Godfather Employee Challenges Cain to Fight

This was a “TweetLonger” tweet that is worth posting for the search engines to find.  Heartfelt appeal from a Godfather employee who was about to quit when Herman Cain took over Godfather’s Pizza.

Jeffrey Megown (@jmegown52302)

Posted Friday 2nd December 2011 from TweetCaster

@THEHermanCain
Mr. Cain: December 2, 2011
My name is Keith Lacy. I started with Godfather's Pizza 27 years ago as a crew member. I needed the job to support myself through college. I watched Godfather's Pizza go from its pinnacle of popularity and success then to its downward spiral. Over the years I was challenged repeatedly. I would climb the ranks from employee to shift supervisor then to manager only to have the company sold off. I would return to employee status and start over again. With each attempt to save Godfather’s Pizza by a new ‘parent company’ and the subsequent return to the bottom of the success ladder I questioned why I stayed.
After each demoralizing purchase then sale of our company things ALWAYS changed for the worse. My friends would quit or be eliminated, standards were dropped and it always seemed they put new people in management who knew nothing about Godfather’s Pizza and were there JUST to get a check. I had been taught from the beginning that Godfather’s Pizza was different. When I started we were EXPECTED to be BETTER. We THREW AWAY less than perfect ingredients, we were expected to make great pizza’s, we only elevated THE BEST to management, we strived for good attitudes and a positive customer experience. Most of the managers I worked with in the early years only left to own their own operation or move up in the company. I was bitter that we had been whored out to various profit takers and each time come-back worse as a company. I had my plan and prepared my two week notice. Three days before I had planned on quitting you started with Godfather’s Pizza. I already had another job concurrently as well as attending college so I was not happy to go through ‘deconstruction’ by another ‘executive’.
I wanted to give my notice to Joel Schuff, our regional supervisor. He was the one person I trusted in the company. Through each change in ownership, he too, had been stretched to the limit but kept telling me “how do we know THIS will not be good until we try?” He was an excellent supervisor and a great motivator. I waited until after my shift one day when Joel was at our store. I nervously approached the office clutching my letter of resignation. When I got to the door Joel said “Take this video home and watch it-I think you will like it”. It was your first of many “FLASH REPORT” communication videos to follow. I tucked my notice back in my pocket and took it home. As I watched that tape something was peculiar. You said “It is time for positive change. It is time to do things right. It is time to return to the things that made us great!”
You spoke DIRECTLY to me on that tape. You SAID what I believed we needed! At that moment I knew you would save us. I knew from your passion and your fire and your sincerity that you were serious. From that point on things began to improve at our stores. They did not happen suddenly but each month with every communication and marked improvements RECORDED AND SHOWN TO US by YOU employee faith was restored again. We would come to work inspired and anxious for the next new goal you would set. We would reach that goal and you would come up with another challenge. Things like “QSC” and “Passionately Provide Perfect Product” rang in young employees heads. It was strange and surreal to hear teenagers say those things. But we all did!
Later I got to MEET you at a food show in Des Moines, Iowa. A friend of mine who did not even work for us yet had heard of you and wanted to go with me. We dress in our best clothes and drove over one hundred miles in my old rusty, beat up Nova to hear you speak. You TOOK THE TIME TO SHAKE MY HAND!! You also SHOOK my friends hand and spoke to him at length. Three days later he applied and became an employee. Dave Jones was his name. He is one of my best friends. He came up the ranks and became a manager. He stayed WITH Godfather’s Pizza through his tour in the military, through Afghanistan and until he RETIRED out of the service! Why? I think you know why. You inspired us.
I stayed with Godfather’s Pizza and now own my own stores. Many times I have reflected on those days when you encouraged us. I try to do so to MY crew and managers. I believe in my heart that you are the best choice for this country. We have been put through this president’s version of “whoring us out” and we are all disgusted and embarrassed. We don’t need any more posers! We don’t need catch phrases and lies. We need inspiration and demolition of Washington’s walls. We need to be reminded in a POSITIVE way- “It is time for positive change. It is time to do things right. It is time to return to the things that made us great!”
You ARE STILL THAT MAN! YOU WILL DO THIS! YOU MUST DO THIS! WE ARE RIGHT HERE BEHIND YOU!
Thank you sincerely,
William Keith Lacy
MAKINZAH,INC dba GODFATHER’S PIZZA
THOSE WHO STAND FOR NOTHING WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING... (via Gunnar Lacy-Family)

Read More

How Cain Can Come Back In Bialek and White

In watching Herman Cain on Sean Hannity’s  show tonight, I heard something that was new (for me) in this whole saga.  Cain said with a conviction more solid than obsidian:

I am going to clear my name.

I had a growing anger at the possibility that these charges ARE false, and that the Democrats will have succeeded in their plan.  Although I’m not convinced Cain is the strongest candidate, I’ve always thought he was the most dangerous to Obama.  I also realize that if we allow this to happen to Cain – whether we are supporting him for the Presidential nomination or not – we are TEACHING the liberals and mainstream media what works. 

Limbaugh said today he doesn’t think this is coming from Obama because they would wait until the general election.  Rush may usually be right, but not in this scenario.  The Ulstermann “insider” information that Obama was going to ramp up the issue of “race” to get reelected has only grown more credible with the news these past two weeks:

• Obama has written off the “white” voter
• Via a speaker at King Street Patriots – the $1 Billion Obama is supposed to raise is primarily aimed at voter fraud, and,
• African American communities are showing an increase of activity hiring “community organizers”

There is still something funky about the suspected white Presidential assassin with a Jewish tattoo who claimed God told him to kill Obama whose hi-def picture looking at the camera just happened to make it to the state-run media MSNBC about 40 seconds after he was named as a subject.  (Never mind the shooter was using the equivalent of a scattergun 300 yards away but miraculously hit and cracked a bulletproof window without any military training.) But if Obama WAS going to make it White versus Black through a faked “racial” attack or whatever, you couldn’t have Cain running in a general election.  You would HAVE to take him out now.  And just in case that is the case – we conservatives can not allow that to happen.

So PolitiJim’s advice to Herman Cain that will give him a shot at getting back in the race – even if only to be a Vice Presidential Nominee.

Take a Lie Detector Test.  I am all but certain Herman is getting set up.  And certainly polls show most conservatives (lesser conservative women) don’t buy the charges.  But a report today by the AP cites Cain supporters who reiterate what I’ve heard on Twitter.  It’s just a steady drip and it’s not worth the effort.  I beg (on my little birdy knees) to differ.  My contention is that although Cain has other hurdles, the continuous charges are like holes in a garden hose draining not just the focus of his campaign, but the punch and power.  I breathed a sigh of relief with Cain’s conviction to contend for his character.  And he actually doesn’t need to prove every charge from here to resurgency.  He only needs to debunk the two strongest -Bialek and White. 

Cain said he would be willing to take a lie detector test.  The longer he waits to do so – it just seems like MORE “he said.”  I hope an FBI certified (and vetted by conservative intelligence analysts) lie detector test is given which not only would prove that HE was not lying about these two (and it would then put the pressure back on them to do the same), it would inoculate Cain to further “bimbo eruptions.”  His supporters would strengthen their support and any further revelations would quickly be discounted.  It would be affirmed that Cain is who he said he was.

He said tonight that the campaign was vigorously preparing “things he couldn’t talk about” to address these charges once and for all.  With hard proof – not rumor or gossip.  That is good, but had he done this directly after Bialek – he would already be back on topic.  Leading us to action number 2:

Fire your old campaign leadership and hire a top notch crew.  The ads are underwhelming and poorly produced.  The reaction to what is happening dynamically is always not just a step behind, but a half marathon.  The advice has not only been slow, it is has been WRONG.  Go hire the Perry campaign staff.  They are probably looking for a way to be thrown from that bronco.  But do it now.

Use 9-9-9 as dessert, not the main entre.  Your economic plan is among the best out there.  Some make the ridiculous argument that the sales tax could be raised (uhhh, like an income or flat tax couldn’t?) but that isn’t even that important to the overall strength which is the reduction of capital gains and business tax, along with the elimination of the IRS.  Don’t be so rigid on the sales tax suggesting two other alternatives (many like jumping completely from just “9-9” to a fair tax like Newt or Perry’s), but people already know that song.

Start attacking Obama’s lack of records and stolen Social Security Number.  Trump didn’t soar to first place in the polls because we all thought he would actually be a good president.  Or because he sells condos to the Chinese (or whatever he said his foreign policy experience was.)  It was that someone finally was pointing out the hypocrisy of the chief law enforcement officer blatantly passing off forged papers as real and then laughing at us.  It also would make him stronger as a VP pick to “get in the gutter” and give a great contrast to his Inspirational Story in contrast to Obama’s.  I still can’t figure out why Bachmann or Cain haven’t already been doing this.  The reason it is derided so much by the MSM is BECASUE they know it is effective – like the prohibition at MSNBC to bring up Jeremiah Wright.  Cain is the only one who can effectively do this!

Start announcing a serious transition team.  If you have generals, credible Secretary of State or other cabinet officials who you have been courting – it is time the minute the resurgence happens to start showing America WHO these great leaders are you would have help you to do the job.  You released a wonderful list of foreign policy advisors.  Now is the time to actually put the final nail in the coffin concerning your leadership and don’t wait to announce your cabinet.  Do it now!  The benefit is that your cabinet will multiply your voice and add the depth some have had concerns about.  Even on 9-9-9 sign Laffer up to be Secretary of Treasury.  Then he can start painting the picture of what policies a Cain cabinet would contain.

And one other final note.  Cain of all candidates has the ability to create inspiration as Reagan did.  He needs a “morning in America” phrase to give people that hope.  No one can deliver inspiration like Cain.  And you’ve got an edge the others don’t.  You already escaped a “death” 5 years ago.  You know miracles can happen.

Read More

Not Wild With West to Cain: Stop the Train

Allen West is a patriot and a fine conservative.  I wouldn’t presume to tell him what to do.  And he shouldn’t be guilty of the same transgression to Herman Cain.  This from the Weekly Standard:

Rep. Allen West, a Tea Party favorite from Florida, tells radio station WMAL that Herman Cain is a "distracter":

Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain has become a distraction in the race, says GOP Congressman Allen West.

"Beyond reassessing his campaign, he probably needs to understand that he is a distracter for what's going on right now and we should move on," said West, a Republican congressman who represents Florida.

As I posted today even prior to the new Florida and National results, Newt is almost certainly the nominee based on 4 key factors.  I think not only is Cain cooked, Bachmann is baked and Perry is all puckered out.  But I have the same problem with CALLING on them to get out as I did when many were telling Palin to give up the ghostly apparition of a run.  It’s not of their (or my) damn business.

I wont go back to the “Screw you Erick Erickson” rant (I’m more mature now, you know,)  but the points I made there still stand.  These candidates have already put their reputations, fortunes and political futures on the line.  Who are we to tell them when or how to run or quit?

It is no more conservative than telling someone else how to spend their money.  I’m just now getting over Allen West’s betrayal of the Jim DeMint “HOLD THE LINE” battle cry during the budget debate.  Like Ryan, they folded like a cheap suit and West of all people should have realized the enormous danger that deal put our defense budget (and readiness) in.

Cain’s voice and input on “9-9-9” are still useful to keep Newt, Mitt and nation educated on why the current tax structure needs to go.  In the free market of political ideas, his timing will take care of itself.

Read More

Sex Scandals Can’t Stain Cain

Daren Jonescu of Canada Free press has written an article called Cain’s World.  When he begins with “Herman Cain knows too little about foreign policy to be President of the United States,” I am actually a little bit DEFENSIVE of Cain preparing for another attack on a good conservative.  Instead, Jonescu pulls a bait and switch. He attacks (unfairly in my opinion) Gingrich and glosses over the problems with Cain. Go figure.  My (likely poor) summation of his points:

• Cain’s fall is all because people still believe the sexual allegations, and it gave an excuse for lookey-Lou’s to jump to Newt.
• The Republican Establishment coordinated with the liberal media and played a “gotcha game” with Cain on foreign policy because he was an “outsider.”
• Cain answers aren’t any worse than Palin’s “I can see Alaska” and should be respected for saying he doesn’t know anything.
• Newt is a flip-floppin’, political phony with profuse moral failings.

Sex Scandals Can’t Stain Cain – Lying and Lying Followers Can

With the new sexual affair allegations coming out, (Ginger White is her name,) I think it is important to rally around Herman Cain unless there is 100% convincing proof he is lying (I don’t think he is by the way. This woman lost a libel lawsuit.)  I think the evidence the Obama/Axlerod machine is at work is more and more transparent since Obama seems to be counting on racial division to get him re-elected in 2012.  (The NYTimes ran an article today essentially confirming what Ulstermann Report has been saying for months.)

As Dick Morris explained a week or two ago, the impact of the sexual allegations (except among conservative women) has been marginal.  By and large 3/4ths of conservatives have dismissed the charges and, as you know, on the first surge of accusations - he actually maintain a strong lead.  Morris says that the Clinton affair taught him most people don’t WANT to know.  I can’t imagine this is true in the conservative community to the same extent it is in the general voter population, but he had effectively rebuffed these charges quickly.

 
Dick Morris Discusses Cain Accusations

Cain’s fall in the polls can be traced more accurately to the Lincoln/Douglass style debate.  (Don’t get me started that it was NOTHING like the Lincoln Douglass debate itself).  Cain's thrice shy response to avoid answering questions first from a conservative congressman moderator did more (in my opinion) to shake the confidence of those taking a test drive on Cain Train than any other factor.

DJ complains that Nervous Nellies bailed on Mr. Cain due to perfect storm of false scandals and RINO-LIB motivated attacks.  Well pardon me.  None of the candidates automatically deserve our support.  Cain had less “strong support” than either Perry or Bachmann and couldn’t maintain it.  How will he do when battled in a general election or once in office?  Is it MY devotion to him, or his ability to earn my devotion that makes a good president?  They must earn it.  More so with candidates we have never met or evaluated before.  This is a job interview.  We know what we are getting with Gingrich and Romney not just because we can evaluate their positions and track record giving us MUCH more data to go on - but we can watch their REACTIONS and RESPONSES to issues.

Herman Cain has had curious responses to not just foreign policy, but a simple question on his views of abortion.  It turns out Cain may be the strongest pro-Life candidate in the field except Santorum and HAS put over a million dollars of his own money behind it.  That is better than a congressional vote record any day.  It is also why - after OTHERS (not even his campaign) pointed out his pro-Life credentials, it hasn't come up since.   But if one of Cain's strengths is supposed to be his ability to communicate - how can he be so continually inept at answering straight forward questions?  If my big three issues on car buying is price, looks and gas mileage - and the price is way too high - that car salesman still has a shot at me.  But if the salesman can't PROVE it really saves gas, do you get mad at the customer for not buying it "on faith" when it will take a month of driving to figure out if it did indeed do well in that regard?  Of course not.

A series of blunders by Cain following or horrific performance by Cain at the Lincoln/Douglass debate reinforced the idea that Cain may not just be well versed in foreign affairs, he may not even make the right choices on conservative principles with the necessary data.  He would release Gitmo terrorists conditionally.  It is what he said.  He isn't aware of the details of a war initiated in the past year with US ground troops CURRENTLY on the ground, or what Obama's position and actions have been in that country (Libya.)  And forgive me if I want a leader that doesn't have to that our largest creditor has nuclear weapons and has had them since 1960. 

DECISION MAKING.  Cain keeps saying that he is a great decision maker and hires good people.  A campaign would be a great place to demonstrate that and yet he continues to hire sub-par (if not embarrassing) campaign and advertising staff promising us that when he is in charge of the US economy and a nuclear bomb he'll do just fine.  For now we have to evaluate his ability to sell pizza to stoned college kids, albeit profitably.  THIS is what is holding Cain back.  He isn't demonstrating an ability to recruit and run a team NOW.  It is all the data we have to go on and he is failing.  Miserably.

And let's assume that he hires good people and can make decisions. Do we have time for Cain to understand the entire nuance of China/US relations, China's internal policy and before having to make a decision that may be required in a split second?  Hell no.  That is WORSE than a flip flop.  Even Romney wouldn't need a week to be educated on China's currency manipulation and economic models to INCLUDE that understanding when making a decision.  I almost got lockjaw from my mouth flying open when Cain suggested his 9-9-9 plan would be an answer to make American goods competitive with China.  China keeps their currency artificially low SO THAT they have an unfair competitive advantage.  Trade with China might not even be a central issue when determining a US economic policy - but the lack of HOW it would impact surrounding issues isn't just a benign political argument. 

How will Herman Cain respond at 3 a.m. in the morning to a nuclear attack by Pakistan on India?  We have no idea because Herman has no idea and he will rely on the advice of an unknown Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State whom hasn't even been hired yet.  The world is getting WORSE, not better.  China has increased their cyberwar effort and escalating their military spending.  Russia is hinting at reinstating communist control.  More nations adopted sharia-loving regimes than at any time since Mohammad was "marrying" 9 year old little girls.  I don't think expecting a candidate to have a remote idea of the MECHANICS of a policy that would stop Iran from getting nukes (other than drilling for more oil in the US which was Cain's answer) is "accepting a RINO."   How would Cain even know WHO to hire if he doesn't have the basic grasp of the situation before he puts someone else in control of it?

I’m not trying to say Cain would be terrible.  Or that he wouldn’t be better than Obama.  I am sure he would.  But a reporter asked Cain recently about an issue on Iran and (no kidding) Cain answered him "9-9-9."  Sorry, that isn't a conservative answer.  Neither is praise for Alan Greenspan who was Cain’s favorite Federal Reserve Chairman.  We wouldn't let a Democrat or liberal get by with that, and it is embarrassing that some want us to just "accept" Mr. Cain because he is a good church going man. 

And while we all admire a 43 year marriage and a vocal commitment to Christ, can I ask where the repentance is in accusing both the Romney and Perry campaigns for the false accusations with ZERO proof of the sexual harassment attacks?  Last I looked in my Bible, gossip and slander were no less of a sin than adultery and murder.  And where is the apology and public repentance to Governor Perry for trying to insinuate he was a racist because of where he went hunting? Is this the action of a God fearing Christian?  Yet I get emails daily from Cain supporters who act more like propagandists for Pravda than Christian conservatives.  Although I am convinced Cain is innocent of the worst harassment charges, conservative Iowa talk show host Steve Deace has testified that he WITNESSED Cain making inappropriate remarks to two of his employees.  Sorry if I am NOT convinced Cain is Jesus Christ.  And Newt most certainly is not the devil.  I am convinced of is that many conservatives are not worthy to wear that title.  Especially with Alinsky character assassination.

Newt's personal problems don't plague him because A) he has publicly confessed his failings where they occurred, B) he hasn't repeated them, C) his own daughter has put to rest many of the false accusations, and D)  the man has been consistent in pushing for morality in our "civilization" for 20 years now after his own failings.  His "flip flops" - for anyone intellectually honest enough to study them - don't belie a hidden liberal.  We don't despise ALL of Washington and Jefferson's actions because they owned slaves.  Similarly, when the Heritage Foundation is "for" an individual mandate and the "father" of the conservative movement signs legislation to allow amnesty and raise taxes - it is a bit misleading to assume Newt's views were that of flaming liberal in the prosperity of another era.  Hell, Churchill LED the dismantling of the British fleet following WW1.  Would you really not want him to lead the United Kingdom in War World 2?

I'm not white washing Newt or trying to dissuade those from following Cain.  I like both men and could live with either as the GOP nominee.  I am, however trying to be ACCURATE.  And falsely accusing Sarah Palin of mentioning that you can see Russia from Alaska (which you can) is a poor response (and lazy research) to the truth. CBS has never released the full footage from the interview, but Palin explains in Going Rogue:

Though Katie edited out substantive answers, she dutifully kept in the moments where I wore my annoyance on my sleeve. For instance, when she asked me how living in Alaska informed my foreign policy experience, I began by trying to frame the geographical context. Lower 48ers grow up seeing our state tucked with Hawaii in a little square off the coast of Mexico on the nightly news weather map. So I began by trying to squeeze a geographical primer into a ten-second sound bite, explaining that only a narrow maritime border separates Alaska from Russia, that we're very near the Pacific Rim countries, and that we're bordered by Canada. But Katie interrupted and I did not complete my answer. I wish now I had stopped her and said, "Here's the geographical context. Now may I answer your question?" (p. 274)

So do you believe the only conservative voice in the 2008 election who largely facilitated the tea party movement or the former morning talk show host whose network promoted faked military documents to try and derail George W. Bush?  Do you really want to make THAT argument?  Until I SEE the footage for myself, I don't' think I'm terribly wrong to give more weight to Palin's recollection than the media's fact-devoid line.  I think I’m even righter (PolitiJim grammar) to wonder why a supposedly conservative supporter of Cain would want to trash another iconic conservative falsely to make a point.

Do you really want to compare the records of a successful Governor that dealt with international shipping and water rights, border control, national guard duties and military bases with an ordained minister, talk show host and successful CEO from Atlanta?  Why?  Why demean (and falsely misrepresent) Palin to make your candidate look better?  Those that continue to trash other conservatives - especially without well documented facts - end up embarrassing themselves and loosing credibility.

Is the very solid, conservative New Hampshire Union Leader correct in endorsing Gingrich over the rest of the field?  To me Gingrich is like Captain D's seafood dinner.  

It doesn't taste too bad while you're eating it but you remember the health code violation from years back and quite can't enjoy it like that fine Santa Barbara seafood restaurant.  We do know this.  Gingrich allowed himself to be interrogated by the NHUL editorial board.  Cain refused.  I seem to recall a number of us screamingly "Holy hell" over Obama's unwillingness to be interviewed by Fox News.  It was Cain who himself said, “I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy?”  Let's try not to be hypocrites and not hold OUR guys to the same standards we used on the Liberals, ok?  I think those wishing for Newt’s demise might better focus on why Bill Clinton praised Gingrich this weekend.  THAT is what has me really concerned.

in my book, honesty is honesty no matter where the needle points.  And if conservatives can’t be honest about the pluses and minuses of their candidates – how can we ever gain credibility with independents or liberals?

So what is an honest view of Cain and Gingrich?  They BOTH are pro-life, pro-Israel, claim to care about the Constitution and reducing government.  Newt has both a longer ‘Con” list and “Pro” list than Cain, mostly because we know more about him.

PRO-CAIN	PRO-NEWT
Can do more damage to the Democrat Party than anyone and his inspirational story focus poor on hard work rather than hand outs.	Can defend conservative position in media and debates better than anyone and would eviscerate Obama on policy and knowledge.
9-9-9 may be most aggressive economic growth plan put forth and certainly understands creating jobs and reducing regulation.	Has a very good track record of creating a national agenda to elect conservatives, balance the budget and implement welfare reform.
	Understands the government machine which may help in dismantling revising.
ANTI-CAIN	ANTI-NEWT
We have no idea if running a successful business will translate to governing.	Newt has proven he has a ton of ideas but has held a LOT of positions that are not purely conservative .
Has proven he simply does not understand US or foreign policy on a host of issues and if he will have a Dan Quayle moment that could kill him in a general election.	Newt still doesn’t understand current data on global warming and showed bad judgment on Pelosi’s couch, Dede Scofozza and (most importantly) Paul Ryan.
We have no idea if he will “flip” on TARP, role of Federal Reserve and (frankly) any issue but pro-life because he has no record from which to extrapolate.	Unsure if pride or being an “insider” will corrupt him as it did when he was Speaker.
	Newt’s mixed record of government programs leaves us unsure if truly believes in limited government.
	The “compassion” over “conservative” reasoning make us wonder if he is guided by conservative core principles and if he would settle for amnesty.

 

We can be assured that the Democrats and media will not fight fair, and will be tougher on our candidate than they are on their own.  As always (going back to How to Pick A GOP Candidate), the question is not just who is more ELECTABLE, but also who will effectively SELL conservative policies to the masses and GOVERN fearlessly and conservatively.

 

Neither of these guys are God or Goofy.  But I’m leaning toward categorizing conservatives who want to myopically do so to either one of them into the latter.

Read More

Why We Need to Nail Newt Down

Daren Jonescu has written an unbelievably balanced and important article at Canada Free Press. (CFP has some of the greatest conservative commentary on the net. Subscribe here.)

THIS IS NOT a hit piece on Newt, but a very well thought out analysis of Newt’s various positions and motivations on climate change.  Jonescu tracks Newt’s positions and states he must have been lying to liberals earlier, or lying to conservatives now.  I’m not prepared to go that far, but even for those of us that are either “pro-Newt” or “Newt-neutral,” it is an important piece to understand WHO Gingrich is and WHY putting pressure on him is important.  From the article:

The most serious concerns about Gingrich, on the contrary, are matters that can only be addressed during the primaries.

I began to simply respond to Dr. Daren’s article by email and (SHOCK!) it turned into a blueprint of HOW we should look at EACH candidate’s decision making ability and track record.  My take was this as I responded to the piece:

Excellent column both in tone and research.  I am fully willing to believe that Newt didn't know/wasn't aware of the science in 2008/2009.  My green tech company has consultants from Lawrence Livermore to Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, and although split 50/50 - it took a couple of months to digest the East Anglia emails to tip our understanding permanently toward climate neutrality.  Since then I've battled with Ken Silverstein, Editor of EnergyBiz (some of these articles on www.PolitiJim.com) on the dogmatic insistence that global warming exists – let alone that it is significantly influenced by mankind.

Newt has openly admitted he was trying to "stake" a position in the marketplace of ideas so we conservatives didn't abdicate the issue to liberals.  I personally find him sincere in that explanation especially since he has been consistent (and convincing in my opinion) in his embarrassment over his failed theory.  And THAT "think tank" mentality Newt has would explain a lot of this.  He is too well surrounded by groups like the Heritage Foundation and others that I don't believe he can escape the truth or, more importantly for him, the underlying philosophy and science behind the argument.  At least, unlike Romney and Perry, he does acknowledge mistakes.

Is he "lying now or lying then?"  To me this negates the possibility of an evolution of understanding on his part.  I read this stuff daily and was still ready to concede SOME global warming without any man made catalyst or responsibility up until the BEST data scrutiny.  Without many paid advisers until recent campaign contributions surged, and the rigors of a national campaign - I'm willing to withhold judgment that he is ignoring scientific data.  Besides  ClimateDepot.com's Drudge-like repository of all things climate skeptical, NoFrakkingConcensus.com is my favorite climate change counterbalance cache. Donna Laframboise helped me to come to the standpoint that Newt seemed to exhibit in the debate.  That is, that it is incredibly arrogant, to outright dismiss thousands of very well credentialed scientists who legitimately believe some form of warming is occurring.  None of us knows definitively.  The conservative (and sound science) viewpoint should be that it is SO undecided – NO action should be taken, especially since there is very credible data to suggest no global warming at all.  But it begs the question, is Newt unaware of the enormous liberal bias at the National Academy of Science?  That to me is a far bigger concern that his ability (once in office) to sort through evidence to make a decision.  To whom does he go to gather information?

Many conservatives, sick of the condescension of the media (and members of their own communities) have themselves become as narrow minded and confirmation biased as the liberals they despise.  A lovely tea party Herman Cain supporting grandma keeps sending me scourging emails against Newt scrapped from every liberal website often repeating lies that have been well documented to be proven false.  These people don't understand that like the New York Times - once you are perceived as promoting an agenda rather than truth, both your influence and your reach deteriorate rapidly.  This is what I appreciate about your article.  My concern is not so much the person who listens and engages those of opposing viewpoints, as it is for those who can not determine for themselves not just the truth or falsehood in their arguments - but their motive.

And this is "a" concern I have with Mr. Newt.  Academics are notorious (present company excluded of course) for seeing little risk in experimentation of a WRONG idea. The "headiness" of being so opened minded that you waste opportunity to act in the land of Theory is often – for them - the joy of “thinking” rather than doing.  We learn in business both that a) sometimes decisions need to be made even if they wrong and, b) you should never be pressed into any decision.  The key is knowing when to use which axiom.  As you point out, it is troubling that Newt wouldn't be able to step back long enough to think through how "urgent" this issue could possibly be, or to purposely seek out credible academic opposition to be "right" rather than to fit an argument for a political purpose.  How does Newt make decisions?

Specifically,

- Who does he allow to give input?

- How does he weight similar and contrary opinion?, and,

- When does he commit to a serious decision?

- Does he have the ability to learn from mistakes?

One of the benefits we have in Newt is a very long track record of ACTUAL votes and positions.  Welfare reform was not at all popular publicly, but Newt was committed to it and it is one of his biggest conservative accomplishments.  (Bill Clinton recently tried to historically revise the record and he received a PolitiJim rant.)  We saw the former Speaker’s support for an individual mandate during Hillarycare and a willingness to almost step on the long shadow of Milton Friedman.  But when we learned he relied on the studies from the Heritage Foundation no less, we realize we are ALL hypocrites.  Who among us wrote him (or Heritage) to show them their error?  Let’s be honest, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and the Tea Party have EDUCATED us about what “conservatism is” more than it has simply reflected well thought out positions.  The move by Heritage from accepting a form of socialized medicine is a case in point.

Which leads us to "valuing" input.  I can't blame Newt for valuing Heritage's analysis of the healthcare issue.  They all thought that healthcare was inevitable.  And listen, when the economy is prosperous and growing, even the most die hard conservative has to admit it is much tougher to make a case to not tax a little more to help the unfortunate.  Ninety nine percent (99.99%) of all Americans (and 88.88% of all conservatives) are not political science or economic theorists.   When we just got a $10,000 bonus at work, dropping $10 in Santa's Salvation Army kennel is almost an afterthought.  When we've been out of work for 6 months, and only have $100 in the bank account, we not only can’t rationalize the charity in our minds, we avoid eye contact as if he's that alumni from high school who is now into Amway.  The question is - did Newt independently, seek out other thoughts beyond Heritage - or rely on them only? 

My construction industry mentor told me to always, no matter what, get 3 bids for every job we had.  I was always fascinated WHY it was "3" and not "4" or "2".  It never failed that the third objective gave me not just a better handle MYSELF on the real value of that portion of the job, but a depth of perspective about HOW the job would be done.  Four bids began the law of diminishing returns wasting time for the same viewpoints.  You could get two weeks behind schedule trying to figure out every nuance of electrical work in which YOU were not the expert.  But if two guys BOTH would insist on a higher price because of some component the OTHER subcontractor omitted - I could at least go back to the lower price contractor and press him on that issue.  I could determine for myself if the other two were trying to soak me, or if the first had just shown they were not very diligently in understanding the job.  When it is one against one, there isn’t as much incentive to investigate a particular point of difference.  I think Herman Cain has ineffectively communicated this to others.  He seems to rely more on the PROCESS of decision making than the actual solution, knowing that as a businessman you NEVER have all the data, and you always have to learn "on the go."  Unfortunately, it's tough to rely on one's ability to make the right call on how to handle a foreign policy matter in Croatia from a track record of decisions about pizza crusts. (My personal opinion is that Cain is smart to excel at the economic decisions of the office, but I simply have no evidence on matters of policy, legislation and the political elements of the office.)

Which brings us to asking WHEN any candidate should commit to a position.  I try to never turn away a global warming (or liberal) advocate who wants to debate me.  If they argue, "the IPCC report proves global warming," I don't need to rethink my position since I've done that already.  This seems to be the Herman Cain and Rick Perry dilemma.  It's tough to have a ready answer when you haven't researched, deliberated and formed your own conclusion on every little issue of policy involved. Or withstood factual attacks upon your own beliefs.  That is how you develop your own understanding on WHY you advocate what you do.  On issues I truly don't know - it is tough to not just react out of a desire to emasculate my puny liberal foe and take an arbitrary decision.  Or to seek out opinions that support a predefined position I have.  As a Christian I defended the Bible for years, really not even knowing what it said.  It fundamentally (no pun intended) transformed me when I actually READ the entire bible and it challenged a lot my conservative positions. The process of challenging “what I THOUGHT I knew” was enlightening but practical business experience also taught me I often had to intelligently "guess" on some decisions with less "facts" than I liked.  Newt indeed may have "jumped the shark" on global warming.  Marc Grove and I had a great discussion on "Flip Flops Versus Real Change" but I think it is worth noting even Saint Ronnie proved that his conservative instincts were not perfect.  (Minimal Tax Increases based on Liberal Promises and Simpson/Mazzoli to name two.)  It scares me to think that even REAGAN backed off of closing down the Department of Education.  In fact the ONLY modern politicians I know that were unfailingly conservative was Margaret Thatcher and likely my perception is poorly formed from my ignorance of modern British political history.

We all want conservative purity.  It simply doesn't exist.  Even Palin had to reverse herself on "The Bridge to Nowhere."  But what she DID do correctly, was to admit the mistake, and actively take steps in line with conservative principles without being embarrassed about the PROCESS of redeveloping her position.  She didn’t hide her earlier position.  It seemed she never swayed from that from that point on.  Has Newt?  I believe he's proven that somewhat in his personal life.  The unfair attack on him about Freddie Mac will be put to bed if he can get the non-disclosure lifted by Freddie to prove his claim he foresaw the problems with their model (and you can be sure the White House will leak damaging emails if that proves not to be the case.)  But Newt's accomplishment of bringing in conservatives to take over the House and Senate with CONTRACT WITH AMERICA, reforming Welfare and fighting against Clinton's liberal policies can't be taken away from him either.  When he had a chance to PROVE a basic conservatism that impacted public policy - he didn't just talk the talk.

But your final point (and most brilliant in my opinion) is that NOW is the time for us to make sure WE force Newt to think through and commit to a policy position while we can.  As proof of this we can cite George Bush's detour into a huge drug entitlement program, commitment to Head Start, embrace of amnesty and complete reluctance to scale back ANY program throughout his presidency.   Forty Three frankly didn't need conservatives once he was elected.  Commissar Karl likely served as WormTongue calculating reelection policy rather than "right" thinking.  Had he been pressed FARTHER to the right in the nomination process perhaps we might have not just gotten him to commit to more austerity in spending, it might have helped HIM to understand and learn the necessity of that position.  Frankly, the only candidates who are fairly consistent on every issue from a conservative standpoint are Bachmann and Santorum and they both have other issues relating to the job.  Cain simply has no track record of proving he will make conservative policy except Abortion (strong plus) and TARP (strong minus).

Again we go to Palin for the final word:

Competition makes everyone work harder, be more efficient, debate clearer, and produce more.

All of us who either want to stop pressing EACH of these candidates on the issues for the sake of “peace” or personal preference are really hurting that very candidate.  It’s not just important for General Election preparation, it could be critical to how much of the conservative agenda they will stick to once they start unraveling the mess of past eleven or more years.

...and thanks for the material for my blog!

Daren Jonescu’s article at Canada Free Press.

Read More

Flip Floppers versus True Change

There is a rather excellent post from Marc Grove at The Right Sphere on how and why he "converted" from being a Liberal Democrat to a Conservative.  It is MUST reading.

In it, he makes a point that PEOPLE DO CHANGE.  What was a confession of belief in a previous life certainly doesn't necessarily predetermine what they believe now, or how it will impact a future action.  However, there was one line that I wanted to address:

to those that see a change in positions as a “flip flop” those that feel only you know what a true conservative or a real Republican is. Don’t be so sure you really do, don’t be so sure that people of deep conviction don’t have that  moment when they wake up and realize they were wrong.

Below is a comment I posted on his article, and am reposting here:

Wow.  Great vulnerability and power in your article.  I actually had not realized until I read this that prior to my "born again" experience, those adjectives could have easily described me, although I had no concern for politics.

I must slightly disagree with you on the issue of giving people a "pass" on the flip-flop issue.  People DO change absolutely.  But history is fraught with those who claimed to have "change"  - perhaps they thought they did - but when pressed, crumbled like a 2 alcoholic trying sobriety.

One of the reasons Bush 41 uttered "Read My Lips" was because he had a history of being a "moderate."  Both in speech and action.  He claimed that serving under Reagan had shown him the light.  Many of us believe he lost to Clinton (who didn't even get 50% of the vote) precisely because is waffling opened the door to Buchannan who was sick of people who would not stand for their conservative convictions.

It is easy to SAY anything.  We know people by what they do.  So has Romney suddenly "seen the light" on Global Warming, Abortion and Health Care?  We honestly don't know.  I'm not sure even ROMNEY knows.  He claimed he stood by every word in his book but indeed deleted that he wanted Romneycare for the nation in the 2nd printing.  I'd actually be willing to think that when he told NARAL, GLAAD and the Sierra Club he would be a stealth candidate for their cause he had changed - except he will not even own up to the obvious lie from a month ago.

Newt's philandering is a huge concern for me.  The reports of many high profile evangelicals like Dr. James Dobson and close family friends that talk about how devoted he is to Calista - make me want to believe him.  Frankly, as a pudgy 68 yr old I'm not sure he could GET anyone to sleep with him - but if you are willing to go against your principles in one thing - how do we know he wouldn't in others?

During the Obamacare debate all thought that the "Blue Dog" Dems would not vote for the bill since it was pro-abortion (or room for it).  When I looked up the record of Bart Stupak, yes - he had a very consistent prolife record.  But he had caved on so many other issues he had promised his constituents (taxes, other social issues, etc) that we should have been not all that shocked he sold out the deaths of the unborn for a cheap, non-binding letter and an appointment to his brother in law.

No one is perfect.  All of these candidates who actually HAVE government experience (and Cain on Tarp) have stuff they have to explain.  But we can't automatically give a "pass" to any candidate who claims they are now FOR something they showed real proof of being AGAINST a few years ago.  And much less if they made statements they would use deceit to hide their true values.

End of comment.  Please Read Marc's article here.

Read More

Newt Attackers Are The New Alinksy’s

 

NEWT IS A PERV?  CAIN IS STUPID?

Those liberals never stop right?  Unfortunately it is CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES making these claims.  And I ain’t gonna just *smh*

What the hell is the matter with YOU PEOPLE!?? Why is a RUMOR about YOUR candidate untrue (and the end of the world as we know it), but you won’t even boot up your search engine to double check accusations about your candidates’ competitor which you can’t wait to email, tweet or post?

“PolitiJim, did you not take your meds this morning?”

(Fair warning – this is a RANT.  Do not take this to be FOR or AGAINST any specific candidate.  But this is a beat back against particular Cain supporters who somehow think there is only one side of the argument.)

I received an email from a dear conservative, tea partying patriot that was entitled “NEWT GINGRICH HAS A CHARACTER PROBLEM.”  It recited (many now disputed) accounts of Newts adultery 20 years ago in the ESQUIRE article as fact.  It brought up silly charges about his personal spending habits.  Essentially she, a CAIN supporter, said Gingrich couldn’t run anything, was dishonest, immoral and – as best I could tell – was singlehandedly responsible for the moral decline of civilization and the rise of Lady Gaga.  Not a word however, about HER candidate that hired an inept campaign management team that has falsely charged other candidates without any evidence. TWICE! (In my Bible a False Accusation is still no less of a sin than that of adultery.  And Gingrich has at least repented for his sin.) 

This week I’ve seen a ton of this stuff making me wonder if I was on a spineless liberal Twitter Timeline instead of good, God fearing patriots who agree in Restoring Honor, Courage and Liberty. This is a very, very unfair attack on Gingrich when the Cain “management” house is not just made of glass, but the thin “stage prop” stuff that shatters every time an off key note comes out of his campaign.  I suppose I’m not “godly” if I dare point out her candidate promised he would hire the “best” people to run the country but so far has demonstrated he’s picked the equivalent of a team of Urkels to the UFC Championship of politics called a Presidential campaign.

By the way – I am NOT anti-CAIN.  The success he is making in steadily overcoming the false allegations (and the likelihood they are orchestrated by Obama) make me want to push and press for him harder.  As I wrote in my defense of Cain yesterday – Cain may be the SINGLE MOST DANGEROUS nominee to the long term viability of the Democrat party and the liberal mindset in the US electorate. 

But I’m tired of this “my guy is holier than thou” when his shorts stink as bad or worse as that of the guy whose pants they are trying to pull down! Cain fumbled on numerous OBVIOUS debate questions last night including one suggesting that US products would be cheap enough to compete with China under his 9-9-9 plan.  It is embarrassing that someone running for the President of the United States would not be aware of the currency manipulation by the largest single creditor our country has.  The PRACTICAL impact of that could mean disastrous economic and diplomatic policy decisions, national embarrassment if told in a meeting of the G20.  You can’t tell me that ignorance of a basic geopolitical fact is going to be less harmful than past indiscretions of which ALL around him agree have been nonexistent for two decades.  I believe Cain is a godly man.  And if he is he certainly wouldn’t condone slanderous and ethical attacks from his followers against one of his closest friends and the guy he is willing to serve under if Newt is elected President.

I’m tired of pro- Perry, Palin, Cain supporters completely disallowing any accurate criticism of THEIR candidate but feel perfectly free to personally disparage and demean fellow Christians. 

Where is the intellectual honesty you accuse Obama and Democrats of not having?

The essence of the article is that Gingrich isn’t fit to serve because of:

• His past affairs
• FALSE claims that his consulting is “lobbying” (his agreements SPECIFICALLY prohibit him from doing such)
• FALSELY ACCUSE Newt of losing house seats EVEN AFTER I SENT HER DOCUMENTATION TO THE CONTRARY.
• “Attacking” Paul Ryan’s plan – the congressman who supported TARP and would not “hold the line” as Jim DeMint advocated to stop the automatic cut of a TRILLION dollars on defense that is about to happen.
• Attacks on Newt’s having a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany’s and went on a lavish cruise.  (seriously, this was an argument.)

Seriously? The man isn’t fit to be President because he spends a lot of money on his wife? I guess it would be too much to acknowledge that Gingrich was HUGELY responsible for the last balanced budget our government had. This is INSANE!  At that point – I am not convinced that this person is even a serious Christian much less a conservative.  Otherwise they would be removing the PLANK in their candidates eye before screeching out the spec in Newt’s.  How else you could explain the complete absence of ignoring St. Paul’s admonishment to not speak evil of each other?

IT IS FAIR, I believe, to point out inconsistencies, deficiencies and shortcomings of any candidate.  But there is a huge difference for me to call Mitt Romney an “evil” man versus pointing out he’s held multiple positions on a lot of issues and told NARAL he would be a stealth candidate to “moderate” the GOP on abortion.   This is on tape documented and is a fact.  I don’t need to make “character assassinations” to discuss something that would relate to both his ability to get elected and my faith that he would do what he said.  But I would also not dare make a judgment that he is INTENTIONALLY lying from one minute to the next.  It could be that he sincerely changed his views.  It could be that he sees the issues differently.  But no one, but Mitt and his God know the truth.  I have no right (and I would be factually wrong) to make a declaration that he did these things because he has “character issues.”

Just to set the record straight on Newt’s “transgressions” (thanks to wonkish1):

• Like King David who wrote Psalms, he committed adultery and fervently repented before God,his family AND the public. (He didn’t murder anyone as far as we know.)
• Newt argued to NOT run the 1998 elections on Lewisky and was overruled by party leadership who then LIED and BLAMED the losses on the approach Newt vigorously fought against.
• Newt’s daughter was an eyewitness to the “hospital bed divorce paper” rumor and wrote a column firmly denying this on fact and insinuation.
• Newt has said over and over that “The Couch” was the single most idiotic thing he has ever done politically, but his intent was to try and not leave the issue in liberal hands alone.  It didn’t work, but at least he DID something and NEVER advocated for Cap & Trade. (Newt is actually VERY knowledgeable on Global Warming but is not up to speed on the BEST findings from NASA yet. This decade WAS cooler.)
• Newt immediately “unendorsed” Dede Scozzafava when Dick Armey informed him who she was and endorsed Doug Hoffman.  Yes, he should have been familiar with the race before doing so – but he immediately corrected his mistake.
• Calling Ryan’s plan “social engineering” was stupid.  He had PROFUSELY PRAISED the plan 6 weeks before and was talking about not forcing it down the throat of the people in comparison to his idea of how to implement a staged change in healthcare.  HOWEVER.  Gingrich has been around a long time and he likes to think.  Thinkers constantly come up with ideas so he has a lot of them.  A ton of them.  Many contradictory.  But he was instrumental in defeating Hillarycare on principle and fought fiercely against Obamacare.
• He is a lifelong politician.  Unfortunately while doing so, he made a liberal President move toward conservatism as the Speaker of the House and implemented Welfare Reform and a Balanced Budget.  Give me MORE of those “politicians” will you?

That was my best defense of Gingrich on his worst issues.  For the best attack (and by best I mean factual and non-emotional)  It’s not too hard.

• As just mentioned – he’s had a LOT of ideas on a lot of things.  Although the “gold standard” of conservative think tanks – The Heritage Foundation actually was the foundation for his thinking, he did support an individual mandate.
• In an attempt to “influence,” he has befriended and praised Hillary Clinton and even Al Sharpton.  I call it the “Jack Kemp” approach.  Both either didn’t see or didn’t want to see the radical underbelly of these types of “outreaches.”
• He loves being an academic.  Of itself that’s not bad, but there is a tendency to over-rely on theory instead of practical.  It leads him to make errors of what is the best designed government rather than having a Milton Friedman-like core that is willing to do away established bureaucracy.
• He is short on emotion, at least in the “sound bite” area.  Emotion moves people to action.  Newt can do it in a 45 minute lecture, but he doesn’t have the emotional appeal to get non-policy wonks excited about complex solutions like Reagan, or even Clinton could.

Holy crap that took a long time.  So here was my response to this person:

I see it all over twitter and and just delete this email if you don't want to hear my two cents.

CAIN has said Newt would be his VP if elected.  To slam Newt is to slam Cain's judgment in picking a possible successor.  If he is that bad as a possible president - then he should not be Vice President.  and if he is that bad, it casts a horrible stain on Cain's ability to pick a team.

Newt has been the single most honest broker and leader during the entire campaign.  When Cain jumped and smeared Perry on the "N-word Rock", when Perry smeared Mitt with an dishonest attack on his gardening service, when Pawlenty tried to assassinate Bachmann and EVERYONE wanted to demean Palin - Gingrich was the only person who refused to get into gutter politics.

And Newt singlehandedly kept Cain alive when Cain couldn't get above 5% by complimenting him, drawing him into focus during earlier debates by complementing him - and this week FIERCELY defending him on network news stations when the rest of the cowards stayed silent.

You have a right to your opinion of course - but I'm frankly ashamed by those who forgot Reagan's 11th Commandment.  It is an Alinksky tactic DIRECTLY out of rules 5, 11 and 13 - to demean and marginalize your opponent.

Despite all Newt's problems of the past, he has repented privately and publicly and acknowledges Jesus as His Savior.  God has already forgiven him and has removed it "as far as the east is from the west."

It is a sorry shame that people who claim to be people of God INTENTIONALLY go out of their way to continue to trash a very good man who has demonstrated what Cain, Perry, Bachmann and Santorum could not.  Actually showing what leadership should look like.

there now.  I've said my piece.  (and of course this will likely turn into a blog)...lol

Love you anyway.

Jim

POLITIJIM DISCUSSION RULE #999 If what you are about to say about another candidate is more in line with what would come from a book dedicated to “Lucifer” than a book dedicated to the Lamb, think of another way to say it based on FACTS rather than False Accusations.

I will do a pro/con Cain piece this week.  I am SIMILARLY tired of people telling me Cain is stupid although an economist from the Cato Institute says he is one of the smartest people he has worked with. As does NEWT GINGRICH by the way.

But the hypocrisy of Cain supporters who want me to just take a leap of faith to elect a person with ZERO government experience, close to zero foreign policy understanding (in a world that is about to explode)and someone who doesn’t even apologize for successive false accusations because he is “godly,” is appalling. 

Similarly how can I be thought wrong to elect a person who balanced the countries budget, actually has CREATED national movements that resulted in historical electoral and legislative accomplishments, has written books and produced movies setting the case for the Nation to return to God?

Do you want someone with NO policy and government experience but great executive experience, or do you want someone with amazing government and policy experience and limited executive experience?

Character DOES matter.  If you decide to throw Newt overboard you might want to rethink your acceptance of the Bible.  Godly men and women can fail and be redeemed.  NO. YOU do not have to take that leap of faith that they have learned their lessons.  But please don’t disparage the intelligence and discernment of those that might be compelled to do so.  For if you do you are condemning God himself, who forgave and entrusted these men AFTER they did much worse than what you accuse Newt Gingrich of doing:

King David	Murder & Adultery
Moses	Murder and Disobedience of a direct command from God
Abraham	Selling his own wife
Peter	Denying Christ – perhaps the worst sin of all.
Saul/Paul	Killing & Torturing Christians

What does all that mean? We should try and walk “in love” with one another much as possible.  And forgive each other our sins.

Hopefully you will do so to me, after this pointed message.

---

UPDATE:  Here is an example of the completely insane attacks that use no fact, just to try and marginalize someone.  What this idiot person doesn’t realize is that they actually make their attacks WEAKER since all you have to prove is that ONE rumor is false.  Once they are incorrect on one tenant of their argument – the entire thing comes into doubt:

Read More