religious, but an ordained minister as well
  
• Believes that EVERYBODY should pay taxes, not just "the wealthy" (the "millionaires and billionaires" who gross over $200k a year)
  
• Is not only a lifelong Republican, but a lifelong conservative Republican as well

Now how could anyone with a background like that ever have been of any interest to the barking mad leftists and statists out there? The only thing they would find acceptable from the GOP would be a candidate of the heavy RINO variety - Obama with a makeover. Unfortunately, the GOP does have a few of them kicking around. Liberal-light, as it were.

Quote :

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks," he continued. "If you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!"

Wonder if he'll try to back-track and fix this, or if he'll stick to what he's said?

I very much doubt Cain is going to pull an Obama on this one. Unlike The Anointed One, his stock in trade isn't lying, empty promises, and class warfare. He's talking about the Occupy Wall Street loons, where some protesters are saying they quite their jobs to come and protest about the lack of jobs (duh...), and speakers are making ongoing anti-Semitic comments about the Jews owning Wall Street and the banks, without not so much as a murmur from the crowd and not a moment of coverage from the left wing-type mainstream media. Can you imagine if that kind of racist comments were being made at a Tea Party rally? The media would be dropping their guts and be all over it - along with the barking mad left wing morons and statists they run with.

It's easy to see why the barking mad leftist and statist libtards will try to dismiss Cain as an "idiot". He is everything they have nightmares about, everything they are incapable of themselves because of their lack of drive and motivation, and an example of what hard work instead of handouts can get you. Let's look at what makes Herman Cain so scary to libtards:

He was born into a poor lower class family. Rather than sitting on their asses teaching their children the country owed them entitlements, his parents worked their asses off at multiple low income jobs to own their own home and put their children through university - which they achieved. In the segregated South at the time, no less. Now that has to be the scariest example of parenting a Dem-type idiot can possibly imagine. What a nightmare for a poor black child to be forced to live through and witness!

After completing his two degrees, Cain first worked for the military developing fire control systems for the evil military-industrial complex before moving on to the business world. He shot up the corporate ladder at a time when for most blacks that was quite impossible. Presumably, he could have lived his whole life at the bottom of the corporate ladder, complaining about what whites were doing to him. Or, perhaps used that Masters to get a tenured professor's position where he could spend a secure career lecturing students on how the government owed them a living. He chose hard work and personal success instead. As a black in what was still a white man's corporate world, he enjoyed success after success with large multinationals like Coca Cola, Pillsbury. He put his career and personal wealth on the line to bring the Godfather's Pizza chain from the edge of bankruptcy back to profitability. His peers in the corporate world were so impressed with his success and abilities that they named him president of the National Restaurant Association.

Now that's pretty scary stuff to the leftists who want the government nanny state to look after them because supposedly you can't do it on your own. And it's pretty scary stuff to the statists who think business can only succeed with government intervention in place. Here we have a living example that a poor kid can rise to the top to successfully run multiple large multinational corporations - without handouts - and then take a shot at becoming president. And do it without the government holding their hand to guarantee them some measure of success. Pretty scary stuff!

While representing the National Restaurant Association, he's credited with being the person most responsible for driving a stake through the heart of Clintoncare. Like Obama now, Clinton also had no experience with the business world and not the slightest concept of the impact on both businesses and their employees. Cain pointing out that Clinton was clueless on the costs of his proposal spelled the end of that health care plan. Definitely enough reason all by itself for the leftists and statists to view Cain like a vampire seeing garlic.

And that's why the socialists and statists will try and dismiss him as a "GOP-idiot". They hate anyone who can demonstrate that you don't need the government changing your diapers and giving you entitlements for life to take yourself from poor beginnings to wealth and success - just hard work and drive. They hate anyone who can demonstrate that it is quite possible to successfully run large businesses and corporations to the benefit of both your shareholders and your employees. They would much rather have a totally unskilled community organizer who has never run so much as a lemonade stand running the largest economy in the world.

So who's the best choice? A rabble rouser Marxist for president, with no business experience, who wants to add to his record of failures with another half trillion to "create jobs" - the "jobs" the first trillion dollars he got and spent never created? Or someone with a repeatedly demonstrated record of successfully fixing and running large multinational corporations, who started on the ground floor and worked his way up?

I'll take the experienced guy with demonstrated successes over the inexperienced guy with demonstrated failures every time.

It seems that Candidate Obama's meddling and trying to choose winners in the corporate world pretty much knows no boundaries. While most media attention was fixed on the Solyndra bankrupcy, in the GIS/GPS world there was news on the review going on regarding Lightsquared's proposal. And where Obama has been trying to pressure military personnel scheduled to give testimony:

General William Shelton, who oversees U.S. Space Command, said in a classified briefing that the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to LightSquared, a company which is tied to a large Democratic donor. The episode was confirmed in interviews with administration officials and the chairman of a congressional oversight committee.

The Pentagon has been raising concerns about LightSquared. LightSquared's majority owner is an investment fund run by Democratic donor Philip Falcone with the largest financial backer being George Kaiser. Both were among the highest contributor's to President Obama's 2008 election campaign.

Gen. Shelton was originally scheduled to testify August 3 to a House committee that the project would interfere with GPS.

The Daily Beast reports that Shelton’s prepared testimony was leaked in advance to LightSquared. Reports the website, "The White House asked the general to alter the testimony to add two points: that the general supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use; and that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days. Shelton chafed at the intervention, which seemed to soften the Pentagon’s position and might be viewed as helping the company as it tries to get the project launched, the officials said."

The White House admitted Wednesday that its Office of Management and Budget suggested changes to the general’s testimony but insisted such reviews are routine and not influenced by politics. And it said Shelton will be permitted to give the testimony he wants, without any pressure.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz stated that OMB “reviews and clears all agency communications with Congress, including testimony, to ensure consistency in the administration’s policy positions. When an agency is asked by a congressional committee to testify, OMB circulates the agency’s proposed [draft] testimony to other affected agencies and appropriate [executive office of the president] staff. If a reviewer has a comment to the proposed testimony, that suggestion is typically conveyed to the agency for their consideration. When divergent views emerge, they are often reconciled through discussions at the appropriate policy levels of OMB and the agencies.”

Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) is chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee that oversees Shelton’s space command and GPS issues. The panel is expected to explore the issues between LightSquared and the Pentagon at a hearing Thursday. Shelton is expected to give his testimony then.

Melanie Sloan, who runs the nonpartisan ethics groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, stated that, "With this new set of facts, it starts to sound like a pattern of the White House improperly pressuring people at agencies involving decisions that affect companies tied to donors and fundraisers. It’s always a problem when the White House is pressuring anyone’s testimony. I don’t care if you are a four-star [general] or a GS-15 [career employee], you should be giving your true opinion and not an opinion the White House is seeking for political expediency.”

Sloan recalled similar instances during the Bush administration, when officials were accused of trying to meddle with climate scientists’ testimony. “It doesn’t matter what party is in charge, money frequently trumps good policy in Washington,” she said.

In his testimony, Gen. Shelton states: "We believe the signal strength proposed as 'lower power' is actually the same as in the originally published LightSquared plan—and was the power level upon which the NPEF tests were based....

"Some have suggested GPS equipment can be redesigned for greater filtering to mitigate the interference, but even if this is possible, we believe it would involve substantial financial cost and likely degrade the accuracy of high performance receivers, which is critical to many key GPS users."

What shall we call this? "Charging RINOs"?

Chris Christy, RINO governor, won't come out to join the other governors opposing Obamacare. But he does show up to endorse Mitt Romney, a fellow RINO, whose state health care plan was used as a blueprint for Obamacare. Should we be surprised, given that New Jersey and Massachusetts are not exactly conservative states, where even a Republican governor wouldn't amount to a middle of the road Democrat in a conservative state.

Meanwhile, the Republican RINO aristocrats are busily shoving dates for state primaries forward as fast and as hard as they can, trying to get the "Romney has it; it's all sewn up" message out while he still remains at or near the top. Primaries are supposed to be a process that allows that party's supporters to view and explore the beliefs of the candidates who want to be chosen to represent them in the election. The RINOs don't want that; they want this done right now - and so they're pushing primaries forward to nearly a year before the actual presidential election. Last time they told Republican Americans that the wise old men of the GOP knew what the unwashed masses needed, they gave them "McCain". And we all know how well putting that RINO up against Obama went.

Romney, quite aside from being far away from being anything resembling a conservative, will be one of the hardest elections to win against Obama.

Obamacare is a huge issue for many Americans. So how is Romney going to take that issue to Obama? All Obama is going to have to say is "But Mitt, you lent us your healthcare advisers who crafted your Romneycare for you so we could use them to put together Obamacare". And Romney is dead in the water.

TARP? Romney doesn't have a problem with TARP, and certainly not with the fact that much of the TARP money was spent purchasing equity positions in banks - effectively nationalizing banks - instead of buying up the loans TARP was supposed to be used for. So when he's so close to Obama's beliefs on that issue, how is Romney offering a serious alternative to Obama in political beliefs and policy?

Romney has stated he is quite proud of Massachusetts' gun control laws - not the kind of gun laws that show any respect for the Second Amendment, and a point that won't be lost on conservative Second Amendment supporters.

The next election is the Republican's to lose. With sufficient charging RINOs managing to exclude everything but their own agendas, they may just be able to - yet again - snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The persons who would have voted for a clearly different alternative won't necessarily vote for Obama instead... many of them will simply stay home because they see no difference between Obama and a RINO.