Colbert King, "When ‘Black Lives Matter’ is linked with ‘Palestinian Lives Matter’": Israel Responsible for Wright's Wrongs?

Tweet

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office."

- Jeremiah Wright, June 10, 2009 interview at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "When ‘Black Lives Matter’ is linked with ‘Palestinian Lives Matter’," Colbert King links a speech by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at an October 10, 2015 event commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Million Man March to African American attitudes toward Israel. Mr. King writes:

"Whether Wright’s speech hit the mark with those in attendance is open to speculation. There was, however, no mistaking his aim: to equate and link the plight of Palestinians in the Middle East with the quest of blacks for full equality in the United States.

“The youth in Ferguson and the youth in Palestine have united together to remind us that the dots need to be connected,” Wright told the crowd, according to media reports.

Citing what he called the “three-headed demon” of “racism, militarism and capitalism,” Wright implored the gathering to “stand beside our Palestinian brothers and sisters, who have been done one of the most egregious injustices in the 20th and 21st centuries.”

“Apartheid is going on in Palestine,” Wright said. “As we sit here, there is an apartheid wall being built twice the size of the Berlin Wall in height, keeping Palestinians off of illegally occupied territories, where the Europeans” — presumably Israelis — “have claimed that land as their own.”

Drawing on the black chant, Wright observed, “Palestinians are saying ‘Palestinian lives matter,’ ” and added, “We stand with you, we support you, we say God bless you.”

As a longtime supporter of Israel, and a believer — as Obama is — that Palestinians have a right to be a free people on their land, I don’t think Israel gained attention in a good way that day."

Regrettably, with regard to Wright's allegation of "one of the most egregious injustices in the 20th and 21st centuries," Mr. King doesn't mention what Palestinian Authority President Abbas  told  The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl in 2009:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

Nor does King mention Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 offer of an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem.

An "apartheid wall"? A pity that King does not mention that the separation barrier, erected to prevent suicide bombings that took the lives of about 1,000 Israelis, is some 90 percent fence, i.e. only 10 percent "wall."

"'Where the Europeans' — presumably Israelis — 'have claimed that land as their own'"? This was the place where King might have mentioned that the majority of Israeli Jews are Sephardic, whose families arrived in Israel after being forced to leave their homes in the Muslim Middle East. King might also have observed that Ethiopian Jews comprise 1.75 percent of Israel's population and that there have been seven Ethiopian members of the Israeli Knesset (parliament), but he didn't.

Bottom line: Israel is not responsible for Wright's incendiary remarks, nor is Israel responsible for Susan Rice's reprehensible comment, also cited by King, "that the Israeli leader did everything but “use ‘the N-word’ in describing the president.” I am no fan of Netanyahu, but I also know that he is not capable of making such a racist remark.

Obama believes that "Palestinians have a right to be a free people on their land"? I would also like to see a prosperous, democratic Palestine living side-by-side with Israel in peace. But that is not going to happen if Palestinian Authority President Abbas continues to declare as he did on September 16, 2015:

"We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every martyr will reach paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is ours, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is ours, and [the Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem."

Or stated again, Israel is not responsible for Wright's wrongs.

Frank Bruni, "The Oldest Hatred, Forever Young": Have a Look at Your Own Newspaper!

In response to the shootings in Kansas at a Jewish community center and a Jewish retirement home over the weekend, Frank Bruni writes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Oldest Hatred, Forever Young" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/opinion/the-oldest-hatred-forever-young.html?ref=opinion):

"Our country has come so far from the anti-Semitism of decades ago that we tend to overlook the anti-Semitism that endures. We’ve moved on to fresher discussions, newer fears.

Following 9/11, there was enormous concern that all Muslims would be stereotyped and scapegoated, and this heightened sensitivity lingers. It partly explains what just happened at Brandeis University. The school had invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a celebrated advocate for Muslim women, to receive an honorary degree. But when some professors and students complained, citing statements of hers that seemed broadly derisive of Islam, the invitation was withdrawn. Clearly, university officials didn’t want their campus seen as a cradle or theater of Islamophobia.

But other college campuses in recent years have been theaters of anti-Israel discussions that occasionally veer toward, or bleed into, condemnations of Jews. And while we don’t have the anti-Semitism in our politics that some European countries do, there’s still bigotry under the surface. There are still caricatures that won’t die."

I am deeply appreciative of Bruni's honesty, but shouldn't he also be looking at The New York Times?

Read what Jonathan Tobin of Commentary has just written in an opinion piece entitled "Why Smear Israel and Whitewash Iran?" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/13/why-smear-israel-and-whitewash-iran-new-york-times/):

"But those determined to push the dubious theory that the election of Hassan Rouhani in Iran’s faux presidential election last year indicates a shift to moderation are undaunted. The New York Times has been a notable advocate for this position on both its editorial and news pages, but it surpassed itself today with the publication of a remarkable piece by two scholars alleging that not only is the Islamist regime changing but that Iran and Israel are like two ships passing in the night as the Jewish state becomes an extremist theocracy. That its thesis is an absurd libel of Israel and a whitewash of Iran is so obvious it is barely worth the effort to refute it. In short, Israel is a pluralist democracy where the rule of law prevails despite the ongoing war being waged against its existence by most of the Arab and Muslim world. Iran is a theocratic tyranny where free expression and freedom of religion are forbidden and women, gays, and minorities are brutally oppressed. Iran is also the world’s leading state sponsor of terror and its foreign policy is aimed at propping up one of the world’s worst tyrants in Syria’s Bashar Assad as well as Hezbollah and other terrorists seeking to destabilize the Middle East.

So while the argument that the Times featured today is so risible as to merit satire rather than a lengthy response, it is worth asking why the newspaper gives space to such laughable arguments."

Worth asking? Absolutely! And I have an answer. Compare Israel with a country that stones to death women for alleged adultery, hangs homosexuals and executes poets for enmity to God? Insane, but the publication of such garbage on the eve of Passover is in keeping with this newspaper's persistent need to smear the Jewish state and an unremitting tolerance of anti-Semitic declarations from two of its op-ed writers (see, for example: http://jsantisemitism.org/essays/GrossmanJSA210(4).pdf, http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-what-about-us-is-thomas.html).

Anti-Semitism in America? Bruni need look no further than his own newspaper.

The response to the tragedy in Kansas of President Obama, whose spiritual leader for 20 years was the anti-Semitic pastor, Jeremiah Wright:

"While we do not know all of the details surrounding today’s shooting, the initial reports are heartbreaking. I want to offer my condolences to all the families trying to make sense of this difficult situation and pledge the full support from the federal government as we heal and cope during this trying time."

Mr. President, we never know all of the details, but the shooting plainly involved anti-Semitism, and your less than forthright response is inadequate.

Jeffrey Goldberg, "Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’": Will This Impact Hagel?

In a Bloomberg article entitled "Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’" (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4067977173951690762#editor/target=post;postID=8860285838652858161), Jeffrey Goldberg writes today:

"In the weeks after the UN vote [in November to upgrade the status of the Palestinians], Obama said privately and repeatedly, 'Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.' With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.

And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah -- one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend -- it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.

The dysfunctional relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is poised to enter a new phase. Next week, Israeli voters will probably return Netanyahu to power, this time at the head of a coalition even more intractably right-wing than the one he currently leads."

For the moment, let's ignore Israel's plans to build 3,000 new housing units in the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim and just focus on Obama's "repeated" declarations that "Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are" prior to Israeli elections. Can you imagine the outrage if Netanyahu had declared prior to US elections in November that current US policy involving Iran and the rest of the Middle East is not in its own best interests? Or US economic policy is not in its own best interests? Or Obamacare is not in America's own best interests?

Obama knows what's in Israel's best interests? The reality is that Obama knows next to nothing about Israel or the Middle East apart from what his virulent anti-Israel confidants told him in the past; e.g., the Reverend Wright and Rashid Khalidi.

The planned E1 housing units? I favor a two-state solution along the 1967 lines with appropriate land swaps; however, in order to arrive at such a solution, there needs to be a counterparty willing to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The Hamas charter calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis, and rejects any negotiated settlement with Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has steadfastly refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Moreover, the planned E1 housing project must be placed in context. The housing would be situated in an area which, as agreed in prior Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, would ultimately remain part of Israel in exchange for territories to be ceded by Israel. Let's also not forget that Israeli settlements are situated on territory comprising less than two percent of the West Bank.

Regarding isolation of Israel, putting "daylight" between the US and Israel has been the cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy since his 2009 inauguration. Although Obama, as president, visited Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, he refused to step foot in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Although Obama has made a point of highlighting his strong friendship with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, Obama has avoided complaining about Ankara's global leadership in the imprisonment of journalists (see: http://www.cpj.org/europe/turkey/) and about its oppression of its Kurdish minority, and he has also reneged on his commitment to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Similarly, Obama has avoided any reference to a myriad of Saudi human rights abuses, e.g., the beheading of a Sri Lankan maid on Sunday (see: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/20131146361222980.html).

Egypt? Let's see if Obama even a mumbles a word concerning Egyptian President's Morsi's 2010 declaration that Egyptians should "nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred" for Jews and Zionists and that "these bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.html?_r=0).

Worse still, consider Obama's conduct regarding Syria. Senator John Kerry, who was repeatedly sent by Obama to meet with mass murderer Bashar al-Assad and who labeled Assad his "dear friend," is now being appointed Secretary of State. Obama has been all but mum regarding the death of 60,000 innocent civilians in Syria's ongoing civil war, yet he remains obsessed with Netanyahu.

In fact, Obama's contempt for and obsession with Netanyahu, as best evidenced by his open microphone gaffe in a conversation with Sarkozy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2011/11/sarkozy-obama-and-netanyahu-obama-never.html), has contributed mightily to Israel's isolation.

How might Jeffrey Goldberg's revelation affect Obama's nomination of Hagel as Secretary of Defense? Objecting to Hagel's nomination, The Washington Post went on record as saying that Hagel's positions place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html). Well, we are now seeing that Chuck Hagel's positions place him very much in line with those of a second term Obama, who, no longer facing re-election, has the "flexibility" to remove his veil and let his true thoughts be known.

Senate approval of Chuck Hagel now boils down to the decision of Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. Will Schumer vote according to his conscience or along party lines? If I had to bet, I know where I would place my money.

David Brooks, "Moderate Mitt Returns!": "The Man Who (I Think) He Truly Is"

By now, you have probably seen the 2007 video in which Obama told his audience of Reverend Wright's dramatic influence on his life and adapted his angry remarks and vocal accent to his audience (see: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/). Obama, of course dissed his racist pastor of twenty years and abandoned his drawl upon becoming a viable presidential candidate in 2008.

We have yet to see the tape of Obama's 2003 tribute to Palestinian "activist" Rashid Khalidi at a farewell party in Chicago, which is locked away in the offices of The Los Angeles Times (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226104/i-l-times-i-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape/andrew-c-mccarthy).

I think I know who Obama truly is, and I shudder to think what we might see if he is re-elected and unveils his radical inner self with nothing to lose going ahead.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Moderate Mitt Returns!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/brooks-moderate-mitt-returns.html?_r=0), David Brooks sings paeans to Romney's debate performance earlier this week and welcomes his shift to the middle:

"Yes, it’s true. Romney’s tax numbers don’t add up. Yes, there’s a lot of budgetary flimflam. No, Romney still doesn’t have an easy answer to wage stagnation (neither does Obama). But Romney’s debate performance signals the return of Governor Mitt. Democrats call it hypocrisy; I call it progress.

. . . .

Most important, Romney did something no other mainstream Republican has had the guts to do. Either out of conviction or political desperation, he broke with Tea Party orthodoxy and began to redefine the Republican identity. And, having taken this step, he’s broken the spell. Conservatives loved it! They loved that it was effective, and it was effective because Romney could more authentically be the man who (I think) he truly is."

Romney did a marvelous job on Wednesday and flattened Obama, who, owing to Denver's high altitude (yeah, right) or the absence of a teleprompter, never managed to get himself on track.

But do we know who Romney "truly is"? I know he wants to be president.

Bottom line: I am delighted that Romney is moving to the middle as we approach election day and am convinced that he will have to maintain this moderation if, as president, he is to work with Democrats in an effort to remedy America's disastrous economy. Moreover, he will be answerable to the electorate in 2016 should he fail.

On the other hand, I am extremely wary of Obama's agenda, if he moves to the extreme left in a possible second term, after an "uninspiring" (I'm being kind) first term, and reveals who he truly is.

Maureen Dowd, "Who’s on America’s Side?": Compare Bain With America's Economic Pain

Labeling this past week’s Republican attacks on Obama as "shriekingly shrill," Maureen Dowd, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who’s on America’s Side?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/opinion/dowd-whos-on-americas-side.html), joins the other liberal columnists, who, this past week, have questioned, in "shriekingly shrill" fashion, the endpoint of Romney's career at Bain Capital and have demanded Romney's tax returns. Dowd writes:

"Romney contended that he had 'no role' at Bain after 1999 when some of its companies went bankrupt, shipped jobs overseas and fired workers. He remained the firm’s chairman of the board, C.E.O., president and only stockholder until 2002. Other than that, he had nothing to do with the place."

Compare Dowd's denunciation with that of Wapo's Eugene Robinson, who wrote yesterday (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-romneys-problem-of-his-own-making/2012/07/16/gJQAKjBepW_story.html):

"The only reason anyone cares when Romney left Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded and ran, is because Romney made a totally unreasonable claim: When Democrats pointed to outsourcing and job cuts at companies Bain owned or controlled, Romney denied any responsibility since these unfortunate developments took place after he left to run the Winter Olympics in 1999.

. . . .

He then tried to insist on another ridiculous proposition, which is that he left Bain suddenly and completely in 1999. This cannot possibly be true. Romney was Bain Capital — chairman, chief executive and sole stockholder. There is no way he could have disentangled himself from the firm so abruptly."

Do Dowd and Robinson sound similar?

And on Monday, fellow New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, declared that Obama shouldn't "run a campaign based on . . . substance and leave Mr. Romney’s personal history alone" inasmuch as we can't "count on the news media to sort through the conflicting claims" regarding Romney's past (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/paul-krugman-policy-and-personal.html).

However, WAPO's Glenn Kessler, in a thorough and detailed "Fact Checker" article entitled "Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html#pagebreak), derails the allegations of Dowd, Robinson and Krugman:

"As we wrote yesterday, we are standing with our assessment that Mitt Romney left the helm of Bain Capital in 1999, when he departed to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. The date is important because some questionable investments by Bain took place between 1999 and 2002, when he ran for governor. But a Boston Globe article on Thursday raised new questions about that timeline, citing SEC filings, and the Obama campaign jumped to take advantage of it.

. . . .

Fortune magazine on Thursday reported that it had obtained the offering documents for Bain Capital funds circulating in 2000 and 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the 'key investment professionals' who would manage the money. As Fortune put it, 'the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.'

. . . .

The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here."

Although "tempted" to award the Obama campaign's contentions four pinochios, Kessler and his team decided to give the Democrats "only" three.

Of course, there is still the matter of Romney's tax returns, and therefore, I would like to propose a swap: Romney's tax returns in exchange for the videotape, held in a Los Angeles Times safe, of Obama toasting Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi in 2003 (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/time-to-release-obamas-2003-rashid.html).

However, more than anything, I would prefer to see concrete proposals from both candidates regarding how they intend to prevent the US economy from disintegrating.

Given his failure since 2009 to improve the economy, Obama would surely prefer that the electorate focus on Romney's past (Bain, teenage bullying, etc.) and ignore his own past foibles (Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, etc.), but what is Bain in 1999 compared with America's current economic pain?

Paul Krugman, "Policy and the Personal": Attacking the Media for Failing to Vet Romney

Does Paul Krugman live in an alternative universe?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Policy and the Personal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/krugman-policy-and-the-personal.html), Krugman is claiming that this election is "about the rich versus the rest" and that the media is to blame for failing to examine whether Obama or Romney is telling the truth.

Asking 1) why shouldn't Obama "run a campaign based on . . . substance and leave Mr. Romney’s personal history alone?" and 2) "How are voters supposed to know who’s telling the truth?", Krugman responds to his own questons by stating:

"Perhaps in a better world we could count on the news media to sort through the conflicting claims. In this world, however, most voters get their news from short snippets on TV, which almost never contain substantive policy analysis. The print media do offer analysis pieces — but these pieces, out of a desire to seem 'balanced,' all too often simply repeat the he-said-she-said of political speeches."

Fascinating. We can't trust the liberal US media, which managed to ignore Obama's links to Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, among others, in 2008, to cut through the political fog.

And the print media is consumed with a desire to remain "balanced"? Has Krugman had a look at the left-skewed stances being taken on the op-ed page of his own newspaper? Or perhaps they are simply not sufficiently leftist for Paul?

But let's talk turkey. As observed in a prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/gail-collins-mitts-political-vortex-is.html), the Obama campaign is questioning when Romney left Bain Capital. However, WAPO's Glenn Kessler, in a thorough and detailed "Fact Checker" article entitled "Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html#pagebreak), derails these allegations:

"As we wrote yesterday, we are standing with our assessment that Mitt Romney left the helm of Bain Capital in 1999, when he departed to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. The date is important because some questionable investments by Bain took place between 1999 and 2002, when he ran for governor. But a Boston Globe article on Thursday raised new questions about that timeline, citing SEC filings, and the Obama campaign jumped to take advantage of it.

. . . .

Fortune magazine on Thursday reported that it had obtained the offering documents for Bain Capital funds circulating in 2000 and 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the 'key investment professionals' who would manage the money. As Fortune put it, 'the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.'

. . . .

The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here."

Although "tempted" to award the Obama campaign's contentions four pinochios, Kessler and his team decided to give the Democrats "only" three.

So why is Obama attacking Romney instead of dealing with economic substance, and why is Krugman attacking the media? Answer: Because the US economy is not going to improve before November, and Obama can no longer blame Bush.

Axelrod & Co. have obviously decided that Obama has no alternative.

Sarkozy, Obama and Netanyahu: Obama Never Was a Friend of Israel

It is no accident that three years into his presidency, Obama has visited Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, but has refused to stop over in Israel. Obama doesn't like Netanyahu, and he doesn't like Israel, and it's no accident that he sat in silence for 20 years listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's incendiary rants.

As is now known across the globe, Obama was party to yet another diplomatic indiscretion when in reponse to Nicholas Sarkozy's declaration that Netanyahu is a liar whom he cannot bear, Obama replied:

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you."

White House press secretary Jay Carney has refused to comment on this peevish, catty badinage (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-mideast-netanyahu-sarkozy-idUSTRE7A720120111108).

Might Obama's bungle cost him the 2012 election? Might it cost Obama, at a minimum, America's Jewish vote? My response in Yiddish (today is my Yiddish day):

"A nahr bleibt a nahr."

Translation: A fool remains a fool.

Charles Blow "Don’t Call Herman a Monster": Blow's Double Standard

Let's get two things straight from the git-go:

1. Herman Cain, like Donald Trump before him, is not a serious candidate for president.

2. An accusation of sexual harassment by even one woman without a credible response should preclude his candidacy.

However, it is remarkable how pundits from the left are outraged by Cain's behavior, yet were prepared to excuse the manner in which Obama sat in silence over the course of twenty years, listening to the anti-American and racist rants of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Sure, upon becoming a presidential candidate, Obama gradually disassociated himself from Wright, but was that enough? Would it now be enough for Cain to declaim against sexual harassment in the workplace and elsewhere?

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "Don’t Call Herman a Monster" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/opinion/blow-dont-call-herman-a-monster.html?_r=1&hp), Charles Blow decries Cain's fuzzy responses to allegations of sexual harassment:

"Cain’s answers to date simply haven’t satisfied. They’ve been as ham-handed as it gets. He’s flip-flopped like a fresh-caught-fish in the bottom of the boat. Even if he didn’t remember the allegations, surely he could have gotten and read through the settlements before submitting to interviews. Right? Right?!

Such a botched response would have spelled trouble for a candidate of another stripe and in another time. But this is Herman Cain: the unorthodox candidate with unprecedented ascendance in a Tea Party age.

. . . .

The fact that Cain obviously isn’t presidential timber holds little weight with those who view the current resident of the White House as, at best, unqualified and, at worst, illegitimate.

. . . .

They’re all looking beyond your faults, Mr. Cain. They all are."

Yes, Cain's "answers to date simply haven't satisfied," and indeed, "Cain obviously isn’t presidential timber." Moreover, it is disgraceful that there are those on the right who continue to support Cain without a convincing rejoinder to these allegations.

On the other hand, wasn't it Obama who couldn't remember Wright's hate-filled diatribes, and wasn't it the left that was "looking beyond" Obama's "faults"?

Worse still, Obama has demonstrated over the past three years that he "obviously isn't presidential timber," as evidenced by his failed economic and foreign policies.

How pitiful that the Republicans are incapable of fielding a respectable crop of candidates offering "Change we can believe in."