Category Archives: 2012 presidential campaign

Herman Cain’s new website "Women for Cain": Supporters who give "thumbs up" in website logo are "stock photo models" from Germany – UPDATE!

By Patrick
Herman Cain’s rapidly descending career reaches a new low point: The adulterer and compulsive liar Herman Cain today opened a new section at his website with the curious name “Women for Cain.” It’s of course not supposed to be Herman’s private dating website, but a place on his website where female fans can express their unwavering support for Herman Cain – like for example Priscilla Wooten from Georgia, who is quoted saying:

“Mr. Cain, please do not step down. You are exactly what this country needs to get us back on track, from the disaster that presently sits in our oval office. From the 1st time I saw you in Douglasville Ga,I knew that I wanted you to be my President. Stand strong, sir.”

An initial research of the women leaving comments at “Women for Cain” reveals that a lot of them have connections to the Tea Party (surprise, surprise). We looked some of the women up on the internet, and they often seem to be member of the “Tea Party Patriots” or work as “Tea Party Organizers”. In some cases they seem to have donated large sums (for example $ 3,000 in one case) to Herman Cain’s campaign.

While the creation of this website is already embarrassing enough on the limitless “GOP embarrassment scale”, another big cock-up (pardon my language) has been discovered. I cannot claim credit for this discovery, as it happened in the comments to an article about Cain’s new website at TPM. Ever since Herman Cain’s infamous and much parodied “smoking campaign advert” has been published, it should be clear to everyone that Herman Cain’s campaign staff obviously consists of a bunch of amateurs. Today, we have more proof for this assumption.
In the logo of his new website “Women for Cain”, Herman Cain shows four smiling ladies who give the “thumbs-up”:
Women for Cain screenshot 1
I believe that Herman Cain’s website tries to give the impression that these four young ladies are true supporters of Herman Cain. I might be naive, but in my view, if you are a politician and show pictures of people giving you the “thumbs-up” at a prominent place of your website, even if these people are not named, they still should in fact be real supporters. Otherwise, you would just be running some kind of online shop, selling “yourself” as a product.
But it turns out that Herman Cain’s campaign doesn’t share my views.
The four ladies are not supporters of Herman Cain. In fact, that might not even have heard of him, as live far, far away – in good old Germany. Herman Cain’s campaign didn’t bother to find four real good-looking female supporters. In their rush to make Herman Cain more appealing to women (haha!), they instead simply used a commercial stock photo which was taken by a German photographer and which can be bought online at this website.

Herman Cain stock photo 2

Herman Cain stock photo photographer

Herman Cain stock photo 3
This just brilliantly embodies in my opinion what Herman Cain’s campaign is all about: The selling of an inept and deceptive candidate.
Herman, it’s time to go! Do yourself a favour and end this farce.

Literally minutes ago, the stock photo has been removed – and left a gaping hole on Herman Cain’s website.
Women for Cain - screenshot 3

Women for Cain - screenshot 4
You have seen “Women for Cain” – but why be one-sided? It was only a matter of minutes or hours, and now it’s online: “Men for Cain.”
Men for Cain 1


Herman Cain’s 1986 Sexual Harassment Training – Learn about the “NEIN NEIN NEIN” rule!


Herman Cain’s campaign finally found the right photo to “plug the whole” on the “Women for Cain” website, after the German stock models had disappeared. Why look around for fake or real female supporters, when you could use a photo of your wife smiling in the camera (pictured together with yourself):
Women for Cain - NEW LOGO
So all is good again. Apart from the curious fact that Gloria Cain did not know about the 13-year “friendship” with Ginger White and the fact that the Daily Beast just yesterday published a bombshell article, claiming that the marriage of the Cains is, well, a little bit different:

The Cain campaign denied any strife in the marriage, but one campaign worker speaking anonymously said that Cain doesn’t want to quit because he doesn’t want to be seen as a loser.

No matter what happens to Cain’s presidential aspirations, sources close to his family say the accusations of infidelity have already taken a significant toll on an already strained marriage.

A close friend of one Cain’s two children explained that Herman and Gloria Cain’s marriage has seen its share of trouble over the years and his attraction to other women always played a huge role in the friction.

“It never felt like a real marriage when I was around them,’’ says the friend. “Mostly he was always gone and his wife seemed to be OK with it. Not being together seemed the norm for their marriage, and Gloria didn’t seem to mind. His kids didn’t seem to mind either. ’’

The friend noted that when Cain was around, he seemed completely in his own world.

“He was king of his castle and no one questioned him,’’ says the friend. “It was an uncomfortable set-up for an outsider like me to be around. He was so indifferent to everyone. But I liked Gloria. She was warm and kind.”

Several people who know the Cain family say Gloria and Herman have even lived in separate residences over the years. “They stayed together for good face. They’re old school where you stay just because. Herman likes to give the appearance of living this holier-than-thou life. But it’s anything but,” says someone close to the family.

Cain told Fox News that his wealth allowed him to give money to both men and women in need and certainly had no romantic implications. Ginger White, who says she had a 13-year affair with Cain, also said he gave her money and supported her throughout their relationship. Cain later admitted that his wife had no idea he was supporting White financially.

While Cain denies an affair with White, many in Atlanta can’t seem to remember seeing the Cains out together very often. Lowery says he saw Cain out and about in Atlanta over the years, but rarely ever with his wife.

“I can’t say I remember seeing the two of them being out together,’’ says Lowery. “I’d see him at conferences and other church-related functions from time to time. I even heard him sing a few times, but I never saw him with Gloria.’’

Another family friend says Gloria Cain was never a fan of her husband’s “look at me’’ tendencies or his run for office, even though Cain assured her it wouldn’t require much of her physically or emotionally. He was wrong.

“This is a very arrogant man,’’ says the friend. “It probably never occurred to him that all these women would eventually come out. It’s funny to see him talk about the toll on his wife. He never thought of that before.’’

Well, it’s not know yet whether the trainwreck which is Herman Cain’s campaign will move on, or whether he will throw the towel. Given the level of arrogance displayed so far by Herman Cain, he might very well continue. Which would be a good thing from my point of view, because Herman Cain’s campaign has been a constant source for parody and entertainment.

Speaking of parody – one of our readers had another good idea for a Herman Cain support site: “Weasels for Cain.”
Weasels for Cain
More parody, this time not related to Herman Cain, but concerning Sarah Palin – who mercifully began her inevitable decline into obscurity. Yesterday, Sarah Palin again appeared on Hannity (click here for video) and was wearing, well, something that looked like a red bathrobe. Which is possibly not the most unusual thing in the world for housewives in Wasilla to wear, but still a noteworthy event when it comes to national television. This is a screenshot from the interview:
Sarah Palin - Red Bathrobe
Our wonderful reader Azure Ghost has her own take on Sarah Palin’s appearance in the interview:

Sarah Palin Elmo

Thank you, Azure Ghost! What an amazing resemblance.


Herman Cain denies 13-year-affair with Ginger White on Wolf Blitzer CNN – His lawyer, however, doesn’t deny the allegations – UPDATE

By Patrick

The next bombshell accusation against Herman Cain: Atlanta businesswoman Ginger White claims that she had a 13-year-affair with Herman Cain.

From Fox 5 News Atlanta:

ATLANTA, Ga. – An Atlanta businesswoman is breaking her silence, claiming she has been involved in a 13-year-long affair with Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, FOX 5 senior I-Team reporter Dale Russell sat down with Ginger White, who had a story to tell.

“I’m not proud,” White told Russell. “I didn’t want to come out with this. I did not.”

White was worried a political tsunami was headed her way. So, she decided to head it off, by confessing she was involved in a 13-year-long affair with presidential hopeful Herman Cain.

“It was pretty simple,” White said. “It wasn’t complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”

Ginger White says she met Herman Cain in the late 90s in Louisville, Kentucky, when as president of the National Restaurant Association, he made a presentation. She was impressed. She says they shared drinks afterwards and he invited her back to his hotel room.

“’I’d like to see you again,’” White said Cain told her. “’You are beautiful to me, and I would love for us to continue this friendship.’”

She says in his hotel room, he pulled out a calendar and invited her to meet him in Palm Springs. She accepted, and she says the affair began.

“He made it very intriguing,” White told FOX 5. “It was fun. It was something that took me away from my humdrum life at the time. And it was exciting.”

She says he gave her his newly-published book, Leadership is Common Sense, and he wrote: “Miss G, you have already made a ‘big difference!’ Stay focused as you pursue your next destination.”

She says during the next 13 years, he would fly her to cities where he was speaking and he lavished her with gifts. She says they often stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Buckhead and dined at The Four Seasons restaurant. She says he never harassed her, never treated her poorly, and was the same man you see on the campaign trail.

“Very much the same, very much confident, very much sure of himself,” White said, describing Cain. “Very arrogant in a playful sometimes way. Very, ah — Herman Cain loves Herman Cain.”

When his new book, CEO of SELF, came out in 2001, she says Cain once again autographed it for her writing, “Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus.”

When asked if it was fair to say the relationship is going on even now, White said, “I think it is safe to say that after this interview, that will be the end of it. Yes, we have a friendship now.”

She says the physical relationship ended about eight months ago, right before Cain announced he was running for president. But the communication did not. When we asked for any corroborating evidence, she pointed us to her cell phone contacts. One name: Herman Cain.

She showed us some of her cell phone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to or from a number starting with 678. She says it is Herman Cain’s private cell phone. The calls were made during four different months– calls or texts made as early as 4:26 in the early morning, and as late as 7:52 at night. The latest were in September of this year.

“We’ve never worked together,” said White. “And I can’t imagine someone phoning or texting me for the last two and a half years, just because.”

We texted the number and Herman Cain called us back. He told us he “knew Ginger White” but said these are “more false allegations.” He said she had his number because he was “trying to help her financially.”

She says she planned on keeping the relationship a secret while Cain made his run for the White House until she and her family watched reports of different women who had accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment. She says she was not surprised by the allegations, but was bothered by the way Cain fought back, attacking the woman, including during an appearance on Late Show with David Letterman.

“It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them,” White said. “I felt bad for them.”

We received a phone tip from someone who knew Ginger White. That person claimed Ms. White was having an affair with Herman Cain. The tipster also called a number of other national media outlets who reached out to her. White told FOX 5, she felt trapped.

“I wanted to give my side, before it was thrown out there and made out to be something filthy,” said White. “Some people will look at this and say that is exactly what it is. I’m sorry for that.”

Wolf Blitzer already confronted Herman Cain today on his show with the allegations, and Cain denied them, saying:

“I wanted to get out in front of it, I have nothing to hide,
I have done nothing wrong”


Late this afternoon, Cain’s attorney, Len Wood, sent FOX 5 the following statement, which curiously is NOT a denial:

“Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault – which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.

Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”

Herman Cain is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. His fifteen minutes are over.

I think he should start a pizza chain next after the end of his political career. He has this wonderful “I lie to you straight to your face and don’t bother about it” attitude which is just great for selling pizzas. Oh, wait…

Ginger White tells her story on Fox 5 News:

Rick Perry channels his inner George W. Bush at the "Cornerstone Action Dinner" in New Hampshire – his "drunk" speech! UDPATE WITH FULL SPEECH!

By Patrick


Rick Perry loves his Maple Syrup – amongst other things

It’s a slow news Sunday, and apart from snow storms in the Northeast of the USA, the type of event which has been used by Fox News as proof to show that global warming doesn’t exist, there seems little to report today. However, Texas Governor Rick Perry saves the day!
In what Huffington Post calls an “unusual speech” in which Rick Perry was “unusually expressive”, Rick Perry channelled his inner George W. Bush on Friday night in New Hampshire at the “Cornerstone Action Dinner” and in a weird performance presented a parody of himself. What happened? Alcohol, drugs or general stupidity? My bet is that is was alcohol! 😉
Somebody posted a clip on youtube with excerpts from the 25-minute speech, and the full clip doesn’t seem to be available yet. But these excerpts are more than enough to get a really good laugh! One of the Republican frontrunners making a complete mockery of himself is well worth watching:
I almost feel sorry for Rick Perry. He clearly was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. And my guess is that he has zero chance to beat President Obama. This man is an empty suit.
But if the speech was already very funny, the best part comes after Rick Perry has finished his speech. He is just standing next to the podium when one of the organizers makes some very simple closing remarks, which are actually not funny, and nothing should go wrong any more, wouldn’t you think?
Well, it seems that if Rick Perry is “in the mood”, a lot can go wrong. 😉
His behaviour at the end is so hilarious that I decided to make a screenshot collage, in chronological order, taken from the above video clip – enjoy, and have a nice and hopefully snow-free Sunday!
Perry funny speech 1

Perry funny speech 2

Perry funny speech 3

Perry funny speech 3a

Perry funny speech 4

Perry funny speech 5

Perry funny speech 6

Perry funny speech 7

Perry funny speech 8

Perry funny speech 9

Perry funny speech 10

Perry funny speech 11
Here is the full, uncut speech – as expected, the full speech includes many more hilarious parts :



“Think Progress” reports about more insanity by Rick Perry – President Obama’s decision to withdraw the troops from Iraq is “putting our kids lives in jeopardy”, according to Perry:

PERRY: The idea that a commander-in-chief would stand up and signal to the enemy a date certain of when we’re going to pull our troops out I think is irresponsible. You need to be talking to your commanders in the field. You need to be working with the experts who understand what is going on in those countries, for instance. We need to finish our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. You better believe I want out kids home as soon as we can and safe. But to give that signal that we’re pulling them out is bad public policy and, more importantly, it’s putting our kids lives in jeopardy[…]
He has lost his standing from the standpoint of being a commander-in-chief who has any idea about what’s going on in those theaters. He’s making mistakes that are putting our kids that in theater and I think future issues dealing with whether it’s in the Middle East or the south China Sea with our allies, putting all of that in jeopardy because of this unwavering, or I should say this wavering or this aimless approach to foreign policy which he has.

Watch the clip:

Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart both weighed in.

Maddow did an excellent in-depth piece about Perry’s speech:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jon Stewart presented a shorter segment, combined with the news about Herman Cain, and of course it’s as funny as expected:

Rick Perry commented on his speech in New Hampshire – and doesn’t acknowledge that the speech was bad. Just the opposite, he “felt good” and “got across the message very well”, according to Perry. And he says that one can apparently “do everything with a video.” No, you cannot, Rick…!

Saturday Night Live is also on the case:

In new bombshell story, "Bloomberg Markets" reveals that Koch Industries sold petrochemical equipment to Iran and paid bribes in six countries

By Patrick
Thanks to our excellent contacts, we got hold of a copy of the still unpublished November issue of “Bloomberg Markets” magazine, because the cover story sounds more than just promising:
Bloomberg cover story

We can reveal that this promise has been kept!

In a bold and spectacular move, Bloomberg Markets Magazine wrote a story titled “The secret sins of Koch Industries” which does not only focus on several new revelations, but also provides a comprehensive overview about scandals of Koch Industries which happened during the last decades. The story also explicitly puts the well known political activities of the Koch Brothers in context with their highly questionable behaviour in business.
The story is a fine piece of investigative reporting and spans over 14 pages in the magazine, without the adverts. No less than 15 Bloomberg-journalists in several countries have worked on it. It is fascinating to see that such a major investigative piece about a highly political issue does appear in a business magazine and not in one of the more “traditional” political magazines or newspapers.
This is Pulitzer-Prize territory. This article is destined to make large waves, not just because of the particular revelations, but also because of the highly impressive and almost surprising depth of reporting. It is obvious that no expense was spared for this article. Next to Jane Mayer’s ground breaking piece about the Koch Brothers in the New Yorker, this article by Bloomberg Markets Magazine undoubtedly represents another PR-disaster for the Koch Brothers, and could also have severe consequences.
Bloomberg Markets Magazine reveals in this article for example that:

– Koch Industries used the European offices of their subsidiary Koch-Glitsch to sell millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran in an apparent violation of the US-Iran trade embargo, as recently as 2007

– Internal documents of Koch Industries prove that the company took elaborate steps to ensure that their US-employees weren’t involved in the sales to Iran

– While is not 100% certain at this point that Koch Industries did in fact violate US law, according to Bloomberg Markets Magazine, internal memos show for example that the details of the sales with Iran were meticulously checked by US lawyers of Koch Industries and coordinated with the lawyers in order to fully ensure that no visible involvement of US-citizens took place

– Koch Industries paid bribes in six countries from 2002 to 2008 to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East, comparable to similar behaviour of German technology giant Siemens (Siemens subsequently had to pay a $ 1.6 billion fine!)

– Koch Industries sacked a compliance officer in France in June 2009 who discovered the illegal bribes at Koch Industries subsidiary Koch-Glitsch

– These revelations were made possible through newly discovered documents from two labour court cases in France

– Bloomberg Markets reveals that former employees of Koch Industries harshly criticize the company for their internal practises and ethics

– The story also covers in great detail over several pages earlier violations of Koch Industries: The company in the past “rigged prices with competitors, lied to regulators and repeatedly run afoul of environmental regulations, resulting in five criminal convictions since 1999 in the U.S. and Canada”

These are just examples of the revelations. There is a lot more in the article – please buy the magazine and read the details yourself.

At the heart of the new revelations is the subsidiary Koch-Glitsch, which according to their website has their main offices in the USA, Italy and South Korea. The Bloomberg article mentions that their German office was closed in 2009. The offices in Germany and Italy were apparently at the heart of the new allegations regarding Iran. The new discoveries could easily develop into a massive scandal with unforeseeable consequences for Koch Industries.

Koch-Glitsch was formed in 1997 with the acquisition of selected assets of Glitsch, Inc. by Koch Engineering Company, Inc. It is the best of both Koch Engineering and Glitsch, Inc. with a continuing commitment to providing value-added products to our customers.

Koch-Glitsch is a Koch Chemical Technology Group, LLC company that serves the refining, chemical, and petrochemical industries. Koch-Glitsch offers one-stop shopping for many customers because of the related product lines of our affiliated companies. Diagnostic scans, combustion burners, modular mass transfer skids, and heat transfer products are just a few of the many products available from other companies within Koch Chemical Technology Group, LLC.

According to Bloomberg, the products of Koch Industries which were sold to Iran helped to build the largest methanol plant in the world. The German engineer George Bentu, who worked for Koch-Glitsch from 2001 to 2007 is quoted saying that the company used “every single chance to do business with Iran”, and that his concerns were brushed aside when he first discovered documents about the deals with Iran: “Bentu says his boss told him not to worry, that the company’s U.S. lawyers made sure the deals with Iran were legal”, according to the magazine.

It is not difficult to find the details about the provisions of the US-Iran embargo. Due to the fact that Iran has been viewed for many years as a supporter of terrorism, sanctions were put in place in the mid-1990s. The website of the US-treasury explains all the details. The treasury even provides a leaflet with precise information about the details of the trade embargo. There it says:
Iran embargo details

“Trade and investment activities with Iran by U.S. persons,
wherever located, are prohibited”
It will probably surprise nobody that Koch Industries sees nothing wrong with the practices of Koch-Glitsch. A spokesperson of Koch Industries is quoted in the article with saying that “Koch-Glitsch had protocols in place that were consistent with applicable U.S. laws allowing such sales at the foreign subsidiary level.”
However, I have great doubts that such arguments will be an effective defence. The documents prove, according to Bloomberg, that the sales with Iran were coordinated with the US lawyers, basically in order to ensure that the documentation is “clean.” In my opinion, it appears that Koch Industries had an elaborate scheme in place to circumvent the embargo, and US citizens were involved in “supervising” the scheme. I also question whether Koch-Glitsch is a “foreign subsidiary”, as the company also has three offices in the USA.
As it is mentioned in the article, German technology giant Siemens had to pay a fine of $ 1.6 billion for paying bribes in four countries. It now has been discovered through the new documents that Koch Industries paid bribes in six countries in order to win business, over the course of several years. It is also revealed in the story that Koch Industries was aware of the danger, having seen what happened to Siemens.
Salon today reported that the upcoming story already seemed to make the Koch Brothers very nervous:

Here’s a rule of thumb about public relations: When P.R. pros begin furiously spinning a story before it has even come out, there’s a pretty good chance the story is going to be damaging to the reputation of said P.R. pros’ bosses.

And that’s exactly what we’re seeing right now, as an anonymous person or persons in the orbit of the billionaire conservative donors Charles and David Koch try to discredit a forthcoming story in Bloomberg Markets magazine.

Based on the prebuttal items appearing this week in the Washington Examiner, the Daily Caller, and U.S. News and World Report, the Bloomberg story focuses on alleged malfeasance and/or fraud and/or bad behavior by the conglomerate Koch Industries.

One of those episodes apparently involves bribery by a Koch subsidiary in France, according to the piece by Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott. He reports that “Bloomberg reporters have been trolling among former Koch employees overseas in search of disaffected voices willing to talk,” but Tapscott suspects the story may be animated by bias against the Tea Party. And he notes that, “Koch USA officials say they were as surprised and angered as anybody else when they were first apprised of the bribery allegations, and moved as quickly as possible to get to the bottom of the situation and fix it.”

All three of the prebuttal stories cite an unnamed source who was interviewed for the Bloomberg story; it’s not clear if that same source spoke with all three publications. The Examiner describes the source as a former government official.

Well, fact is that story in Bloomberg Markets Magazine is based on solid reporting, with documented evidence and witnesses on the record. This will be a tough ride for the Koch Brothers. There is nothing to “discredit.” The article is an effort of almost monumental proportions, carefully researched by no less than 15 journalists all over the globe, and very courageous at the same time. I believe that since Enron the business press hasn’t delivered a similar slam dunk.
The summary by “Bloomberg Markets” is damning:

For six decades around the world, Koch Industries blazed a path to riches – in part, by making illicit payments to win contracts, trading with a terrorist state, fixing prices, neglecting safety and ignoring environmental regulations. At the same time, Charles and David Koch have promoted a form of government that interferes less with company actions.

The political activities of the Koch Brothers are also mentioned in the article, but this is not the main emphasis of the story by Bloomberg. However, the Koch Brothers won’t like it one bit how Bloomberg “connects” their huge financial support for example of the Tea Party movement with their questionable business dealings.
I have been planning to write a longer post about the Koch Brothers for a while. Politicalgates already published a detailed post about the Koch-group “Americans for Prosperity” in February this year, written by our contributor Nomad.
Recently, I saw the full version of the excellent documentary “Astroturfwars – How corporate America fakes a grassroots revolution” by Australian filmmaker Taki Oldham. Despite the fact that I already knew quite a lot about the Tea Party movement and the corporate fake grassroots groups in general, I was still taken aback by the shocking revelations in this documentary, and asked myself how it is possible that in the USA such a solid piece of reporting has not been shown on mainstream TV. The documentary has been distributed over the internet, but I would be surprised if more than a few thousand people in total have watched it so far.
I later discovered that Taki Oldham afterwards created an updated, shorter version of the documentary, called “The Billionaires Tea Party.” This version is about 55 minutes long, instead of the original 90 minutes, and it also includes some new and updated facts. I was happy to discover that the new version is available in full length on youtube. However, some excellent, additional clips from the original documentary “astroturfwars” are also available on youtube HERE. More clips on Taki Oldham’s website HERE!
In addition, you also find a very informative clip about the Koch Brothers and Americans for Prosperity HERE.
Taki Oldham examines in detail the phenomenon of the “front groups” like “Americans for Prosperity”, and discovers that these front groups are extensively used in the fight against government healthcare, climate change legislation and in supporting the Tea Party movement, and that Koch Industries are at the heart of many of these front groups.
During my research, I was surprised to discover that the concept of a front-group was first developed by the German propaganda genius and communist Willi Münzenberg in the 1920s, which prompted me to buy a biography of Willi Münzenberg, published by Harper Collins as well as a book in German language which he wrote himself, called “Propaganda as a weapon”, in which he sharply analyses the methods of Nazi-propaganda. The methods of the Nazis were very different from Münzenberg’s tactics, as he preferred covert operations in which the person of desire doesn’t even know that he or she is being subjected to propaganda. Therefore Münzenberg developed with great skill the concept of the “front groups”, a concept that proved to be so effective that it later was adapted for example by the tobacco industry, and then by the Koch Brothers. It is always nice to learn new and additional facts while originally researching a different topic. Münzenberg was most likely killed by Stalin’s henchmen in 1940, a few years after Münzenberg, who in earlier years was a very good personal friend of Lenin, turned into an anti-Stalinist.
Münzenberg emphasised the need for a front group to completely hide the real “owners.” This is a lesson which the Koch Brothers haven’t learned, because despite all their attempts to act as secretly as possible, they are still far too transparent – which is fortunate.
They also took elaborate steps to ensure that the content of their “infamous” meetings with business leaders and journalists are kept secret. However, they failed miserably. The most recent revelations were several sensational recordings from inside the secret “Summer Seminar” in June 2011, which were published by Mother Jones (here and here) and the Brad Blog (here and here).
Today, I created a clip with some of the most important remarks by Charles Koch, in which he says that “we have Saddam Hussein”, and that the next 18 months will be the “mother of all wars, for the life or death of this country.”
However, I believe that he will now have some additional problems…
Good night, and good luck! 🙂
One of our readers just sent me this advert for a speech by Koch Industries corporate communication director Melissa Cohlmia, which will take place on Thursday, October 20, from 9.30 am to 10.30 am at Wichita State University. The topic of the speech is more than appropriate: “The integrated marketing approach to crisis communication.”

It just so happens that Melissa Cohlmia is the Koch Industries spokesperson who is quoted in the Bloomberg article several times, always with the same “Everything is fine – nothing to see here” statements. So her “marketing approach to crisis communication” is already quite obvious. Deny, refute, deflect. However, I have to say that her statements in the article are far from convincing, given the overwhelming documentation which is provided by “Bloomberg Markets” magazine.
I wonder if she has anything interesting to say, or if she will answer questions? Is somebody living close and has time to attend the speech?
I just looked into our statcounter, and I discovered that we have new visitors.
Charles & David, I am truly sorry that we ruined your Sunday. We all cherish our weekends, but unfortunately I couldn’t wait any longer to publish the story.
Koch Brothers IP - summary

Some more details from the article in Bloomberg Markets magazine:
– The compliance manager who was later fired by Koch Industries was a woman called Ludmilla Egorova-Farines. She was hired in April 2008 by Koch Chemical Technology Group, a subsidiary run by David Koch, for the newly created position of compliance and ethics manager. She was asked to investigate the illicit payments by Koch-Glitsch. She then discovered that bribes were paid from 2002 to 2008 by Koch-Glitsch in Algeria, Egypt, India, Morocco, Nigeria and Saudi-Arabia.
– Leon Mausen, Business Director of Koch-Glitsch in France from 1998 to 2008 was blamed by Koch Industries for the payments. He was also sacked and sued Koch Industries in June 2009, but two labour law courts in France ruled in his favour, saying that a man called Christoph Ender, who was the President of Koch-Glitsch for Europe and Asia, as well as the controllers and auditors, “allowed such business practices to continue without doing due diligence in their reviews concerning the payment of commissions and the final beneficiaries of said commissions.” Bloomberg Markets note that Christoph Ender currently works as an executive for Koch Industries in Wichita.
– Bloomberg Markets magazine quotes Professor Sara Sun Beale from Duke Law School in Durham, NC, who said that these illicit payments by Koch-Glitsch may violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act from 1977
– Regarding the deals with Iran, Bloomberg Markets magazine notes that Koch-Glitsch received a purchase order to supply petrochemical equipment for Iran just ONE DAY after President George W. Bush said in an address to Congress on January 28, 2003 that Iran “represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.” Another contract was secured for $ 1.2 million by Koch-Glitsch on May 31, 2004, to help extend the methanol plant in Iran.

The story is out!

I had just finished my last update, when I saw that Bloomberg now published the story online.
I left the following (slightly shorter) comment at the “Atlantic”, who quoted Politicalgates in their article about the Bloomberg story:

Lots of spin by Koch Industries. This is one area in which they are really good at: Spin and propaganda – and it’s nice have AFP as your own astroturf army spamming the internet for you.

Koch Industries now published a long statement as a rebuttal to the Bloomberg article, also regarding what they call the “France issues”, and they try to dismiss the notion that there was any wrongdoing on their part, basically saying that one employee went “rogue” and was solely responsible for the bribes, without the knowledge of others in the company.

But that’s what Bloomberg actually wrote:

In its Dec. 8, 2008, termination letter to Mausen, Koch blamed him for the illegal payments. In July 2009, Mausen sued Koch for severance and performance pay in the Arles Labor Court in southern France.

On Sept. 27, 2010, the court said Mausen hadn’t acted on his own.
“It was not Mr. Mausen alone who was giving authorizations,” the court wrote.

Company policy required approval from other Koch-Glitsch managers, including Christoph Ender, the president of Koch- Glitsch for Europe and Asia, the court said.

“Ender, manager of Koch-Glitsch France, as well as the controllers and auditors who were assisting him, allowed such business practices developed with Mr. Mausen to continue without doing due diligence in their reviews concerning the payment of commissions and the final beneficiaries of said commissions,” the labor court wrote.

An appeals court in Aix-en-Provence issued a second ruling on June 14, 2011, saying the company couldn’t justify terminating Mausen for the payment scheme because his managers had been aware of the practices for more than 60 days before he was fired. The court ordered Koch-Glitsch to pay Mausen 150,808 euros ($206,170).

Mausen declined to comment, beyond saying he disputed Koch’s arguments in court. Ender, who is now a Koch-Glitsch executive in Wichita, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Koch Industries wasn’t able to refute any of these facts.

The defence by Koch Industries regarding the deals with Iran is also very weak. Bloomberg describes in detail that Koch-Glitsch had lawyers in the USA working on the deals with Iran to ensure that everything was “formally” ok.

Furthermore, was Koch-Glitsch really a “foreign” subsidiary? The company has one of the main offices in the USA, and two other offices in the USA as well.

If we take a look at the report of the Senate Grand Jury investigation into Halliburton’s deals with Iran, then we find this interesting passage:

In order to comply with terrorist sanctions law, neither Halliburton (the U.S. parent company) nor any of its U.S. subsidiaries here or overseas can engage in any decision making with regard to, or become involved in, business transactions between the foreign subsidiary –Halliburton Products and Services – and Iran. The foreign subsidiary must be truly independent in order to legally take advantage of the loophole.

Was Koch-Glitsch “truly independent?” That’s not my impression at all!

No decision-making from the parent company? But Koch’s own US lawyers were checking the deals!

I would be very surprised if the Koch Brothers would be able to make these allegations “go away” just with a simple statement.


Many thanks to our contributor Nomad for finding the PDF with the results of the Grand Jury investigation into Halliburton.

Ken Vogel at Politico today reports what’s in store for Americans in 2012:

The groups — Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, Leadership Institute and Tea Party Express – raised $79 million last year. That’s a 61 percent increase from their haul in 2009, when the tea party first started gaining traction, and an 88 percent increase over their tally in 2008, according to a POLITICO review of campaign reports and newly released tax filings.

And the two biggest groups — Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — tell POLITICO they’re planning to raise and spend a whopping $156 million combined this year and next, laying the groundwork for what could be a massive tea party organizing push against Democrats and the occasional moderate Republican in 2012.

Expect in 2012 many more vicious propaganda clips against President Obama by Americans for Prosperity like this one, which they created specifically for the 2010 election:

Ken Vogel also reports at Politico that Tim Philips, president of Americans for Prosperity, earns a cool $363,000 per year.

That’s Koch grassroots for you!


Last update for this post: Today was a proud day for American investigative journalism. It was not the day of the “pundits” and “spinmeisters”, but of good old solid investigative reporting.
Bloomberg fearlessly took on Koch Industries, and after the publication of their story, they now broadcast an equally hard-hitting and fearless TV-report. It’s the facts which count. There are far too many journalists who are suspiciously eager to defend the Koch Brothers, like Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, who today wrote that the Koch Brothers are being “singled out.”
Well, dear Mrs. Rubin, unfortunately it’s the Koch Brothers who singled out the American people!
Here is Bloomberg’s TV-report:
I changed my mind – here is another interesting update: ABC News tries to interview David Koch, but he refuses to say anything and flees into his car.
Websites which linked to our post:
Mark Crispin Miller (Professor at NYU who appeared in Taki Oldham’s documentary)

Fox News censor Karl Rove’s highly critical comments about Sarah Palin on Greta Van Susteren’s show – Transcript and broadcast exclude 2 1/2 minutes!

By Patrick
Some stories become suddenly much “bigger” while you are working on them. Today, my plan was to publish a post about Karl Rove’s interview with Greta Van Susteren from Wednesday, in which he slammed Sarah Palin in connection with the latest statement which was published by SarahPAC on Tuesday. In this short statement, which was written in Palin’s typical “shoot-from-the-hips-and-take-no-prisoners” style, SarahPAC wrote on their website:

Three years ago DC pundits predicted with glee the demise of Sarah Palin’s political career. This past weekend their tune changed, citing false information that she has made a decision and set a date regarding a future campaign. Any professional pundit claiming to have “inside information” regarding Governor Palin’s personal decision is not only wrong but their comments are specifically intended to mislead the American public. These are the same tired establishment political games that fuel the 24 hour news cycle and that all Americans will hopefully reject in 2012, and this is more of the “politics-as-usual” that Sarah Palin has fought against throughout her career.

This harsh statement at the SarahPAC website is assumed to be directed at Karl Rove, who recently said on Fox News Sunday, according to CBS News:

“I’m not much of a gambler, but I’d put a little bit more money that she gets in than she doesn’t,” the former strategist for George W. Bush said. Of her upcoming schedule in Iowa, which includes a Tea Party speaking event on September 3, Rove said it “looks like that of a candidate, not a celebrity.”

Yesterday Karl Rove fired back at Palin on Greta Van Susteren’s show, and although it was Greta herself who brought the issue up, it seemed to be a bit like an ambush, as Greta was clearly surprised by Karl Rove’s very harsh and extensive remarks. Karl Rove accused Sarah Palin of having an “enormous thin skin” and in general slammed Palin’s strategy, when he for example said:

“So, if she doesn’t want people, if she doesn’t want people to speculate that she might be a Presidential candidate she’s sure got a funny way about going about killing the speculation. (…) By showing up in a surprise appearance at the Iowa State Fair and running a television ad saying “I’m looking forward to being back in Iowa” and then going and speaking at a big rally in Iowa. I thought that part of that was that she wanted to get more attention to herself but I guess, I guess that’s wrong. I guess that she wanted less attention so she did those things. I don’t know. It’s weird. Very odd.”

And now begins the “story in the story”: In the clip of the interview as it was published on the Fox News website, Greta Van Susteren and Karl Rove talk during the first 13 minutes about President Obama – therefore I thought it would be a good idea to create a youtube clip with Karl Rove’s remarks in order to make these remarks more accessible – and so I did:
However, when I afterwards checked the transcript which was published on the Fox News website, I encountered a huge surprise. I almost couldn’t believe it when I saw this on Greta Van Susteren’s website:

“END VIDEOTAPE”? No, there were still more than 2 1/2 minutes in the interview to go!
So the last sentence in the published transcript of this interview at Fox News is: “I mean, that’s not going to be a pretty sight if she’s as thin-skinned in the fray as she is on the edges of it.”

In the above clip, Karl Rove says this sentence at the 3:15 mark. The rest of the interview apparently doesn’t “officially exist”, although strangely, the full interview is available on the website – and you could find the missing remarks if you actually bothered to watch the whole clip.

But could this have been a simple mistake? I did some research and found an article by the Fox News watchdog-site “Newshounds”, which in my opinion confirmed that Fox News deliberately excluded a part of the interview, because in the actual broadcast, Fox News suddenly cut-off the interview with Karl Rove, as the clip of the broadcast proves, recorded by “Newshounds” – the news about Steve Jobs was suddenly much more important for Fox News than Karl Rove mouthing off about Sarah Palin – watch:

In the actual broadcast, the remaining 2 1/2 minutes of Karl Rove deliciously slamming Sarah Palin were actually not shown at all! The last sentence which was broadcast was also the last sentence in the official transcript – but there was no hint given anywhere that the conversation with Karl Rove discussing Sarah Palin afterwards went on for another 2 1/2 minutes, with some harsh and important remarks by Karl Rove about Sarah Palin. Therefore it was ensured that only a tiny amount of people would notice the additional remarks, as they were also not included in the published transcript.
Fox News in my opinion actually brilliantly proved Karl Rove’s point in the interview that Sarah is “enormously thin skinned”, as it’s apparently not wise to confront Sarah Palin and her fanatical followers with the full interview, conducted with the most important Republican strategist.

The full remarks are apparently quite difficult to swallow for Sarah Palin, a politician who infamously doesn’t cope very well with criticism – and in addition it appears that the Fox News audience apparently also shouldn’t be bothered with too many negative remarks about their star Sarah Palin.
Did this strategy of excluding the remarks work? Well, if you look at the reports of this interview, it apparently did work! Take for example the report of the conservative “Daily Caller” about this interview – the quoted remarks there also end with the sentence “I mean, that is not a pretty sight if she is as thin-skinned in the fray as she is on the edges of it”, so it doesn’t appear that anyone at the Daily Caller bothered to watch the full tape of the interview.
Therefore we regard it as our duty to publish the full transcript of the interview – Karl Rove, whatever you might think of him in general, deserves to be heard, and Fox News deserves to be slammed for their cowardice.
FULL UNCENSORED TRANSCRIPT (many thanks to Kathleen for transcribing the “lost” second part!):

VAN SUSTEREN: In anticipation of talking to you today, I did some research. And in the last five days, every time practically the name Rove comes up, it comes up with — about a comment you made about Governor Sarah Palin. What is it about Sarah Palin, Governor Sarah Palin, that if anyone says her name, you know, or someone like you, that it just explodes? Is that the media or is that Governor Palin or what is — or is that Karl Rove?

ROVE: No, no. That’s Governor Palin. Look, the head of grass roots organization on her behalf in Iowa said roughly the same thing I did, which is not knowing any inside information, it looks to us like — both this fellow in Iowa and to me — that she’s more likely to be a candidate. The things that she’s doing in Iowa, showing up at the Iowa state fair, running this ad, saying, I’m looking forward to being back there on September 3rd, attending a big rally on September 3rd, all signal to me that she’s likely to be more — more likely to be a candidate at some point.

I’ve never said she’s going to declare on the 3rd, but I’ve said this schedule looks more like the schedule of somebody who wants to be a candidate…

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, why is — why is…

ROVE: … than somebody who’s just a celebrity.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why is everyone so — but why is everyone…

ROVE: You know what? Here’s…


ROVE: I’m mystified. Look, she is all upset about this, saying I’m somehow trying to sabotage her — sabotage her in some way and that how dare I speculate on her future. Look, if she doesn’t want to be speculated about as a potential presidential candidate, there’s an easy way to end the speculation. Simply say, “I’m not running.”

But instead, every time she pops up into the public eye, like she did on CNN on — at the Iowa state fair a short number of days ago — she said, I haven’t made a decision. I’m just speculating that the kind of schedule she’s keeping leads me to believe that it’s more likely than not that she’s going to be a candidate.

Now, I said I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it because I — it’s a close thing and I’m not privy to her thought-making process. But it is a sign of enormous thin skin that if we speculate about her, she gets upset. And I suspect if we didn’t speculate about her, she’d be upset and try and find a way to get us to speculate about her. So…

VAN SUSTEREN: I actually — I actually — I actually don’t know if it’s Governor Palin or not. I don’t know anything about that. I was merely reflecting on the fact that the media, is you mention the name Governor Palin, I mean, no matter what you say or Governor Palin — I mean, I don’t — I have no idea whether — whether she has — even knows — I assume she knows that you said something about her. But why — what is it about Governor Palin that even the media can’t let go of it?

ROVE: Yes. Well, first of all, I do assume she — she — when her — when SARAHPAC issues a statement, I assume that Governor Palin authorized the statement. So she knew exactly what SARAHPAC was going to say. But look, here’s the deal…

VAN SUSTEREN: I didn’t even know about, but OK.

ROVE: Oh, yes. Yes, that’s where — that’s where — that’s where her comment came from was a statement put out by SARAHPAC. But look, she’s a big — she’s a potentially big factor in the presidential election. If she were to get in, she’d be a “contenda,” as they would say. She was the vice presidential nominee in 2008. She maintains a following.

There are people who want her in and there are some people who would be deeply concerned if she did because she’d be eating into their — into their ranks. But she’s a player. And so if she doesn’t want to be speculated about, then end the speculation by saying, “I’m not going to be a candidate.”

Until then, I would just recommend she might get a slightly thicker skin because if she’s got this thin a skin now, when people are saying, Well, I think she might be a candidate, what kind of — how’s she going to react if she does get into the campaign and gets the scrutiny that every presidential candidate does get? I mean, that’s not going to be a pretty sight if she’s as thin-skinned in the fray as she is on the edges of it.


VAN SUSTEREN: I, I, I, the SarahPAC thing I don’t know anything about. I don’t know whether she wrote it or the PAC wrote it or not. but it is just so extraordinary that I don’t get it how…

ROVE: (tries to interject)

VAN SUSTEREN: (continues) …how her name gets mentioned…

ROVE: Yeah.

VAN SUSTEREN: …her name gets mentioned and everyone says that she’s still a contender it’s the most unusual political story.

ROVE: Yeah. Well look, it came from her PAC and I assume that since it’s a small group of people who run the PAC and run her operation and I assume that she was aware that they were going to go out there and say things in her name, SarahPAC, that basically said “Don’t speculate about me and if you are then you are an establishment elitist with no inside information.”

And I mean I just thought that it was a very odd way to react and and frankly you know – OK fine: If you don’t want us to speculate about you don’t be doing the things you are doing. By showing up in a surprise appearance at the Iowa State Fair and running a television ad saying “I’m looking forward to being back in Iowa” and then going and speaking at a big rally in Iowa. I thought that part of that was that she wanted to get more attention to herself but I guess, I guess that’s wrong. I guess that she wanted less attention so she did those things. I don’t know. It’s weird. Very odd.

VAN SUSTEREN: Could she, could she get the nomination?

ROVE: You know, she’s very……Yes. Sure, sure she could. You could, you could find a path to get there. Could she be a player? Absolutely. Will she be a big influence in Iowa? Look, think about it. If she were not interested in being a candidate why does she keep going back to Iowa?

She premiered her film in Iowa. She took and did a couple of stops on her book tour in Iowa, at the very beginning of her book tour. She went there and talked about…she showed up at the Iowa State Fair. She was the premier speaker last year at their fundraising dinner in September of last year and she’s going back there to speak at a Tea Party rally on the 3rd September. I’m sure that there are a lot of other states in the union where she could have previewed her film, conducted her, launched her book tour, and spoken to a tea party event during labor day 2011 but it’s Iowa which ironically enough is…. the first contest in the Republican Presidential sweepstakes. The Caucuses is the first week of February.

So, if she doesn’t want people, if she doesn’t want people to speculate that she might be a Presidential candidate she’s sure got a funny way about going about killing the speculation.

VAN SUSTEREN: Should or do you think that Governer Romney and Governor Perry are courting her right now for her influence?

ROVE: Oh, anybody who is smart would be courting her and courting her people. Absolutely. In the event she doesn’t run she can, she can be a big influence if she decides to endorse somebody.

VAN SUSTEREN: Karl, thank you.

ROVE: You bet. Thank you.


Rick Perry announces his candidacy for US President and steals Sarah Palin’s talking points – all of them, any of them – BONUS: Perry and Hitler

By Patrick
Sarah Palin might be “THE big Elephant in the GOP tent”, as Joe McGinniss wrote yesterday, but the GOP tent is now in real danger to get stomped on by another elephant, Texas Governor Rick Perry, who yesterday announced his candidacy to become the next US President.
His announcement appears to be a real game changer and a huge problem for Sarah Palin, as Rick Perry already proved that he has no hesitation to steal all her talking points, and behave “more presidential” at the same time. In his announcement speech yesterday in South Carolina, he sounded like a mixture between G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and he also fully embraced Sarah Palin’s well-known talking points – but his vocabulary doesn’t appear as limited as the one of the Ice Queen from Wasilla.
If you want to hear a politician talking for example about
– cutting spending
– creating new jobs
– keeping the taxes low
– strengthening private enterprises
– President Obama being a big failure
– military, military, military
– American exceptionalism
– America always coming first
– protection of American interests in the world
– Ronald Reagan’s shining city on a hill
– praying for America
– family values
– repealing healthcare
– protecting unborn life
and so on, you don’t have to listen to the fame-whoring screech from Wasilla any more. As Rick Perry made clear in his announcement speech, he embraces all these points – what a coincidence that is.
Watch (there is also good commentary at the end of the second MSNBC clip):
In addition, you get a “real politician”, and not a wannabe who quit her job when the going got tough.
Rick Perry’s talking points seem to be a re-hash of G.W. Bush in 2000 and certainly don’t offer solutions to the current economic crisis in the USA, but they raise an important question: Is there still room for Sarah Palin after Rick Perry entered the race? I truly don’t believe there is.
Even hardcore Palin-supporters will soon realise that not only the talking points are basically identical, but that Rick Perry also instantly appears much more “presidential.” In their eyes, he could be the “strong man” that the USA currently needs. Unlike Sarah Palin and her equally fame-whoring daughter Bristol, Rick Perry is not overexposed yet, but a “fresh face”, so to speak. Despite his highly questionable record as the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry at least is a sitting Governor since 2000, and the State of Texas is of huge importance for the presidential election.
After his announcement, some interesting details came to light: After Mike Huckabee refused to get in the race a few months ago, Rick Perry was urged by evangelical leaders to enter the race, CNN reports:

Many of the activists checking in with Shackelford are concerned that Pawlenty and Bachmann, the other Republican candidates popular among conservative evangelicals, aren’t generating enough support and have limited appeal outside the evangelical subculture.

“They want a candidate who is not only socially and fiscally conservative, but who could actually raise money,” says Shackelford. “Perry can bridge the establishment and grass roots sides of the party and that’s really hard to find.”

Perry, who has presided over a state that has seen strong job growth amid the economic downturn, is considered popular among business groups.

“Rick Perry has the potential to energize tea party and social conservatives, as well as attract endorsements and contributions from GOP donors and elected officials,” said Ralph Reed, who leads the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

“Not unlike another Texas governor, George W. Bush, he can bridge the establishment wing of the party and the conservative grass roots,” said Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition. “That’s quite a combination, and my sense is he will reshuffle this race in a significant way.”

Romney, the current establishment favorite, is unpopular among many conservative Christian activists because of his onetime support for abortion rights and because of a health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts that mandates coverage.

And Romney, a Mormon, faces obstacles in connecting with evangelical voters along religious lines, as Perry, Pawlenty and Bachmann appear to be doing.

“I got involved in The Response three or four months ago and at that time, the Perry for president push was not the issue,” said Garlow, who is supporting Newt Gingrich for president but is disappointed at the former House Speaker’s performance so far. “It became that way primarily after Huckabee pulled his name out of the race.”

Indeed, many conservative activists began calling on Perry to run only after former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee announced in May that he would not seek the White House.

“I was astounded at the pressure on him to run – you felt it building and we were trying to plan this prayer event and we’re saying, ‘How do we keep this out of politics because this is about Christ?’ ”

So Rick Perry could quickly emerge as the new darling of the evangelical right. Interesting that the evangelicals are apparently not so keen on Sarah Palin running, as no “signals” to get her in the race are visible at this point. My impression is that she lost a lot of important support in the background, and we can only guess about the specific reasons. But it’s probably rather simple, as Sarah Palin in the past turned out the be unreliable, irrational and uninformed on a regular basis, apart from being a money-grubbing fame whore. Maybe people just “got it” in the end and realised that Sarah Palin simply isn’t presidential material.

The American people of course also don’t believe that Sarah Palin is presidential material, as for example the latest CNN poll from August 5-7 revealed again (click to enlarge):

In addition, the latest Fox News Poll revealed that a whopping 74% of Independents and even 58% of Republicans believe that Sarah Palin “would not make a good President” (click to enlarge):
So wouldn’t it be great if actually Sarah Palin became the Republican nominee, as she is polling so badly on a regular basis – wouldn’t that be fantastic for the Democrats? Shouldn’t they actually work FOR Palin in order to enhance her chances? Shouldn’t the anti-Palin bloggers just shut up?
NO, of course not. Sarah Palin is a mentally unstable, ignorant, reckless, narcissistic and vindictive woman, whose main ambition in life is to fight against her real and perceived enemies, basically anyone who doesn’t adore her. She already caused a lot of damage to the political culture. Such a person would be highly destructive for any civilised society. Even though her chances to win the election would be slim, a successful primary would give her the chance to poison the political climate even more. Not even for tactical reasons should she be allowed in a position to seriously run for the presidency.
James C. Moore, another commentator at CNN, sees Rick Perry already heading for the White House. While it may very well be the case that Perry could soon the be the Republican frontrunner, Moore comes to a peculiar conclusion at the end, when he writes:

Fueled only by speculation that he might announce, Perry became the putative front-runner (heard that word at a fancy Washington restaurant and thought it was cool). Because presidential politics tend to be more visceral than intellectual, Perry’s coyote-killer good looks, $2,000 hand-tooled cowboy boots, supernova smile and Armani suits, combined with podium skills to embellish the mythology of Texas, all will create a product Americans will want to believe and buy.

After he wins the nomination, protocol will require Perry to have discussions with Bachmann about the vice presidential slot, but he will, eventually, turn to Sarah Palin. The general election will force the Texan back toward the middle and he will stop talking about faith and abortion and gay marriage; Perry will campaign on jobs and the economy.

Palin, who is loved by the tea party as much as Perry, will keep the Teavangelicals animated while he tries to talk to the adults to win the election on a single issue: the economy, stupiderest!!! (Forget about Rudy Giuliani; the GOP cannot win New York, don’t need it to take the election and Giuliani is wrong on gay marriage for this ticket).

No way! Somebody clearly didn’t pay attention. It would be suicidal for Rick Perry to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate, as should be evident from all the past events (James C. Moore apparently also needs to educate himself about the long list of Sarah Palin’s scandals, which are ticking time bombs).

In fact, Rick Perry already made clear who his favourite would be, and consequently announced his candidacy in her home state: South Carolina’s Governor Nikki Haley. They already wrote an op-ed together for the Washington Post in July 2011 about the “cap, tax and balance pledge”, titled “Break the spend-and-borrow cycle”, and Nikki Haley quickly called the timing of Rick Perry’s announcement in her home state “brilliant.”

Sarah Palin is not on board. In fact, she was clearly annoyed that she didn’t know that Rick Perry would announce, as was evident from her remarks yesterday which were reported by Scott Conroy:

I am certain that it’s out of the question that Sarah Palin would be Rick Perry’s running mate.
Right now, it appears that Sarah Palin out manouvered herself. Andrew Sullivan thinks that she wants to wait with her announcement after the books by Joe McGinniss and Levi Johnston have been published, and that may very well be true. Andrew Sullivan wrote:

My bet is she’ll wait till after Levi’s and McGinniss’s books come out. And she’ll leverage her campaign as a victim of the evil media.

But I cannot know, of course. All I know is that Palin craves attention and believes she has been chosen by God to lead the nation. Bowing out of the race is the end of her fifteen minutes. My bet is she wants a few more hours.

Yes, she wants more hours, and so do Todd and Bristol. Let’s see what she will get in the end. The right-wingers on the major website “Free Republic” already started to slaughter Sarah Palin (and her bots in particular!), and hardly anyone defends her there any more. The right-wingers want a winner, not a quitter.

By the way, I don’t think that Michele Bachmann has a serious chance. She bought herself the victory at this ridiculous straw poll in Iowa with giving away 4000 free tickets, which otherwise would have cost $30 each. Americans don’t want a crazy lady with an even more embarrassing husband as their president. I believe that Rick Perry will start to dominate the polls as far as the radical right-wing base is concerned, as the main opponent to Mitt Romney.
The crazy lady from Wasilla then will need a new purpose in life. But she will probably just go on for decades complaining about how she was destroyed by the evil media, repeating this mantra like a broken record. Fortunately, we then don’t need to listen to her any more and can concentrate on more pleasant things in life again.
Please re-tweet:
Fortunately, Rick Perry’s gaffes already started while he was in college. If you put one of his college pictures and a historical picture of Adolf Hitler side-by-side, this is what we get (click to enlarge). I just couldn’t resist to create this photo comparison.
I don’t want to say that Rick Perry is a Nazi, but let’s be serious for a moment – can you imagine what the right-wingers would have done if they had found a similar picture of Barack Obama…?
Rick Perry – Adolf Hitler (click to enlarge)


While Perry’s college pictures are just what they are, old pictures, and while it’s also not Rick Perry’s fault that the uniform very closely resembles a Nazi uniform, it is worth pointing out that the right-wingers also discovered the pictures today, and that they not only love them, but also had no hesitation to immediately compare them to Barack Obama’s college pictures, in order to prove that Obama was just a stoned hippie at college, unlike Rick Perry. So it is fair to point out in my view that Perry’s picture is actually rather unfortunate.
Our photo-comparison is starting to make the rounds.

The undeclared candidate Sarah Palin causes media mayhem in Iowa, chastises Scott Conroy for quoting her verbatim and snides against Rick Perry

Sarah Palin declared that she didn’t “want to step on anybody’s (campaign) toes”… (photo of Sarah Palin’s toes, taken today at the Iowa state fair).

By Patrick

Sarah Palin still is the media’s favourite circus act: If she appears somewhere, you have to surround her and then try to get some dumb or inflammatory or otherwise sensational statements out of her, and today in Iowa, this strategy seems to have worked really well again. It actually worked so well that Sarah Palin did not hesitate to chastise reporter Scott Conroy (“Sarah from Alaska”) on the spot for quoting her verbatim earlier that day!
But let’s take it step by step. Sarah appeared today at the Iowa state fair, and Dave Weigel somehow got it right when he wrote today at Slate: “Sarah Palin Arrives at State Fair, Attracts Every Camera Within 500 Miles.”
Yup yup, today the cameras were on her again, you betcha:

So what did Sarah Palin say? Apparently, she said a lot, and Scott Conroy diligently reported parts of it on twitter:

So Sarah Palin is apparently not happy at all about the fact that Rick Perry is about to enter the race:
We know from the past that if Sarah is unhappy, it’s tough for her to hide it. Sometimes she manages to hide her anger and/or frustration, but apparently not today. Why is she unhappy, though? Dear readers, although I see the results of our sweet little poll at the top of the sidebar, I believe I know why she is not happy: Because Sarah will run, and Rick Perry could be a real threat, much more than Michele Bachmann.
I have said it before and I will say it again: The thrilla from Wasilla will enter the race – because she has absolutely nothing to lose by entering the race, but just to gain. Even if she lost, she would maintain her position of being somebody whose statements are actually worth to be reported. In contrast, by staying out of the race, nobody would ever care for the Wasillian housewife again, including her fanatical fans. But her fans know already know what will happen, and her foot-soldiers, most of them originating from the Conservatives4Palin-network, are already in position. Let’s not forget that it was revealed in Frank Bailey’s book “Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin” that Conservatives4Palin secretly work together with the inner circle around Sarah Palin.
Rick Perry currently tries hard to reinforce his image of the darling of right-wing Christians. He appeared at a Christian rally in Texas on August 6, 2011 which was organized by a right-wing organization (good TV news report about the event HERE). At the event, Rick Perry spoke a highly controversial prayer, in which he shamelessly exploited religion for his political goals and blurred the line between politics and religion in a dangerous way – not that Rick Perry would care, of course:
Back to Iowa: What did Sarah Palin do when she was confronted with the statements she gave earlier today about Rick Perry? She blamed reporter Scott Conroy for quoting her verbatim! Thankfully Dave Weigel provided this detailed report about her reaction:

But Palin and her husband Todd spent a lot of time answering questions from reporters. When Jake Tapper of ABC News arrived in the scrum, with more cameras, Palin stopped taking ad hoc answers and started an impromptu press conference. She made some news, saying she would probably make up her mind on a 2012 bid by next month, “in fairness to supporters who are standing on the sidelines.”

“I don’t want to be perceived as stringing people along,” she said. “Don’t jump on someone else’s bandwagon because I might jump in. That’s not fair to them.”

Before I’d gotten there, Palin had told reporters she was glad to see Rick Perry run for president “even though he wouldn’t,” and that the governor of Alaska had more power than the governor of Texas. Both true statements, both of which came out during the early part of a media frenzy. By the time I arrived, reporters were repeating the lines at her.

“You seemed to be critical of Rick Perry,” started one reporter.

“What did I say?” asked Palin, exasperated. She looked at Scott Conroy, the co-author of the Palin bio Sarah From Alaska, and a diligent reporter on the Palin beat. “Did you do it?”

Conroy fessed up and repeated what she’d said about the powers of governors.

“See, now this is what I don’t understand about the press!” said Palin. “You make a statement like that, which I did. You asked me, what’s the difference between your experience as governor and Rick Perry’s. An I said, there’s two different forms of government in the state of Alaska and the state of Texas. Alaska has a very powerful executive position. Texas, it’s not as powerful. That does not mean he did a better job or a worse job than any other governor, including myself.”

“So it’s a distinction,” said Conroy. “Isn’t that worth reporting?”

“No!” said Palin, turning to talk to someone else about who should win the straw poll. “I would never tell people who to vote for,” she said. “I think Ron Paul still has a great stance of winning the straw poll. I think Herman Cain has a chance, too.”

The Governor of Alaska is more powerful than the Governor of Texas? Well, Sarah – why did you bail out then when it got hot in the kitchen if you were so incredibly super-duper powerful? And don’t give me that crap that the ethics complaints were bankrupting you (which is still repeated as a mantra by your gullible fans up until today) – because it’s a lie, as the State of Alaska was ready to pay your lawyer, but for mysterious, still unexplained reasons, you, Sarah Palin, refused to accept this offer by the State of Alaska!

Coincidentally, on Wednesday this week, Alaskan activist Andrée McLeod pointed us to some interesting news, because a few days ago Sarah Palin asked the State of Alaska for legal help in the civil lawsuit which Juneau resident Chip Thoma started against her – AP reported the details:

Assistant Attorney General Dale House said Palin asked the state to help defend her against the lawsuit by activist Chip Thoma.

The claims made against Palin date to when she was governor, and House said Wednesday that it’s typical for the state to get involved if the person is being sued largely because of the title they held or because of something they did in the course of their official duties. He said there are exceptions, including for criminal cases.

House said the state will pay for his participation but not for Palin’s personal lawyer, John Tiemessen, who will be co-counsel.

Thoma is suing Palin for at least $100,000, claiming that she undertook a campaign to “punish, embarrass, discredit and silence” him while governor after he complained about tour bus traffic on the windy, narrow streets around the governor’s mansion.

Therefore Sarah Palin lost her hesitation to accept legal assistance from the State of Alaska – even for a civil law suit. Oh, these poor little people!
I don’t want to forget to mention that Frank Bailey explained in his book “Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin” in great detail how Sarah Palin orchestrated the campaign against Chip Thomas, together with her inner circle, despite the facts the everyone knew that the allegations against Chip Thomas were completely fabricated. It’s one of the best parts of Frank Bailey’s book.
Any other stupid remarks by Sarah Palin in Iowa today? YOU BETCHA!
This one is a real head scratcher, again reported by Scott Conroy on twitter:

No Sarah, it wasn’t a good question, but a pretty silly one, but nevertheless, it was worth asking, because your reply was….uniquely stupid.
More statements from the Iowa state fair?
So far, only a few other snippets are available on youtube, not in good quality, as far as I can see.
UPDATE – The full CNN interview with Don Lemon has been published online – it’s interesting:

Sarah Palin agrees with Mitt Romney’s view that “corporations are people”:
So the mad cow is on the loose again. 😉
By chastising Scott Conroy for quoting her verbatim, the most recent Palin-sketch by Tina Fey actually came true, what a surprise – with Sarah Palin, satire doesn’t come easy:

Appearing in a faux Fox News debate alongside other “candidates you wish you knew less about” — including Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, and Mitt Romney — Fey was back in fine form as Palin: “First I want to acknowledge that this week we finally vanquished one of the world’s great villains. And I for one am thrilled to say good riddance to Katie Couric,” Fey said.

“It’s just so great to be back on Fox News, a network that both pays me and shows me the questions ahead of time,” Fey added. “I just hope that tonight the lamestream media won’t twist my words by repeating them verbatim.”

But great ideas for comedy come easy as far as Sarah Palin and the rest of the GOP crowd is concerned, at least for our reader Azure Ghost, who created another one of her brilliant graphics (click to enlarge):
More entertainment will be guaranteed. Look of for more “sniding remarks” of the Ice Queen against Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, because God is with her, not with the other two idiots, and he will push the door wide open for Queen Esther, and not for them, YOU BETCHA, AMERICA!
The woman who made a living out of spewing hate and division all over America wore a “love” t-shirt today in Iowa (click to enlarge):