The debate airs live on CNBC starting at 8pm ET.  Will the GOP field tread lightly on the Cain allegations, or will someone go for the jugular?  Will Mitt Romney's spending and entitlements plan draw attacks or attaboys?  Will Newt Gingrich reiterate his Global Warming/Pelosi couch commercial mea culpa?  Follow the Townhall/HotAir editorial team's live coverage of tonight's twists and turns below, and don't be bashful about posting your own instant reactions in the comments section.

Stay tuned to The Tipsheet after the debate for my comprehensive wrap-up and analysis.

ROCHESTER, MICHIGAN - Greetings from Car Country! Believe it or not, it's been more than three weeks since the last Republican presidential debate, which feels like an eternity this cycle.  Never fear, debate mavens, there are four such forums scheduled between now and December -- so buckle up.  Tonight's exchange on CNBC will garner a great deal of attention because it's the first time Herman Cain will face his rivals in person since multiple allegations of sexual harassment lit what is now a raging media firestorm.  Much of the pre-debate chatter is focusing on the Cain imbroglio and his team's butchered political response, but I wonder if that misses a crucial point: The national unemployment rate sits at a painful 9 percent.  Here in Michigan, it's north of eleven percent.  There will be many, many voters watching tonight who couldn't care less about what Herman Cain did, or did not, do over a decade ago.  Of course people want an honest leader, and yes, one's ability to manage campaign crises isn't irrelevant, but 14 million Americans are out of work.  If the discussion descends into sleazy he-said/she-said territory, the candidate who manages to make this point forcefully and refocus the conversation will do himself a huge favor. 

Another interesting side note: Michigan is packed with voters of all political stripes whose parochial interests strongly favor the federal auto bailouts.  This topic will surely come up.  Will candidates pander to the local crowd, or make the conservative case against the bailouts?  As you ponder some of those issues, here's my rapid fire run-through on tonight's contenders:

Bachmann - She's been trying to make some hay out of Cain's recent troubles, as she flails to regain relevancy in nearby Iowa.  If anyone on that stage is going to try to score some big points on this matter, my money is on Bachmann.

Cain - The former Pizza CEO may actually benefit if his opponents go overboard on the sexual harassment stuff.  As I wrote above, Michigan voters are starving for jobs and economic growth.  A catty pile-on over ugly and largely unproven accusations about personal conduct will strike many voters as an unserious distraction.  Cain will, and should, steer the conversation to policy.  No cringe-worthy punting on fundamental questions this time.

Gingrich - Newt is the latest ascendant non-Romney candidate.  He's mounted a valiant comeback from his campaign's disastrous roll out, surging into third place in several state and national polls.  A great deal of this success has come from stellar debate performances.  Who wants to bet Newt is champing at the bit to take the media to the woodshed for its Cain/Clinton double-standard?  My magic eight ball says the likehihood of that sort of takedown is high, if the opportunity presents itself.  Another sign that Gingrich is getting serious?  He's throwing himself under the bus for cutting that global warming "couch of trust" ad with Nancy Pelosi.  He'll really have to sell that reversal in the Cap-and-Trade-phobic Midwest.

Huntsman - The Huntsman campaign has been turning up the heat on Mitt Romney.  With his campaign flat-lining, will Huntsman embrace the role of anti-Romney hatchet man?  The two men are widely known to dislike each other, so the shoe just might fit.  The former Utah Governor may also go after Romney's entitlements plan for being too milquetoast.  Huntsman has said his alternative can be stated in three words: "The. Ryan. Plan."

Paul - Economy-focused debates generally help Ron Paul because the topics coincide with his passions and expertise.  Then again, his strident anti-bailout principles may not sit well with many Michiganders.  Will be soften his message at all?  No chance.  His allergy to pandering is part of Paul's appeal.  Once the foreign policy debates roll around in the coming weeks, brace for impact.

Perry - The Texas Governor has had oodles of time to prepare for this debate, and its format will offer him the chance to highlight and sell his flat tax proposal.  A recipe for success?  After weeks of free fall, it seems that Perry's campaign has stabilized a bit, but his numbers haven't even approached recovery mode.  Many political observers believe that Perry's infrsatructure and financing make him well positioned to ride a second wind back into the top tier, but that momentum has to start somewhere.  Will the comeback begin in Michigan tonight?

Romney - Michigan will offer friendly confines for Mitt Romney, who was born here, and whose father governed the Great Lakes State in the 1960s.  Romney defeated McCain in Michigan back in 2008, and hopes to replicate his primary triumph this coming February.  The ever-cautious former Massachusetts Governor will try to stay above the fray if the Cain mess comes up -- both in an attempt to escape unsullied by the muck, and in a show of respect for Cain, for whom he's frequently expressed admiration.  It's almost inevitable that the defeated collective bargaining reform law in neighboring Ohio will come up during tonight's discussion.  Will Romney reiterate his (post-equivocation) unequivocal support for the dispatched legislation, or will be succumb to his powerful instinct towards hedging?

Santorum - I remain somewhat befuddled that Rick Santorum's poll numbers haven't budged in any meaningful way as many Republican voters frantically search for a plausible non-Romney nominee.  He's an experienced serious thinker with a strong grasp on policy, yet he's gained virtually zero traction in an unsettled field.  That must speak volumes about his inability to connect with people, I guess.  Meanwhile, he's been a force in debates; unafraid to call out anyone over bad arguments or bad policy.  He's provided a valuable service in this role, landing body blows against a number of top contenders, including an effective (albeit brief) cross-examination on Romneycare.

As I noted above, the opening bell sounds at 8pm Eastern.  As usual, we'll have team coverage here on The Tipsheet, so stay tuned and prepare to sound off...

The more we discover about alleged harassment "victim" Karen Kraushaar, the less credible she appears to be.  For a woman who accuses Herman Cain of being a "serial denier," it sure seems like she might be a serial complainer.  ABC News reports:
 

Karen Kraushaar, who settled a sexual harassment complaint against Republican presidential frontrunner Herman Cain in 1999, filed a different complaint at her next job four years later, accusing a manager of sending out a sexually suggestive email and asking to be allowed to work at home after a car accident. Kraushaar made the complaint, which did not involve a claim of sexual harassment, while working at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2003. Her lawyer was Joel Bennett, the same lawyer who had handled her harassment complaint against Herman Cain at the National Restaurant Association.

Kraushaar was injured in a car accident at an intersection in late 2002. After the accident, Kraushaar asked to be allowed to work from home. She filed the complaint when her repeated requests to work at home were denied, according to a former supervisor. The former supervisor told ABC News that Kraushaar wanted a "large payout" of tens of thousands of dollars, a year-long fellowship at Harvard, a raise and the reinstatement of sick leave.

Oh, that's all, Karen?  Are you sure you didn't deserve a brand new car and an all-expense-paid trip to Hawaii, too?  With that sort of entitled, borderline-extortionary mentality, it's no wonder her former supervisor has a rather dim view of her:
 

Kraushaar's former supervisor at the INS, who was named in Kraushaar's complaint, characterized the 2003 complaint to ABC News as "frivolous," and said Kraushaar may have been offered a few extra sick days as compensation. The supervisor alleged that Kraushaar had a "poor work ethic." The supervisor, a self-described Democrat, decided to speak out about Kraushaar's complaint because of "doubts about her credibility."

A woman who began to become accustomed to the idea of getting paid not to work may have had a "poor work ethic"?  Go figure.  That might explain why Ms. Kraushaar initially wanted to remain anonymous.  Then again, the supervisor who's dumping on her anonymously may still be bitter that she named him in her complaint.  And 'round and 'round we go.  The good news is that now that she's orchestrating an our-powers-combined press conference with fellow accusers, she'll have the opportunity to answer questions about her own pattern of demanding large sums of money to salve her offended sensibilities.   Have fun with that.

A few words of caution: This does not mean that Kraushaar's allegations, whatever they may be, are baseless -- nor does any of this exonerate Herman Cain of wrongdoing, or erase his campaign's atrocious handling of this wreckage.  But it absolutely is another relevant data point to consider as we try to piece together an idea of what may have happened, and assess the credibility of the drama's expanding cast of characters.  Kraushaar may have been subjected to degrading and inappropriate treatment, for which she was justly compensated.  Or she might just be an opportunistic freeloader. 

I have a question for America: why don't we hold our attorney generals to the same standard we hold our college football coaches?

As I was trying to follow two top news stories yesterday--the developments in Attorney General Eric Holder's testimony on Capitol Hill regarding Operation Fast and Furious, and the implosion of the Joe Paterno era at Penn State University--I was amazed at the double standard that the court of public opinion displayed. The level of accountability demanded in one case seemed to be woefully absent from the next.

Allow me to explain.

What happened at Penn State -- or what seems pretty likely to have happened at Penn State -- is sick. It's disgusting. And people reacted strongly to it. The main headline of that reaction didn't even involve the man who committed the crime. It involved the man under whose watch, whose program and whose school the crimes were committed.  Many people have argued--despite the students who rallied in support of him yesterday--that Penn State head coach and football legend Joe Paterno had no excuse for not knowing or doing more about the molestation of boys by one of his coaches (it makes you sick to type about it, actually). People are saying that it's not enough that Paterno should leave at the end of the year. Bottom line: it's his program, and he's accountable. He should go now.

But across the news cycle, this cry for accountability seemed to vanish when applied to a similar situation in the political world, a place where a program cost someone his life and responsibility always seemed to be the job of someone else. Operation Fast and Furious, as Townhall's Katie Pavlich has documented, was a program under the Department of Justice from 2009 to 2010. Its mismanagement and corruption cost at least 200 Mexicans their lives, as well as the life of a U.S. border agent. That is a hefty body count. Yet Attorney General Eric Holder, in that position from 2009 till now, has claimed he knew nothing of it till 2011 (and his story has changed at least once on when the program was brought to his attention). He has refused to apologize to the border agent's family. There hasn't been a grand cleaning of house sweep that people are hinting could happen in the Penn State situation. There were a couple reassignments. In fact, a few people got a promotion. One guy, the acting ATF director, got a demotion but remained in the Justice Department.  The U.S. Attorney for Arizona was resigned.

The cries for Eric Holder's resignation have been limited to the NRA and a few members of Congress. They have not dominated the court of public opinion.

But shouldn't Holder be just as guilty by the standards people are using to judge Joe Paterno?

It's not a political thing. In both cases, there were sickening results: a man dead in one, children taken advantage of and scarred in another. Joe Paterno was not guilty of the act himself. Nor was Eric Holder responsible for shooting U.S. border agent Brian Terry. But both men were in charge of the programs  (Holder even more so, since he heads the DOJ and Paterno had a bureaucratic university system behind him). And the excuse doesn't hold water that the DOJ is a lot bigger than Penn State. Just because something is on a grander scale doesn't mean the person in charge has any less accountability. Less knowledge, perhaps. Less accountability, no.

I'm just surprised that the American people who want to see the Paterno situation so clearly aren't also turning the spotlight on Holder.

Or... is it? Did anybody seriously think that the 'Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction' was more than just a convoluted method to simply delay dealing with our mounting debt problems? As we find ourselves approaching yet another deadline (November 23rd, batten down the hatches!), the super committee is devolving with alarming rapidity, and we're no closer to a comprehensive deficit-reduction agreement than we were before. Er, scratch that, forget a comprehensive agreement - we're no closer to any agreement than we were before.

On Tuesday evening, Republicans claimed that Democrats had "walked away from the table," which Democrat aides denied earlier today:

A GOP aide to a committee member told reporters that Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., “handily rejected” an offer from Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., in a meeting Tuesday night in Kerry’s hideaway office. Also present were Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and  Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, the aides said. Toomey’s offer would eliminate various tax deductions in exchange for extension of the 28 percent marginal tax rates lowered during the George W. Bush administration. Democrats said the offer would increase the deficit by trillions of dollars.

“They have now walked away,” said the GOP aide. “We are still at the table and we hope they come back.”

Several Democrats, however, said the claim is false.

“If their last, best offer is a plan that provides a massive tax rate cut for the very wealthiest Americans, then they’re not serious about getting a deal,” said an aide to a committee Democrat. “Democrats remain at the table waiting for them to come up with something realistic.”

I must say, I find it rather worrisome that our federal budget issues are playing out like the most melodramatic soap opera of all time.

Man, wouldn't you just love to see Newt standing across from the Great Communicater in a debate?

Every once in a while men can expose too much skin as well. Sexual harassment. Nah. Inappropriate and gross. Yup.

In 1987 Ronald Reagan gave his famous speech at Brandenburg Gate calling for the freedom of a people controlled by tyrannical government. Today we celebrate World Freedom Day and the 22nd anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a time in history when the shackles of communism were finally broken.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

As someone who has family in Croatia, formally known as communist Yugoslavia, I have a deep appreciation for Reagan's courage. Without his calls for freedom, my family, whose country after a war and huge sacrifices now has a constitution modeled after the United States Constitution and public buses adorned with the phrase, "Libertas," may not be free. 

Note too that Stifler's Mom Sharon Bialek's lawyer, Gloria Allred taunts Cain for hiring power attorney, Lin Wood: "He can't handle this himself," she says. Indeed. So what?

You've heard the phrase "soft bigotry of low expectations" applied to blacks when it comes to affirmative action policies in our educational institutions and work places, right? This same soft bigotry is seen expressed towards Muslims, Palestinians, or other minority groups who are given passes on issues such as morality, civil behavior, and decency that normally earn condemnation in non-minority circles (Christianity, Judaism, or Western Civilization in general). What often goes unmentioned is the soft bigotry if not outright bigotry towards women who are given passes on things that deserve scrutiny, examination, and often correction or condemnation. Here's a quick example: It's widely understood that a man is supposed to control his sexual nature (read: eyes, toungue, and general distance) when women--especially at the workplace--show cleavage, a lot of leg, or wear an outfit that hugs the body so tightly that it practically makes the woman naked. It would be deemed weak, pathetic, over-board, or unmanly if a man were to report such a woman for sexual harassment. "Don't look then!" you would probably hear in a snarky tone. BUT when a women feels she may in any way be sexually harassed--often after "sexually harassing" men with her general lack of clothing--she is given full and immediate legitimacy and is coddled and supported no matter how unsubstantiated or unintentional the man's motives are.

In other words, society's general default is that women need unquestioned support and sympathy when faced with any possible affliction rooted in man's inherent troubled and always suspect sexuality. On the other hand, when women exploit their "pure" and "harmless" sexuality, men need to suck it up, turn away, and deal with it.

Allred's claim that Cain "can't handle this himself" indirectly fits into the example I just made regarding the soft bigotry of low expectations our society has for women. This is not a positive advancement in civilization.

BTW: If Cain lawyerd up because he wants to intimidate women--as Allred said--does this mean that Sharon Bialek lawyered up because she wants to intimidate men? Ya see--soft bigotry.

This morning on Fox and Friends Lana Domino, a friend of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, commented on Attorney General Eric Holder's testimony yesterday about the Department of Justice Operation Fast and Furious and Holder's refusal to apologize to the Terry family for Brian's death, which was a result of the lethal program.

As Domino expressed in the interview, Holder is refusing to hold himself or anybody else accountable for Operation Fast and Furious and the program's deadly consequences despite vowing under oath yesterday to so.  On top of evading responsibility for the program, Holder's refusal to apologize to the Terry family for the government's incompetence during Fast and Furious, which led to his death on American soil, is disgusting and pathetic; but then again, if Holder were to apologize, he would be inadvertently admitting he and his department did something wrong.

Your words ring hollow and fake, Holder.

In case you aren't intimately acquainted with the cast this ongoing drama yet, Mark Block is Herman Cain's top strategist.  He's the guy who lit up a smoke in that unusual viral web ad, and who went on national television to angrily accuse an individual Perry staffer of leaking the sexual harassment story to Politico -- only to retract his baseless bombast within 24 hours.  Last night he appeared on Hannity, and unleashed another embarrassing whopper (click through for video):
 

Mark Block: "It's become quite apparent that Mr. Cain's candidacy and his rise in the poll is the -- both the left and the right's worst nightmare. You have all of these allegations coming out, you know, eight, nine days ago from Politico. You start connecting the dots and trying to figure out whether it's coming from opponents on the left or opponents on the right. I mean, just at the press conference it was brought up that the -- Karen Kraushaar come out as one of the women. So we've come to find out her son works at Politico, the organization that originally out the story out."

Sean Hannity: "Have you confirmed that? I've been hearing that all day. You've confirmed that now, right?"

Mark Block: "We confirmed it -- that he does indeed work at Politico and that's his mother, yes."

Except...it's just flat-out false.  In fact, it's wrong in every way imaginable, with the possible exception of spelling.  Karen Krauschaar is one of the original Cain accusers who, until yesterday, remained anonymous.  In an attempt to discredit her, Block went after her son, whom he "confirmed" works for Politico.  He was presumably talking about DC-based reporter Josh Kraushaar.  Aha! A conflict of interest!  Two problems: Josh is not related to Karen, and he works for National Journal, not Politico.  This is simply embarassing.  Even if you fervently believe Herman Cain is 100 percent innocent of every allegation being made against him, his campaign's crisis management operation is an unmitigated disaster.  Remember, Cain has been making the argument that his myriad policy blind spots aren't a dealbreaker because he'll surround himself with top-notch people in the White House.  If he hopes to salvage that argument (which is already on life support), he must fire or severely demote Mark Block.

Two more thoughts on yesterday's press conference, which Kate covered in great detail as I traveled to Michigan for tonight's Republican debate.  As I listened live on the radio, I heard Cain make two problematic assertions.  (1) "I have never acted inappropriately with anyone."  Talk about painting yourself into a corner.  At least six people -- four women and two witnesses, three of whom are now named -- insist that this is not true.  Also, can any human being accurately claim to have never acted inappropriately toward anyone else, ever?  (2) "I saw Ms. Allred and her client yesterday in that news conference for the first time."  I'm sorry, but three people with whom I have worked very closely witnessed Cain talking one-on-one with Bialek in a backstage encounter at TeaCon on October 1st.  That was five weeks ago, not 14 years ago.  I understand that candidates meet many people, but Cain spoke at great length about his ability to remember faces, names, and voices.  He also has a very specific memory about a non-sexual gesture he says he made toward Kraushaar in the late 1990's.  Something isn't right here.  For her part, Kraushaar is now calling Cain a "serial denier." 

I like Herman Cain, and I don't get any "serial denier/liar" vibe off of him, but her televised press conference this week was absolutely not the first time he has ever laid eyes on, or interacted with, Sharon Bialek.  He may not remember their discussion in Chicagoland -- but in that case, he should have just said as much.  Instead, he went with I've never seen her, which isn't correct.  Is it conceivable that Cain's staff didn't even give him a heads-up that the TeaCon revelation was all over the internet many hours before his presser?  Based on their track record, it's not only possible, but highly likely.  That. Is. A. Problem. And it ain't going to get much easier any time soon:
 

The women whose complaints Herman Cain attacked in a news conference Tuesday are planning to counter with a news conference of their own, attorneys for the women said Tuesday night.  "My client has decided to hold a joint news conference with as many of the women who complained of sexual harassment by Herman Cain as will participate," said Joel P. Bennett, the Washington lawyer for Karen Kraushaar, whose harassment claims against Cain got the current controversy rolling after a report of it appeared last week in Politico.

Some Cain supporters are enraged that any conservative would participate in this media firestorm.  I appreciate the impulse to defend a fellow conservative against unfair attacks, but such an act requires determining whether the attacks are unfair in the first place.  I think that remains an open question here, and yesterday's press conference raised more questions than answers, in my book.  Herman Cain is running for the presidency of the United States of America.  If conservatives aren't willing to scrutinize and vet their own now, the other side will be delighted to do so for them...after the primary.  If -- if -- the Cain campaign is going to implode under the weight of its candidate's imperfections and its institutional incompetence, better now than later.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, oops!
 

Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon acknowledged Block's mistake in an email to CNN. "Based upon information available at the time of Mr. Block's Tuesday night interview on Fox News, the campaign was led to believe that Mr. Josh Kraushaar, currently with the National Journal and a former employee of Politico, was the son of Karen Kraushaar," Gordon said. "Mr. Josh Kraushaar is in fact, not related to Ms. Karen Kraushaar."

UPDATE II: Teflon no more?
 

Most voters now say that the sexual harassment allegations made against Herman Cain may be both serious and true. At the same time, two-thirds believe Cain’s ethics are at least as good as most politicians. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of voters nationwide say it is at least somewhat likely the allegations against Cain are both serious and true.

Yes, you read that correctly. President Obama has imposed a new tax on all fresh Christmas trees, just in time for the holiday season. Why is the tax necessary? To pay for a big fancy government marketing campaign about....Christmas trees.

David Addington at Heritage has more:

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board.  The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)).  And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).

To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52).  And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees.

Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee “is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government” (76 CFR 69102).  The Federal government mandates that the Christmas tree sellers pay the 15-cents per tree, whether they want to or not.  The Federal government directs that the revenue generated by the 15-cent fee goes to the Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Christmas tree program established by the Secretary of Agriculture.  Mr. President, that’s a new 15-cent tax to pay for a Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

Nobody is saying President Obama doesn’t have authority to impose his new Christmas Tree Tax — his Administration cites the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.  Just because the Obama Administration has the legal power to impose its Christmas Tree Tax doesn’t mean it should do so.

If it wasn't official before, it's official now: The Obama Administration can't keep it's hands out of anything, including the image of the Christmas tree.

Hopefully you've already read my preview, so let's dig into tonight's results...


Ohio: As expected -- and lamentably -- Gov. John Kasich's landmark collective bargaining reform law has gone down in flames, thanks to a well-funded and relentless program of demagoguery by Buckeye State Democrats and public sector unions.  The margin isn't close; as of this writing, it stands at 61-39 to overturn the law.  This is a satisfying, but unsustainable, victory for the Left.  They may have beaten back an evil conservative law, but a fiscal reckoning still awaits.  The math doesn't go away, even if the law does.  What liberals won't mention is that there was another significant item on the ballot today: A referendum on Obamacare's tent-pole individual mandate.  Ohioans' rebuke of Obamacare is shaping up to be even more overwhelming than the Issue 2 tally.  Right now the margin in favor of the anti-Obamacare measure is 66-34.  This is the second major swing-state repudiation of Obamacare since it was enacted last March.

New Jersey: A complete yawner in the Garden State.  In the state Assembly and Senate, almost nothing has flipped at all.  The balance of power in the State Senate will likely end up unchanged, although several races were very tight.  On the Assembly side, Democrats appear poised to pick up one seat, which the Republicans could snatch right back with a pick up of their own in District One.  That race is too close to call.  The Democratic spin will be that holding off any Republican gains is a victory, and that Christie's appeal is limited.  The Republican spin is that absolutely brutal redistricting made GOP gains virtually impossible, and that the opposition party tends to gain in these situations, which Democrats have not.  Christie backers will also note that while more Republicans in the legislature would have been a welcome luxury, the Governor has managed to pass conservative budgets and reforms by fracturing Democrats and co-opting their leadership.  But for now, the divided-government status quo reigns.

Virginia: What a bloodbath in the House of Delegates.  Republicans will emerge from tonight with at least a 2/3 majority, having picked up a minimum of 6 seats, if not 7 or 8.  To add insult to injury, they also knocked off the Democratic Minority Leader in District 9.  The Senate is razor thin, and may come down to a recount.  Republicans held both redistricted seats (in 13 and 22), and are narrowly leading a pair of Democratic incumbents in Districts 17 and 20.  If both of those microscopic margins -- we're talking hundreds of votes -- hold up, the upper chamber will be split evenly, which would be a de facto Republican majority.  A very solid night for Bob McDonnell's muscular Republican Machine in Virginia.  This is going to be a tough state for President Obama to win again.

Mississippi: Republican Phil Bryant handily won the Governor's mansion, which is being vacated by the term-limited Gov. Haley Barbour.  A GOP hold.  A human life "personhood" referendum also failed in this solidly pro-life state.  Some liberals are excited about this development, but many major pro-life groups actually opposed the measure.

Kentucky: Blue Dog Democrat Gov. Steve Beshear waltzed to re-election, despite high unemployment and a big budget mess.  Voters in places like Kentucky and West Virginia are fascinating to me.  Overwhelmingly Republican in presidential races, but stuck on blue in many statewide elections.

Arizona: Powerful State Senate leader Russell Pearce, who authored the controversial SB-1070 immigration bill, was ousted in a recall election.  He had also been dogged by a number of ethics complaints.  Pearce was replaced by a fellow Republican. 

Overall Verdict: An uneven night for conservatives, across the board.  Clearly not a continuation of 2010's wave, but not an especially good evening for Democrats, either.  Ohio's Issue Two result is by far the biggest disappointment (leavened slightly by the Issue Three romp), and Virginia is the brightest spot.  Onward!

Herman Cain’s press conference could have gone worse. So, there’s that.

But the presidential hopeful didn’t exactly squash speculation regarding the recent sexual harassment allegations levied against him, and he certainly didn’t assuage anyone’s fears regarding his ability to handle crises in an effective manner.

Following an opening statement from his lawyer, Lin Wood, Cain came forward and said, “I have never acted inappropriately with anyone, period.” Pretty standard remark for such a presser, and I have no problem with a blanket denial of any misconduct. After all, a defendant in court is innocent until proven guilty, yes?

Cain then claimed he had never seen Sharon Bialek before yesterday, saying, “I saw Ms. Allred and her client yesterday in that news conference for the first time… My first response was, ‘I don’t even know who this woman is.’ Secondly, I didn’t recognize the name.”

Now, this is problematic.

Eyewitness testimony would beg to differ, claiming that he and Bialek hugged and that she spoke to him for a few minutes at TeaCon in Chicago over September 30-October 1.

But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, a conversation at TeaCon does not by any means confirm he harassed her, and it’s possible that he met so many people that day, he simply forgot her.

Worse, however, was this cringe-worthy line: “The Democrat machine has brought forth a troubled woman to make accusations.”

First, it was Perry’s people. Now, it’s the Democrats? Speaking of baseless accusations… He ought to have known better than to make such a remark. He even started the press conference by calling attention to the notes he’d brought on stage, so he would ensure he wouldn’t misspeak or miss a point. Either he deviated from the script in a bad way, or he really, really needs to hire a new speechwriter.

Later, when asked about his “Democrat machine” remark, he said he did not think the growing accusations were part of a conspiracy, and that he “didn’t have any definitive proof,” but there are a number of “coincidences” that point to a sabotage effort by the Democrats.

Importantly, he did comment on Karen Kraushaar, one of the original accusers who came forward publicly moments before the press conference. She, Cain noted, was the one case he did remember—the “You’re the same height as my wife” incident—but denied that any legal settlement took place. He called the payout a “personnel separation agreement” reached between her lawyer and a National Restaurant Association attorney.

At this point, the bigger concern isn’t so much the accusations themselves, which are somewhat shady, but Cain’s response. Right from the start, he has been muddled and inconsistent—and with foreknowledge of Politico’s story, his camp had the time to gather the information necessary to craft a uniform response. Unfortunately, Cain has failed to provide a commanding rebuttal, one in which he doesn’t contradict earlier statements or lay blame without definitive proof.

I don’t believe he sunk his campaign with this press conference, but I also don’t believe it helped him. He certainly still has a chance to make a good run for the nomination. But my first suggestion? Find a new communications team.

Here's this evening's full presser. In short, Cain has no idea who Stifler's Mom Sharon Bialek is; Cain would take a lie detector test...if he thought there was a good reason for it; and, oh yea, Cain says there will probably be other women coming forward. Fab.

Note to Cain: STOP referring to yourself in the third person! You are not a WWE wrestler.

UPDATE: Video fixed.

Throughout the relentless economic downturn, our ongoing unemployment funk, and the tedious saga of back-and-forth job-creation rhetoric, Republicans have consistently iterated that the Obama adminstration should lift the drilling moratorium as a surefire way to boost both employment and tax revenue, and to add wealth to our economy. The Interior Department has issued neither oil nor gas drilling permits off of the coast of Alaska since 2008, and has allowed for scant more than extending existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, Interior Secretary Salazar is proposing to hold lease sales of twelve areas in the Gulf of Mexico and three off of Alaska between 2012 and 2017, but of course, only under some austere conditions and regulations:

The sales off Alaska, where native groups and environmentalists have objected to drilling, would be the first since 2008. And they would be held late in the five-year timeframe to allow time for scientific evaluations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, which Interior officials called a "frontier" for drilling. They also would be targeted to avoid areas with cultural and environmental sensitivities, officials said.

In the western and central Gulf, by contrast, the proposal puts all unleased acreage up for sale.

"The approach we are taking there is a cautious one," Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes said of the Arctic leases. "We are aware of the substantial issues associated with major production."

In the long run, however, these drilling permits are little more than a drop in the veritable bucket of potential that is the American energy industry, and it's likely that the permitting process and regulations will continue to jilt a lot of the real progress. House Republicans, who have passed multiple bills proposing to speed up permitting for offshore drilling and expanded access, are largely disappointed with the administration's lukewarm approach:

"No new drilling or new lease sales will occur during President Obama's term in office," predicted Washington Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Hastings, who sponsored three measures that passed the House earlier this year to speed up drilling and open up areas along the East and West coast, Alaska and eastern Gulf to drilling.

"The Obama administration's draft plan places some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits," said Hastings, a Washington Republican.

Lawmakers from Alaska, who have pushed to tap its energy resources, hailed the plan as a positive step Tuesday.

But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate energy panel, said the permitting process would ultimately determine the success of the lease sales.

Shell Oil Co. paid the federal government $2.1 billion for petroleum leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest shore in 2008, the last time federal waters in Alaska were auctioned off. But nearly four years later, the oil giant has yet to drill an exploratory well because of lawsuits brought by environmental groups and delays in its air pollution permit.

It looks like the Obama administration has decided to punt on the high-profile, controversial Keystone XL pipeline decision until after the 2012 elections, as the environmental and union subsets of the liberal voting base are warring amongst themselves over the project's merits. So why the sudden impulse to allow for a few drilling permits that in practice will constitute too little, too late? I severely doubt that President Obama and his big-government minions have suddenly been hit with the revelation that allowing the domestic energy sector to function freely will have myriad economic benefits, as the pragmatic results of these few permits look pretty meager. Do I detect a "Look at me, I'm so bipartisan, I've taken real action"-calculated campaign move in the works?

According to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey conducted November 2-5, a third party bid by either Texas Congressman Ron Paul or New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg could have potentially devastating consequences for the GOP in the 2012 presidential election.

In two hypothetical matchups between Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and the aforementioned Republicans – if the 2012 presidential election were held today – the incumbent president would win reelection by a decisive margin.

Here are the results:

In short, both scenarios suggest that a third party candidacy would shift the election in favor of President Obama. While Mayor Bloomberg has expressed no desire to run, and Congressman Paul said on Fox News last Sunday that he had “no intention” of winning the presidency as a third party candidate, it’s increasingly likely the GOP will avoid a situation in which a prominent Independent or Libertarian candidate enters the race. Yet, if this were to happen – in spite of the faltering U.S. economy – President Obama would almost certainly win reelection.

Moreover, we need look no further than the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections to grasp the political clout of third party candidates. Bill Clinton, for example, never won a majority of the popular vote but was swept into office in two consecutive election cycles. In each presidential race – Ross Perot garnered 18.9% and 8.4% of the vote, respectively – the Texas businessman effectively split the Republican ticket and catapulted Clinton to victory. In other words, if a political figure as well-known and popular as Ron Paul ran on a third party platform, his influence could seriously alter the 2012 presidential election.

More important, as Politico noted on Monday, Ron Paul did not unequivocally state he would pass up an opportunity to seek the nation’s highest political office if he loses the Republican nomination:

“I have no intention of doing that,” he said, “That doesn’t make sense to me to even think about it, let alone plan to do that.”

These words were carefully chosen, according to some pundits, and are patently ambiguous. Thus, depending on how the election plays out, he could throw his hat in the ring. After all, he will not seek another congressional term – and at the venerable age of 76 – he will likely retire from public life if he loses next year’s presidential election. What does he, in short, have to lose?

While I suspect he cares more about defeating Barack Obama in 2012 than staging an unlikely bid for the White House if and when he fails to secure the Republican nomination – the Texas Congressman has run as a third party candidate before and may very well do it again.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz just tweeted:

Obviously, no one wants people to starve. But Democrats often use people's compassion to promote unhealthy programs that 1)aren't effective, 2)waste hard-earned money, and 3)expand government so that people indulge in a habit of dependency that never helps them in the long run. Plus, her tuna sandwich example seems a bit hyperbolic when compared with this example Helen Whalen-Cohen found for her "Stamp-ede!" piece in the November issue of Townhall Magazine:

Sarah Magida and Gerry Mak might not have been able to find full-time employment, but the unemployed art graduate and part-time blogger didn’t have to worry about where their next meal would come from. Both were covered under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

“I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” Mak told Salon.com back in 2010. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.” The two agreed that they should feel neither shame nor embarrassment for using the government program. “It feels like a necessity right now. It’s not a thing people feel ashamed of, at least not around here,” Mak explained in the interview. And while neither enjoyed being unemployed (or underemployed), they appreciated the extra time to cook gourmet meals.

“Savory aromas wafted through the kitchen as a table was set with a heaping plate of Thai yellow curry with coconut milk and lemongrass, Chinese gourd sautéed in hot chile sauce and sweet clementine juice, all of it courtesy of government assistance,” Salon.com reported.

Magida and Mak are in good company. Food stamp enrollment swelled to a new high in 2010, surpassing the 40 million mark for the first time in March 2010. That number climbed steadily to 45,183,931 (1 in 7 Americans) in June 2011. The average recipient receives $133 per month, totaling $5.5 billion in government spending each month.

This surge can be attributed to ramped up marketing efforts on the part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the agency which administers SNAP benefits), including looser eligibility requirements and outreach to large populations.

Read the rest of the article in the November issue of Townhall Magazine.