Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Republican candidate Cain denies report of sexual harassment

World Nov. 01, 2011 - 06:40AM JST ( 223 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

223 Comments

5

MolenirNov. 01, 2011 - 07:05AM JST

The only real surprise here, is that it took this long for a story like this to break. I mean, successful, conservative black man. Time to whip out the ol' Anita Hill smear campaign. Time for a high tech lynching. To be honest, I have been expecting this for awhile now. Though I admit, I half expected a rape allegation, not a simple smear.

Whats interesting about this, is why Dems feel this will work? I mean, a man has sexual relations with a white house intern, and we're told, no big deal, its just sex. These allegations are about sexual harassment, not even sex. So whats the difference? Is it his skin color, or his politics, or both?
-4

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 07:37AM JST

Time to whip out the ol' Anita Hill smear campaign. Time for a high tech lynching.

Awwww...listen to the stuck-pig-squeal of a right-winger getting a dose of some of their own medicine. The problem here is that Anita Hill is and was always a decent and honorable person who told the truth, while Thomas proved himself to be the worst kind of dishonorable liar. The kind that many conservatives seem to love.

Whats interesting about this, is why Dems feel this will work?

Who has the most to immediately gain from getting Cain knocked out? It's not the Democrats. It's funny when right-wingers pretend to completely deny just how lying and sleazy their own kind can be.

I mean, a man has sexual relations with a white house intern, and we're told, no big deal, its just sex. These allegations are about sexual harassment, not even sex. So whats the difference?

Seriously, this is the kind of gross ignorance that got Cain and Thomas into trouble. Not knowing the difference between contact and speech which is consensual and appropriate to the parties involved and that which is not.
1

Elbuda MexicanoNov. 01, 2011 - 09:05AM JST

Great! Democracy at it's best! Let the dirty laundry, or allegations come out in the open! And as Mr.Obama said, just sit back and enjoy see who will come up for air like on one of those silly survivor games on crappy tv.
0

LagunaNov. 01, 2011 - 09:10AM JST

TWO women and Cain? Must have been his "6-9-6" plan in action.
5

samwattersNov. 01, 2011 - 09:27AM JST

I smell a set-up. Organized politics is finally starting to realize how much its hated and loathed. Both of the established parties are going to have to play dirty to keep their hold on power.
-2

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 09:32AM JST

In his denials to the report published on the website Politico, Cain said he did not know how the restaurant group had responded to the allegations.

Politico went to Herman Cain just over 10 days ago with the allegations to get Cain's take on this, and to give him a chance to respond before going public. Cain, inexplicably, did nothing.

Cain's changing and rolling disclosures -- first he says he doesn't know about any payments, then he tells another interviewer that he thinks one of the women got 2 or 3 months pay -- are terribly incompetent and lacking in candor for a man who was tipped off with that much notice.

Cain says human resources at the NRA handled the arbitration with the women. Politico's investigation of current and former executives and human resources managers at NRA reveal a much different story.

The man is simply unelectable.
4

anglootakuNov. 01, 2011 - 09:40AM JST

American news media is trash 99% of the time.. cant they be more professional and respectful to others..
4

CrazyJoeNov. 01, 2011 - 09:41AM JST

Dirty tricks again. This is so typical of the USA during an election campaign. I hate this ****.
6

samwattersNov. 01, 2011 - 09:44AM JST

"The man is simply unelectable."

That's what they want you to think, Yabbits. Until the women come forward and say something, I will not take these claims seriously. Like you pointed out, Anita Hill took the stand and was a credible witness. I challenge these women to do the same. If they do and are credible, then I will change my mind. Until then, read between the lines:

"Cain, who has stunned the political establishment with his rise to the top of the polls..."

"Cain—a self-styled outsider relatively new to the national stage—faces a new level of scrutiny after a burst of momentum in the race for the Republican presidential nomination."

"Neither woman was identified."

Cain is a threat to established politics. This was most likely a inside hit-job, probably by a Republican. But the last thing either party wants is to have an outsider in the White House making decisions based what the country needs rather than how to keep the snouts of lifetime politicians in the trough.
6

bass4funkNov. 01, 2011 - 09:46AM JST

@yabits

The problem here is that Anita Hill is and was always a decent and honorable person who told the truth, while Thomas proved himself to be the worst kind of dishonorable liar. The kind that many conservatives seem to love.

Yabits, I didn't you were that close to Anita Hill. You sure are 100% confident that she never lied or fabricated this so called harassment. Now I know who to go to when I want to hear the raw facts as to what happened to this woman. Since we are all stupid, there is NO WAY that Thomas could be innocent of the allegations, right? Why is that, because she said so, therefore it's factual.
0

RomeoRNov. 01, 2011 - 09:57AM JST

Heh, leftists should be embracing Herman Cain. They had no problem supporting John "Two America's" Edwards; a guy who used campaign funds to support his mistress until his wife finally succumbed to cancer.

RR
1

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 10:00AM JST

A Pulitzer Prize for Politico in the future for this fine reporting on Mr. Cain! The information for awarding the prize is based on anonymous sources but rest assured its true.
-4

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 10:11AM JST

Like you pointed out, Anita Hill took the stand and was a credible witness. I challenge these women to do the same.

There's a great deal of difference between a congressional hearing to confirm a candidate for the lifetime position of Supreme Court justice and a political party's candidate. If the Republican Party wants to hold formal hearings, that is entirely up to them.

You sure are 100% confident that [Anita Hill] never lied or fabricated this so called harassment.

I am 100% sure that Thomas was lying -- as the video store rental records confirmed. Anything bad the former right-winger David Brock said about Hill was a lie -- and Brock later admitted it.

there is NO WAY that Thomas could be innocent of the allegations

One man who knows well about Thomas's penchant for the lewd and pornographic is former senator John Ashcroft. When Thomas and Ashcroft were staffing for Missouri senator John Danforth, Thomas used to revel in telling the strict Christian all manner of "off-color stories."
4

WolfpackNov. 01, 2011 - 10:13AM JST

Liberals hate it that a black person is conservative and successful. They can't stand it because it destroys their race baiting game of accusing every conservative as being a overt or closet racist. So like Palin - a successful woman and conservative - Cain must be taken out by any means necessary. Liberals do this all the time to conservatives that get off the plantation. Have dare a black man leave the Democratic plantation!

The problem here is that Anita Hill is and was always a decent and honorable person who told the truth

If she had come out and accused him when it happened then she might have some credibility. The high-tech lynching that Justice Thomas endured was purely an act of defamation for political purposes.

Now, if the accused is a Democrat, well we know what happens to those women. Just ask Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers. etc. If the National Organization for Women have no problem with a politicians harassment of women, why the brouhaha now?
-1

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 10:25AM JST

Liberals hate it that a black person is conservative and successful.

Strangely, we liberals don't hate rich, successful black moderates and liberals. Also, we don't care too much for a number of rich, conservative white folks.

They can't stand it because it destroys their race baiting game of accusing every conservative as being a overt or closet racist.

White conservatives who think that promoting a black person who promotes their values somehow mitigates their own racism is, in fact, an overt sign of that very racism they try so hard to deny.

If she had come out and accused him when it happened then she might have some credibility.

It's funny how right-wingers try to apply so many hypothetical conditions about the truth of an issue. Was Hill, a conservative black woman raised by a devout, conservative family in Oklahoma of good character? Absolutely. Did she want to testify? Initially, no. But when her name was identified and she was called to testify before Congress under oath, she didn't have much of a choice. What the conservatives did to her was ugly -- just as they are.
-3

HumanTargetNov. 01, 2011 - 10:27AM JST

Looks like Cain has backpedaled and admitted knowledge. He even recalls what departments the women were from, and roughly the amount of the settlement.

Also, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Politico was and is well-connected to the Republican establishment. They are no "liberal media". Either they're confident enough in this bombshell that they felt obligated to drop it, or some very powerful conservatives have decided to pull the plug on Cain.

"liberal media". ha!
-5

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 10:32AM JST

Looks like Cain has backpedaled and admitted knowledge. He even recalls what departments the women were from, and roughly the amount of the settlement.

Normally, one could say, "Stick a fork in him; he's done. Only an idiot would support him now."

This of course assumes that idiots who would support him now are relatively few in number.

Also, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Politico was and is well-connected to the Republican establishment.

This has GOP swift-boat, smear written all over it.
-2

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 10:33AM JST

This is hilarious. Not the purported allegations but how Cain - like Rommey - flip flops like a croc in a bath tub. First there was no payout. Now there might have been one? First he knows nothing. Then he knows something? First, there was no sexual harraaamemt. Now, there might have been?

And the conservatives - as usual and right on cue - try to defend Cain by - amazingly - pulling out the 'Look over there! Bill Clinton!' straw mam tactic. Lol!!!

The wheels on the Cain Train are coming off and it's amazing to think that the GOP/TP express will be at their most electable best when there's none of them left standing, which is likely to be any day now. LMOF!!
-1

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 10:36AM JST

Erggh, Wolfpack mate. Deems elected a half black man to the highest position in the land.

Your argument - which you don't have - is completely moot.

Please try harder next time, thank you.
0

whiskeysourNov. 01, 2011 - 10:40AM JST

N *& Head Ranch ???? Sexual Harrasment ??? What else ?

16 more debates to dig dirt on each other. REPLUBLICAN UNITY I JUST LOVE IT !!!!!!

Republicans are so reliable and honest
-1

whiskeysourNov. 01, 2011 - 10:40AM JST

Re-Plub-icans Weeeeeeeeee
1

FarmboyNov. 01, 2011 - 10:42AM JST

I think he would make a terrible president, but this sounds like a smear campaign with little grounding in fact. Being accused of something isn't the same as being guilty of something, and settling a claim is sometimes just following the advice of a lawyer.

The opposition will probably hire some pasty white woman to report that she was treated badly, and things will deteriorate from there. The thing is, people are so tired of these kinds of tactics that it might backfire and give Cain more support than he would have had otherwise.
-4

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 10:46AM JST

Being accused of something isn't the same as being guilty of something, and settling a claim is sometimes just following the advice of a lawyer.

The main fact here is how Cain dealt with the revelations. Politico came to him 10 days -- 10 days -- ago with the allegations, and Cain responds like this? Embarrassing.
4

genji17Nov. 01, 2011 - 10:54AM JST

and the american media again will decide this election...
5

FarmboyNov. 01, 2011 - 11:01AM JST

Cain responds like this? Embarrassing.

What's embarrassing about denying an accusation?
-2

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 11:14AM JST

There's an interesting paradox going on here.

The longer Perry, Cain and Bachman stay in the campaign, the more time conservatives will have to finally wake up to understanding what liberals have known for months now - that all 3 are unelectable.

However, the sooner all 3 bow t
-1

RomeoRNov. 01, 2011 - 11:15AM JST

Have dare a black man leave the Democratic plantation!

Game, set and match, Wolfpack.

It is the left that only embraces blacks who know their place and dare not stray from the liberal plantation of big government and endless entitlements.

Cain is a successful businessman who is running for president. The color of his skin has no bearing on his surge in the polls for conservatives; it is only the left that is obsessed with the color of his skin and frequently mentions it in the vilest and most denigrating terms.

RR
-2

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 11:17AM JST

to the inevitable and QUIT, the sooner conservatives will face the dreaded morning of reckoning, when they realize that the ultimate flip-flopping party hack Mitt Romney is indeed going to be their man.

I just hope the libs will have finished rolling around laughing slapping themselves silly over it all by the time election day rolls around. :-)
-3

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 11:25AM JST

The Right has seriously, seriously screwed up this time.

Every single one of their candidates is a joke (but with typical conservative speed and mental swiftness, few conservative voters will actually realize this until probably a month hefore election day).

Even without Sarah Palin the GOP nomination process is a circus of fools.

Obama's team will be printing invites to his relection victory party any day now. :-)
2

LagunaNov. 01, 2011 - 11:37AM JST

Presidential candidates can - and should - expect a complete vetting of their past. The Poitico article in no way attacks Cain; it simply lays out the facts, and the facts are that two women found the work environment so uncomfortable that they brought formal complaints, and that their complaints were deemed just enough to allow them five-figure severance.

The vetting is appropriate because it shows the character of the candidate. The American public is more forgiving than most think. If Cain had said something along these lines: "Yes, I did create an uncomfortable working environment fifteen years ago, and I regret it deeply; but I have learned from the experience and vow that my White House will be inclusive to all (except for gays and jihad-oriented Muslims)," he would not only be forgiven, he would be strengthened.

Instead, he's taking the other path: blame the victims. "They were gold-diggers," is in effect what he is claiming; their claims were spurious, engendered only by greed, and he himself is the victim.

This approach is bound to fail. Forty years after Watergate, it is amazing some have yet to learn that it is the cover-up, not the crime, that matters, and sincere atonement generally works. And Cain's dishonest response to this minor case does raise legitimate questions regarding his fitness for the office.
-3

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 11:39AM JST

Wolfpack and RomeoRamen, are you even American??

The Dems/Liberals elected a half black man to the highest office in the land.

Sure that's bringing him 'out of the plantation' alright, a phrase you probably have no idea how low it is.

About the only reason conservatives have reluctantly been backing a black man is because liberal votes blazed the trail and showed the whole damn world how to do it.

But you two are free to stay mired in your hate.
0

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 11:55AM JST

If Cain had said something along these lines: "Yes, I did create an uncomfortable working environment fifteen years ago, and I regret it deeply; but I have learned from the experience and vow that my White House will be inclusive to all (except for gays and jihad-oriented Muslims)," he would not only be forgiven, he would be strengthened.

Mr. Cain said “I have never sexually harassed anyone,” you want him to say that he did after all? What kind of logic is that if a person is innocent of the allegation? He say's he innocent. Politico has nothing but allegations that were settled years ago........non-story and just a smear job.

I just hope the libs will have finished rolling around laughing slapping themselves silly over it all by the time election day rolls around. :-)

9.1 percent unemployment rate / record number of Americans on food stamps / 50 unemployment rate for black teenagers / 14 trillion in debt is your legacy on election day, nobody is going to be laughing on election day on the Liberal record you've managed to accomplish the past three years.
0

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 11:55AM JST

Wolfpack and RR, yes, Dems/liberals (including the 'global' ones :-) disrespect blacks so much they elected one president.

Like, that jives.

Conservative logic fails again. :-). Please do try harder to put up a coherent argumemt next time.
-2

RomeoRNov. 01, 2011 - 11:56AM JST

If Cain were to win the GOP nomination, it would mean Obama would have to run against a real black American who rose from poverty to inspire people instead of a pathetic one like Obama -- a half-black person -- who has spent his entire life telling blacks they are victims and need to blame others while remaining dependent on government for everything.

Obama can't run on his record as president and he sure as hell can't run on his personal record against a successful minority candidate.

RR
2

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 11:59AM JST

Wolfpack and RR, yes, Dems/liberals (including the 'global' ones :-) disrespect blacks so much they elected one president.

The majority of the American people elected him and the majority happens to white. Dems / liberals / independents and yes even some Republicans voted for him. They now have serious regrets on their decision and are looking at Mr. Cain as the answer to Presidents Obama's failings as President. Race has nothing to do with it. It is policies and the ones that are best for America.
0

HumanTargetNov. 01, 2011 - 12:03PM JST

Since the usual JT conservative rank-and-file can't seem to comprehend how the media works, I thought I should elaborate on who dropped this story in the first place:

Politico says they got the information from anonymous sources, but that they know the names of the women who filed the charges (meaning the story is verifiably true).

A little bit about Politico:

It has been the sponsor of two Republican presidential candidate debates

Its President and CEO is Frederick Ryan, former assistant to Ronald Reagan.

The paper was publicly endorsed by George W. Bush.

The paper is financed by Robert Allbritton, himself endorsed by the conservative New Republic.

Although, unlike Fox News, politico has only ever been accused of having a "slight tilt" to the Right, it's undeniable that it retains strong connections to the Republican party. As I said earlier, either Politico's evidence against Cain is so strong they felt obligated to drop this story, or someone on the Republican side has decided Cain needs to go.

I can't speak for exactly what happened during Cain's tenure at the NRA, but he was on the political talk show circuit late Monday, saying the settlement amounted to "two or three months of pay" - if he's referring to his pay, that's a lot of money, and suggests something seriously untoward happened.
0

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 12:09PM JST

RR, wrong again. Obama has used at least 2 major speeches to tell blacks to get off their a*ses, quit moaning and be better fathers and better people.

But it seems you, likely living in a white bubble, never knew these speeches happened.

The only people who seem to have problems with skin color are conservatives. To the rest of us, skin color is a complete non-issue, and we don't use terms like 'half-black' and 'real black.'

RR, don't forget this is 2011, not 1955.
0

WilliBNov. 01, 2011 - 12:23PM JST

Let the smear begin. There is no surprise here... the moment one GOP candidate gets traction, democratic partisan liberal media will turn any stone to find any dirt and run with that story, justified or not.

Expect this politicis of personal destruction for whatever candidate is leading at the moment.
-3

HumanTargetNov. 01, 2011 - 12:27PM JST

WilliB,

See my previous post. Educate yourself. Then start talking.
2

TheQuestionNov. 01, 2011 - 12:29PM JST

I'm going to go ahead and forget about this non-story right off the bat. I've seen more false EEOC claims filed and dismissed/settled than I ever thought possible over the stupidest things (like claiming sexual discrimination after being fired for failing a drug test). Considering he worked in the food service business the fact they could only find 2 claims is surprising in itself.
1

HumanTargetNov. 01, 2011 - 12:36PM JST

thequestion,

This happened when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association. It's a business association. There are no coked up, teenage fry cooks working there.
3

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 12:41PM JST

Human Target,

If you are saying Politico has a right wing bias then that would indicate that their stories could not be trusted by a Liberal such as yourself.

Question, then is why are you giving any sort of credence to this story about Mr. Cain?? Does it not work both ways?
0

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 12:42PM JST

WilliB, probably without thinking, you just described Rovian attack politics.

He's your guy, remember - stop attacking your own! :-)

Talking about that, if the GOP candidates' inherent lack of fitness for election wasn't bad enough, now a Consecrative news site is doing a hit job on one of their own?

The wolves are turning on themselves.

Time to just sit back and watch I guess.

Focussed unity for the greater good would be appropriate here, but conservatives clearly don't have a clue what that means.
1

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 12:44PM JST

White conservatives who think that promoting a black person who promotes their values somehow mitigates their own racism is, in fact, an overt sign of that very racism they try so hard to deny.

Now there is some "logic" on display.
0

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 12:48PM JST

Focussed unity for the greater good would be appropriate here, but conservatives clearly don't have a clue what that means.

I don't know about that. You and Politico seem pretty unified on the greater good in how you both can also smear Mr. Cain I'd say.
-2

RomeoRNov. 01, 2011 - 12:49PM JST

Cain is a conservative, which makes him a good candidate; something leftists can't accept because of the color of his skin.

RR
-1

HumanTargetNov. 01, 2011 - 12:52PM JST

sailwind,

I take Politico's reporting with a grain of salt, but rarely do news outlets (even Fox News) outright falsify stories. There's a difference between portraying a story dishonestly and outright making it up. Even Fox News has retracted and/or corrected stories that were discovered to be fabricated or dishonestly reported - doesn't mean they always do it, mind you.

I am a self-proclaimed liberal, but unlike the conservative drones who get their news solely from Rush Limbaugh and Fox, I get my information from a multitude of sources, then compare and contrast the reporting.

There's another major difference between Politico and Fox (and Limbaugh) - Fox News relies almost entirely on political pundits to drive ratings. Pundits are not obligated to tell the truth. Politico works more like a traditional newspaper, so they have much less leeway to inject unverifiable opinion into their materials.

Also, sailwind, since you apparently haven't read the news this morning: Herman Cain has stopped denying the charges and has acknowledged he was involved and there was a settlement. Essentially an admission of guilt.
-2

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 12:55PM JST

Sail, it helps if you have a clear understanding of racism, in particular covert and what could be called 'reverse guilt' forms, to know that Yabits is indeed correct.

I've seen and met comsercative types who are clearly racist who do not even realize it.
3

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 01:11PM JST

Also, sailwind, since you apparently haven't read the news this morning: Herman Cain has stopped denying the charges and has acknowledged he was involved and there was a settlement. Essentially an admission of guilt.

Read my 11:55 post

Mr. Cain said “I have never sexually harassed anyone,” you want him to say that he did after all? What kind of logic is that if a person is innocent of the allegation? He say's he innocent. Politico has nothing but allegations that were settled years ago........non-story and just a smear job.

Secondly settlements does not mean quilty of squat in most these cases. It means that instead of wasting time going to court and wasting thousands of dollars the company or organization choses to settle it out of court. It also means the parties lawyer up and throw as many allegations as they can at each other to try and get the best deal. It happens all the time and afterwards the parties sign non-disclosure forms. Which is why the NRA hasn't released any more information on the settlement, they can't they are legally bound not to.

I've seen and met comsercative types who are clearly racist who do not even realize it.

Got it. So clueless that if they are actually voting for a Black conservative they are demonstrating they are clearly racist and don't even realize it. Sounds totally logical.
0

HumanTargetNov. 01, 2011 - 01:19PM JST

sailwind,

We know the settlement was 5 digits - so anywhere between 10K and 99K. If it's in those upper ranges, that indicates something very serious happened. If it's in the lower ranges, it might have been a throwaway case that they preferred to pay out just to make go away. We don't know yet, and that's why I've refrained from commenting on it - at the moment, I'm just here to debunk the ludicrous "liberal media" conspiracies that still somehow get traction these days despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

But, as I said before, Cain himself estimated the settlement at "two or three months of pay". If he's talking about his pay, that's a lot of money and indicates something far more serious than just comparing a woman's height to that of his wife.
-1

bass4funkNov. 01, 2011 - 01:30PM JST

I am 100% sure that Thomas was lying -- as the video store rental records confirmed. Anything bad the former right-winger David Brock said about Hill was a lie -- and Brock later admitted it.

@yabits

How can you undeniably claim that Thomas was lying, how? WHERE YOU THERE? NO, YOU WERE NOT! Don't you think you are looking very stupid trying to defend Hill when you have absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever or is there something that you know more than we mere mortals? I want to hear this. You are not making accusatory assumptions, you are actually saying that YOU ARE 100% SURE HILL IS TELLING THE TRUTH. Go, please tell us how and where you obtained this information, forget Brock, if you want to claim that Brock is the poster boy of honesty, them you have another think coming.
-2

bass4funkNov. 01, 2011 - 01:42PM JST

Liberals are grabbing at straws. This is nut crunch time for them. Liberals can never, not even for once, put the race card down, first it was Conservatives hate Obama and don't want to work with him because he's black, he's a muslim, he wasn't born in the US. Now that there is a conservative with a proven business record and has some massive cahones and conservatives generally like him and especially the independents, how long did it take for the liberals to demonize this man, not long at all. Yes, Cain is a serious threat to Obama, Cain needs a lot to learn politically, but he is a smart man and he can get it down in no time. Compare that to Obama, a man that is smart, but knows nothing, his liberal, loony out of mainstream American politics is killing the nation, so Cain is the man that Obama fears most. Tell you what, take Obama's teleprompter away, have him debate Cain and you'll see how Obama would make a fool of himself. They are so desperate, like with Thomas, they will keep at this man until they have totally destroyed him, marginalize delegitimize, that IS the driving force first and foremost strategy of these whacky moon bat liberals.
-2

LagunaNov. 01, 2011 - 01:46PM JST

So far, knee-jerk conservatives have played this in two ways: insulting and foolish.

The insulting:

That Cain is being attacked due to his color - this is to say that similar allegations against a white candidate would not have been made, which is absurd. The same cast of characters who unjustly complained Obama was safe from criticism due to his color are now claiming Cain is due protection from criticism for the same reason.

That liberal blacks are incapable of independent thought - "When any black goes off the 'liberal plantation'..." insults the very voters Republicans are currently (though feebly) trying to woo after decades of purposely excluding them.

That the two women involved were gold diggers - the idea here is that professional women will jump at the chance to forever sully their reputation by fabricating harassment claims in return for a measly few months salary. Well, women were never the deepest pool of Cain support, anyway.

The foolish:

Bring up straw men - "But what about Edwards?!" Yes, what about him? - he will never, ever again represent the Democratic Party for anything whatsoever. Is this what you'd like to compare Cain with?

Blame the media - The Politico piece was one of straight reporting. Many conservatives have joined in voicing concern. The issue is the problem, not the messenger.

Deny, then acknowledge but prevaricate - Okay, so Cain believes, “As far as we’re concerned, enough said about the issue,” as if the facts were clear; on the other hand, regarding his own knowledge of the facts, “If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it and I hope it wasn’t for much. If there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers at the restaurant association,” he himself seems as in the dark as the general public. One thing is certain, though: “Never have I ever committed any kind of sexual harassment,” which muddles two further statements: that settlement was actually paid ("...we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement.”) and that more allegations may be forthcoming: “If more allegations come, I assure you, people will simply make them up. … The only other allegations will be trumped-up allegations. There is nothing else.” So after dumping responsibility in the lap of the NRA, Cain asks not to look to them for clarification as divulging such information "is not the way we run the business."

This case truly is not the "crime." It is the cover up that is rapidly consuming his candidacy; "spinning the logic 'til it stands on its head" does little to inspire confidence. It may not be too late for him to come clean, but the doubts his handling of this issue have raised are legitimate and enough to exclude him from consideration.
-2

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 01:52PM JST

bass4funk - "Yes, Cain is a serious threat to Obama,"

No he's not. He's a seriously flawed candidate with no experience in politics. This could be the reason that this expose may be a hatchet job from inside the GOP.

"Cain needs a lot to learn politically, but he is a smart man and he can get it down in no time."

Must be why his campaign is tanking even faster today than it was yesterday.

"so Cain is the man that Obama fears most."

Um, that would explain why Obama's team are creating a strategy to take down Romney.

"whacky moon bat liberals"

Are you talking about the majority of Americans? That's kinda cruel....
-2

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 02:01PM JST

Good post Laguna. It never fails to amaze me how conservatives so lovingly embrace fatally flawed candidates.

I remember Molenir said only a few days ago that Michelle Bachman - a candidate whose campaign has effectively sunk - would be a good president!

She's not, and it was obvious she wouldn't be pretty much from the week she announced her nomination.

Just amazing.

Conservatives will never learn - their candidates' sheer stupidity and stunning lack of intellect is briging them down, their own party appears to be bringing them down, Right Wing media (aka: Rush Limbaugh) has been attacking them and taking them down.

The only ones who seem to be supporting conservative candidates is a rapidly shrinking pool of voters who apparently cannot stand to see a black liberal ruling over them.
0

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 02:06PM JST

No, as a number of liberals on this site have pointed out, Jon Huntsman is the only serious candidate on the Right.

But his intellect, verbal dexterity and competence appears to be too threatening for mainstream conservatives to cope with.

That's sad, because he would have been more of a match for Obama than any of the higher polling candidates on the Right.
0

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 02:12PM JST

The Politico piece was one of straight reporting.

Only if you like no real details in your articles. Things like who, what, where, when and how.

The report was based on anonymous sources. They do not even bother to tell the reader if the settlement was for 10,000 or 99,000 dollars. We're just suppose to guess. They don't tell us if the women in question were fired and filed a complaint afterwards, yet they say they saw the documents. They say it happened in the 90's but do not tell the exact years. Did this happen when he first started as head of the NRA or towards the end? Makes a huge difference if he had just started and was taking charge and shaking up the staff. In short they do not really tell us anything at all just vague details and yet they went ahead and reported it anyway. This is not straight reporting this is yellow journalism at its absolute worse.
-1

Johannes WeberNov. 01, 2011 - 02:30PM JST

I love the American Republicans. They make people like Berlusconi or the GOJ look competent. They are almost as funny as the German foreign minister Westerwelle. Real-life comedy, without any artificial jokes, just ignorant people destroying themselves. Huntsman is the positive exception, but he'd have to give himself up to get support from the radical right.

Despite the fun, it is sad that the Republicans (and their voters) are on a political suicide mission. A country needs an effective political opposition. We've observed over 60 years in Japan that a (formal) democracy with just one (more or less) effectively functioning party cannot work.
0

NessieNov. 01, 2011 - 02:50PM JST

The only real surprise here, is that it took this long for a story like this to break.

It's not impossible the Cain camp leaked it themselves while Cain is on an upswing in order to dimish its impact later. (Of course, this has no bearing on whether the allegations of harrassment have any foundation. The fact of a payoff is enough to want to get this out of the way..)
1

NessieNov. 01, 2011 - 02:52PM JST

But his intellect, verbal dexterity and competence appears to be too threatening for mainstream conservatives to cope with.

I saw him asked how he would deal with the nuclear Iran situation. His solution was to "reduce energy dependence", which is an utter cop-out.
-2

JapanGalNov. 01, 2011 - 03:25PM JST

five-figure financial payouts

He paid because he played it wrong. Goodbye Cain
1

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 03:50PM JST

Nessie - "It's not impossible the Cain camp leaked it themselves while Cain is on an upswing in order to dimish its impact later."

I wouldn't bet on that. The guy came out with 2 completely different answers. Had he and his team been behind this leak, there would have only been 1.
1

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 04:20PM JST

Don't expect anymore details to get out. Politico all of the sudden has a case of laryngitis.

Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, who co-wrote their article on Herman Cain, told MSNBC this morning that he just isn't "going to get into the details" of what Cain allegedly said, did or "gestured." Martin cites an incident that may or may not have happened where Cain may or may not have invited a woman up to his hotel room. Relevant transcript below:

Politico's Jonathan Martin: "And also, what actually happened to these women as well, we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures.

"These women felt uncomfortable, and they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain's on the road … We're just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what's in the story."
-2

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 04:31PM JST

Sail, quit grabbing at straws. Cain - it appears - OK'd the payout.
3

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 04:48PM JST

Sushi,

I been following a guy who is an actual member of National Restaurant Association comments on another thread to educate myself more on this. Herman Cain could not okay the payout and he could not really know how much the settlements where actually for. The management structure of the association consists of two parts. The volunteer structure which he was Presdient and the permanent staff support structure of the association. He has been telling the truth the minute these bogus smears came out. His words not mine.

Cain was the President of the volunteer Board, but that doesn’t mean that he would be privy to a settlement, that he is one of the named parties would most likely ensure that he in fact would not be. Such a matter would be handled by the lawyers, HR and EVP-CFO, and that’s about it. Settlements are buried in conduct settlements are buried in ledgers just like Worker’s Comp cases are, and only those who need to know the details are legally permitted to officially know.

Being the President of an organization does not mean that you get to take a pass on workplace privacy laws, the President of the NRA is not the party of primary fiduciary responsibility for the organization, that falls to the EVP and EVP-CFO, and outside of the lawyers and HR, the only other executive likely to be involved in the details of any settlement would be the EVP and EVP-CFO, not the President of the volunteer board.

With regard to the NRA specifically (of which, in full disclosure, I am a member):

And he added this later.

Cain was the head of the volunteer advisory board to the NRA and not party of primary fiduciary responsibility for the corporation that is the association, those positions in the NRA are held by the EVP and the EVP-CFO.

Even if Cain had asked, he most likely would be legally prevented from knowing the details of the settlement. Just as he would not be legally entitled to know the details of an individual worker’s compensation settlement. Cain would be entitled to know the total sum paid out annually to settle conduct claims, and worker’s comp claims, but there are laws against him knowing the actual details of individual claims, even if he were named in them.

The only legal way for him to know the details, were if he were to be found personally responsible for the settlement, it’s obvious he wasn’t as there is no record of such. Therefore, the lawyers would make sure that he is not directly and officially notified of any settlement details. Telling Cain would open the NRA up to actual criminal charges and possible prosecution by the EEOC.

Your turn Sushi on my straw grabbing.
-1

SushiSake3Nov. 01, 2011 - 05:35PM JST

Sail, thanks for the indepth research, but none of it explains why Cain had 2 answers.
-1

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 06:06PM JST

They now have serious regrets on their decision [to vote for Obama]

Most intelligent people know that the alternative -- McCain/Palin -- would have brought far greater misery and suffering to Americans and therefore have no regrets whatsoever on casting their votes for President Obama and the Democrats. The one regret most of us have is that President Obama shouldn't have been so interested in compromising with and working with the Republicans -- i.e. the people who absolutely hated his guts and have actively worked to destroy his presidency.
-2

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 06:12PM JST

Let the smear begin. There is no surprise here...

Let the conservatives' whining and self-victimization begin. No surprise here.

The wolves are turning on themselves.

Precisely. Using an outlet with a decent standard of journalistic integrity to boot. One of the next moves will be a Breitbart video of one of his operatives trying to bait a Politico reporter.
-1

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 06:18PM JST

Secondly settlements does not mean quilty of squat in most these cases. It means that instead of wasting time going to court and wasting thousands of dollars the company or organization choses to settle it out of court. It also means the parties lawyer up and throw as many allegations as they can at each other to try and get the best deal

It more likely means where there's smoke there's fire, and that the women had a case.

Cain was a multi-millionaire businessman at the time and could have easily handled the expenses if clearing his name and reputation in front of a jury was important to him at all. The women could not have found attorneys willing to handle a case for them if they didn't think there was a very good chance at winning it. Unlike Cain, the women were not wealthy.
-1

j4p4nFTWNov. 01, 2011 - 06:24PM JST

I am frankly tired of these false claims. Cain is a Republican. His morals are therefore above question. Can we please focus on why Obama is failing America?
-1

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 06:25PM JST

Got it. So clueless that if they are actually voting for a Black conservative they are demonstrating they are clearly racist and don't even realize it. Sounds totally logical.

Conservatives who keep having to harp about their candidate's skin color as some kind of proof of non-racist attitude are duping themselves. "Hey: Look at who I'm supporting! He's black, ergo I can't be racist," seems to be the hopeful train of thought used by the conservatives here.

The racism becomes rather obvious when you really start to look at it the right way.
-3

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 06:33PM JST

How can you undeniably claim that Thomas was lying, how? WHERE YOU THERE? NO, YOU WERE NOT!

I doubt if any members of a jury were ever at the scene of a crime as it was taking place. We also know that any decent person who comes up to testify against a person the Segretti-style conservatives want to put in a key position must be prepared to endure an onslaught of smear tactics and other rat-***king -- as Anita Hill was subjected to.

Once Thomas was shown to be lying about his taste for porn movies -- via video store rentals -- his entire credibility was shot. On the other hand, Anita Hill was never a liar. She's a far, far better human being than the slime trying so hard to bring her down. This is all germane to the topic of Cain obviously because the conservatives want to reach back to this case as some sort of example that they were right. They were completely wrong about Thomas, and they're nearly certain -- I'd say better than 90% -- to be wrong about Cain now.
-1

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 06:41PM JST

Conservatives hate Obama and don't want to work with him because he's black, he's a muslim, he wasn't born in the US.

No. I don't think conservatives hate Obama for those reasons. They had to concoct and fabricate the birther issue and the muslim thing in order to get others to hate him. It is clear that, after the utterly disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, the right-wing had to pull out all the stops to take down a Democratic president -- just as they did with Bill Clinton. Having a Democrat succeed threatens them to their ideological core.

Now that there is a conservative with a proven business record and has some massive cahones and conservatives generally like him and especially the independents, how long did it take for the liberals to demonize this man, not long at all.

Asserting that Cain is not presidential material is hardly demonizing him. I think he did a decent job at Godfather's Pizza. Not so great, apparently at NRA. Perhaps he's in way over his head with this president thing. Is there anyone who actually expects allegations of sexual harassment in one's past not to be a matter worth bringing to the public's attention?
-2

Ben_JackinoffNov. 01, 2011 - 07:00PM JST

Once Thomas was shown to be lying about his taste for porn movies -- via video store rentals -- his entire credibility was shot.

Yes, because most men are quite up front about their taste for porn movies.
0

Ben_JackinoffNov. 01, 2011 - 07:02PM JST

just as they did with Bill Clinton.

He was never "taken down".

Having a Democrat succeed threatens them to their ideological core.

Just as having a Republican succeed would do for you, it seems.
0

lostrune2Nov. 01, 2011 - 07:05PM JST

OK, which of the other Republican candidate campaigns leaked this..................

Ini mini myni mo..................
0

okimike67Nov. 01, 2011 - 07:11PM JST

@SushiSake3

Good post Laguna. It never fails to amaze me how conservatives so lovingly embrace fatally flawed candidates.

And as I read those words I shot coke thru my nose onto the screen, THANKS A LOT!!! Just replace candidate with incumbant president and conservative with DEM and I agree 100% with you. Every indicator is NEGATIVE and yet the lemmings continue to beat the drum. SOOO sad seeing a once great nation (and could be again) going down.
0

okimike67Nov. 01, 2011 - 07:14PM JST

Having a Democrat succeed threatens them to their ideological core.

And PRAY TELL just what Obama has succeded with except keeping those like you enamored?? Really, please just name one thing that has not made the US MUCH worse off. Just one is OK.
0

unreconstructedNov. 01, 2011 - 07:15PM JST

The GateKeeper Media can get you the details of Nat'l Restaurant Assoc. harassment cases from the effin 90s that never even went to court - but still can't come up with Obama's transcripts from Columbia (not one of his class mates remembers him...) or even his grades from Harvard.

Oh, that's not media bias...
1

NessieNov. 01, 2011 - 07:20PM JST

The guy came out with 2 completely different answers. Had he and his team been behind this leak, there would have only been 1.

A good point, Sushi.

Good stuff from you, too, Sailwind.

The issue seems marginal enough that it won't really change my opinion of Cain either way, not that it was particularly high to begin with. It's a he said/ she said situation, and unfortunately false charges of harrassment are common enough that I would give the benefit of the doubt to Cain unless there were more concrete details against him. His tax policy seems whacky, he does not seem to have a grasp of international affairs, and he has made bigoted comments, so all he really has going for him in my opinion is his affability and straightforward-seeming demeanor.
0

okimike67Nov. 01, 2011 - 07:25PM JST

@ unrecon

Nicely said!!
0

LagunaNov. 01, 2011 - 07:32PM JST

okimike67, most economists agree the stimulus - as small as it was - has succeeded in lowering unemployment by about 1%; that might not sound like much, but many of those jobs saved have prevented schools and fire departments from closing. A bigger stimulus would have lead to a greater effect, but you know what happened there. Also, the US automobile industry has made substantial gains; plenty of conservatives wanted to let it drown, and many still complain about the expense - though the government ended up making a profit.

Obama fulfilled Bush's schedule to wind down the war in Iraq. In fact, diplomatically, it's hard to fault Obama anywhere - he's done a competent job at digging us out of the hole his predecessor left us in.

What I think will eventually emerge as his magnus is health care. The current system is only a half-way step; once a single-payer system is implemented, both employees and employers will be freed from the shackle of health care, and this will be the greatest contribution to employee mobility and entrepreneurialism since the Apple PC.

There is a lot more, of course, regarding the environment and energy, education and science if you'd like to hear, but I sense your mind is already pretty well made up.
0

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 07:40PM JST

Yes, because most men are quite up front about their taste for porn movies.

He lied under oath to Congress in a case involving alleged sexual harassment. Perhaps in your country this is not uncalled for behavior for a judge, but in the U.S., it's unacceptable. What's worse is that Thomas was the head of EEOC, which is supposed to advocate for women in the workplace.

He was never "taken down".

He was subjected to all kinds of lies (e.g. the "Clinton death list") and the attempt was make to overturn the results of a popular election via impeachment. You want to play with the semantics of that, be my guest.

Just as having a Republican succeed would do for you, it seems.

Strike three. I think Jon Huntsman would make a fine president.
-1

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 07:44PM JST

Really, please just name one thing that has not made the US MUCH worse off. Just one is OK.

Get a grip. The U.S. auto industry is in much better shape today as a result of his intervention. The loss of that industry would have meant many millions more jobs lost. McCain and Romney said they wouldn't have saved it; thank God they weren't in a position to kill off millions of jobs as well as industrial production capability.

I can name more, but you asked for just one. Time to take off your blinders.
-1

Ben_JackinoffNov. 01, 2011 - 07:51PM JST

He was not forthcoming about his taste in porn movies. You make it sound like this is something incredibly unusual. I disagree. I doubt most men in any country would be forth coming about their taste is such things in a public forum. Are you also aware the man is on the US Suprem Court and that a majority of the public believed him over Ms. Hill? I don't no if the man was guilty or innocent. However, your suggestion that him not wanting to own up to tastes in adult movies means he is a dishonest person is a great stretch.

Clinton was never "taken down". He was never impeached. He was attacked, but that is not the same as being taken down. Clinton was never down. He was also a pretty good president from where I sit.

I think Jon Huntsman would make a fine president.

He hasn't succeed yet, so it does not count.
-2

Ben_JackinoffNov. 01, 2011 - 07:57PM JST

BTW, just because Clinton lied under oath about sex. I don't think that makes him dishonest about everything else. Did you?
2

NessieNov. 01, 2011 - 08:15PM JST

BTW, just because Clinton lied under oath about sex. I don't think that makes him dishonest about everything else. Did you?

Clinton also suborned perjury, and he concealed evidence. These are pretty serious wrongdoings.

There is no evidence so far that Cain has done either.
-1

LagunaNov. 01, 2011 - 08:17PM JST

Oh, that's not media bias...

Nice strawman, unreconstructed! Not only does this issue have nothing to do with Obama, but the choice of releasing ones transcripts and accurate reporting of established occurrences are completely unrelated! (Also, you've got your facts wrong: people do remember him there).

If you support Cain, you'd urge him to get ahead of the story before the blanks are filled in by people not so kindly disposed to him - and at this point, that would be his Republican brethren; he's got more to fear from them than from any "liberal media": I'm sure Obama would love a chance to face Cain next year as opposed to Romney.
-4

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 08:24PM JST

He was not forthcoming about his taste in porn movies. You make it sound like this is something incredibly unusual. I disagree.

Then you clearly do not understand the specifics of the case and the events. Thomas was certainly "forthcoming" about his tastes when regaling the females in the office with stories about "Long Dong Silver."

However, your suggestion that him not wanting to own up to tastes in adult movies means he is a dishonest person is a great stretch.

Thomas swore up and down he never watched porn. His lies served to defame his victim, Ms. Hill. And this is the kind of person a certain kind of conservative wants to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land. For shame. And over 20 years later, Thomas's crazy and shameless wife suddenly calls up Anita Hill to demand an apology to her porn-loving husband. (Was she drunk, or just plain stupid?)

Clinton was never "taken down". He was never impeached.

Oh, really? You must have been in a coma during his second term.
-3

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 08:27PM JST

If you support Cain, you'd urge him to get ahead of the story before the blanks are filled in by people not so kindly disposed to him - and at this point, that would be his Republican brethren

Politico went to Cain ten days before breaking the story. That means Cain had more than ample lead time to "get ahead" of it.

That he did not proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is completely unfit to lead much of anything besides a pizza chain.
2

BurakuminDesNov. 01, 2011 - 08:52PM JST

I like what I've read so far about this Cain bloke - don't know about these allegations though. He seems like a decent enough self-made man - and I imagine he has the potential to take some of the votes from "aspirational" blacks away from Obama.
0

okimike67Nov. 01, 2011 - 09:02PM JST

DEC 18, 2008 Headline Read: President Bush has approved a $17.4 billion auto bailout, with $13.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of GM and Chrysler and another $4 billion to be handed out in February.

The loans are meant to be a lifeline — and will keep the companies afloat until March 31st. At that point, says the NYT, the Obama administration will "determine if the automakers are meeting the conditions of the loans and will continue to receive government aid or must repay the loans and face bankruptcy."

@Yabit Funny you should pick the easiest (perhaps ONLY) win that has come during this administration. And it was implimented by his predicessor. Cant take the credit if you dont take the blame. Cant have it both ways so choose one.

Still waiting for ONE.

And laguna,

If you think the Health Care is is Magnus then you are in the MINORITY including your fellow liberal bretheren and sisters. Daily Presidentiial Poll STILL shows that the majority favor repeal (54% vs 39% support). And as the true impact becomes more burdensom (and your taxes go up!) that trend will continue in favor of repeal!!

As for the stimulus; read above. Cant claim credit for the wins of the predesessor and blame him for the economy too. 1% is a small number adn trumped up by the "Look how many jobs WOULD have been lost" quote. The aveage COST PER JOB created is in the MILLIONS, PER JOB!!!! Would have been cheaper to just leave em out of work and pay them. OH WAIT, that is what they are hoping for! Nice Try!!

As for the more... Enviroment (really???), Education (STRONGEST UNION, TEACHERS, gotta be paid), Science (is that the payment for Global Warming rigging, I mean confirmation), Energy (can you say Solyndra....)

Care to try again?? Either one??? Pull the play book out, put your thinking cap on and hunker down caus you and your team are in for a REAL humdinger. I stand by my former (another thread) comment that the stray dog could lead better. Any change would be for the better, wait didnt you vote for hope AND change. Hows that working out for ya?
3

okimike67Nov. 01, 2011 - 09:06PM JST

@Nessie Clinton also suborned perjury, and he concealed evidence. These are pretty serious wrongdoings. There is no evidence so far that Cain has done either.

Well that is because Cain is on the wrong side of the fence and their rules dont apply to Cains type (and I am not talking about his skin tone either so dont try that one).
-2

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 09:23PM JST

DEC 18, 2008 Headline Read: President Bush has approved a $17.4 billion auto bailout, with $13.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of GM and Chrysler and another $4 billion to be handed out in February.

The loans are meant to be a lifeline — and will keep the companies afloat until March 31st. At that point, says the NYT, the Obama administration will "determine if the automakers are meeting the conditions of the loans and will continue to receive government aid or must repay the loans and face bankruptcy."

And it was implimented by his predicessor. Cant take the credit if you dont take the blame. Cant have it both ways so choose one.

What was implemented by Bush was clearly a "lifeline" to allow the companies to exist until March 31, 2009. It's called "kicking the can down the road." What Bush did ended on March 31, 2009. Today, GM and Chrysler are turning profits. So, what happened between 3/31/2009 is all to President Obama's credit.

I keep wondering if it's blind hatred or just plain stupidity that prevents Obama's opponents from recognizing the obvious.

Well that is because Cain is on the wrong side of the fence and their rules dont apply to Cains type (and I am not talking about his skin tone either so dont try that one)

Actually, if this was a Democratic plot, it would have been much more advantageous to sit on the story and release it if and when Cain became the national candidate. Let's not forget the Republican smears in South Carolina against John McCain in 2000 when the Bush campaign planted rumors that McCain fathered a black child, among other such slander.
3

okimike67Nov. 01, 2011 - 09:32PM JST

What was implemented by Bush was clearly a "lifeline" to allow the companies to exist until March 31, 2009. It's called "kicking the can down the road." What Bush did ended on March 31, 2009. Today, GM and Chrysler are turning profits. So, what happened between 3/31/2009 is all to President Obama's credit. I keep wondering if it's blind hatred or just plain stupidity that prevents Obama's opponents from recognizing the obvious.

Again, like a fly into the web.... you are claiming a victory for something positive set in motion by the predesessor and yet want to blame him for the ugly things. This MAY have worked for the first year but we are well into the third year so man up!!

Still waiting for the good things that OBAMA did, not Bush.
-4

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 09:47PM JST

Again, like a fly into the web.... you are claiming a victory for something positive set in motion by the predesessor and yet want to blame him for the ugly things.

Your article states that the "positive" thing done by Bush was to keep the auto companies alive until March 31, 2009, when a new president would decide on their ultimate fate. From March 31, that fate decided by President Obama's plan has resulted in General Motors and Chrysler returning to profitability, and the preservation of millions of jobs.

Is it blind hatred or plain stupidity that causes people to fail to spot the obvious?
-5

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 09:53PM JST

Still waiting for the good things that OBAMA did, not Bush.

Preserving over than a million auto industry-related jobs is a good thing to most Americans. Not only preserving them until March 31, 2009, but well beyond by returning a bankrupt situation to profitability. McCain and Romney are on record as opposing President Obama's plan for saving the auto industry.

America would have lost over a million more jobs under either of them. Herman Cain would not be any better. He does have a fair singing voice, however.
4

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 09:53PM JST

Yabits,

How are those sales Chevy Volts working out so far?
-7

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 09:58PM JST

How are those sales Chevy Volts working out so far?

General Motors is a profitable company today, thanks to our President.

As anyone with more than a bit of maturity and intelligence is aware, it takes time for a radically different technology to catch on with the public. It may not be the Volt, but electric cars will become standard -- big sellers -- well within the next 10 years. I give GM a lot of credit for helping blaze the path.
2

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 10:10PM JST

General Motors is a profitable company today, thanks to our President.

Taxpayer bailout...Ford did not need one.

As anyone with more than a bit of maturity and intelligence is aware, it takes time for a radically different technology to catch on with the public. It may not be the Volt, but electric cars will become standard -- big sellers -- well within the next 10 years. I give GM a lot of credit for helping blaze the path.

Coal fire power plants are not vogue to power them. Nuclear power plants are a better option. Build more nukes Yabits?
-2

yabitsNov. 01, 2011 - 10:17PM JST

Taxpayer bailout...Ford did not need one.

It was a taxpayer loan -- paid back in full, with interest. The million-plus jobs saved mean people contributing to the tax base rather than drawing unemployment compensation.(Several prominent Republican leaders were opposed saving GM and Chrysler.) All that is too much for the simple-minded who follow the Herman Cains of the world to grasp. It's probably why they keep wanting to change the topic.
-2

LagunaNov. 01, 2011 - 10:22PM JST

If you think the Health Care is is Magnus then you are in the MINORITY...

The majority begins somewhere. Republicans would sweep this crisis under the rug; Obama has the ability to meet it head-on - and trust me, we'll see more on this in his next term.

Cant claim credit for the wins of the predesessor and blame him for the economy too.

Please - do you really want to get started on his predecessor? Really? Can you name one thing that man touched that didn't turn turkey?

1% is a small number adn trumped up by the "Look how many jobs WOULD have been lost" quote. The aveage COST PER JOB created is in the MILLIONS, PER JOB!!!! Would have been cheaper to just leave em out of work and pay them. OH WAIT, that is what they are hoping for! Nice Try!!

Ah, I see you don't understand the value of work. Let me guess: you have no children.

As for the more... Enviroment (really???), Education (STRONGEST UNION, TEACHERS, gotta be paid), Science (is that the payment for Global Warming rigging, I mean confirmation), Energy (can you say Solyndra....)

I stand behind all of those, despite Solyndra. If that's Obama's Achilles heel - can you say Iraq? How'd that work out for ya, what with 1.3 trillion spent and 40,000 former troops now life-long wards of the state? Investments have priorities and risks, all; what interest are we reaping from the Bush years? Please - name one thing.
-1

arrestpaulNov. 01, 2011 - 10:22PM JST

lostrune2 - OK, which of the other Republican candidate campaigns leaked this..................

Ini mini myni mo..................

Ini mini myni BO.

Progressive Democrats should be first on anyones list of suspects.
4

SerranoNov. 01, 2011 - 10:27PM JST

"Neither woman was identified"

Oh good grief, this is ridiculous, these two women should be identified and then Cain should sue them and their lawyers for causing all this trouble.
2

unreconstructedNov. 01, 2011 - 10:32PM JST

most economists agree the stimulus - as small as it was - has succeeded in lowering unemployment by about 1%;

But like Politico's sources they can't be named...
3

sailwindNov. 01, 2011 - 10:33PM JST

All that is too much for the simple-minded who follow the Herman Cains of the world to grasp. It's probably why they keep wanting to change the topic.

My simple mind just wonders how do plan to charge a Chevy Volt, thru more coal burning plants? Or more Nuke plants Yabits? After all myself as a taxpayer is on the hook to pay for the thing thru the bailout.
-1

LagunaNov. 01, 2011 - 10:45PM JST

Oh good grief, this is ridiculous, these two women should be identified and then Cain should sue them and their lawyers for causing all this trouble.

I'll repost what I'd written above, Serrano:

That the two women involved were gold diggers - the idea here is that professional women will jump at the chance to forever sully their reputation by fabricating harassment claims in return for a measly few months salary.

On what grounds would he sue? - For existing as part of established history?
1

TriumvereNov. 01, 2011 - 10:47PM JST

Oh good grief, this is ridiculous, these two women should be identified and then Cain should sue them and their lawyers for causing all this trouble.

I don't think you understand how this whole legal thing works. These are not new charges. They are charges which have already been settled.
0

arrestpaulNov. 01, 2011 - 10:54PM JST

HumanTarget - Politico says they got the information from anonymous sources, but that they know the names of the women who filed the charges (meaning the story is verifiably true).

Verifiable by whom? I'm sure Politico HOPES the story is true now that they've gone public with it. What Politico is missing is someone who will back up their version of what they think happened. None of the alledged participants are filling in Politico's many blank spaces.

"Politico said it so it must be true" doesn't really mean anything has been verified.
0

yabitsNov. 02, 2011 - 12:37AM JST

"Politico said it so it must be true" doesn't really mean anything has been verified

Really don't care about the alleged harassment as much as I do about the payoff -- which Cain himself has acknowledged.

What is most important is how Cain kept changing his story throughout the day. What started out as "no way no how," morphed into "well I was telling her she was about the same height as my wife." What began as "there was no payout that I'm aware of" suddenly changed into "I think she got two or three months of salary."

This much, everyone can see.
-3

Taka313Nov. 02, 2011 - 12:56AM JST

Politico prints a story alleging sexual harrassment and somehow it's a "liberal smear job." Politico.

You conservatives are something else. There's always someone or something out to get you. You poor victims you. I suppose the smear job on John McCain in South Carolina back in 92 was done by liberals too. Were liberals responsible for Hurricane Katrina? How about theblack plague?

WOW. I couldn't live my life being that freaking miserable and with that much hate for people who really couldn't care less about you or would rather your life be better.

Taka
0

warnerbroNov. 02, 2011 - 01:07AM JST

This issue is coming from the Republicans. The Democrats have nothing to gain by playing a good hand now. If he were to recover this early, they'd have nothing else. Better for the Democrats to wait until it's one on one. It's the standard issue white Republicans who fear Cain at this point and want to weaken his momentum before the Iowa vote. Now Cain recalls the settlement after he didn't recall it. He sounds like a cross between Bill Clinton and John Kerry.
-3

Taka313Nov. 02, 2011 - 01:30AM JST

None of us know for sure if Herman Cain sexually harassed those two women. Only the three of them can make that determination and even then, there might be some dispute on the subject.

What cannot be denied however, is that Herman Cain changed his story. That looks bad on him and his campaign.

That, along with the fact that he had to change his big 999 to 909 mid-stream leads me to think he too, like Bachmann, Perry and Trump, will have his time in the sun before fading.

The GOP nomination is Willard's to lose.

Taka
1

YuriOtaniNov. 02, 2011 - 02:31AM JST

Republican politics in the USA, accuse someone of something that can not be defended against and no it is not from the Democratic party. This slander comes from the Republican party to get rid of him from competition. Perry is most likely the lead suspect, he is a foxtrot alpha of the worse sort.
0

SuperLibNov. 02, 2011 - 02:39AM JST

UH, have you seen his latest commercial?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6VnTqpTqvQ

I think to be set up you actually have to be considered a threat. Everyone knows his poll numbers are going to go down with or without a scandal. It's just a matter of time. Democrats certainly don't think he's a threat and Republicans are just riding through the storm until he talks himself out of the race. No need to be creative when all you have to do is sit back and wait for it to happen.
0

MadvertsNov. 02, 2011 - 02:42AM JST

I note some have gone to great lengths to deny Mr Cain's apparent change of mind. Right down to bringing up the pro's and con's of the Chevy Volt. Heh, the letters WTF spring to mind.
-1

Taka313Nov. 02, 2011 - 04:09AM JST

UH, have you seen his latest commercial?

He's got tobacco row sewn up!

I see you too were won over by the SLOOOOOW smile.

Taka
0

Taka313Nov. 02, 2011 - 05:39AM JST

Just heard Herman on CNN.

He said that the reason he changed his story is because he didn't remember at first.

He didn't remember at first because when it happened, and I quote,"the allegations were so ridiculous, I forced myself to forget them."

That's not a talent I possess. I don't know if that's a talent that even exists. How do you forceably forget something?

Herman, Herman, Herman, pick up your buddy, grab yourselves a couple of slices of pie, have a couple of smokes and enjoy your book tour, because you are done as a candidate.

Taka
1

bass4funkNov. 02, 2011 - 07:47AM JST

It was a taxpayer loan -- paid back in full, with interest. The million-plus jobs saved mean people contributing to the tax base rather than drawing unemployment compensation.(Several prominent Republican leaders were opposed saving GM and Chrysler.) All that is too much for the simple-minded who follow the Herman Cains of the world to grasp. It's probably why they keep wanting to change the topic.

So then why is the unemployment rate OVER 9.1% across the country. You think that bailing out GM and the banks was a good thing. If GM and other American car makers would have listened to their customer base and to the Japanese and Europeans about making cars more efficient rather than going it about themselves and making cars that people just didn't want or need. Like the Volt. Do you know how many they sold? Not even half a million across the US. As much as I'm a patriot, the auto makers could have done great things, but they were totally complacent. The Hummer, Camaro, Prowler. The point is, Cain would not have made that kind of mistake, the man has a proven and strong record literally bringing back companies that were dead or almost on life support. There is no way that is you do a side by side comparison of what Cain has done compared to what Obama hasn't. Obama doesn't want to embarrass himself like that in a debate, he would get served, royally. Again, Black, Conservative, a liberal nightmare at its worst!
-2

yabitsNov. 02, 2011 - 07:49AM JST

Have dare a black man leave the Democratic plantation!

Well, Ann Coulter, commenting on the issue exclaimed: "Our [conservative] blacks are better than their blacks."

If Coulter is going to use the possessive pronoun to describe Herman Cain as one of "her blacks," I would like to see the ownership papers. Perhaps this is why the crazy right-wingers use the word "plantation" so much.
-1

yabitsNov. 02, 2011 - 07:56AM JST

So then why is the unemployment rate OVER 9.1% across the country. You think that bailing out GM

I believe that saving over a million jobs during a time of high unemployment was definitely a good thing. Had two of the Big Three gone under, the unemployment rate would have shot up even higher.

The point is, Cain would not have made that kind of mistake, the man has a proven and strong record literally bringing back companies that were dead or almost on life support.

Cain and Willard are not job creators. Both destroyed jobs. You vastly over-inflate Cain's abilities. I happened to work for one of the world's largest and best managed companies for much of my career. I've had the opportunity to observe many managers and leaders, good and bad. Cain does not impress me at all. He's nothing but a salesman for Herman Cain.
-1

Taka313Nov. 02, 2011 - 08:25AM JST

My boss and I were talking and she came up with two ways to force yourself to forget something so it is possible that Herman Cain DID in fact force himself to forget the allegations against him regarding the sexual harassment suit.

Of course, ingesting massive amounts of 1) heroin 2) tequila doesn't really help Herman's cause much.

BUT, my boss DID come up with a couple of ways in which Herman could be telling the truth.

Taka
-1

Ben_JackinoffNov. 02, 2011 - 08:43AM JST

Then you clearly do not understand the specifics of the case and the events. Thomas was certainly "forthcoming" about his tastes when regaling the females in the office with stories about "Long Dong Silver."

Those are allegations. You clearly do not understand the difference between them and proven facts.

Thomas swore up and down he never watched porn.

Wow. I can't believe it. A man did not want to admit he watched porn. I guess that makes an awful lot of men completely dishonest creatures, huh? As I mentioned, Clinton lied under oath about having sex with an intern. Were you broken up about that? Did you think he was a completely dishonest man because of this? Did you think he was unfit for office.

You must have been in a coma during his second term.

You have that backwards. Clinton completed his second term in office. He was not taken down and he was not forced out. He also was not impeached. All told, he had a pretty successful time in office. You bring rhetoric, I bring facts.
0

sailwindNov. 02, 2011 - 08:50AM JST

Taka,

I think you misheard what he actually said in the interview.

On CNN Headline News, Cain was forced to defend his apparently shifting recollections of the sexual harassment allegations. He said his initial statement that he did not recall a settlement was accurate because he does remember what he termed a "separation agreement" with one woman. He recalled that it was "somewhere between three and six months' pay" but that it was not a "legal settlement."

He said he does not recall a second woman's harassment claim, as reported by Politico, and cannot remember details from the first woman's allegations beyond the height comparison to his wife.

"The reason I forgot them is because they were ridiculous," he said of the first woman's additional claims.
3

SerranoNov. 02, 2011 - 09:46AM JST

Y'all get ready for Obama's re-election and 4 more years of decline.
0

WolfpackNov. 02, 2011 - 10:04AM JST

Strangely, we liberals don't hate rich, successful black moderates and liberals. Also, we don't care too much for a number of rich, conservative white folks.

Well, that is just the point I was trying to make. Liberals really dislike black (and female) conservatives. You just can't understand why a black man would want to be his own man and not stay on the plantation where they will be taken care of by white elitists who think they know better.

White conservatives who think that promoting a black person who promotes their values somehow mitigates their own racism is, in fact, an overt sign of that very racism they try so hard to deny.

That doesn't even make sense - so now conservatives are racist because they are not being racist enough with respsect to Herman Cain?. Conservatives are more interested in the "content of his character than the color of his skin." It's hard for Liberals to understand that because they spend their lives dividing up people by the color of their skin and assigning them discrete groups to be managed based on their racial classifications.

Was Hill, a conservative black woman raised by a devout, conservative family in Oklahoma of good character? Absolutely. Did she want to testify? Initially, no.

Anita Hill is no more conservative than Rev. Jeramiah Wright. If she was of good character she would have reported her alleged sexual abuse to the police at the time it occurred. Her testimony has made her a hero to the Left and secured her position as a Woman's Studies professor at the left leaning Brandeis University.

The pathetic thing about the Cain accuser is that she will not make her claim in public. She is hiding behind a journalist and not subjecting herself to the same scrutiny that the accused is being subjected to. I suppose the game plane is she is supposed to feign reluctance for a while in order to build up publicity for her inevitable book deal. Perhaps a professorship will be in the offing as well...
1

WolfpackNov. 02, 2011 - 10:15AM JST

@SushiSake3

Erggh, Wolfpack mate. Deems elected a half black man to the highest position in the land. Your argument - which you don't have - is completely moot. Please try harder next time, thank you.

OK, Republicans made a black man and a black woman Secretary of State. So what are we supposed to make of that? I suppose you must believe that conservatives are racist because they promote people based on their abilities and not just because of their race - like Liberals do. Surely the half black and half white man you are referring too isn't more qualified than the current Secretary of State! With unemployment at 9% and an economy on the verge of a double-dip recession, I would think that many Liberals now wish they would have made the right choice and not the politically correct one back in 2008.

I look forward to hearing the story from Herman Cain's accuser - whoever she is. What did Cain do that was so egregious? There really is just an accusation of some unspecified impropriaty at this point and no real evidence of wrongdoing what so ever. Meanwhile, the main stream media has begun the high-tech lynching.
0

yabitsNov. 02, 2011 - 10:31AM JST

Those are allegations. You clearly do not understand the difference between them and proven facts.

The facts are that either Hill was lying or Thomas was. Hill took an FBI-administered polygraph test and passed with flying colors. Thomas refused to subject himself to a lie detector. Wall Street Journal investigative reporters Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson checked the stories thoroughly and concluded that Thomas lied under oath.

[Bill Clinton] also was not impeached.

Some "facts" you bring. Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998. An easily verifiable fact.
1

Ben_JackinoffNov. 02, 2011 - 10:47AM JST

While I understand how you could mistake the two in this day and age, the media does not equal a court of law. A court of law did not conclude that Thomas lied. Interestingly enough, Clinton was found to have lied in court.

Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998.

He was aquitted in 1999 of one and the other two failed in Congress.

An easily verifiable fact.

Then maybe you should have verified it before responding.

Some "facts" you bring.

Right back at you.
0

yabitsNov. 02, 2011 - 10:49AM JST

Well, that is just the point I was trying to make. Liberals really dislike black (and female) conservatives.

Well, I can speak only for myself in that regard. I really dislike liars and slimeballs, regardless of race or gender. Why are so many liars and slimeballs conservative?

That doesn't even make sense - so now conservatives are racist because they are not being racist enough with respsect to Herman Cain?

No. You managed to take a very simple point and dishonestly twist it into something else completely.

Conservatives are more interested in the "content of his character than the color of his skin.

Baloney. Conservatives assess the content of people's character by their political views. That's why white conservatives will trot out a black conservative and stress that it is proof they are color-blind.

If [Hill] was of good character she would have reported her alleged sexual abuse to the police at the time it occurred.

Baloney. Character did not require reporting sexual harassment -- not "abuse" -- to the police. That's a false requirement imposed by dishonest conservatives who want to rationalize away their own lack of character.

Anita Hill is no more conservative than Rev. Jeramiah Wright.

Anita Hill grew up in a small Oklahoma town, an evangelical Christian, and honors student. After leaving the Reagan Administration, she taught at the OW Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University. After the savaging to her good character by Republican slimeballs and liars, I wouldn't blame her for re-examining her conservative beliefs as did David Brock -- who came out and admitted that he did a complete hatchet job on Hill on behalf of right-wingers.
0

Ben_JackinoffNov. 02, 2011 - 10:57AM JST

Conservatives assess the content of people's character by their political views.

Funny. That is exactly what you seem to be doing here.
0

yabitsNov. 02, 2011 - 10:59AM JST

Interestingly enough, Clinton was found to have lied in court.

False. Clinton never lied in court. (You should verify this before making false, idiotic claims.)

A court of law did not conclude that Thomas lied.

False. Thomas never faced a court of law. He lied to Congress, which is also perjury.

He was aquitted in 1999 of one and the other two failed in Congress.

Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998. An easily verifiable fact in response to your ignorant claim that "He also was not impeached." Whether he was acquitted or not is irrelevant. You should have verified that before responding.
0

Ben_JackinoffNov. 02, 2011 - 11:06AM JST

False. Clinton never lied in court.

Clinton was held in civil contempt of court. His license to practice law was suspended.

(You should verify this before making false, idiotic claims.)

Right back at you.

Thomas never faced a court of law.

So, he did not lie in one. Not false.

He lied to Congress, which is also perjury.

That is your opinion. Clinton's case is one of fact.

Whether he was acquitted or not is irrelevant.

He was aquitted. You were wrong. He is not an impeached president.
0
yabitsNov. 02, 2011 - 11:16AM JST

He was aquitted. You were wrong. He is not an impeached president.

Whether he was acquitted or not is irrelevant. He was impeached, making him an impeached president. One of two impeached presidents in U.S. history.
- ModeratorNov. 02, 2011 - 02:10PM JST
  
  All readers back on topic please. The subject is Cain, not Clinton. From here on, posts that do not focus on Cain will be removed.
-1

HumanTargetNov. 02, 2011 - 12:26PM JST

sailwind, arrestpaul,

The Politico story is not more specific because it legally cannot be at this point. The women both signed nondisclosure agreements as part of the settlement. They are not allowed to go into details about the case with anyone in the media unless they are specifically released from the agreement by the NRA. One of the women has come forward (as of Tues. night) and said she wants to talk about it but must be released from the agreement before she can do so.

That's why the Politico story was thin on details. The only source they chose to protect was whoever dropped the dime on Cain in the first place and he could have a million different reasons to he would want to remain anonymous - this is (sadly) common practice in the news. Newspapers are ethically bound to honor requests for anonymity and it is frequently a prerequisite for sensitive information.

Honestly, it's not rocket science. I have demonstrated pretty unequivically Politico's strong ties to the Republican establishment. How exactly does it serve them to suddenly turn liberal for no real reason?
-4

yabitsNov. 02, 2011 - 12:39PM JST

Herman Cain: Felon, or abettor of felons.

It will soon be all over, Mr. Cain. Your campaign has been discovered to have blatantly disregarded federal tax and election laws. A non-profit "charity" was set up by two of Cain's top aides -- called "Prosperity USA" -- and funds from the charity were transferred to Cain's campaign. Violations of these laws are felonies.

One of the aides, Mark Block -- who appears in a recent Cain ad blowing smoke into the camera -- is Cain's chief of staff.

Buh-bye.
-2

HumanTargetNov. 02, 2011 - 03:32PM JST

Even more telling facts about where Politico's allegiences lie:

The majority of Politico's web traffic is redirected from the Drudge Report, a right-wing bastion that notably endorses Politico frequently alongside George W. Bush.

Both CEO Fred Ryan and the patriarch of Politico financier, the Allbritton family, have donated to George W. Bush presidential campaigns.

Not only, as stated previously, was Fred Ryan personal assistant to Ronald Reagan, he is also the current Board Chairman of the Reagan Library, and to this day maintains close ties to the Reagan family.

According to a Washington Post article, Joe Allbritton, "donated the portrait of Reagan that hangs in the White House. Former president George H.W. Bush has attended Allbritton’s post-Alfalfa brunch. When George W. Bush’s inaugural parade passed the Riggs [a bank of which Allbritton was CEO] branch on Pennsylvania Avenue, he spotted Allbritton and said, 'Hey Joe, how are you doing?'"

Jonathon Martin, a reporter at Politico who was featured in a clip on Sean Hannity's show recently speaking on the Cain story, previously wrote for the right-wing National Review.

Do you need any more evidence whatsoever that Politico clearly has friends in the Republican party?

Also, consider this: many top-tier Republicans think Herman Cain would be political suicide for their party (why else does he have no endorsements from party leaders?), and Mike Huckabee said on Monday that he can "almost guarantee" the story was given to Politico by a Republican.

So, if this is a smear campaign at all, evidence is pretty strong that it's an inside job. Sorry fellas.
-4

MadvertsNov. 02, 2011 - 08:18PM JST

Amazing.

Instead of facing facts here, the hardcore repubs are brining up race, sexism and even the Chevy Volt.

Heh, I don't know about any of you, but I'm convinced.
-2

Taka313Nov. 02, 2011 - 10:27PM JST

Even more telling facts about where Politico's allegiences lie:

The majority of Politico's web traffic is redirected from the Drudge Report, a right-wing bastion that notably endorses Politico frequently alongside George W. Bush.

Both CEO Fred Ryan and the patriarch of Politico financier, the Allbritton family, have donated to George W. Bush presidential campaigns.

Not only, as stated previously, was Fred Ryan personal assistant to Ronald Reagan, he is also the current Board Chairman of the Reagan Library, and to this day maintains close ties to the Reagan family.

All of that may be true, but you have to understand who you are dealing with. With these guys, anything to the left of Ghengis Khan is part of the vast liberal conspiracy.

Taka
3

SerranoNov. 02, 2011 - 10:38PM JST

"the simple-minded who follow the Herman Cains of the world"

Typical liberal condescendence.
-4

MadvertsNov. 02, 2011 - 10:49PM JST

"Typical liberal condescendence."

Condescending would be a world where you could keep changing your name to avoid your past positions.
0

SerranoNov. 02, 2011 - 11:07PM JST

Adverts - Har!
-1

Taka313Nov. 03, 2011 - 12:45AM JST

Oh good grief, this is ridiculous, these two women should be identified and then Cain should sue them and their lawyers for causing all this trouble.

This is how conservatives roll.

Lets gang up on the victims. They are weaker than us. We can beat on them. We big. They small.

When things are on equal footing, call the whambulance (and it better not be a Chevy Volt).

Taka
0

arrestpaulNov. 03, 2011 - 12:45AM JST

HumanTarget - That's why the Politico story was thin on details. The only source they chose to protect was whoever dropped the dime on Cain in the first place and he could have a million different reasons to he would want to remain anonymous - this is (sadly) common practice in the news.

The original Politico story was very short on details. More details are coming out but Politico is still protecting the 2 women and the stories source.

Now, I want to know more about what actually happened. I keep hearing the term "sexual harassment" being bandied about but that is a very broad (hehehe, I said "broad" ) term. Are they talking about touching, grasping, groping, fondling, employment threats, promises of promotion, or a hyper-sensitive reaction to a misunderstanding.

At this point in time, I want to know what "actually" happened NOT what someone "thinks" happened or wants others to believe happened. What actually happened!
0

WilliBNov. 03, 2011 - 12:47AM JST

Politicis of personal destruction. It is truly admirable to see the enthusiasm of the liberal mainstream media to dig up dirt on a candidate.

That is is a conservative candidate and the one who at moment looks strong and therefore should be destroyed from a democrat party point of view is surely a coincidence.

After all, they have been so eager to investiage the background of liberal candidates... (cough)
-1

smithinjapanNov. 03, 2011 - 01:06AM JST

Molenir: "Whats interesting about this, is why Dems feel this will work?"

Ummm... I don't see the word Democrat mentioned in the article even once, so why does someone so concerned with issues like this bring it up except if they are insecure? It could just as easily, and quite frankly it's a lot more realistic, to assume a fellow Republican candidate is performing the smear, no? I mean, the Democrats, since you went out of your way to bring it up, have to compete against someone, right? The Republicans, no the other hand, are fielding a variety of losers who are desperately trying to make grounds and play themselves up while trouncing their co-Republicans through the mud.
-1

smithinjapanNov. 03, 2011 - 01:10AM JST

"That is is a conservative candidate and the one who at moment looks strong and therefore should be destroyed from a democrat party point of view is surely a coincidence."

Ah, and WilliB also needs to voice his insecurity. It's not enough for these lads to know that Obama is going to be reelected in 2012, they have to try and blame everything on Democrats when they are probably not even responsible. The 'funniest' part is that everyone assumes it is a smear campaign without even remotely considering that the charges might be true. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Certainly not my place, nor WilliB's or Molenir's, place to decide.
-1

yabitsNov. 03, 2011 - 01:17AM JST

Now, I want to know more about what actually happened. I keep hearing the term "sexual harassment" being bandied about

What we also see being bandied about are continually shifting stories about payments. The latest news has one woman receiving an entire year's salary to buy her silence.

You can tell the conservatives are taking a defensive position in hole that's getting deeper and deeper by the hour when they start playing the "was it really harassment?" game, before quibbling and obfuscating that to death. Whatever it was, it was serious enough to award a person an entire year's salary over.
-2

yabitsNov. 03, 2011 - 01:19AM JST

Politicis of personal destruction. It is truly admirable to see the enthusiasm of the liberal mainstream media to dig up dirt on a candidate.

What is admirable is how the Republicans/conservatives can eat their young like this and still blame the other side for causing them to commit cannibalism.
0

arrestpaulNov. 03, 2011 - 01:34AM JST

yabits - What we also see being bandied about are continually shifting stories about payments. The latest news has one woman receiving an entire year's salary to buy her silence.

You mention, "continually shifting stories" and then repeat the "entire years salary" story as if it's true. Do you know that is true or are you just hoping it is? Was she given a severance package or did they buy her silence. Did she even recieve a years salary?

What are the actual facts not the latest "claims"?
0

Taka313Nov. 03, 2011 - 01:52AM JST

And if it wasn't bad enough for Herman Cain, the smoking ad with the SLOOOOOW smile, the sexual harrassment suit, 999 to 909, it's apples AND oranges, well...things just got a whole lot worse:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Daniel Bice has obtained information suggesting that a private Wisconsin-based company footed tens of thousands of dollars to help get Cain's campaign going. Two key aides led Prosperity USA, which allegedly helped finance chartered flights, iPads and other travel expenses.

If the report proves to be true, Cain's camp may have violated federal campaign finance and tax laws. An election law expert saw the suspicions as troubling for the GOP candidate.

"If the records accurately reflect what occurred, this is way out of bounds," an unidentified Washington, D.C.-based election lawyer who works with conservatives told the Journal Sentinel.

Of course, bringing this up has nothing to do with illegal campaign finance. Heavan forbid. Even if he's guilty, this is a witch hunt because Herman Cain is a popular conservative. SOMEBODY'S gotta be the victim here and it's got to be conservatives so there has to be a liberal conspiracy thrown in there somewhere. Whether the crime is actually commited is superflous. it's all about that victimhood.

Taka
0

yabitsNov. 03, 2011 - 02:10AM JST

What are the actual facts not the latest "claims"?

It is somewhat strange to read you shunning "claims" and holding out for "actual facts." After all, when you claimed that Barney Frank was primarily responsible for the collapse of the housing market and U.S. economy, and I asked you how that was possible, given the fact that Frank was in the minority party of a Congress and White House controlled by Republicans, you further speculated that it might have something to do with some gay sex-for-hire activities that occurred at Frank's Boston apartment -- something that the available facts indicate Frank had no knowledge of.

As for the "actual facts" of the matter of sexual harassment, I am convinced that a person of genuine character knows what the facts are, and can report them honestly when asked. A person who "wills himself" to forget, or who claims he wanted to "push it out of his mind" is clearly trying to deny or cover up something. But that's how most CEO's roll. They constantly present a false picture of "positivity" when reality is altogether different.

Just as I know that, deep down, you don't seriously believe for one second that the U.S. economy was taken down as a result of some sex acts in a Boston apartment that Frank was somehow able to "hold over" his Republican opposition.
0

TigermothIINov. 03, 2011 - 03:28AM JST

Seriously, this is the kind of gross ignorance that got Cain and Thomas into trouble. Not knowing the difference between contact and speech which is consensual and appropriate to the parties involved and that which is not.

Are you serious with this? Come on. So arguably the most powerful man (position wise - no pun intended) in the world gets a twenty-three year old intern to 'perform' in the WH on our tax dollar time, and you're all cool with that because he's a Dem. If Cain (and there's a big 'IF' - are we now to the point of assuming guilt without proof for the sake of promoting the liberal cause?) harassed a couple of women then the devilish cad must certainly be morally bankrupt, right?

It's funny when right-wingers pretend to completely deny just how lying and sleazy their own kind can be.

Oh right, because you're so ready to admit that old Billy Clinton should practically have been on 'To Catch a Predator' with his performance with a young, impressionable, intern. And what about my dem ex-governor Spitzer here in NY who was thrown out after being caught with a high-priced hooker. His Dem predecessor only had a coke problem - well women rumored as well - but not as bad. You ride that moral high horse only when it's convenient, don't you?

Strangely, we liberals don't hate rich, successful black moderates and liberals.

So you are admitting you hate the black conservatives ones then? Nice.
0

yabitsNov. 03, 2011 - 05:40AM JST

Are you serious with this? Come on. So arguably the most powerful man (position wise - no pun intended) in the world gets a twenty-three year old intern to 'perform' in the WH on our tax dollar time, and you're all cool with that because he's a Dem.

Again, your judgment is extremely clouded. Sexual or other immorality is not OK or cool, no matter who is doing it. That is why it is critically important to identify and asses those flaws before letting the person into a position of high authority and power. It is why Ted Kennedy could never aspire to be president, nor could Gary Hart. (And you are completely off your rocker for suggesting it couldn't happen with Democrats.)

then the devilish cad must certainly be morally bankrupt, right?

Everything depends upon how forthrightly the questions that are raised are answered. You do understand that, don't you? Someone who keeps changing his story is making heavy withdrawals from the "morals bank."

Oh right, because you're so ready to admit that old Billy Clinton should practically have been on 'To Catch a Predator' with his performance with a young, impressionable, intern.

I've read about the sequence of events, starting from when the young woman in question wanted to show off her thong underwear. Clinton paid for his indiscretions with public humiliation and impeachment. So why aren't the conservatives reacting to Cain the way they reacted to Clinton? Here's another example: Congressman Gary Condit of California, who had a brief relationship with a young intern who later disappeared. I recall many a conservative blog and site that alleged that he was her killer.

And what about my dem ex-governor Spitzer here in NY who was thrown out after being caught with a high-priced hooker.

Well, there goes your claim that it never happens to Democrats. To be precise, Spitzer resigned from office -- just like Nixon did. Neither were "thrown out."

You ride that moral high horse only when it's convenient, don't you?

I would say that my morals are of the garden-average variety. That it may seem like a high horse may have more to do with the moral perspective of my right-wing detractors.

And we come to the key problem: It's actually the conservatives who think they possess the morality. It is conservatives who have referred to themselves as "the moral majority," and have often times thought of themselves as fighting a culture war against things like homosexuality, sex education, etc. We liberals tend to be of a more forgiving nature. So we are both bit puzzled and amused when it is discovered that a conservative may have behaved in an immoral and inappropriate manner, how, instead of demanding to get to the bottom of it, start attacking liberals. As if bringing up the sins of liberals and Democrats past will somehow absolve them of their own sins.

That is what you clearly demonstrated in your post.
0

SerranoNov. 03, 2011 - 09:22AM JST

"Let's gang up on the victims"

The liberals here are sure ganging up on Cain over unproven charges.

Yeah, sure, it's possible Cain sexually harrassed these two women, and it's also possible that he didn't.
2

genji17Nov. 03, 2011 - 10:12AM JST

serrano its to hide the fact that their candidate is a horrible waste of life and needs to be replaced...
1

Sioux ChefNov. 03, 2011 - 10:25AM JST

Ben_Jackinoff - "Impeached" doesn't mean what you think it does. You were wrong; there's no shame in admitting as much.
-3

Joseph Garrett BaxterNov. 03, 2011 - 10:38AM JST

McCain is definitely guilty. The restaurant organization paid these 2 ladies off with 5 figures and told them to keep quiet. They would not have done that if there was no truth to the allegations. I do not care about what McCain did but just that he is trying to hide it now since he has no other choice to hope that this goes away.
-2

Joseph Garrett BaxterNov. 03, 2011 - 10:39AM JST

sorry Cain I meant! Reminds me too much of McCain.
-1

SerranoNov. 03, 2011 - 10:47AM JST

"their candidate is a horrible waste of life"

He is not.

"Reminds me too much of McCain"

McCain was accused of sexual harrassment? Really? Ha ha
2

genji17Nov. 03, 2011 - 11:21AM JST

plz serrano...obama hasnt done anything except prove that hes an ineffective leader...if you did your job as bad as him youd be fired...why does everyone make so many excuses for obama? he cant do anything...ineffective means get him out!
-1

arrestpaulNov. 03, 2011 - 01:35PM JST

yabits - As for the "actual facts" of the matter of sexual harassment, I am convinced that a person of genuine character knows what the facts are, and can report them honestly when asked. A person who "wills himself" to forget, or who claims he wanted to "push it out of his mind" is clearly trying to deny or cover up something. But that's how most CEO's roll. They constantly present a false picture of "positivity" when reality is altogether different.

So what you seem to be saying is that you don't know what actually happened between Cain and this woman, what the original complaint was, or how the National Resturant Association handled it.
1

yabitsNov. 03, 2011 - 08:35PM JST

So what you seem to be saying is that you don't know what actually happened between Cain and this woman

What we all know is that there were complaints, and the women were paid money which amounted to a damage settlement in return for their silence.

But we didn't learn those facts from Herman Cain -- who initially denied even being aware of anything. (I believe he was lying at that moment -- like most CEOs would do.) What I seem to be saying is that is behavior not worthy of a presidential aspirant.
-1

arrestpaulNov. 03, 2011 - 11:49PM JST

yabits - What we all know is that there were complaints, and the women were paid money which amounted to a damage settlement in return for their silence.

"Amounted to"? Maybe according to you and others who revel in this sort of thing. What actually happened between this woman and Cain? What did the Nat Rest Assoc actually settle? Did they settle a blackmail attempt that would have cost more money to defend against in court? Were they concerned that some people would automatically assume the worst and condem the Nat Rest Assoc reguardless of what actually happened? To some people, the mere accusation is enough to send them into a frenzy, no facts reguired.
0

TigermothIINov. 03, 2011 - 11:54PM JST

Again, your judgment is extremely clouded. Sexual or other immorality is not OK or cool, no matter who is doing it. That is why it is critically important to identify and asses those flaws before letting the person into a position of high authority and power.

Oh but once they are in office then it's okay, I see.

Well, there goes your claim that it never happens to Democrats.

You like to put words in mouths don't you? I never said it doesn't happen to the left, I simply stated that they tend to overlook it when it happens to their own, but point fingers righteously when it's the opposition. I will freely admit that both sides frequently do this, however with Clinton it was almost criminal how groups like NOW acted like it was nothing. Even you excuse it away as her 'showing off her thong underwear'. Whether she was 'provocative' or not is rather besides the point (and sort of like the old rapist claim of 'she was askin' for it wearin' them tight clothes'). Spitzer wasn't thrown out but saw the writing on the wall.

And we come to the key problem: It's actually the conservatives who think they possess the morality. It is conservatives who have referred to themselves as "the moral majority," and have often times thought of themselves as fighting a culture war against things like homosexuality, sex education, etc. We liberals tend to be of a more forgiving nature.

You have a knack for gross over-generalization to fit your mindset, and I've found that to be a typical liberal flaw. You claim to be so open-minded, but everything to you is an absolute with no room for the in-between. You talk about conservative is the sense of them all being Jerry Falwell, Newt Gingrich loving racists who go to church on Sunday and wouldn't go near them 'homersexuals'. Why we're all so ignorant and backwards thinking that surely you liberals are fives steps above on the evolutionary chain. Your like Beau Brummel sitting in your window passing judgement without really understanding the world walking by.

Keep in mind we are a nation of some 300 million or so, to stereotype everyone who dares call themselves 'conservative' as a knuckle-dragging half-wit is a dangerously stupid thing to assume. That's part of the reason I always goad you on with the hippie comments (although I do hate hippies I must say).
1

Taka313Nov. 04, 2011 - 12:59AM JST

Well, Herman Cain has come out and stated that he thinks that all of this was leaked from the Perry campaign people.

You know who is really enjoying all this? President Obama's campaign manager.

Taka
0

Brandon ReidNov. 04, 2011 - 03:15AM JST

It's is too bad the media had to ice him, I was rather fond of that fellow.
0

bass4funkNov. 04, 2011 - 04:35AM JST

Yabits and most of the liberal ilk hate, just despise the fact that Cain was surging in the polls and thus was threatening the monarchy that is Obama, while I do think that most of these allegations come from what I heard possibly the Perry camp, still does not take away the fact that Dems/Liberals are on the sideline cheering this as a good thing. Black independence and Black Entrepreneurship and especially Black conservative like Allan West, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Kevin Jackson, Michael Steele, Niger Innis and many more are dangerous and poisonous to the Democratic party and their overall survival.
0

yabitsNov. 04, 2011 - 04:41AM JST

Oh but once they are in office then it's okay, I see.

No. It is not Okay either. But it doesn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" necessary for removal from public office. A majority-Republican congress attested that in the impeachment trial of a Democratic president.

I simply stated that they tend to overlook it when it happens to their own, but point fingers righteously when it's the opposition.

They certainly didn't overlook it when it came to scuttling Gary Hart as a candidate for president. So you are completely wrong about that. It's the conservatives who are the self-righteous ones. "Moral majority," my a$$.

Whether she was 'provocative' or not is rather besides the point

No. You are wrong again. It is most definitely not beside the point. When a woman past the legal age of consent invites a man to examine her underwear and they mutually agree to take things farther, it is NOT sexual harassment. How can conservatives be so absolutely clueless and idiotic about that? Had any of the women given any indication that they welcomed Cain's advances, there would never have been any grounds for payoff OR and incident that Cain himself claimed "he wanted to forget."

You talk about conservative is the sense of them all being Jerry Falwell, Newt Gingrich loving racists who go to church on Sunday and wouldn't go near them 'homersexuals'.

The conservatives have a real problem in that there is such a strong undercurrent of exactly that type in their ranks. But, to paraphrase W, they don't consider it a problem, they consider it their base. An honest person who wasn't a "knuckle-dragger" would admit it.
0

yabitsNov. 04, 2011 - 04:53AM JST

Yabits and most of the liberal ilk hate, just despise the fact that Cain was surging in the polls and thus was threatening the monarchy that is Obama, while I do think that most of these allegations come from what I heard possibly the Perry camp, still does not take away the fact that Dems/Liberals are on the sideline cheering this as a good thing.

Well, it is rich to witness the conservatives taking each other apart with the dirty tricks and character assassination that the hypocrites claim are the tools of liberals. The really funny part is how so many conservatives appear to be just so dumb as to not see it themselves.

We're not on the sidelines; we're actually in the stands, munching on peanuts and cotton candy.

We liberals have listened to right-wingers like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck spin for years on how superior their positions and their characters are to their opponents. ("Our blacks are better than their blacks," proclaims best-selling author, Ann Coulter.) We're supposed to just sit and watch their 3-ring circus complete with clowns and not laugh or applaud?
0

Taka313Nov. 04, 2011 - 05:39AM JST

still does not take away the fact that Dems/Liberals are on the sideline cheering this as a good thing

I'd say most of us are just taking in the show. Between Michelle O'Bachmann's crazy antics, Trump and the birth certificate, Cain's sexual harassment, Perry's New Hampshire speech, "Santorum," the freaky debates, and Herman's smoking ad, we've had quite a good show to watch too.

There isn't a writer in hollywood that could entertain as well as this group has.

Taka
-2

bass4funkNov. 04, 2011 - 06:20PM JST

@taka

This is very true. Neverseen anything like this in any election cycle...ever! Like the old saying goes, you just cannot make this stuff up!
0

Taka313Nov. 04, 2011 - 10:23PM JST

This story just gets better. When the sexual harrassment story broke, Herman Cain blamed on the....Perry camp. Well the Perry Camp's blamed on the...Romney camp. The Romney camp's connected to the...Knee bone!

The only thing these guys haven't done is shown up for a debate in a big circular ring, wearing heavy make-up, all arriving in the same, really small car.

When you start to look to the calming, soothing influence of a traditional Mitt Romney flip flop to restore some order to the universe, there may be something wrong.

Taka
-1

arrestpaulNov. 04, 2011 - 11:52PM JST

yabits - Had any of the women given any indication that they welcomed Cain's advances, there would never have been any grounds for payoff OR and incident that Cain himself claimed "he wanted to forget."

What "advances"? If you know what Cain actually did or what any settlement might actually have been about, why don't you share it with the rest of the class?

"Actually" did, not the latest rumor or quote from another UN-identified person.
-1

arrestpaulNov. 05, 2011 - 12:04AM JST

Taka313 - You know who is really enjoying all this? President Obama's campaign manager.

Would that be Bill Daley, brother of the former Mayor of Chicago? Now that you mention it, this does look like a typical Chicago-style political ambush. Create an issue using un-named sources, feed the story to several Chicago-influenced media types, sit back and watch the other party blame everyone else. Find other un-named sources to verify the first story to keep it going. Steal the taxpayers dollars while their distracted, again. Claim you're above all these dirty tricks.
-1

Taka313Nov. 05, 2011 - 01:43AM JST

arrestpaul,

My needle on my conspiracy meter just got buried in the red.

That was FUNNY.

You are giving Obama too much credit if you think he planted a harassment story that would take down Herman Cain and make Rick Perry look like an idiot to boot.

Taka
0

yabitsNov. 05, 2011 - 01:56AM JST

What "advances"? If you know what Cain actually did or what any settlement might actually have been about, why don't you share it with the rest of the class?

It should be easy for you to imagine. Just pretend a liberal Democrat was in Cain's shoes and acted as Cain has acted since Day One of this. Your answer would be: Whatever Cain did was serious enough to have two women paid off rather than having the incident exposed in a court of law. Yes. That's two separate occasions. At least.

Any normal person with a conscience would have remembered very, very, well any accusations that others have against them -- especially if they were FALSE accusations. The type of person who either forces himself to forget or "naturally" forgets such a thing is either a liar or a sociopath -- or both. Totally unfit for high public office, Cain may be a natural for Republican Party Chairman.
1

sfjp330Nov. 05, 2011 - 06:08AM JST

The fallen nature of man is gender-neutral. Some men are pigs, and some women are liars. Current sexual harassment law deals justly and effectively with the former at the cost of allowing the latter to do great harm to innocent men The principle of heads-she-wins-tails-he-loses does violence to both justice and equality.
-2

arrestpaulNov. 05, 2011 - 08:25AM JST

yabits - It should be easy for you to imagine. Just pretend........

Whatever Cain did was serious enough to have two women paid off rather than having the incident exposed in a court of law. Yes. That's two separate occasions. At least.

"Imagine"? "Pretend"? Isn't that what you are doing? If you know what Cain actually did or what any settlement might actually have been about, or how many women may or may not have been involved - why don't you stop your pretending and imagining and let everyone in on the still unspecified complaint(s) and the actual outcome of the NRA decision.
0

yabitsNov. 05, 2011 - 09:00AM JST

If you know what Cain actually did or what any settlement might actually have been about, or how many women may or may not have been involved

The more that gets revealed about this, the worse it is looking for Cain

Isn't that what you are doing?

Not at all..

Through her attorney, one of the women described Cain's actions as unwelcome sexual advances by her CEO. What Cain actually did over the past week was to lie and continually change his stories after being given plenty of lead time to get his story straight. Nearly $100k was paid out to the victims of Cain's actions.

If you know what Cain actually did

Multiple women have reported inappropriate behavior with the specifics pointing to sexual advances. Whether the "actuality" was oral sex or some other proposition really doesn't matter when gauging his fitness to lead the nation. His total lack of preparedness and forthrightness make him completely unacceptable.
-1

zurcroniumNov. 05, 2011 - 03:18PM JST

Wow, Cain has proven he is a real republican now. Abuse of power, hush money, denial, denials of the denial, sexual abuse. Now if he had harassed men it would be a 100% shut case of him being a real republican.

Its great how the republicans are still living in the 90s with Clinton being President again. What he did was adultery, what Cain has done is harassment. Someone explain to the republicans what this means, I have given up on trying to prove the obvious to the faith-based right wing radio crowd. They all live in a bubble, and its the 1990s again I guess. Anyway, most of the posters here want to defend Cain as per the script they were given by their leaders, but they will not vote for him. Not because he is a loon, a sexual predator and has zero qualifications to be President. No, they will not vote for him because he is black. If Cain and Obama run together most republicans heads will just explode.
-2

Joseph Garrett BaxterNov. 05, 2011 - 07:24PM JST

McCain is like Cain in that they are both conservative. That is what I meant besides that they both have nearly the same name.

This sexual harassment thing is all politics. We have seen the same thing before. The French do not understand our thinking and were actually proud that President Clinton created the famous Monica cigar. Poll ratings would have been higher in France for President Clinton during that time.

The thing I do not like about Cain is that he is a lying SOB. The truth will eventually come out and Cain will be booted out.
0

SerranoNov. 05, 2011 - 08:11PM JST

"The truth will come out and Cain will be booted out"

Or we'll never really know unless the women produce recordings of Cain's alleged harrassment.
-1

yabitsNov. 05, 2011 - 09:30PM JST

Or we'll never really know unless the women produce recordings of Cain

What we do know is damning enough: Cain had well over a week (Politico says they gave him 10 days) to get his facts and story straight. And yet, when the story that he knew was going to break finally did, he looked like a man completely unprepared -- constantly changing the details of his stories. Seriously, the man is in need of constant damage control.

It would be like being handed a report with a title like *Terrorist group poised to attack America** and immediately going on vacation.
-2

zurcroniumNov. 05, 2011 - 10:22PM JST

It would be like being handed a report with a title like *Terrorist group poised to attack America** and immediately going on vacation.

Bah-ha-ha, where do you come up with these statements. Next you are going to start writing about My Pet Goat and invading Iraq based on lies. That would be a good one too.
0

SerranoNov. 05, 2011 - 10:42PM JST

"he looked like a man completely unprepared"

Yeah, well, he isn't a politician, he doesn't have experience of defending himself against smear campaigns.

Bill Clinton must be laughing his ass off.
-2

yabitsNov. 05, 2011 - 11:00PM JST

Yeah, well, he isn't a politician, he doesn't have experience of defending himself against smear campaigns.

This is foolish one many fronts, but one has come to expect no less than utter foolishness from Cain's enablers. First off, a good CEO has to know how to read his marketplace, which includes knowing what his competition is saying about his brand, knowing what is going to be said, and forming a strategy to address those. Cain failed miserably from the standpoint of a business leader on those points.

Next, when going before the public to defend his brand, a good CEO has to speak succinctly and forthrightly. Cain failed in this critical area too.

What the campaign against Cain has in common with the one against Clinton is that both originate from among the Republicans. With Republicans for "friends," one doesn't need enemies. Perhaps this is why so many Republicans are so tight-knit: they are following the advice to "keep their enemies closer."
1

arrestpaulNov. 06, 2011 - 04:19AM JST

yabits - The more that gets revealed about this, the worse it is looking for Cain

What has actually been revealed? What exactly has been confirmed? You seem to making up stuff. The media seems to be making up stuff. The bloggers seem to be making up stuff. What actually happened?
-1

arrestpaulNov. 06, 2011 - 04:25AM JST

yabits - What the campaign against Cain has in common with the one against Clinton is that both originate from among the Republicans.

You can prove this of course or doesn't that matter anymore?
0

arrestpaulNov. 06, 2011 - 04:35AM JST

yabits - What we do know is damning enough

There is no "we". What do you know? You have no problem repeating the latest rumors as if they're facts but what do you actually know about this issue?
2

WolfpackNov. 06, 2011 - 06:38AM JST

Well, I can speak only for myself in that regard. I really dislike liars and slimeballs, regardless of race or gender. Why are so many liars and slimeballs conservative?

Yes of course, Liberals are angels and only Conservatives do bad things. Man, you are hopeless.

Conservatives assess the content of people's character by their political views. That's why white conservatives will trot out a black conservative and stress that it is proof they are color-blind.

Yes, conservatives judge people by their views (ie. what is in their head) so in that you are correct. However, conservative whites do not 'trot' out blacks for anything. Blacks like Herman Cain put themselves out there and risk a great deal of derision from other blacks and condescending Liberals of all colors that insist that minorities and women tow the Democrat line. Conservatives are rightly proud of anyone of their fellow conservatives that stand up to bullies like President Obama, Rep. Pelosi, Jesse Jackson, Jeramiah Wright, among many others.

No. You managed to take a very simple point and dishonestly twist it into something else completely.

So, no attempt to defend your non-sensical views about black conservatives.

>White conservatives who think that promoting a black person who promotes their values somehow mitigates their own racism is, in fact, an overt sign of that very racism they try so hard to deny.

I twist nothing. You fail to confront the tendency by the Left to tar conservatives as racist when they demonstrably are not. The Left's incapable of reconciling what a man like Cain represents and therefore they seek to bring him down.

Liberals are going after Cain because he threatens a core Liberal belief. That all people that are not Liberals are racists. Blacks like Cain and Hispanics like Rubio, and women like Palin are targeted for snubbing those who feel it is their responsibility to take care of them via government programs that ultimately keep them from pursuing their own path in life. It's condescending and inherently racist in itself.

The recent attacks on Cain are emblematic of how the Left pursues politics through racial, ethnic, class, etc. groupings that are cultivated and appealed to by pitting people against one another. Why not just treat all people the same and let the chips fall where they may? Oh, because the outcomes are not exactly "equal" so therefore, discrimination must be employed to right the wrongs.
-1

whiskeysourNov. 06, 2011 - 08:38AM JST

Cain reminds me of Nixon donning a cowboy hat. CAIN IS A TRUE REPUBLICAN

" I'm not a crook. "
-3

yabitsNov. 06, 2011 - 09:33AM JST

I twist nothing. You fail to confront the tendency by the Left to tar conservatives as racist when they demonstrably are not.

Ann Coulter's statement with regard to the Cain affair that "Our blacks are better than their blacks" proves demonstrably that many conservatives, even a prominent, highly-visible and vocal one like Coulter, are racist to the core. I don't see other conservatives rushing to condemn her remarks. Most likely they would try to defend them.

Yes, conservatives judge people by their views (ie. what is in their head) so in that you are correct.

Yes, it's why Newt Gingrich -- who tossed aside two wives (one dying of cancer as Edwards' wife was) -- can run for president. It goes to show there's little between views and actual character. Which proves my point. In Coulter's view the content of the character of anyone who is a black liberal does not rise to the level of any black conservative.

Liberals are going after Cain because he threatens a core Liberal belief.

Liberals aren't going after Cain. Cain is being taken down by other Republicans. He is involved in a Republican race, after all -- with millions being collected by his opponents to defeat him. As a liberal, I can attest that Cain does nothing but strongly reinforce my liberal beliefs. He doesn't threaten them in any way whatsoever.
0

WolfpackNov. 06, 2011 - 10:23AM JST

Ann Coulter's statement with regard to the Cain affair that "Our blacks are better than their blacks"

So this entire issue comes essentially boils down to Ann Coulter for you? Besides, is this really a racist statement? She is telling everyone that she shares a solidarity with a black man that thinks the way she does. How is that racist? She is allowing herself to be pulled into the game that Liberals play of putting people in groups. Hows this for you, Al Sharpton doesn't think Herman Cain is an authentic black men - whatever that is supposed to mean. Can we then say that all Liberals share this view. Bringing in Coulter is not relevant and beside the point.

Yes, it's why Newt Gingrich -- who tossed aside two wives (one dying of cancer as Edwards' wife was) -- can run for president. It goes to show there's little between views and actual character.

Oh so you are taking Kings quote literally with respect to the word character ("I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"). Going down that road misses the forest for the trees.

Liberals have a particular hatred for conservatives that they feel should not be conservative - by this I mean anyone except for heterosexual white man. I wouldn't expect any Liberal to admit to it. But all you need do is see what they do and say when confronted by conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Marco Rubio, Herman Cain, and Sarah Palin. They go out of their minds with hatred and contempt. That is what you are seeing from the main stream media today.

Liberals aren't going after Cain. Cain is being taken down by other Republicans.

Who Perry? I am not aware of any evidence of that. The media is driving this story. I don't think conservatives have lessened their support of Herman Cain over this issue given the lack of any specific charge of wrong doing by a anyone willing to come out from behind a journalists blanket anonymity.
-1

yabitsNov. 06, 2011 - 11:00AM JST

So this entire issue comes essentially boils down to Ann Coulter for you?

No. It's the spirit of Ann Coulter's statement that pervades the conservative movement. That's what it boils down to.

She is telling everyone that she shares a solidarity with a black man that thinks the way she does. How is that racist?

No, she is telling everyone that black people who think like she does are superior to black people who don't. Simple as that.

Hows this for you, Al Sharpton doesn't think Herman Cain is an authentic black men - whatever that is supposed to mean.

Well, if a white person makes an utterly bigoted statement against an entire class of people and Herman Cain stands in solidarity with it, I would seriously doubt he would have any integrity when he started speaking out of the other side of his mouth about the content of one's character.

Liberals have a particular hatred for conservatives that they feel should not be conservative - by this I mean anyone except for heterosexual white man.

A lot of conservatives really seem to think that. (As a liberal, I have so such strong feelings outside of bemusement and curiosity -- like hearing a chicken clucking the praises of Colonel Sanders.)

They go out of their minds with hatred and contempt. That is what you are seeing from the main stream media today.

What we have seen of Cain's persona is just the tip of an iceberg. The women who formally went on record as reporting Cain's offensive and inappropriate conduct -- as viewed by them and other witnesses -- are showing what lies beneath. Nobody appears to be losing their minds but the conservatives who make such ludicrous statements about hatred and contempt -- which is what they are projecting onto others. All that hatred and contempt comes from within themselves.
2

WolfpackNov. 06, 2011 - 12:14PM JST

No. It's the spirit of Ann Coulter's statement that pervades the conservative movement. That's what it boils down to.

"Spirit" huh! Rigghhhhtttt.... Coulter supports Cain because he is a conservative, not because he is a black conservative. That's the bottom line. I don't agree a lot of the times when she uses unnecessarily flagrant language to make some points, but racist she is not. She is guilty of being a political bomb-thrower - which is not what we need in the country today. We have serious existential problems that the political system is failing to address and bomb throwing of the kind you hear from folks like Coulter and Al Sharpton or not helpful.

No, she is telling everyone that black people who think like she does are superior to black people who don't. Simple as that.

Since she no doubt thinks that whites, Hispanic's, Asian's, Native American's, or any other racial or other group of people that agree with the way she thinks are superior to those of the same group that don't, I would have to say that this is only anti-black to those who want it to be anti-black. Don't you think Liberalism is superior to conservatism? You are grasping at straws now - the logic and rationale is just not there.

Well, if a white person makes an utterly bigoted statement against an entire class of people and Herman Cain stands in solidarity with it, I would seriously doubt he would have any integrity when he started speaking out of the other side of his mouth about the content of one's character.

So basically Herman Cain is racist against himself? Your logic is so wound up into knots as to be laughable.

What we have seen of Cain's persona is just the tip of an iceberg. The women who formally went on record as reporting Cain's offensive and inappropriate conduct -- as viewed by them and other witnesses -- are showing what lies beneath.

What woman? No one has come forward and said anything except anonymously. Anyone can do that to a politician just to smear them or as a way to leave 'questions' about ones character. There are some unmentionable Liberal politicians (unmentionable because the mod's have asked us not to) that have had allegations made against them much more serious than these and remain lionized by the Left. Like the Duke Lacross accuser, an allegation - no matter how damning - is not proof of guilt. But I suppose the Left, like the Duke faculty, needs only some 'spirit' of guilt to make it so.

Nobody appears to be losing their minds but the conservatives who make such ludicrous statements about hatred and contempt -- which is what they are projecting onto others. All that hatred and contempt comes from within themselves.

"Spirit" and "projection"? Seriously, that's your point of view on this matter?
-3

yabitsNov. 06, 2011 - 12:58PM JST

Coulter supports Cain because he is a conservative, not because he is a black conservative.

If Cain wasn't conservative, he'd be an inferior black in Coulter's view.

Since she no doubt thinks that whites, Hispanic's, Asian's, Native American's, or any other racial or other group of people that agree with the way she thinks are superior to those of the same group that don't.

It's this strange viewpoint that one's political outlook automatically makes them superior to every other member of their group who doesn't hold their views is what so many conservatives falsely accuse liberals of doing. And yet here we see them doing that exact same thing, in most clear-cut of language.

Don't you think Liberalism is superior to conservatism?

I certainly believe that better solutions to problems -- solutions that will benefit the many as opposed to a small percentage -- can be achieved through a liberal philosophy, but that doesn't make liberals better people than others with a different point of view. However, if that other point of view is one that embraces the kind of bigotry that Coulter expressed, then liberalism is most definitely superior to it.

So basically Herman Cain is racist against himself?

There are people who do hate parts of their identity, yes. Sharpton may see some of that in Cain. I did not hear his reasoning behind why he didn't feel Cain was authentic. Note that Sharpton didn't say that every black conservative was not authentic -- that would be a bomb equivalent to Coulter's comment. The two are not comparable.

What woman? No one has come forward and said anything except anonymously.

The women who got paid damages rather than having their complaints be made public in front of jury in a court of law. Those women.

Anyone can do that to a politician just to smear them or as a way to leave 'questions' about ones character

Cain was not a politician but an executive in a position of power over others. The Duke players were exonerated in a court of law. The organization that Cain headed never wanted these multiple allegations brought by more than one woman to see the light of day. Things remained "anonymous" and confidential because that's exactly how Cain and his organization wanted it.

You keep talking about "proof of guilt." That is not what is relevant here. What is relevant is Cain's behavior when he had so much lead time before the story broke -- and how his story kept changing. He could take potshots at the women involved knowing that they would not be likely to come forward and get the Anita Hill treatment from the conservative character assassins.

There is something very creepy about Herman Cain that has nothing to do with the color of his skin or the political views he holds. A "Jimmy Swaggart" kind of creepiness. I've seen the type before. I therefore give a lot of credence to the reports of improper conduct, as well as to what the awarding of hush money suggests.
1

smithinjapanNov. 06, 2011 - 07:23PM JST

Wolfpack: "The recent attacks on Cain are emblematic of how the Left pursues politics through racial, ethnic, class, etc. groupings that are cultivated and appealed to by pitting people against one another."

Actually, it's proof that the other GOP candidates will stoop to leaking scandals about each other to knock each other down.

"Who Perry? I am not aware of any evidence of that."

Nor are you aware of any evidence to the contrary, let alone have any evidence that it's the Democrats. Nice going! You under-minded every single one of your arguments in less than 15 words!

It IS funny to watch how desperately you guys started out this thread and were blaming it all on Obama and the Dems only to watch your heads explode on the article pointing towards evidence it came from Perry's camp (and where Perry pointed to Romney for that matter!), then STILL insist without any evidence it was the Democrats! TRULY classic!
0

smithinjapanNov. 06, 2011 - 07:27PM JST

Wolfpack: Just to add to that, while you, arrestpaul, and others struggle desperately to connect this to the Dems, the GOP contenders themselves are blaming THEMSELVES! So... you guys, who are demanding proof it's not the Dems, are suggesting the people you are defending are wrong as well as everyone who suggests they are correct? :)
0

WolfpackNov. 06, 2011 - 08:03PM JST

If Cain wasn't conservative, he'd be an inferior black in Coulter's view.

You don't know that and you certainly can't extrapolate that to all conservatives based on the quote in which she stands in solidarity with Herman Cain. There is just nothing there.

It's this strange viewpoint that one's political outlook automatically makes them superior to every other member of their group who doesn't hold their views...

You are talking in circles. By group you must be referring to racial group. I don't subscribe to treating people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Coulter and Sharpton do not speak for me. But to the larger point, conservatives think their view is superior to liberalism or else they wouldn't be conservative. Not all ideas are of equal weight just because they exist.

The women who got paid damages rather than having their complaints be made public in front of jury in a court of law. Those women.

Anonymous. How nice to sully a persons reputation for political purposes and hide themselves from public scrutiny. An allegation doesn't prove a crime was committed nor does a settlement. He may be a creepy guy but isn't a crime.

The organization that Cain headed never wanted these multiple allegations brought by more than one woman to see the light of day. Things remained "anonymous" and confidential because that's exactly how Cain and his organization wanted it.

Wrong. It never saw the light of day because the accusers wanted the money more than their day in court. Sorry, but that is the real truth of the matter. The wrong that they felt had been done to them was rectified by their taking the money. If that were not the case, they never should have taken it.

You keep talking about "proof of guilt." That is not what is relevant here. What is relevant is Cain's behavior when he had so much lead time before the story broke -- and how his story kept changing.

Guilt does matter when a person is being attacked for something they claim they didn't do. Human interactions can often be awkward and maybe even 'creepy'. But so what? We got bigger problems than to get mired in silliness like this.

The media and Liberals do not like to see a black man going off the reservation. Therefore, they are going after him.
-1

WolfpackNov. 06, 2011 - 08:15PM JST

@smithinjapan

Actually, it's proof that the other GOP candidates will stoop to leaking scandals about each other to knock each other down.

Could be. But their is no evidence that I am aware of to make that a true statement. It is much more likely given the treatment of Palin, Rubio, and Thomas that this is from the Left.

Nor are you aware of any evidence to the contrary, let alone have any evidence that it's the Democrats. Nice going! You under-minded every single one of your arguments in less than 15 words!

Then why are the Liberal media making such a big deal out of what is really a non-story? The only thing the man is accused of is of being creepy. He committed no crime and was not found guilty of any crime. I thought that the last Democrat president make all this kind of political hatchet job irrelevant.

Wolfpack: Just to add to that, while you, arrestpaul, and others struggle desperately to connect this to the Dems, the GOP contenders themselves are blaming THEMSELVES!

No. One GOP contender - Cain - lashed out and made the implication that Perry might have been the source of this. Could be, but probably not. Cain isn't a career politician so I don't expect him to be gaff free. He is a human being that has made mistakes in his life like all of us have. I am more concerned with the huge national debt and the fact that the US is rapidly bankrupting itself under the Obama administration (and yes, all other presidents over the last 50 years also played a part in that).
0

smithinjapanNov. 06, 2011 - 08:44PM JST

Wolfpack: "Could be. But their is no evidence that I am aware of to make that a true statement."

So where's the evidence that it was the libs?

"It is much more likely given the treatment of Palin, Rubio, and Thomas that this is from the Left."

Not at all. We've seen it leaked by other Republican's about Perry's hunting retreat 'Ni--erhead', which caused some damage. We heard Romney get bashed on the Mormon thing; these Republicans are dragging their fellow GOP members through the mud worse than they do the Democrats in regular elections. Why on earth would the Dems step in when they can just sit back and have a good laugh? What does it gain them to have Perry in there instead of Cain?

"One GOP contender - Cain - lashed out and made the implication that Perry might have been the source of this."

Serrano: I'm not sure why you think yabits is 'making this stuff up... sheesh!':

In media interviews since the story broke Sunday, Cain has offered conflicting accounts of what happened during his tenure at the trade group in Washington. He later acknowledged knowing about one settlement but said he did not know how much was paid. The New York Times reported Tuesday that one payout was $35,000, equivalent to one year’s salary for one of the women.

Do you even read the articles?
0

smithinjapanNov. 06, 2011 - 08:47PM JST

Wolfpack: " I am more concerned with the huge national debt and the fact that the US is rapidly bankrupting itself..."

A very valid concern -- one best saved for an article that is about the economy and the Obama administrations handling about it; NOT to spin allegations of harassment of a GOP contender (or his accusations that it was yet a GOP rival, and so on) and blame it on the Democrats.

As for the 'he is a human being. We all make mistakes', I'm not going to forget you said that, my friend. :)
0

smithinjapanNov. 06, 2011 - 08:50PM JST

Wolfpack: "Then why are the Liberal media making such a big deal out of what is really a non-story?"

Sorry I'm handling your post in pieces here. It's not just the liberal media making a big deal of it, I'm sure. Cain't popularity is already dropping among Republicans as it is also being chimed in said media. And you can bet it will be brought up by the other candidates. The REAL question is why you guys are making such a big deal that it's the Democrats when you have absolutely zero proof, but allegations, by Cain himself, that it was other GOP candidates? Surely you can realize the hypocrisy in some of your statements.
0

yabitsNov. 06, 2011 - 09:57PM JST

You don't know that and you certainly can't extrapolate that to all conservatives based on the quote in which she stands in solidarity with Herman Cain. There is just nothing there.

Oh, how you just wish that were true. When Coulter identifies one entire class of people (black conservatives) as being better than another class (any black who isn't a conservative) she gives the game away. There are at least a million other ways of expressing "solidarity" without having to disparage an entire class of people to do it. I find the conservative penchant to pretend there is "nothing" to be quite laughable, coming from the party that spews out false accusations as though they were shot out of a Gatling gun.

But to the larger point, conservatives think their view is superior to liberalism or else they wouldn't be conservative.

What makes liberalism a better choice for human beings is the realization that liberals believe and trust in the truth and the scientific evidence as opposed to blind faith in an ideology. (Which is why conservatives are opposed to change.) Liberals believe that truth should be the guide, and that truth will force change. We don't write off our conservative opponents as hopeless -- the way conservatives write off liberals.

Which brings us to the "truth" of the inherent contradiction in these two statements:

It never saw the light of day because the accusers wanted the money more than their day in court.

and

How nice to sully a persons reputation for political purposes and hide themselves from public scrutiny.

Cain's reputation was "sullied" as soon as the women brought their complaints to the NRA, completely independently, it might be added. Cain's organization offered the women an amount of money which they otherwise might have received in a court settlement. What is important here is the realization that at no time did the organization seek to defend the reputation of the person accused of the improper conduct. That can only be done in a setting in front of impartial citizens impaneled as a jury.

Now you can bend over backwards and twist yourself into a pretzel trying to rationalize that all away. The fact of the matter is that the accusations put the man's reputation and honor at stake. Now I'm very old-fashioned when it comes to things like that. If I know I did not do anything wrong, I would see any party in court to defend my reputation and clear my name. Were I truly innocent, I would never pay a claimant a single penny. Cain's actions in the face of the accusations do not speak as worthy of a man of honor in my book.

Not unless the accusations had merit. Then, the problem becomes Cain's reaction to the revelations of his clouded past. Well, consistently, he didn't appear to be honorable then -- and he certainly does not appear to be honorable now.

Does that make him an unfit candidate for our nation's highest office? I certainly think so, but that's for Republicans to decide. Should they stick in solidarity with Cain, one would hope they would drop the hypocritical posing as to how their black conservatives are so superior to the non-conservative members of the race.
1

sailwindNov. 06, 2011 - 10:28PM JST

Yabits,

What is important here is the realization that at no time did the organization seek to defend the reputation of the person accused of the improper conduct.

You have no idea if they did not defend Mr. Cain or not. It was handled per their internal procedures 11 years ago and you have no clue what went on during the investigation of the validity of the complaint or not. You have no clue if there were other factors also involved either. Your just speculating.

The statement from the NRA:

“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint.
0

arrestpaulNov. 07, 2011 - 12:44AM JST

smithinjapan - So where's the evidence that it was the libs?

Where is the evidence that it was the GOP? Or the Progressive Democrat Caucus? Or Perry's camp? Or the Whitehouse? Or the Romney camp? Or anyone else? There is NO evidence only speculation.

It's still NOT known what this one woman actually filed a complaint about or why the NatRestAssoc chose to settle with her.

The references to Coulter, Nixon (Nixon?), and others are red herrings to redirect the conversation away from that lack of evidence surrounding this Cain issue.
0

arrestpaulNov. 07, 2011 - 12:49AM JST

yabits - What is important here is the realization that at no time did the organization seek to defend the reputation of the person accused of the improper conduct. That can only be done in a setting in front of impartial citizens impaneled as a jury.

Hahahaha. Where did you find that tidbit of nonsense? Is that what you were told by MSDNC? Do you have ANY proof to back up your speculations?
0

arrestpaulNov. 07, 2011 - 01:43AM JST

yabits - What makes liberalism a better choice for human beings is the realization that liberals believe and trust in the truth and the scientific evidence as opposed to blind faith in an ideology. (Which is why conservatives are opposed to change.) Liberals believe that truth should be the guide, and that truth will force change. We don't write off our conservative opponents as hopeless -- the way conservatives write off liberals.

Hahahaha. You don't seem to have any idea what conservatives actually are or what they actually stand for. Desperately grasping at straws to explain why more and more voters are turning away from the liberal, progressive policies of the current U.S. hopey changey administration. More and more voters are realizing that they made a BIG mistake in 2008. The voters corrected many of those mistakes in the special elections and the midterm of 2010. They will correct even more of those mistakes in 2012 and your persistant personal attacks won't change any anyones mind. You can gather more bees with honey than you can with bile.
1

WolfpackNov. 07, 2011 - 08:10AM JST

Oh, how you just wish that were true. When Coulter identifies one entire class of people (black conservatives) as being better than another class (any black who isn't a conservative) she gives the game away.

This is so easy; for the life of me I can not fathom why you are unable to grasp this? Coulter, and conservatives in general, naturally support black conservatives. Of course, by definition they oppose black liberals (as well as Liberals of every other race or group you can think of). It isn't racist because she differentiates based on politics, not race (you know, the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin). For liberals, who spend their lives seeking out reasons to generate animosity among the races, this is laughable. Coulter does this to Liberals all the time and in knee-jerk fashion they fall for it every time.

Cain's reputation was "sullied" as soon as the women brought their complaints to the NRA, completely independently, it might be added. Cain's organization offered the women an amount of money which they otherwise might have received in a court settlement.

Oh yeah, if a conservative is "alleged" to have done something wrong then they are "sullied". The 'truth' doesn't matter right? So if someone where to "allege" that President Obama attended a racist black-nationalist church for nearly 20 years then his reputation would be sullied I suppose? Oh, someone has alleged this - and they have the video tape to prove it. But of course his reputation is not sullied, he is a Liberal! He gets a free pass. I have no idea why the women accepted the money instead of taking their case to court. I can tell you however, that it is no unheard of for women to make claims that are untrue (see Duke Lacrosse case).

What is important here is the realization that at no time did the organization seek to defend the reputation of the person accused of the improper conduct. That can only be done in a setting in front of impartial citizens impaneled as a jury.

Exactly right! Only a jury can decide - not Liberals and their main stream media supporters - you have made my point for me. Thanks! Also, you cannot state that the NRA did not defend Mr. Cain. You have no way of knowing what the lawyers for the NRA or the accusers did.

Were I truly innocent, I would never pay a claimant a single penny. Cain's actions in the face of the accusations do not speak as worthy of a man of honor in my book.

No doubt you don't think he is man of honor after all, he is a black Conservative. Most Liberals (maybe even you) thought that the "unmentionable Democrat president" was a man of honor despite the numerous allegations otherwise. Well, until the 'truth' came out after a furious defense and trashing of the women involved.

I cannot say what the NRA's rationale was for settling with the accusers. Just as you have know way of knowing why the accusers settled with the NRA. It could be that they didn't have a case. Regardless, my understanding is that Cain was unaware of the NRA's decision to settle with the accusers until after the fact. Correct me if you can point to information that proves otherwise.

You make very few logical points in defense of the trashing by the Left and the main stream media of this Black man - who happens to be black. Based on the volume of your posts here and your party line defense of Democrats and their attacks on conservatives, you are undoubtedly a true believer. I can respect a person that stands up for their ideology.
1

WolfpackNov. 07, 2011 - 09:57AM JST

@yabits

What makes liberalism a better choice for human beings is the realization that liberals believe and trust in the truth and the scientific evidence as opposed to blind faith in an ideology. (Which is why conservatives are opposed to change.)

The Democrat party has been overtaken by Liberal ideologues that don't want to change anything with American government. President Obama is the most Liberal president in my lifetime. He is deeply ideological and refuses to learn from his past mistakes and continues to trust in socialist economic policies that are not working. Socialism has never worked - it is unsustainable. Keynesian economics is a complete and utter disaster and Democrats want to do another stimulus just a bit smaller than the one that just failed two years ago. The presidents stimulus plan went into effect at about the same time the economic recessions officially ended in the Summer of 2009. The economy has gotten worse since then.

If Democrats believed in the truth they would admit that their policies are failing. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all failing and they do not want to make the fundamental changes that have to be made sooner rather than later. They just want to spend more money them. Democrats certainly know what is happening in Greece and the other countries in Europe teetering on the brink of bankruptcy due to the same exact policies that they want to perpetuate in the US. They are just hard-headed ideologues!

Liberals may hate capitalism and it certainly isn't perfect. But to paraphrase Churchill, "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all of the others."

Herman Cain understands that and wants to help blacks and all American's to get off the Liberal plantation of dependency and stand on the their own to the greatest extent possible.
-1

yabitsNov. 07, 2011 - 10:11AM JST

Coulter, and conservatives in general, naturally support black conservatives.

Tearing down black people who aren't conservative is a way to support other conservatives? Glad I'm hearing that from you.

For liberals, who spend their lives seeking out reasons to generate animosity among the races, this is laughable. Coulter does this to Liberals all the time...

Does what to liberals? Looks for ways to generate animosity? Telling the vast majority of African-Americans they are inferior if they don't accept conservatism is a pretty good way to do it.

So if someone where to "allege" that President Obama attended a racist black-nationalist church for nearly 20 years then his reputation would be sullied I suppose?

Imagine that. On the one hand we've got a person in Cain whose organization had to pay off women in order to avoid going to court on multiple sexual harassment allegations leveled against him. On the other is a man who the seeming defenders of racism and harassment accuse of praying to God in the wrong church. Rich indeed. (The video tape, by the way, proves nothing. Whites also attended Obama's church. There was no overt message that blacks who attended that church were superior to anyone else.)

The Duke issue is worth mentioning. The primary reason the case failed is because another woman came forward with her story that the plaintiff was trying to scam the players. It does not relate at all to the Cain case, which involves a pattern of multiple instances with professional women in work-related settings, and includes other witnesses.

You have no way of knowing what the lawyers for the NRA or the accusers did.

The man did not take it to court the way the Duke players did. That is what we ALL know.

No doubt you don't think he is man of honor after all, he is a black Conservative.

His color or political beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with it. A man of honor would have protected his name and reputation. Anyone who would not do that is unfit, regardless of his situation. Anyone who takes his case to court to face judgment and possible punishment is acting honorably -- regardless of the offense that brought them there.

I cannot say what the NRA's rationale was for settling with the accusers

When there is more than one accusation, the probability grows ever higher that the accusers have a case. Something is definitely wrong. Even more so when given so much time -- Cain claims it was 10 days -- to get his story together.

Regardless, my understanding is that Cain was unaware of the NRA's decision to settle with the accusers until after the fact.

Cain says he was aware that a complaint against his behavior was made. Then he first said he was unaware of a financial settlement given to a female employee over allegations he sexually harassed her - but later acknowledged he was aware of an ‘agreement.’ Cain asserts there is a difference in his mind between an "agreement" and a "settlement," but no one else on the planet can discern what that difference is.

Based on the volume of your posts here and your party line defense of Democrats and their attacks on conservatives, you are undoubtedly a true believer.

It is my fervent hope as an American that people will resolve to seek the truth, use common sense, and act with honor. I have voted for Republicans in the past and would do so again if and when the party regains its sanity.
-1

yabitsNov. 07, 2011 - 07:50PM JST

Socialism has never worked - it is unsustainable. Keynesian economics is a complete and utter disaster and Democrats want to do another stimulus just a bit smaller than the one that just failed two years ago.

I understand how Cain has referred to other countries -- like Chile -- for possible "solutions" to economic problems. If, however, we look to the world's fastest-growing and most vibrant economies: Brazil, China, India and, to a lesser extent Chile and Argentina, we would find much higher Keynesian involvement by those nations' governments in their economies. So I don't see how you can call it an utter disaster.

If Democrats believed in the truth they would admit that their policies are failing. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all failing

To the extent that they can be said to be failing, the primary reason is that they have been driven towards failure by the major force in the United States that has opposed them from the beginning: Republicans who represent the very wealthiest Americans. Social Security, by the way, has been a tremendous success in providing a level of basic income that has kept untold millions of American elderly, widows, and orphans out of utter poverty. And that is the truth.
1

SerranoNov. 07, 2011 - 09:08PM JST

Oh good grief, so now yabits blames Republicans for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid's financial woes. Republicans who "represent the very wealthiest Americans," as if there were no wealthy Democrats, too funny.
1

WolfpackNov. 08, 2011 - 09:37AM JST

Tearing down black people who aren't conservative is a way to support other conservatives? Glad I'm hearing that from you.

This kind of sentiment reflects a simple black and white, good vs evil dichotomy whereby if supporting one side automatically means "tearing down" others. Opposition in politics is a zero sum game in your mind, but not in mine.

Whites also attended Obama's church. There was no overt message that blacks who attended that church were superior to anyone else.)

Except he talked talking about how evil whitey is. That talk never bothered the president. Haven't you seen any of his YouTube greatest hits videos?

The man did not take it to court the way the Duke players did. That is what we ALL know.

The county prosecutor took the players to court; the players did not take the woman to court. So I guess ALL of us do not really know. And why should Cain, the accused take the woman to court? He isn't claiming that there was a crime.

A man of honor would have protected his name and reputation.

No, not really. The unmentionable former president never tried to take his accusers to court. But wait, he was guilty - so you might be onto something there. I'll have to think about that point a bit more.

When there is more than one accusation, the probability grows ever higher that the accusers have a case.

Now that I agree with. However, there still must be proof and not just he said she said. If a woman comes up with a DNA stained blue dress, then I can easily doubt Cain's side of the story.

I have voted for Republicans in the past and would do so again if and when the party regains its sanity.

I used to be a Republican but am now unaffiliated when it became obvious that not even the so called "Conservative" party would restrain from spending America into default. The Democrats, like Greece, are in denial that there is even a real spending problem at all. I can never vote for the party that represents dependency and decline.
1

WolfpackNov. 08, 2011 - 09:56AM JST

If, however, we look to the world's fastest-growing and most vibrant economies: Brazil, China, India and, to a lesser extent Chile and Argentina, we would find much higher Keynesian involvement by those nations' governments in their economies. So I don't see how you can call it an utter disaster.

Brazil, China, and India are growing precisely because they have been moving towards greater free trade (ie. capitalism). Combined with labor cost advantages their economies are booming. In China's case, this is the opposite of China's 1950's land reforms and collectivization policies, and India's push towards Statism in the 1970's. These government - particularly China - are pursuing the same export led crony capitalism that allowed Japan and the Asian Tiger's grow so quickly during the later half of the last century. You have this exactly backwards. It is greater freedom of trade that increases wealth not a stricter adherence to the socialist idea of collectivism.

To the extent that they can be said to be failing, the primary reason is that they have been driven towards failure by the major force in the United States that has opposed them from the beginning: Republicans who represent the very wealthiest Americans. Social Security, by the way, has been a tremendous success in providing a level of basic income that has kept untold millions of American elderly, widows, and orphans out of utter poverty. And that is the truth.

You must be kidding! Republicans have been going along with these unsustainable schemes for decades. Social Security is a giant ponzi scheme. Sure, it has helped those people that were lucky enough to live when the nation had many times more taxpayers than beneficiaries. But the truth is in the actuaries ledger - the system as it currently exists in unsustainable and is nearing it's tipping point of collapse. We have finally gotten to the point where we are running out of other peoples money. Current beneficiaries receive money directly from current taxpayer's SS taxes (in exactly the same way that Bernie Madoff payed dividends to his older clients with money from his newer clients) All of the excess money in the system has been spent by the government on other welfare programs, ever greater SS benefits like SSI, tanks, bike paths, and bridges to nowhere.
-2

Taka313Nov. 08, 2011 - 11:34PM JST

You can prove this of course or doesn't that matter anymore?

This coming from the guy who opined that this could be an Obama hit job? Physician, heal thyself.

You are totally unreal paul.

WOW!

Taka
1

SerranoNov. 08, 2011 - 11:48PM JST

"This coming from the guy who opined that this could be an Obama hit job? Physician, heal thyself."

Translation: No, yabits can't prove it.
-1

yabitsNov. 09, 2011 - 12:21AM JST

Brazil, China, and India are growing precisely because they have been moving towards greater free trade (ie. capitalism).

That is somewhat true for China, but certainly not true for Brazil, which for decades stifled under right-wing governments (as did Chile), but since the election of the unionist/leftist Lula da Silva in 2003, has seen a complete turnaround. Likewise Chile, which swung left after decades of economic stagnation under right-wing governments who took their economic lessons directly from Friedman and his University of Chicago acolytes. The lesson seems to be to keep a healthy mix of free market and government involvement.

You must be kidding! Republicans have been going along with these unsustainable schemes for decades.

No they haven't. The modern Republicans' goal -- since Ronald Reagan -- has been to shrink government by driving it towards bankruptcy. It's why the Reagan/Bush years saw the national debt triple, and double again during W's two terms. The Republicans believe that the ultimate way to kill the programs they hate is to drive the entire government deep into a crisis situation. As one Republican put it: to force the size of government to shrink to where you could drown it in a bathtub.
-2

Taka313Nov. 09, 2011 - 05:22AM JST

Herman Cain was just on CNN and he said, "There is not an ounce of truth to these allegations."

That got me to thinking. Whenever someone is falsely accused of a crime, what is the first thing they ask for?

A: A lie detector test.

If there isn't an "ounce of truth to these allegations" then Herman should ask for a lie detector test. In fact, I'm going to write his campaign and suggest they do just that. If Herman is clean, I would think he would jump at the chance to take a polygraph test to clear his name.

Funny he hasn't thought of it already.

Perhaps he's guilty or not too smart. Neither a president makes.

Taka
0

arrestpaulNov. 09, 2011 - 11:46AM JST

Taka313 - If there isn't an "ounce of truth to these allegations" then Herman should ask for a lie detector test. In fact, I'm going to write his campaign and suggest they do just that. If Herman is clean, I would think he would jump at the chance to take a polygraph test to clear his name.

Are polygraph tests even allowed in U.S. court cases? They do have a history of unreliability.

Why haven't you requested that the blackmailers and rumor mongering Cain accusers take a polygraph test?
-1

Taka313Nov. 09, 2011 - 11:43PM JST

arrestpaul,

Because I've since been informed that polygraph tests are wildly inaccurate and recinded my position.

Taka