Speaking at the Values Voters Summit in Washington this morning, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) made an assertion that was breathtaking in its hypocrisy.

This administration’s failed policies have resulted in an assault on many of our nation’s bedrock principles. If you read the newspapers today, I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country. And believe it or not, some in this town, have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans....

Pitting Americans against Americans? That’s the phrase that sent me into full conniption. You’ll understand after you watch extol the virtues of the Tea Party movement in this interview Cantor did with Don Imus on Fox Business on Nov. 10, 2010. It is but one of many examples.

The best of the Nobel Peace Prize winners tend to stick together in their pursuit of justice and democracy. Just this week, retired Archbishop Desmond Tutu (awarded the prize in 1984) lashed out at his South African government after it stalled, in order not to offend the Communist government of China, on giving a visa to the Dalai Lama (1989), who had hoped to visit Cape Town to help Tutu celebrate his 80th birthday.

Our government – representing me! – says it will not support Tibetans being viciously oppressed by China. You, president Zuma and your government, do not represent me. I am warning you, as I warned the [pro-apartheid] nationalists, one day we will pray for the defeat of the ANC government.

Both Tutu and the Dalai Lama, in their turn, long stood by Aung San Suu Kyi (1991), the heroine of the democracy movement in Burma who has spent most of the past two decades under house arrest. Aung San Suu Kyi is now free, albeit constrained by censorship and tight political control, and we can be sure she will welcome as a worthy addition to the club Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, one of three African women to be awarded the Peace Prize this year.

Like Aung San Suu Kyi, Johnson Sirleaf, who has visited The Post a couple of times to make her case for aid to her impoverished nation of Libya Liberia, has always been more interested in results than in prizes and commendations. She was elected president in 2005, when Liberia was so devastated by civil war that it had almost no electricity or running water. Children would go to public taps for a trickle of water and gather at night under street lights to do their homework. The country has come a long way since then, but, as she would be the first to acknowledge, has even longer to go. No doubt she will use the publicity from the Nobel to draw attention, again, to why it is in the world’s interest to help countries like Liberia help themselves.

But we expect she, and her co-winners, will also use the moment to remind the world of the one living Peace Prize winner we can’t hear from today: Liu Xiaobo (2010). Liu, an eloquent advocate of peaceful democratization in China, was in prison when he won the award last year, and he remains jailed today, with his wife, Liu Xa, under house arrest and also prohibited from speaking out. He is a worthy member of the band, and his imprisonment says a lot about the fearful dictators of Beijing.

More from PostOpinions

Read two pieces by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: “Global crisis is threatening Africa’s turnaround” and “How American aid is lifting Libya”.

Let’s just call this “Out” Week. Chris Chrisite took himself out of consideration for a run for the Republican nomination for president. Sarah Palin (finally ended the suffering and) took herself out of consideration, too. News got out via The Post about Rick Perry’s lease on a hunting camp with the not-as-uncommon-as-you’d-hope name of “Niggerhead.” Protesters are out all over the country demonstrating against the excesses of Wall Street. And because it’s Friday, the p-Op quiz is out. Good luck.

Gov. Rick Perry (R-Tex.) has a Barbour problem.

As with Perry, there was a time when folks were clamoring for Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) to get into the race for the GOP presidential nomination. He’s a  powerhouse fundraiser who thrilled both the conservative and establishment wings of the Republican Party. But Barbour had a problem. A race problem. So much so that The Post’s Karen Tumulty reported last March that “Barbour . . . is considering giving a major speech on the subject. The likely venue: a 50th anniversary reunion of the Freedom Riders, set for late May in Jackson.”

Barbour scrubbed the presidential run. And one of the reasons could be that he couldn’t find a persuasive way to discuss race, the civil rights era and his place in it. Before he pulled the plug on his Oval Office ambitions, GQ asked a longtime friend of the governor’s if Barbour could pull off such a do-or-die high-wire act. “I wish I knew, I wish I knew,” he said. “I don’t know. He’s smart enough to know, and if there’s a way to figure it out he will.. . . But if he hasn’t figured out how you overcome it, or pretty well minimize it, in my opinion he won’t run.”

Perry now confronts the same problem Barbour did. If he can’t come to terms with it, Perry should do what Barbour did: Abandon his White House bid.

Ever since reading The Post’s Sunday story on “Niggerhead,” the unfortunately named hunting camp used by Gov. Rick Perry and his family, I’ve struggled with what to think. Sure, the name is horribly offensive. But as we all know, there are streams, hills and mountains that have the N-word names all over the country. Also, the Perry’s didn’t give their leased property its name. The 1,070-acre property was always known as such. They couldn’t even whitewash it, literally.

But after days of hashing this out in my head, I think I’ve zeroed in on my problem with Perry in this episode. Call me naive (and many of you do already), but I can’t wrap my head around how anyone could 1.) lease a property with such an offensive name and 2.) not be ready to discuss the situation with clarity once the offense was inevitably revealed.

Sarah Palin’s long goodbye is finally over. She announced Wednesday that she will not run for president this time around. By the time she got around to making the announcement, though, few people cared and no one was surprised. The story clung to the very bottom of the New York Times — just a tease, actually, not the story itself. For that you had to turn to page A22. Such ignominy.

It would be a mistake, however, to bid her farewell without noting her accomplishment. She was maybe the first of our celebrity politicians — not, mind you, a politician who achieved celebrity but one who did it the other way around. It’s true she was governor of Alaska when John McCain selected her for his ticket, but no one knew that. She had the name recognition of a dead dog catcher.

It was that first speech of hers that made her career. She just blazed — a comely package of dancing eyes, charm and charisma. McCain beamed like an old man who had just entered a nightclub with some arm candy. She performed wonderfully. She dazzled — and she was on her way.

I was starting to moderate a book event when news broke of Sarah Palin’s announcement that she would not run for president. My reaction to this non-event can best be summed up by this clip from “Family Guy.” An instant classic that says it all.

I told you. What did I tell you? Didn’t I tell you? ’Cause I told you. Mmmm hmmm. And when did I tell you? A long time ago. And what did I say would happen when I told you? Exactly what just happened.

On April 13, 2010, I went out on a pretty safe limb even then and wrote a post headlined “Sarah Palin is not running for president.”

Let me repeat: Sarah Palin is not running for president. But if she does, she will blow up like the Hindenburg if she continues on her current path of sarcasm, negativity and bumper-sticker “substance” instead of pronouncements rooted in intellectual rigor. That she refuses to hide away for even a month for a crash course in Republican and conservative ideals, programs and solutions tells me that she’s more interested in being an entertainer than an accountable politician.

On October 5, 2011, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee who quit halfway through her first term as governor of Alaska to become a best-selling author and popular reality television star, announced what has been plainly apparent for months: She will not run for president.

After her announcement on Wednesday’s Mark Levin radio show, Palin’s SarahPAC released a Tim Pawlenty-style video that includes a clip of her saying, You don’t need an office or a title to make a difference.”

Our work continues. Together we will restore America. Continue the movement.

“Not being a candidate, really you are unshackled and you’re able to be even more active,” Palin told Levin. “I need to be able to say what I want to say.”

At $100,000 per speech, she’s guaranteed to be even more active and o have plenty to say.

“Obama, Hitler and Hank Williams Jr.” is not a headline one ever could have imagined writing. But then, who could have thought that we would become so idiotic?

Let’s be perfectly clear: Barack Obama is not Adolf Hitler. He doesn’t even look like him. Unless, that is, you paint a skinny mustache on him. Even then, he only looks like Obama with a Hitler mustache. Or Charlie Chaplin.

Obama obviously has never done anything to remotely suggest a Hitler comparison, but as I read Wednesday’s headlines, Hank Williams Jr. apparently compared the president of the United States to Hitler.

OMG. This has never happened before. Except for the 13,900,000 mentions that pop up when you Google George W. Bush and Hitler.

And who knew that Hank Williams Jr. was still alive? Kidding, kidding.

Union support and mass arrests last weekend only increased media attention on Occupy Wall Street; the solidarity demonstrations around the country show no signs of letting up; and, most remarkable of all, a new poll from Rasmussen shows decent approval ratings for the young movement.

With the increased attention come the politicians. Republican candidates have been predictably derisive, while Democrats such as Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairs Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson, and former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold have issued statements of support. Given Obama’s recent embrace of “class warfare” and today’s call from Senate Democrats for a 5 percent surtax on millionaires, is an alliance between Democrats and the Occupy movement possible?

No, or at least not without Democrats renouncing the influence Wall Street holds on them, as well.

You don’t have to dig deep to find evidence of that relationship. Former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has long been “one of the biggest beneficiaries of Wall Street money that Congress [has] ever seen,” and, in turn, Schumer pushed hard to deregulate the financial industry before the 2008 crash and then bailout said financiers afterwards. When Congress debated financial reform last May, House Democratic Chief Deputy Whip Ron Kind (D-Wis.) told a gathering of financial lobbyists, “We’re working hard with you to get the policy right.” And, of course, President Obama chose Larry Summers and Tim Geithner as his chief economic advisers, despite their long records of Wall Street ties and favoritism. The surtax on millionaires that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on Wednesday replaces Obama’s proposals to tax not only a broader swath of wealthy individuals, but also oil and gas corporations.

Indeed, Democratic support for Wall Street was one of the major motivations behind Occupy Wall Street in the first place. When you read the heartbreaking “We are the 99 percent” Tumblr and you listen to the protesters, you don’t hear frustration with Republicans. The frustration is with Washington. And if Democrats want to work with the Occupy movement (or, indeed, make the “Republicans are the party of the rich” attack really work), they’ll have to undertake root-and-branch reform of their party’s relationship with Wall Street.

More than a few people took issue with my post on “what Occupy Wall Street could learn from the Tea Party.” Some don’t see a connection between the two movements at all. But I just received an email from a Tea Partyer from Ohio who eloquently makes the case. With marchers descending upon Wall Street, read the letter from Mark of West Chester, Ohio. (He asked that I not use his last name.) An alliance between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party as Mark describes would be impossible to belittle or ignore.

Dear Mr. Capehart,

I am aligned with the Tea Party (I hesitate to say I’m a member, because as far as I can tell ”membership” doesn’t really exist).

When watching Occupy Wall Street get going, my first inclination was to denigrate what these folks were doing, as a lot of conservative pundits are doing.

But then, out of curiosity, I went to the web site for “We Are The 99,” and frankly, that opened my eyes.  A lot of these folks are like anybody else - pursuing the American Dream.  But that dream is not really available to many of these people.  In so many cases they have gone to college, have gotten degrees that should be useful (but aren’t), have huge student loan debt, and are living in their parents homes and/or working at multiple minimum-wage jobs.

I see a lot of similarities with the Tea Party. Tea Party folks are for following the Constitution and the fairness and equality of opportunity that comes from that.  So they are in agreement with Occupy Wall Street folks on things like special deals for anybody (corporations, rich people, or whoever) that are achieved by lobbying and buying off our elected representatives.  Both see corruption in high places - corporations and government - and those two areas are so closely aligned, that I don’t think there is really much of a difference between criticizing the tyranny of corrupt government and the tyranny of corrupt corporations.

So now I am rooting for something good to come out of Occupy Wall Street, and I hope that the Tea Party will see the similarities I see, and also the possibility of both groups working towards some of the same aims.

Regards,

Mark

West Chester, Ohio