Cain's goose is cooked, so who is next for the GOP?

LOL. That's true. In order to stay true to the GOP, these would be young, gay men. :ultracool

Seriously, though, guys. Don't forget that this is politics. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be credible. And it doesn't have to be substantiated harassment in order to kill his campaign.

But my first reaction was the same as Crushing's. This entire campaign is a lengthy book hype.
 
Steve said:
LOL. That's true. In order to stay true to the GOP, these would be young, gay men. :ultracool

Seriously, though, guys. Don't forget that this is politics. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be credible. And it doesn't have to be substantiated harassment in order to kill his campaign.

But my first reaction was the same as Crushing's. This entire campaign is a lengthy book hype.
Click to expand...

Book -- singular? How many titles has he published this year? I found several.

http://www.amazon.com/This-Herman-C...6136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320789527&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Common-Sense-...BM/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&qid=1320790130&sr=8-19
http://www.amazon.com/They-Think-Yo...6278/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1320789527&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Re...JO/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1320790130&sr=8-23
 
The last tiny bit of credibility in her story was lost when she admitted to living in same building as david axelrod
 
I know people are saying this was one of the other republicans leaking the info. However, although it wouldn't be a stretch for it to be one of the republicans, it could just as easily have been the dems. Why? Well, one of the most damaging republicans to the democrats in the last election cycle was Sarah Palin. The odds of Cain winning the nomination are not great, but after the election he will be in the same position as Sarah Palin and he will be a black conservative who isn't afraid to say so. Obama and the dems have every reason to put a stop to that. There are apparently possible connections to David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel has connections to the NRA in chicago and one of the accusers may actually work in the Obama state dept. Coincidence, maybe, maybe not.
 
billcihak said:
Is it true one of the accusers now works in the Obama state dept.?
Click to expand...
Yes apparently that one of the first ones that the case was settled and according to Cain was not found to be true when investigated.
 
Thoughts on the Cain story from American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/cain_accusers.html

It has been verified that Herman Cain was not a party to the nondisclosure agreement. He is not bound by its confidentiality provisions. He did not breach the agreement by addressing it; his accuser may have.
The Cain accuser, through her lawyer, stoked the controversy by claiming Cain's version of events is not true. Publicly rejecting Cain's claim that he did nothing wrong may be accurate. On the other hand, it may have been done to raise the price for her story. It even raises the specter that she is the original source of the story broken by Politico.
Friday, after the National Restaurant Association released the Cain accuser from the confidentiality of the nondisclosure agreement, her lawyer issued a
Click to expand...
statement that "She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now nor in discussing the matter any further publicly or privately." (emphasis added)
After anonymously stoking the story for good reason or not, which may have been done in violation of the confidentiality [COLOR=#009900 !important]requirements[/COLOR] of the nondisclosure agreement, it is curious that the Cain accuser now sees "no value in revisiting this matter."
Instead of the inconsistent statement issued Friday by the lawyer, the Cain accuser could have issued the agreement on the spot since the NRA had released her to do so. The lawyer could have redacted her name. That would have provided information contained in the nondisclosure agreement without disclosing her identity. Instead, the strategy used keeps value and a price on the story because it keeps the story open to speculation.
Click to expand...
 
Sarah Palin hurt the Republicans much more than she hurt the Democrats. :) The Obama administration believes Romney will be thier roughest competitor and have already focused thier campaign on him. They would actually love to run against someone like Cain instead. So I doubt seriously it was Democrats digging up the info on Cain.

The women from the lawsuits are under a non-disclose order from thier settlement. That is why at least one of them has not come forward personally. Another says she has no desire to be in the public light, which given some of the nasty stuff being said already is pretty understandable.

After reading more about the 4th accuser, there definitley are some questionable things with her. However, that still leaves three others. This doesn't disqualify Cain from running, but I do think it should be taken into account.

As far as Clinton goes, most Republicans were ready to tar and feather him after his affair came out. Now your using him as an excuse of why Cain's misconduct doesn't matter? Really?! Seems misconduct is only an issue for some if it is the other side's misconduct. If it isn't correct behaviour, it isn't correct behaviour, no matter a Democrat or Republican.
 
They received a waiver from the NRA and have so far decided not to comment further.

the Cain accuser could have issued the agreement on the spot since the NRA had released her to do so. The lawyer could have redacted her name. That would have provided information contained in the nondisclosure agreement without disclosing her identity. Instead, the strategy used keeps value and a price on the story because it keeps the story open to speculation
Click to expand...
.
 
WC_lun said:
However, that still leaves three others. This doesn't disqualify Cain from running, but I do think it should be taken into account.

As far as Clinton goes, most Republicans were ready to tar and feather him after his affair came out. Now your using him as an excuse of why Cain's misconduct doesn't matter? Really?! Seems misconduct is only an issue for some if it is the other side's misconduct. If it isn't correct behaviour, it isn't correct behaviour, no matter a Democrat or Republican.
Click to expand...

How can you use the other three when you dont even know what happened? All we were told was "OHHH Cain is a dirty old man but we cant tell you anyhting about it but trust us hes a dirty old man"

And the same people wanting to tar and feather Cain now were the ones saying what clinton did was no big deal. On MSNBC today they were making stupid comments about the "Black sexual aggression against blond white woman" I mean really.
 
ballen0351 said:
How can you use the other three when you dont even know what happened? All we were told was "OHHH Cain is a dirty old man but we cant tell you anyhting about it but trust us hes a dirty old man"

And the same people wanting to tar and feather Cain now were the ones saying what clinton did was no big deal. On MSNBC today they were making stupid comments about the "Black sexual aggression against blond white woman" I mean really.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the ones who had the tar and fathers ready for Clinton are now defending Cain.

Politics, what a strange animal.

And for some odd reason it's pretty much only here that it matters so much what a guy does in his spare time.....
 
granfire said:
On the other hand, the ones who had the tar and fathers ready for Clinton are now defending Cain.

Politics, what a strange animal.

And for some odd reason it's pretty much only here that it matters so much what a guy does in his spare time.....
Click to expand...


That is a bullseye! The hypocrisy is getting worse that is for sure. Those Republicans strongly behind Cain thinking they will get a black man to run against Obama also kills me. Which they were the ones who crowed against the idea of Powell running for President. The same ones too who condemned Clarence Thomas. It is still about racial and gender political strategy. They knew when to play that Cain sexual harassment card, he was getting to much attention.
 
Frankly, I am not convinced that ANY of the allegations are true. It is not hard to complile a reponderance of accusers. Nor is such a preponderance any form of actual evidence. Sadly, I doubt that will matter to the public at large. In this country, if you are a public figure, you are guilty until proven innocent. Even if proven innocent, you still have a high likelihood of being perceived as guilty.
 
JohnEdward said:
That is a bullseye! The hypocrisy is getting worse that is for sure. Those Republicans strongly behind Cain thinking they will get a black man to run against Obama also kills me. Which they were the ones who crowed against the idea of Powell running for President. The same ones too who condemned Clarence Thomas. It is still about racial and gender political strategy. They knew when to play that Cain sexual harassment card, he was getting to much attention.
Click to expand...

Powell was too good a man for office anyhow.
 
It doesn't matter if Cain is guilty. No presidential candidate has ever survived sexual harassment allegations. It is a matter of their (3 women) word against his. Who do you think has the most credibility? Something that lends to the allegations are possibly true is the fact others, like Romney, Perry aren't accused of sexual harassment. Don't forget those candidates who where accused and they where guilty of sexual harassment. Mostly likely, he is guilty. A political race is dirty, and the way Cain is handling it really is raising more questions then displaying his innocent. What also is highly important is what come out of his mouth, how he handles himself. So far, it doesn't look good.

And the past sexual activities of politicians also lends public credibility to the allegations. Like, Weiner, and the other dozen or so over the last couple of years. Politics is about public image.
 
Empty Hands said:
Cain's complete and utter lack of seriousness or intellectual preparation for the job he says he wants makes him unfit to be President. This sleaziness just makes him an *******.

As for the complaints that the other 3 complainants are "speaking anonymously through a lawyer" - they are not speaking at all, through lawyers or otherwise. The women are bound by agreements not to speak about the matter. Others found the settlements and have brought forth knowledge of their existence.
Click to expand...

The sleazyness isn't yet proven, at least not enough for me. As I said before, I remain open. Actually, the 4th woman seems the most believable of all. But what she describes can be either furtherance of actual or attempted sexual assaults, or simply a man being very clumbsy in his attempts to impress and date women.

But women who aren't willing to speak publicly, hiding behind legal agreements, then saying they don't see reason to talk about it? Doesn't cut it with me. In fact, I don't know that they may not have violated their agreements already, even going through a lawyer. But what is the first waiting for? A higher offer? It doesn't help her defend her credibility.
granfire said:
On the other hand, the ones who had the tar and fathers ready for Clinton are now defending Cain.

Politics, what a strange animal.

And for some odd reason it's pretty much only here that it matters so much what a guy does in his spare time.....
Click to expand...

Yes. And I think that is what many Americans are becoming unhappy with. Politicians of both major political parties, only representing their party and lobbyists, not the people who voted for them. And certainly not the interests of their country. At least that is how I am beginning to perceive it.

Josh Oakley said:
Frankly, I am not convinced that ANY of the allegations are true. It is not hard to complile a reponderance of accusers. Nor is such a preponderance any form of actual evidence. Sadly, I doubt that will matter to the public at large. In this country, if you are a public figure, you are guilty until proven innocent. Even if proven innocent, you still have a high likelihood of being perceived as guilty.
Click to expand...

Yep, truth in that as well. But even if he were to be found completely innocent of all allegations, I think I am not getting a warm fuzzy about the way he has (mis)handled his damage control.
 
The first three women did not come forward on thier own. They were discovered through thier law suits. The lawyers were hired to protect thier anonymity, the law suit agreement, and give another side other than Herman Cain's (so far inept) spin on the suites. Why are you so down on the accuser's? They are not the ones who came forward and other than the last one are doing what they can in a tough situation.

Here's something else to keep in mind with the fourth accuser as well, if as you say it wasn't a case of harrassment, but rather clumsy attempts to impress and date a woman, he was married at the time. You have already expressed your distaste at adultery with Clinton's escapade. Why are you giving Herman Cain such a large benefit of the doubt? Could it be political party is trumping your morality? Once again, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, no matter the person's political leanings.
 
granfire said:
On the other hand, the ones who had the tar and fathers ready for Clinton are now defending Cain.
Click to expand...

Really can't compare the two until the Cain allegations are shown to be true. At least one accuser should look in to hiring a body guard. Harrassment and settlements happen to follow her from one company to the next. Just goes to show we have a long way to go in the worksplace.

Cain should watch this PSA: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassment/258532/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

What is WRONG with people?!

Previous Thread

US Government Agencies track citizens via warrantless GPS

Next Thread

Similar threads

Bob Hubbard
Excerpt: Bikes, Boats, and Boxing Gloves, Adventure Writer in the Kingdom of Siam
Replies
1
Views
2K
dubljay
D

Latest Discussions

Back
Top