The great news is that all 12 swing states that were polled were won by Obama in 2008.

And now the New York Times joins the fray, getting interviews with folks “with direct knowledge” of that fateful night at the restaurant with Herman Cain. They fill in some more of the details:

One of the women who accused the Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment while working for him at the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s complained that the workplace turned hostile after she alleged that he made advances toward her during a work-related outing, several people familiar with her account at the time said in interviews.

The advances were said to have taken place during a festive night in which Mr. Cain and several younger staff members drank until late in the evening, and his flirty banter with the woman crossed over into propositions that she leave with him, these people said, speaking in separate interviews and on the condition of anonymity.

One person with direct knowledge of her account at the time said that the woman — roughly two decades Mr. Cain’s junior and serving in a lower-level job — rebuffed him but that he continued to make advances. “She was uncomfortable, and it was inappropriate from the start,” this person said. “He was persistent.”

Three people familiar with the details of the woman’s account said that she complained to higher-ups at the restaurant association. She then came to feel that there was a “change of attitude,” from her bosses toward her, they said, adding to her discomfort and leading her to finally decide it would be best to leave.

It was then that the deal to pay her a severance of $35,000 — roughly a year’s salary — was struck between her lawyer and the association’s general counsel, they said.

Emphasis mine.

Here’s the deal: I’m all for denouncing the liberal media in America. We all know they are biased and do a great disservice to the conservative movement. However… it appears to me that Herman Cain’s entire strategy right now to deal with this scandal is to simply blame the media and call it good. That’s what Rush Limbaugh is doing, it’s what Ann Coulter is doing, it’s what numerous other conservatives are doing.

For me, though, and I suspect for many independents out there, this is what the whole thing comes down to: did Herman Cain engage in “flirty banter” with women who were not his wife — and did he invite them to either his hotel room or his apartment? Did another woman stay the night in his apartment?

If the answers to any of those questions are “yes”, then it doesn’t matter who is reporting it.

For what it’s worth, Herman Cain continues to make this much more difficult on himself as well. For instance, I have a feeling this exchange in an interview with Sean Hannity is going to come back to bite him:

Hannity: Did you tell a woman she looked good? That that dress looks hot?
Cain: Nope.
Hannity: Anything?
Cain: Nope.
Hannity: Any flirtation that you can think of?
Cain: Nope, nope.

Nothing? Not a single one? Come on, Mr. Cain. I have a difficult time believing that three different women and approximately a dozen different witnesses now are all making this whole thing up out of thin air. Especially since documentation exists detailing their accusations. Employees don’t get $45,000 severance packages/settlements/agreements just because they were compared to the height of a man’s wife.

“I like to think that every time in the debates that Rick Santorum boasts about his rock-ribbed willingness to make the tough choices and indisputable conservative bona fides, Sen. Patrick Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, shoots a mildly icy glare at the television. He probably doesn’t, as he’s one of the nicest guys in politics.” Jim Gheraty, National Review.

OK, so I’m a little bit bitter. I like Rick Santorum, and always have. I think a lot of the slurs against him perpetrated by the left range from unfair to disgusting. But something about his current more-conservative-than-thou schtick has got my back up. Maybe it’s because, in 2004, I was an organizer for Students for Toomey, while Santorum was telling Pennsylvania voters that “Arlen [Specter] is with us on the votes that matter.” But I think it’s a bit rich for one of the guys who pretty much ensured Arlen Specter’s primary victory in the closely-fought 2004 primary race to be talking about other people’s conservative apostasies. Let’s recap: Pat Toomey was exactly the sort of rock-ribbed conservative Santorum was in the senate; pro-life, a fiscal hawk and a seriously thoughtful policy wonk. He had a history of winning in what started as a pretty strongly Democratic district; this was by no means an O’Donnell candidacy, and his general election opponent would have been an ultra-liberal Philadelphia congressman of the quite probably beatable variety.  Arlen Specter was…pretty much still Arlen Specter. I’m not one for casually throwing around the term RINO, but that’s partially because, having had Arlen Specter as my senator, I know what the term meant before it was robbed of all meaning. But Rick Santorum made the political calculation that it was better to have the fifty-percent-with-us-on-a-good-day Specter, who would trash liberal Joe Hoeffel in the general, than Pat Toomey, a rock-ribbed conservative who might have had a more difficult time in November. Did Santorum’s endorsement matter? Well, Specter beat Toomey by 1 percent of the primary vote, and Rick had iron-clad popularity with the Republican base, so I’ll let you be the judge. I don’t begrudge Santorum this calculus, though I still think he was wrong. He certainly wasn’t alone in making it (I’m looking at you Karl Rove and the entire GOP establishment circa 2004), and Arlen certainly betrayed a lot of people, deeply and personally, when he switched parties. But for Santorum to act now like he’s the only “real” conservative in a room full of compromisers and flip-floppers is just the slightest bit disingenuous, no? Every candidate who runs for President has, at some point in their political life, said or done something that will displease the party faithful. As my one-time favorite Tim Pawlenty put it, we’ve all got some “clunkers”. Maybe you think Mitt Romney’s comments on abortion in 1994 or 2002 trump Santorum’s tireless and effective efforts to reelect hard-core pro-choicer Arlen Specter in 2004, or Cain’s recent muddiness on the issue. But there’s no such thing as a perfect conservative in this or any race, if you measure “conservatism” along strictly ideological grounds. I was certainly willing to let by-gones be by-gones with Rick in 2006, when I volunteered for his unsuccessful re-election campaign. But none of these guys or gals ought to be pretending to be a “perfect conservative”, because in no case is it actually true. It’s up to primary voters to determine who the most electable conservative in the race is. But if any of them claim to have a perfectly unblemished record, don’t buy it.

The New York Times reports:

Herman Cain’s wife, Gloria, will not be appearing on the Fox News Channel on Friday night after all, a person close to the talks told the Caucus.

Ms. Cain had indicated to the network earlier in the week that she would appear on “On the Record With Greta Van Susteren” on Friday night, but apparently had a change of heart. The person familiar with the talks, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations, said that Ms. Cain did not entirely close the door on appearing on the network some time in the future.

This is a human move by Cain and shows the difference between Cain and the conventional candidate who drags the wife and family out for dog and pony shows for the Press to fight back the allegations. Yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Cain revealed  that the whole story is putting a strain on her because she’s hurt by these allegations being made against her husband.

So profiles like this one by CNN will remain all we know of Mrs. Cain for now.

The Washington Post yesterday ran a piece on Mitt Romney in Massachusetts and his efforts to re-assure liberals:

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.

Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.

He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.

Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term.

Within five years, Romney would be campaigning as an uber-prolifer and advocate of a Federal Marriage Amendment. In defense of Romney, this story was released in 2007, but due to the ADD nature of Americans, it’s not a revelations most people will remember.

It definitely calls into question, how much, if any, of Romney’s campaign rhetoric can be counted on. The fortunate thing for him is that everyone is that with the Cain story going on, the story by the Washington Post has gone virtually unnoticed.

Washington Post/ABC News 2012 Poll

• Mitt Romney-24%
• Herman Cain-23%
• Rick Perry-13%
• Newt Gingrich-12%
• Ron Paul-8%
• Michele Bachmann-4%
• Rick Santorum-1%
• Jon Huntsman 1%

Survey of 438 Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents Marging of error-+/- 5.5%

I guess this has become my nightly thing. As during the day, we get every allegation cited as the final conclusion of the Herman Cain campaign, but somehow remarkably, polls and money keep saying otherwise.

This, I guess is the other side of the story.

We’ve seen more allegations, yet little that’s above the level of he said, she said gossip. Over at HotAir, Allahpundit is even beginning to tire of the story:

Can alleged scandal about a presidential frontrunner be boring? It can if we’re in Day Five and still only getting secondhand breadcrumbs like this….What did he actually say? How does this story crawl on past the weekend with details this vague?

Some are taking advantage of the situation. Americans for Cain is running an ad on the situation that is extremely well done. Other than the somewhat overdone action movie style commercials for Pawlenty and Perry earlier in the campaign, Americans for Cain may be putting out some of the best ads of the season:

At the same time, we have the allegations by Iowa radio host Steve Deace has been non-specific but has jumped on the attack alleging Cain is compromised:

“His comments were awkward and inappropriate. And I will just leave it at that,” Deace said. “To add any more specifics really puts the burden on our staff and not really where the burden of proof of the American people belongs and that should be on the president of the United States.”

Because actually explaining what Herman Cain is accused of would put the burden of proof on the person making the allegation. Not actually stating what you’re alleging allows the public to just imagine what might have been said. The Des Moines Register highlights an example of what Deace has called “awkward“:

During his Oct. 3 broadcast in Iowa, Deace mentioned that Cain made a comment to a woman who was there to report on the radio interview for another news agency.

“Cain said, ‘Darling, do you mind doctoring my tea for me?’” Deace said.

Deace told the Register last month that he believes Cain was talking about adding honey and lemon, but that it was an awkward moment.

Now, maybe this wasn’t the specific awkward and inappropriate statements to which Deace was referring, but this suggests that Deace’s definition of “awkward” is darn elastic, particularly when: 1) the meaning of the statement is clear and 2) the person speaking is an elderly Southern gentleman. Has Deace ever been further South than Burlington?

As long as Deace would rather deal in innuendo rather than fact, its reasonable to assume based on his defintion of awkward, that nothing he’s concerned about is any worse than “doctor my tea.”

At the same time, Cain got some back up from the former Chairman of the board of the NRA has sprung to Cain’s defense:

The accusations? It’s a hatchet job, in my opinion,” Fassler told TheDC from his Phoenix, Ariz. office. “My gut tells me it’s a hatchet job. He gets a lead, he gets some traction, and the next thing you know, here come these allegations. It’s sad.”

Fassler said his four years in leadership positions on the association’s board — including one year as chairman and another as past chairman — overlapped with two and one-half years of Cain’s time as CEO. Fassler was first elected to the board in 1984, and was chairman in 1997…

He told TheDC that he “never heard anything about Herman that would suggest he had those sort of allegations lodged against him. He was a professional. Thoroughly professional.”

Again, another on the record source is giving Cain props and doubting the veracity of the story, and suggests that Cain is telling the truth in suggesting that the situation “wasn’t a big deal.” This is what the finding of the Counsel in this case would suggest along with the lack of  board members knowing what’s going on.

Perhaps a bigger defense was Rush Limbaugh’s full throttled defense of Herman’s Cain handling of the situation.

To do this right, you need the guts and the foresight to set up a “bimbo eruption” plan and turn it over to unscrupulous people to execute the immoral, unethical, and probably illegal instructions. The right way to handle this therefore is you go out and you have a bimbo eruptions babe who deals with all the women who come forward, and then you hire a mad dog assistant who will go out and destroy all the women. Such comments as (James Carville impression), “That’s what happens when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park!” Apparently that’s the right way to do this? I guess Herman Cain doesn’t have the right way to do this in him.

He hasn’t handled a largely irrelevant media ambush very well. He isn’t a sufficiently good enough liar to be president, I guess. So we’ve all seen enough. He doesn’t know how to lie. He doesn’t know how to go out and attack his accusers. He doesn’t know how to have a Bimbo Eruptions Department. He doesn’t know how to destroy everybody involved in the investigation. He’s a rank amateur and he doesn’t know how to deal with this…

A man of presidential timbre would have immediately forced his family into the public spotlight with signed affidavits and corrected the smear. So I guess what this country needs is a John Edwards. That’s the right way to handle it, I guess. I guess what we need for president is a Ted Kennedy type. I guess that’s the right way to handle these kind of things. Maybe a reincarnation of Bill Clinton. What I’m hearing from everybody, they’re the ones who do this the right way. They’re the ones who handle media attacks the right way: Edwards, Clinton, Ted Kennedy. You know, if it wasn’t for that stupid Constitution with its restrictions on how many terms a person can serve as president, we could use Clinton again.

Rush’s quote is illustrative of what ultimately has allowed Cain to lead, even in polls taken after the story broke. Cain’s approach is human, not the near-sociopathic spin operation that operate out of Washington, DC. Fred Thompson observed in a piece on Naitonal Review:

Yet people today are watching the Cain story unfold, looking at the timing of it, and writing checks to the Cain campaign. Who knows what may come out before it’s over, but it better be some pretty powerful stuff if it’s going to fit the mood of the American people these days. People expect presidential politics to be rough and tumble, but times are different, and so are the circumstances of this campaign. Republicans are looking for someone to believe in. They won’t all vote for Herman Cain, but right now, he symbolizes something they want to protect. Try to take him down at your own peril. 

Thompson is exactly right. In someone ways, this incident may have the effect of firming up his support and attacking Cain may be as risky as going too hard on Palin, particularly right after the presidential campaign. Cain is no longer just people’s favorite presidential candidate, but an every man conservative who is one of them. Average people can relate to the experience of crushing political correctness, false workplace allegations, and anger at typical Washington smear tactics. So, as this absurd chapter draws one day closer to ending, Cain still looks as strong as he did coming in with perhaps even firmer support.

Cain’s fundraising continues to signal strong support. The campaign began a $999,000 money bomb for the next seven days. Today, they raised $271,000 and are on pace to achieve their goal in less than four days.

From Politico, information from “more than six sources”:

The woman in question, roughly 30 years old at the time and working in the National Restaurant Association’s government affairs division, told two people directly at the time that Cain made a sexual overture to her at one of the group’s events, according to the sources familiar with the incident. She was livid and lodged a verbal complaint with an NRA board member that same night, these sources said.

The woman told one of the sources Cain made a suggestion that she felt was overtly sexual in nature and that “she perceived that her job was at risk if she didn’t do it.”

…

She described it as an “unwanted sexual advance” to the other source. The woman took the matter immediately and directly to the board member because “she wanted this fixed,” the source said.

POLITICO has learned the accusation was also later brought to the attention of another board member as well as the restaurant association’s general counsel Peter Kilgore, both of whom are said to have looked into the matter. The woman, who now works in New Jersey, left the NRA in May 1998, shortly after the incident — under an agreement that paid her one-year’s salary, in the mid-$30,000s, sources said. The amount of the settlement was first reported by the New York Times.

…

The sources say the woman told them Cain invited her to his hotel room at the event, and that both the context and the way Cain phrased the invitation made her feel extremely uncomfortable, even incensed.

…

Cain told van Susteren he never had an inappropriate conversation with any female workers in his hotel room, but he also said of the woman, “I don’t recall having a private conversation with her. But all of the conversations that I had, it could have been. But I don’t recollect.”

You know, Monday morning when Herman Cain came out and said “Yes, I did get accused of sexual harassment, but they were false allegations,” I wrote that I figured this story had no legs beyond that. It was probably the best answer, politically speaking, Cain could have given at the time. As long as it was a he-said / she-couldn’t-say situation, Cain was going to be all right. But then, more details started leaking out.

And then the witnesses started coming forward. First, the NRA pollster went on record, publicly, with his name and reputation at stake, and revealed that he had seen one of the alleged incidents. Then, Steve Deace – a well respected conservative radio host from Iowa – went on the record publicly and said that Cain had acted inappropriately toward some of his female employees just in the past several months. (Just what, exactly, that “inappropriate” behavior was is somewhat of a mystery, however… the only example Deace has given so far is that Cain called a woman “darling” when he asked her to fix his tea for him. There are other incidents that Deace said he did not want to reveal.)

And now, we have half a dozen more people coming forward to fill in details that Herman Cain “forgot”. Like how he asked a woman, who was not his wife, to come up to his hotel room in a suggestive manner (as if there is any other way to invite a woman up to your hotel room).

Here’s the situation, with all the new information we have today. We know there were at least two women who filed complaints against Cain at the NRA, and a third who contemplated filing them.

Woman #1 was allegedly asked by Herman Cain to come up to her hotel room. She got a $35,000 payout/settlement/severance package after lodging her complaints. Herman Cain claims to remember nothing about this woman, the incidents, or her complaints.

Woman #2 was the same height as Cain’s wife. (Heh.) Based on her accusations (which involved a lot more than just a height comparison), she received a $45,000 package and left the NRA. This woman now wants to make a public statement to counter Cain’s claim of innocence, and her lawyer has requested her non-disclosure agreement be lifted so she can. The NRA is supposed to decide tomorrow (Friday) whether or not to let her make her statement.

And woman #3 allegedly, according to two other witnesses, was taken by Herman Cain from another NRA event at a restaurant back to Cain’s apartment where she spent the night with him.

This is going from bad to worse for Cain. If Cain wants to survive this at all, he will stop forgetting all the details and just come clean with everything. Otherwise, this slow drip of leaked information will continue until it comes out anyway.

NY1/YNN-Marist New York 2012 Presidential Poll

• Barack Obama 59%
• Mitt Romney 35%

• Barack Obama 62%
• Herman Cain 31%

• Barack Obama 64%
• Rick Perry 29%

Would you rate the job President Barack Obama is doing in office as excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 14%
• Good 30%
• Fair 27%
• Poor 29%

Survey of 855 registered voters was conducted October 25-27, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% Democrat; 25% Republican; 29% Independent; 1% Other. Political ideology: 46% Moderate; 28% Conservative; 26% Liberal.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 42% (42%) {43%} [43%] (42%) {44%} [40%] (43%) {46%} [42%] {45%} [42%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 41% (44%) {42%} [41%] (44%) {41%} [43%] (39%) {38%} [43%] {40%} [44%] (44%)

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted November 1-2, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted October 24-25, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted October 16-17, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted October 8-9, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 28-29, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted September 18-19, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted September 10-11, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 25-26, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the polls conducted August 17-22, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the polls conducted between July 14-15, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 6-9, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 3-4, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 24, 2009 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

Romney pledges to decrease government spending to 20% of GDP or lower:

“How I’ll Tackle Spending, Debt”

By Mitt Romney

I spent much of my 25-year career in the private sector turning around failing enterprises. With a great team behind me, I helped to turn around the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, and fix a badly broken state budget in Massachusetts. But I have never seen an enterprise as large, as poorly led, and as badly in need of a turnaround as our federal government.

President Obama inherited a severely imbalanced budget, and he made it much worse. Many now question whether we can ever return to fiscal sanity, let alone fiscal strength. A point of no return may well be approaching — a decade of huge deficits could drive our principal payments and interest rates beyond our reach while starving the economy of the capital it needs to grow.

We can still correct course because our economy retains tremendous capacity for growth. As president, I will bring to Washington the turnaround philosophy it so badly needs.

Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. By the end of my first term, I will bring federal spending as a share of GDP down from last year’s staggering 24.3% to 20% or below. This level is in line with the historical average and nears the tax revenue our economy generates when healthy. With economic growth of 4% a year, meeting this goal will require approximately $500 billion of spending cuts in 2016, and that would still allow us to undo the Obama administration’s irresponsible defense cuts.

There are three ways to reduce spending, which combined, will achieve a fiscal turnaround of this size.

First, eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: “Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?” The federal government should stop doing things we don’t need or can’t afford.

For example:

• Repeal ObamaCare, which would save $95 billion in 2016.
• Eliminate subsidies for the unprofitable Amtrak, saving $1.6 billion a year
• Enact deep reductions in the subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation.
• Eliminate Title X family planning programs benefiting abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
• End foreign aid to countries that oppose America’s interests.

Second, return federal programs to the states where innovation, cost management and reduction of fraud and abuse can far exceed what Washington achieves. I will block grant Medicaid and workforce training, saving well over $100 billion in 2016.

Third, sharply improve the productivity and efficiency of the federal government itself. Where we do want the federal government to act, it must do a better job. For instance:

• Reduce the federal workforce through attrition and align compensation with the private sector, saving over $40 billion by 2016.
• Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, a union giveaway that artificially raises costs for government projects, and save taxpayers more than $10 billion a year in the process.
• Attack rampant fraud in government programs by enacting far stiffer penalties for those who steal from taxpayers. Cutting improper payments in half could save more than $60 billion a year.
• Consolidate, eliminate and streamline federal departments, agencies and offices following a stem-to-stern review.

These three approaches, applied systematically throughout government, will produce a fiscal turnaround. But that achievement will be short-lived if we do not also ensure that both Medicare and Social Security are made sustainable for future generations. Reforms should not affect current seniors or those near retirement, and tax hikes should be off the table. However, the retirement age for younger workers should be increased slowly to keep up with increases in longevity. And Social Security benefits for higher income recipients should grow at a slower rate than for those with lower incomes.

Tomorrow’s Medicare should give beneficiaries a generous defined contribution and allow them to choose between private plans and traditional Medicare. And lower-income future retirees should receive the most assistance. I believe that competition will improve Medicare and the coverage that seniors receive.

What I propose will not be easy. Washington is full of sacred cows that supposedly can’t be slaughtered and electrified third rails that allegedly can’t be touched. But if we do not act now, the irresistible mathematics of debt will soon lead to unimaginable peril. With the downgrade of America’s credit rating, we’ve gotten a taste of that bitter reality as we see the full potential of fiscal disaster playing out across Europe. We must turn around while we can.

Many liberals and conservatives have been complaining about the quality of choices they have for elected office these days, but I suspect their complaints are often misplaced.

As the current hubbub over Herman Cain illustrates one more time and exquisitely, the greater crisis in American public life at the present time is an acute failure of the media to live up to the standards under which a free press can not only thrive, but contribute positively to our American way of life as the principle of a free press was intended to do.

In the case of Mr. Cain, which still is flaming in the print and broadcast media, we have a manufactured “scandal” that, even to this moment, has no substance, no specifics nor details of any wrongdoing, nor any names or testimony of any accusers. One or two political consultants, with obvious axes to grind, have come forward to say they were present at alleged instants of “harassment,” but even though they are not bound by any settlement agreements, they can’t tell us what the details are. The main criticism of Mr. Cain, especially from the conservative side, is that he has not responded “effectively” or “like a president” to the charges leveled against him.

Assuming for the moment that the American legal principle is valid, that is, one is innocent until proven guilty, let me ask: How is a candidate for office to act if presumably false charges are made against him in the hellish cauldron of our national media? Experienced politicians such as the late Ted Kennedy, former President Bill Clinton, and others from both parties apparently knew how to do this, even though they were accused, and guilty, of far worse offenses. Yes, Mr. Cain has seemed to make contradictory comments as the “scandal” revelations unfolded, and continue to unfold, but an explanation for this could equally be that he was trying honestly to recall the alleged incidents as it could be that he was trying to cover something up.

Sexual harassment of women, and men, is wrong. It is also illegal. But there are proper venues to deal with this matter. The media has every right to report this, but the only acceptable standard for reporting this is to publish facts, names and specific allegations. A responsible newspaper, magazine, radio or television station does not report rumor, gossip or any unsubstantiated news. Isn’t is curious that, here we are, after more than a week of reportage of this “scandal,” and we still have no details, no specific charges, no names of victims, no credible first-hand accounts of any wrongdoing by Mr. Cain.

Perhaps Mr. Cain is indeed guilty as charged. Then he will receive the opprobrium and consequences merited by the offenses. And the media will rightly report those consequences. The time to report this will be when names can be named, charges can be detailed, and facts can be substantiated. This is not a game of canasta or mah-jongg. This is a campaign for president of the United States. Yes, we have a right to know as much as we can about the candidates, but we also have the right to have accurate and unbiased information.

John F. Kennedy had a fatal disease the entire time he was president of the United States; he was also a serial adulterer; and by today’s standards, a gross harasser of women. Much of this was known while he was alive, but not a word of it was reported the major TV networks, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Then and today, he is regarded as an iconic hero by these media outlets.

There is a reason why the media today is regarded so poorly by the public. You simply can’t believe what you read or hear any more in the Old Media (and in other media, too).

There are opinion journalists, of which I am one, and there are news reporters. It is understood that opinion journalists are only expressing an opinion. Many news reporters today think they, too, are opinion journalists, and that they need to slant or adjust the facts to fit their own bias. The worst offenders of this are not some unknown small town reporters, most of whom I think still do their job honestly and well. The worst offenders are some of the biggest names in journalism who work for the biggest media outlets, and are encouraged to distort the news. Thus, it is not only the reporters who are at fault. The editors, producers, and media owners share responsibility for this sad state of media affairs.

Historically, both conservative and liberal media have been guilty of egregious bias. Today perhaps, much more of it takes place on the liberal side in the Old Media, but no one should pretend that conservatives are free from bias. And there are reporters, both liberal and conservative, who yet maintain high standards. Alas, there are fewer and fewer of them.

Today, the careful reader and consumer of media must take every news report, every opinion poll, every account, with many grains of salt. That includes not only news reports, but editorial and news opinion as well. That includes me, and every one of us in the news business. Media abuses today are a sorry state of media affairs, but it’s, at least for the time being, a reality.

If these were affluent, peaceful, and secure times, perhaps it would not matter as much, it would not be so serious. But these are very dangerous, unsettled and unpredictable times, and every citizen, and every voter, needs accurate and reliable information to form their own opinions and make their own judgments. A lot is at stake in the months ahead.

___________________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.

Rasmussen 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Poll

• Herman Cain 26%
• Mitt Romney 23%
• Newt Gingrich 14%
• Rick Perry 8%
• Ron Paul 7%
• Michele Bachmann 2%
• Jon Huntsman 2%
• Rick Santorum 1%

The survey of 1,000 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on November 2, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

Two sources corroborated a story for PJ Media regarding Herman Cain and what may have been the third woman who recently came forward. This one’s a doosie if proven true, as in this case – Cain used his position to bed the woman. Here’s an excerpt:

Adding to the ongoing Herman Cain sexual harassment controversy, two sources have now confirmed to PJ Media that a female employee of the National Restaurant Association told associates she had been brought by Mr. Cain to his Crystal City, Virginia residence where she alleged “he had taken advantage of me.”

One source, a male, told PJ Media:

Herman took advantage of seniority and power with a young woman. It was an abuse of power.

Implying that coming forward with the accusations was an ordeal for the young woman, the source also said:

Who do you believe, a CEO or a mid-level staffer? It was unsettling for her to make charges.

The name of the woman — who was in her early twenties at the time of the alleged incident — has been confirmed by PJ Media. We have chosen not to reveal her identity for reasons of discretion.

Both sources, one male and one female, worked at the time — mid-1990s — for the governmental affairs department of the National Restaurant Association, as did the woman.

According to both sources, Mr. Cain and the woman had been with a large group for a long evening of food and drink at the Ciao Baby Cucina, a restaurant near NRA headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. This was a normal routine, as the trade association worked with the food and beverage industry. Afterwards, Mr. Cain allegedly took the woman by taxi to his apartment, where she spent the night and woke up in his bed.

The female source told PJ Media that she witnessed the woman entering a taxi with Herman Cain.

Neither source has direct knowledge of what occurred at Mr. Cain’s residence, but several days after the alleged incident, the male source witnessed the woman returning to her workplace “distraught.” “She was very upset.”

One source told PJ Media: “Some people didn’t believe [the accuser]” at the time she made the allegation. The female source recalls the woman continued working at the NRA for several weeks after the encounter; the male source recalls the woman continued working there for a few months.

Again, much like the other stories – we just don’t know what’s true and what’s not. That said, these new stories trickling out each add onto the Cain campaign.

EDIT: PJ Media has already “modified” their story. Now instead of the woman spending the night in his bed, she reportedly spent the night at his apartment. Here’s the current text from PJ Media:

Both sources, one male and one female, worked at the time — mid-1990s — for the governmental affairs department of the National Restaurant Association, as did the woman.

 

According to the female source, Mr. Cain and the woman had been with a large group for a long evening of food and drink at the Ciao Baby Cucina, a restaurant near NRA headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. This was a normal routine, as the trade association worked with the food and beverage industry. Afterwards, Mr. Cain allegedly took the woman by taxi to his apartment, where she spent the night and woke up.

The female source told PJ Media that she witnessed the woman and Herman Cain break away from the large group as part of a smaller group.

Neither source has direct knowledge of what occurred at Mr. Cain’s residence, but several days after the alleged incident, the female source witnessed the woman returning to her workplace “distraught.” “She was very upset.”

_______________________________________________________

-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant / Pundit League and Tweets far too often.

Franklin & Marshall Pennsylvania 2012 Presidential Survey

• Barack Obama 35% (36%)
• Mitt Romney 26% (30%)
• Other 10% (8%)
• Don’t know 30% (27%)

• Barack Obama 38% (39%)
• Rick Santorum 25% (31%)
• Other 11% (10%)
• Do not know 26% (20%)

• Barack Obama 38%
• Herman Cain 24%
• Other 10%
• Don’t know 29%

• Barack Obama 40% (38%)
• Rick Perry 20% (27%)
• Other 11% (10%)
• Don’t know 29% (26%)

Do you believe that Barack Obama has done a good enough job as President to deserve re-election, or do you believe it is time for a change?

• Deserves re-election 42% (41%)
• Time for a change 52% (52%)

How would you rate the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Excellent 9% (9%)
• Good 28% (25%)
• Fair 31% (33%)
• Poor 32% (33%)

Survey of 419 registered voters was conducted October 24-30, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 49% (54%) Democrat; 38% (35%) Republican; 9% (11%) Independent/Other. Political ideology: 39% (32%) Moderate; 33% (37%) Conservative; 20% (24%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted August 22-29, 2011 are in parentheses.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

The following is an op-ed from our longtime contributor Matt “MWS”-MBL

_________________________________________________________________

Will Democracy Survive the End of the Welfare State?

This is an odd question, I suppose, to pose on a website dedicated to elections. But observing the gathering storm in Greece and the rest of Europe, taking note of our own government’s myriad dysfunctions, and reflecting on Tocqueville’s dark prophesy concerning the end of Republics, has me considering this question more and more.

As a historian, I know there is nothing inherently permanent or inevitable about our system of government. For about 9,900 of the last 10,000 years, almost the entirety of this planet’s governments have been undemocratic. In the history of civilizations, the frequency and duration of democracies have been like a comet shooting across the sky. And while all of the world’s most advanced nations now have some kind of representative government, the fissures in the system are becoming wider, and more numerous.

In the cradle of democracy, Greece’s government is on the verge of collapse, as the Socialist Prime Minister has jeopardized a recent bailout agreement with the rest of Europe by demanding the people vote on whether their bankruptcy will be orderly or chaotic. The situation became serious enough that the Prime Minster felt compelled to sack four of the nation’s leading generals, apparently fearing a coup. Interest rates on Italy’s sovereign debt continue to rise towards levels where other countries sought a bailout- except Italy is too big to bailout. No one knows what happens if they go bankrupt. In all of Europe’s large democracies, voters and/or parliaments are ready to dissolve governments because of bailouts they negotiated, or their inability to resolve deficits, or voters’ unwillingness to accept the pruning of a welfare state that is simply unsustainable.

Here in the United States, almost 20% of the country is currently receiving food stamps. Nearly half pay nothing in income taxes. Through the Earned Income Tax credit, many millions actually get cash from the government, in addition to paying no income tax. Our annual deficit hovers around 10% of GDP, and our accumulated debt approaches 100% of GDP. This is before our entitlements- long cherished by the middle class- become insolvent. Our fiscal situation is not dissimilar to that of Greece. Were it not for the goodwill and trust we’ve accumulated over the years- and the fact that our default is simply unthinkable- creditors would be treating us more like Greece. But we can’t dine out on our looks forever.

Our government is virtually paralyzed in the face of these mounting problems. The next election cycle begins now within months of the last election. With 24 hour news, the internet, and talk radio, elected officials have virtually no time to act like statesmen. As the parties have become more ideologically stratified (following the virtual extinction of Blue Dogs and “RINOs”) there is less and less common ground from which to negotiate. Congress has become so incapable of compromise, it has begun experimenting with a series of forced votes and automatic triggers to try to work around its own intractable partisanship.

And all this before anyone has really explained to the Sacred Middle Class that the era of giving Medicare a blank check- where recipients get 7x in benefits what they paid in taxes- is soon coming to an end.

Quite honestly, I don’t know that our culture- shorn of its sense of mutual sacrifice and premised on personal gratification- will be able to handle the difficult decisions our lawmakers fear even to explain to us. Can the same culture that kills 1/3 of its children in utero, demands the government take care of its parents, and divorces at such alarming rates, accept such austerity?

While I don’t see our democracy- still quite vibrant by historical standards- ending anytime soon, I can certainly envision a scenario where Congress votes to empower unelected Super Committees to make the tough decisions it cannot. Such a committee might be empowered to implement budgets and reconstruct entitlements without any further action needed from Congress. It’s hard to say how voters might react to such a scenario, but if it comes to pass, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We were the ones who demanded to be under-taxed. We were the ones who demanded to be over-indulged. We were the ones who insisted our leaders lie to us. We were the ones who refused compromise, and insisted on believing a fantasy where all the sacrifices are borne by Someone Else.

How this all ends, I haven’t a clue, but I’m increasing pessimistic that it will have a happy ending.

First, Nate Silver posted this chart tracking, over time, an incumbent President’s job approval rating compared to his chance at winning re-election:

Then, Scott Elliott – aka The Blogging Caesar – posted this chart over at his blog Election Projection:

These historical examples provide us a great backdrop with which to predict and judge President Obama’s chances at re-election one year from now. For example, with his current approval rating of 45%, at this moment he has about a 55% chance of re-election. However, if that approval rating remains at 45% one year from now, he will lose the election.

Lest you think this means the Republicans can run anyone they want to against Obama in this scenario, I give you also the most important caveat (also from Scott at Election Projection):

But here’s the caviat [sic]. Obama’s job approval will be somewhat tied to the GOP nominee. If Republicans nominate someone who connects with voters, Obama’s shortcomings will be accentuated, and his approval will sustain downward pressure. On the other hand, a weak candidate will have the opposite effect. If voters are presented with an unacceptable GOP challenger, they will begin to see such things as a bad economy as more palatable, and Obama’s approval will rise as a result.

There was no state of the race update last week because the numbers hardly moved during a slow news week. But you can be sure they moved this week…

Here’s the state of the race in the midst of the Cain sexual harassment scandal, complete with new third place challenger Newt Gingrich:

Only candidates who appear on early state primary ballots are included.

(By the way, Buddy Roemer failing to make it onto the Florida primary ballot gives us a perfect excuse to stop including him in these updates.)

In the voice of screaming headlines and proclamation that Herman Cain’s campaign is over (mostly from people who want it to be over), I think it’s time to take a look at how fatuous this thing actually is.

No one deserves the utter inanity of the charges that have been thrown at Mr. Cain.  Without actually stating specifics, we’ve created the darnedest scandal in American history.  The only charge that was actually specific in alleging misconduct was from “third employee” whose credibility was immediately damaged by: 1) her not filing any claim at the time and 2) that she’s unwilling to reveal her identity so that her motives and credibility can actually be judged.

Beyond that, what do we have?

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.-Original Politico Piece

Deace, who penned an opinion piece critical of Cain earlier this month, told POLITICO in an email that Cain said “awkward” and “inappropriate” things to the staff at his station.-Allegations in Iowa

 

A veteran Republican pollster and former National Restaurant Association employee said Wednesday morning that Herman Cain sexually harassed a woman at an Arlington, Va., restaurant in the late 1990s.

Chris Wilson, now the principal of an Oklahoma-based GOP consulting firm, said in an interview on Oklahoma City’s KTOK radio station that the episode took place in the neighborhood where Cain kept an apartment when he headed the restaurant trade group.

“This occurred at a restaurant in Crystal City (Virginia), and everybody was aware of it,” Wilson said on the station. “It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left — everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up…”

Wilson declined to say specifically what Cain said or did to the woman, but that the CEO’s actions made other individuals at the table uneasy.- Chris “Perry Supporter Who Wasn’t Behind the Politico Story” Wilson

CBS even called it “Sexual Assault” in one segment.

But the truth we don’t know what it is that Herman Cain was supposed to have done. People make comparisons to Bill Clinton and Bob Packwood. Pfui. We know allegations by Kathleen Willey that he dropped her pants to her in the office, and we know Paula Jones alleged that Clinton invited her up and then dropped his pants in a hotel. We know that Bob Packwood groped women.  What was it that Cain was supposed to have done? Three days of reporting later and I still don’t know. All we know is that some accusers have put a legal label on it, “Sexual Harassment.”

What we have with Cain was, “Pssst, we were sitting at a table and he did something I won’t tell you what, but it really made people uncomfortable.” He said some stuff and made some physical gestures that made people uncomfortable. He said something that someone took as awkward and inappropriate.

Was s it a politically incorrect human moment, an intergenerational misunderstanding, or a real menacing thing that created a hostile work environment?  Darned if I know. Darned if we’ll ever find out.

The attorney for the woman who walked away with $35K in severance doesn’t want to go public but wants to issue an apparently anonymous statement that doesn’t specify what happened, so that she can restore her reputation. Never mind, that no one other than the media knows who she was. So, the NRA may let her make a statement that issues vague general attack on Cain without actually stating what it was he was supposed to do.

What’s ultimately different about the Cain “scandal” and why it’s not just the normal rough and tumble of politics is that this is really a Star Chamber situation where we don’t really know the charge or who the accusers are. As much as we can criticize the Cain response, the task that the media has given them is akin to trying to eat jelly with a  fork. Specific clear allegations can be responded to. This vague gossip is impossible to address.

If you want to try and attack someone’s reputation, you have to produce named sources and specific allegations. Otherwise, it’s not journalism, it’s gossip.

I would add that in theory any candidate could be subjected to these vague meaningless charges. By the AP’s shoddy journalistic standards, anyone can call up and say that a Presidential candidate made sexual advances, refuse to have their name attributed to the charge, and have it printed. It’s why good people don’t run for office.

Via Hot Air. The rumor was floated by Lee Davis during his appearance on Dr. Gina Loudon’s talk radio program today. Most of the juiciest information can be found in the second of the three audio files from Loudon’s show. In sum, the sentiment inside Palin World is that Mitt Romney is going to sail to the nomination, similar to Richard Nixon in 1968. The collapse of Perry and now Cain has left Palin World believing that the former Alaska governor could leap into the race and consolidate the RomNot vote just in time for the voting to begin in January. As such, says Davis, Palin’s inner circle has begun trying to determine whether a run is still possible given that the filing deadlines for many of the most important primary states have already passed.

Whether or not there is a single shred of truth behind this rumor I do not know. What I do suspect, though, is that we’re going to continue to hear rumors like this one throughout the next 8 or 9 months, as even when the GOP nomination is all sewn up, the spectre of a third party candidate, such as Donald Trump, will continue to loom over the Republican field. What rumors like this result from is widespread dissatisfaction with the nation’s choices for president, and the popular sentiment that especially unsettling times like these require a larger-than-life figure to emerge to lead the nation.

This will run in Iowa and New Hampshire:

From John Ziegler:

If there was one piece of knowledge I learned during the making of my last documentary film “Media Malpractice,” that I wish everyone else knew, it would be that the news media, especially ideologically driven media, is a business and not a cause.

While there are obviously exceptions, the vast majority of people making content decisions in the media are far more concerned with their job security than they are about saving the country.

To media people a Cain/Obama matchup means short term job security for everyone and at least four more years of living off Obama for conservatives. After all, the dirty little secret of ideological media is that it is bad for business when your guys are in power (if you doubt that, just look at how Obama’s election impacted the ratings of Fox News and MSNBC).

Be sure to read the full Op-Ed here.

Watching the Cain sexual harassment story unfold is getting to be a little surreal, as new information continues to slowly leak out.

This morning, a well-known GOP pollster went public with his claim that he witnessed Herman Cain sexually harass a woman:

A veteran Republican pollster and former National Restaurant Association employee said Wednesday morning that Herman Cain sexually harassed a woman at an Arlington, Va., restaurant in the late 1990s.

Chris Wilson, now the principal of an Oklahoma-based GOP consulting firm, said in an interview on Oklahoma City’s KTOK radio station that the episode took place in the neighborhood where Cain kept an apartment when he headed the restaurant trade group.

“This occurred at a restaurant in Crystal City (Virginia), and everybody was aware of it,” Wilson said on the station. “It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left — everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up.”

In an interview with POLITICO, Wilson said he was present for the episode and that it took place in the late ’90s.

(Wilson, by the way, now does polling work for one of Rick Perry’s Super PACs.)

A desperate Herman Cain has now publicly accused one of his former campaign consultants of leaking the harassment story to Politico:

Herman Cain accused a former consultant to his unsuccessful 2004 Senate campaign, Curt Anderson, of leaking damaging information about past sexual harassment allegations against Cain… In the summer of 2003, Cain recalls briefing Anderson—his general campaign consultant at the time—that sexual harassment claims were brought against him while he was chairman of the National Restaurant Association from 1996 to 1999.

“I told my wife about this in 1999 and I’ve got nothing to hide,” Cain told me Wednesday. “When I sat down with my general campaign consultant Kurt Anderson in a private room in our campaign offices in 2003 we discussed opposition research on me. It was a typical campaign conversation. I told him that there was only one case, one set of charges, one woman while I was at the National Restaurant Association. Those charges were baseless, but I thought he needed to know about them. I don’t recall anyone else being in the room when I told him.”

(Anderson, by the way, is now an adviser to Rick Perry’s campaign.)

Then, there was the news, reported by our own Matthew Newman here, that a third woman was going to come forward with accusations of harassment:

A third former employee considered filing a workplace complaint against Herman Cain over what she considered aggressive and unwanted behavior when she and Cain, now a Republican presidential candidate, worked together during the late 1990s, the woman told The Associated Press on Wednesday. She said the behavior included a private invitation to his corporate apartment.

The woman said he made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against Cain, who was then the head of the National Restaurant Association… The employee described in conversations with the AP over several days situations in which she said Cain told her that he had confided to colleagues how attractive she was and invited her to his corporate apartment outside work.

And perhaps the most bizarre twist to the story gets awarded to Cain’s own campaign manager Mark Block, who inadvertently gave the press a new lead on much more recent inappropriate behavior on Cain’s part:

In a cryptic comment made at National Journal’s Election 2012 Preview event Tuesday, Mark Block, Herman Cain’s campaign manager, made reference to an incident involving Cain and a receptionist for a radio talk show host.

Asked by panel moderator Beth Reinhard whether he could guarantee that there’s not more information forthcoming about his past, Block began his answer with a blanket denial, followed by what seemed to be a description of an unreported recent incident involving Cain.

“Mr. Cain has never sexually harassed anybody. Period. End of story,” he said. “As the hours go by, it’s interesting that we even hear from a radio talk show host of Iowa that a receptionist thought that Mr. Cain’s comments were inappropriate.”

POLITICO has learned that the incident involved a staffer for Steve Deace, an influential conservative talk radio host who hosts a nationally syndicated show in Des Moines. And Deace says he did take offense.

Deace, who penned an opinion piece critical of Cain earlier this month, told POLITICO in an email that Cain said “awkward” and “inappropriate” things to the staff at his station.

“Like awkward/inappropriate things he’s said to two females on my staff, that the fact the guy’s wife is never around…that’s almost always a warning flag to me,” Deace wrote. “But I chose to leave that stuff out [of the opinion piece] and make it about his record and not the personal stuff.”

Pressed about what exactly Cain said to the employees of his show, Deace responded by describing how he himself treats his staff… “For example, I wouldn’t tell them or any other woman I am not married to nor related to how pretty she is.”

You get the feeling that the wheels are about to come off. Multiple women, eyewitnesses, and inappropriate behavior as recent as this current campaign… I said a couple days ago that it was difficult to see how this story had any legs, but now it’s getting increasingly difficult to see how Cain comes out of this alive, politically speaking.

The AP is reporting that a third ex-employee had complained of inappropriate behavior on the part of Herman Cain during his tenure at the National Restaurant Association. Here’s the piece:

A third former employee says she considered filing a workplace complaint over what she considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Herman Cain when she worked for the presidential candidate in the 1990s. She says the behavior included a private invitation to his corporate apartment.

She worked for the National Restaurant Association when he was its head. She told The Associated Press that Cain made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against him.

The employee described situations in which she said Cain told her he had confided to colleagues how attractive she was and invited her to his corporate apartment outside work. She spoke on condition of anonymity, saying she feared retaliation.

Cain’s campaign declined to comment.

This doesn’t look good for Cain and this third employee does not appear to have been involved in any settlement / non-disclosure agreements. Time will tell.

PPP (D) North Carolina 2012 Presidential Survey

• Mitt Romney 46% {45%} [44%] (43%) {45%} [44%] (43%) {44%} [42%] (44%) {44%} [43%] (44%)
• Barack Obama 45% {46%} [45%] (46%) {45%} [45%] (46%) {47%} [44%] (47%) {47%} [46%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 47%
• Herman Cain 44%

• Barack Obama 50% {49%} [48%] [50%] (50%) {49%} [47%] (48%) {50%} [48%] (46%)
• Newt Gingrich 43% {42%} [43%] [40%] (42%) {45%} [42%] (44%) {44%} [42%] (45%)

• Barack Obama 50% {49%} [47%] (50%) {46%}
• Michele Bachmann 42% {42%} [45%] (40%) {43%}

• Barack Obama 50% {48%} [46%] (48%)
• Rick Perry 42% {44%} [46%] (40%)

• Barack Obama 48% {46%}
• Ron Paul 40% {43%}

(more…)

The story of Newt Gingrich’s first divorce, reportedly beginning while his wife was on his deathbed, has taken on a life of its own in some circles. The problem? It’s not true. Gingrich’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, set the record straight with a recent column she wrote at creators.com. Here’s the most relevant excerpt:

As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.

It was the spring of 1980.

I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:

My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.

Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.

She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.

Bottom Line: The “Newt handed his wife divorce papers while she was dying with cancer…” meme is not true. One of the few people who saw this entire situation first hand said as much.

With all the debates now rescheduled and Gardner officially setting the New Hampshire Primary, we bring to you the “close to final” edition of the 2012 primary calendar:

Did I miss an event? Let me know in the comments. Please note that this calendar contains only the major Republican debates, not the myriad of “forums” that various groups sponsor throughout the primary season.

Rasmussen South Carolina 2012 GOP Primary Survey

• Herman Cain 33%
• Mitt Romney 23%
• Newt Gingrich 15%
• Rick Perry 9%
• Ron Paul 5%
• Michele Bachmann 2%
• Rick Santorum 1%
• Jon Huntsman 1%

Survey of 770 likely Republican primary voters was conducted November 1, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

-Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.

It’s official:

The resolution last week of the state’s political dispute with Nevada Republicans over the date of their presidential caucus cleared the way for Secretary of State Bill Gardner to set the date of the New Hampshire primary for Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012.

This morning, that’s just what he did.

Nevada Republicans decided to move the date of their caucus from Jan. 14 to Feb. 4. The Jan. 14 was in conflict with the New Hampshire law mandating that the primary be held at least seven days ahead of any “similar election.”

Gardner had warned that with the Nevada caucus being a similar election, and with the Iowa caucus set for Jan. 3, he was prepared to set the date of the primary for sometime in Deember. He had called Dec. 6 and 13 “realistic options.”

Be sure to read the full story here.