Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Vanity) Unasked Questions: Herman Cain and Sexual Harassment
grey_whiskers ^ | 11-08-2011 | grey_whiskers

Posted on 11/08/2011 4:18:17 PM PST by grey_whiskers

In the past week, ever since the first allegations were made public by Pollutico, GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain has been facing a crescendo of questions about misbehavior in his past. The funny thing is, even though the original allegations were made by "unnamed sources" -- which is usual liberal-press-speak for "I made it up" -- they were treated as serious issues. The second funny thing is that, even though the original allegations were of "offensive gestures" of a "non-sexual nature," the scandal has morphed in little more than a week to reports of FIVE cases "of sexual harrassment" in which two "settlements" were made.

Does anyone remember Anita Hill? And the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas? No, I'm not going to play the race card. I'd like to point out the inconsistency between THE POLITICIANS then and now.

In the Clarence Thomas affair, you may recall, Anita Hill had accused Clarence Thomas of making off-color jokes to her about a pubic hair found on a soft-drink can. Left unstated were several pertinent facts:

1) that as a black woman with an Ivy League Law degree, she was "untouchable" and nobody would have been able to fire her in that day and age except if she had been caught in flagrante delicto with Ronald Reagan on the steps of the Supreme Court building.

2) that even *after* the supposed harassment, she followed Clarence Thomas around to two or three jobs.

And yet...and yet, even with these disqualifiers, a number of Democrats championed her cause.

Where are all the Democrat heroes of the female cause giving voice to their support of Cain's accusers?

And another (all to obvious example), speaking of Democrats.

What about Clinton?

No, not Bill.

HILLARY.

She's the one who lightly spoke of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband -- even though she had helped lead the 'bimbo eruption squad' -- until news of the stained blue dress appeared.

And then, with a deftness worthy of David Copperfield, she pirouetted into Victorian femininity. As she wrote in her book, upon hearing of Lewinsky, "...gasping for air, I could hardly breathe." One would be hard pressed to recognize this shrinking violet as the foul-mouthed ashtray hurler we had all come to know and loathe.

So -- a couple of points by way of comparison to Hillary.

1) Having posited a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" -- even though it is clear now that she believed no such thing -- are any of the press willing to entertain the concept of a "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" ?

2) Can anyone take one look at Hillary's eyes ; or Elliot Spitzer's wife, or Jonathan Edwards's wife ; and compare them to Herman Cain's wife, and suggest for even a microsecond that Cain is guilty?

3) Speaking of guilty wives, and Hillary, what about Huma Abedin? Long rumoured to be a paramour of Mrs. Clinton, she was paired off in one of those D.C. marriages of convenience and left center stage.

Does anyone remember to whom she was wed?

Why, yes. How very interesting.

She married Anthony. Weiner.

The one who had to resign after his name matched his actions a little too well.

The Congressional Flasher in a Raincoat.

"Say Hello to My Little Friend."

And does anyone remember the response of the press, with multiple independent witnesses, and literal, self-incriminating, PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence?

"Give him a chance to clear himself."

Funny how Jesse Jackson (child out of wedlock) isn't defending you, Mr. Cain ; nor the Congressional Black Caucus.

It's a funny double standard, isn't it?

But then, that's the same way it has been for well over a hundred years with the Democrats.

White and Democrat = Even if guilty, circle the wagons.

Black and Republican = Even if innocent, Lynch Mob.

Give 'em hell, Herman.

I would've voted for Sarah, until she declined to run (God alone knows what they threatened her family with).

But I will back you ALL THE WAY.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: cain; clinton; hermancain; press; scandal; whiskersvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
Cheers!
1 posted on 11/08/2011 4:18:17 PM PST by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; neverdem; SunkenCiv; Cindy; LucyT; decimon; freedumb2003; ...

9-9-9 birdcage liner!


2 posted on 11/08/2011 4:21:37 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Exactly...and because Herman Cain represents the absolute refutation of all of their efforts over the decades to hold minorities down and get them hooked into voting democrat. with Cain, that could start to change and once a small crack develops...it could develop into a complete break in their system.

That's what all of this is really about.

But today, I believe Herman Cain did himself proud. He spoke directly to these allegations and denied them categorically. He has made it clear from this press conference and from his releases that he understands that this woman is troubled (and any casual review of her history is indicative of this) and being used...and thereby sends a signal to her and to her ambulance-chasing, publicity and politically motivated lawyer that he can get a lot more junk yard mean about it if they continue to slander him.

IMHO, he did very well and can now, in the fuuture, (and to the never ending chagrin of these MSM elitists and enemies)refer any questions about these incidents to date back to this press conference and its transcript and continue on with his campaign.

But the left and others hate him and are threatened by him and I do not believe they will stop. He needs to be prepared for that, and we need to support the man...both with encouragement and with any donations we can make.

He is a principled, conservative, God-fearing Christian man...and he is not a quitter or one to back down from a scrape and as a man of strong moral character and commitment to this nation, that is exactly what we need through this campaign, and in the years ahead as he and a majority House and Senate do the work necessary to take our country back.


STAND WITH HERMAN CAIN AGAINST THE SMEAR CAMPAIGNS BEING WAGED AGAINST HIM

I'm number 526 on the list.

3 posted on 11/08/2011 4:23:37 PM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I agree!


4 posted on 11/08/2011 4:23:56 PM PST by DallasDeb (usafa06mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I wish Santorum would get more traction. He is a real Conservative with real plans. He spoke at our club, and is very impressive. It seems that there is a concerted effort to suppress him.


5 posted on 11/08/2011 4:24:43 PM PST by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I wish Santorum would get more traction. He is a real Conservative with real plans. He spoke at our club, and is very impressive. It seems that there is a concerted effort to suppress him.

All these women that are coming forward now are suspicious. Why didn’t they bring it up earlier, say, when Cain entered the race? The very fact that Gloria Allred is involved leads me to discount her client Sharon whatever.


6 posted on 11/08/2011 4:26:30 PM PST by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

John Huntsman is Gay.

He’s not ready to come out of the closet but, he hasn’t denied it as of this time....

Huntsman is widely known for quickly refuting rumors but has thus far declined in this very important and personal matter.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.


7 posted on 11/08/2011 4:32:32 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice

Draw your own sarcastic conclusions.

Cheers!

8 posted on 11/08/2011 4:32:43 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

You nailed it!


9 posted on 11/08/2011 4:33:49 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

How does a woman that has declared bankruptcy twice afford to live in the same building as David Axelrod???

She is can’t even hold a job.


10 posted on 11/08/2011 4:37:21 PM PST by NoLibZone (Occupy is the DNC's use of children,indigent & infirm to push back TeaParty calls for smaller gov't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
How does a woman that has declared bankruptcy twice afford to live in the same building as David Axelrod???

She is can’t even hold a job.

Can she *give* a job?

(Maybe she is not very discriminating in whom she chooses to bestow favors upon, but she is discriminating about whom she attempts to sue afterwards?) /Dem-anti-Clinton-accuser-mode>

Cheers!

11 posted on 11/08/2011 4:39:47 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
John Huntsman is Gay.

Okay, but what about Jon Huntsman?

He’s not ready to come out of the closet but, he hasn’t denied it as of this time....

I'd say they're right up front about it.

It's the name of one of their family companies:

Huntsman is widely known for quickly refuting rumors but has thus far declined in this very important and personal matter.

Are you sure he's not just a Mormon?

12 posted on 11/08/2011 4:41:12 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice

Santorum is a snooze! He would be great if America needed a good night’s sleep.


13 posted on 11/08/2011 4:44:07 PM PST by RoosterRedux (Politics ain't beanbag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

see:

MacsMind: Cain acuser Bialek fired for making false accusations of sexual harassment

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/11/08/macsmind-cain-accuser-bialek-fired-for-making-false-accusations-of-sexual-harassment/


14 posted on 11/08/2011 4:44:45 PM PST by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Susan Estrich and her lover estrogen?


15 posted on 11/08/2011 4:47:24 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

All this scandal does is move Newt up the ranks. Cain baggage is now worst than Newts.


16 posted on 11/08/2011 4:48:31 PM PST by Orange1998 (Obama also inherited AAA credit rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Susan Estrich and Sharon Ostrich.

Cheers!

17 posted on 11/08/2011 4:48:54 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Can you make a bumper sticker / T-shirt?

No Half Measures --

Vote for a REAL black man.

CAIN 2012.

Cheers!

18 posted on 11/08/2011 4:50:24 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998
Cain has no baggage.

The accusations have proven his mettle and courage under fire.

Leave it to the Democrats to think that a man with a PhD from the College of Hard Knocks, and a Stage IV Cancer survivor, is going to be put off by their cheap pissant tricks.

Democrats have no character, so they don't know how to estimate it.

Cheers!

19 posted on 11/08/2011 4:52:25 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Attack Watchhhhhhhh !


Attack Watch ? can you look into the reason why there are only white blonde women accusing Herman Cain of false sexual harassment ? are they serial accuzies floozies ? Attack Watchhhhhh we want to know...
20 posted on 11/08/2011 5:00:08 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: x

You almost had me at “Jon” which everyone knows is a stage name for Cabaret or La Cage aux Faux performers....


21 posted on 11/08/2011 5:00:09 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Dang Topper...

LOL


22 posted on 11/08/2011 5:04:24 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
" How does a woman that has declared bankruptcy twice afford to live in the same building as David Axelrod???

She is can’t even hold a job. "

Yeah Attack Watchhhhhh ! we want to know ....

Is it paid fringe benefits ? hint , hint, wink, wink...

Are these his paid hoes ? yeah Attack Watch, we want to know..
23 posted on 11/08/2011 5:05:12 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

It’s not 5 as they are reporting! The 5th so called person is 1 of the first 3 that refused to come forward. Bennett tried to make her come forward, but she supposedly wanted nothing to do with it. She was one that received a settlement after Herman Cain no longer worked at the NRA.

I’m even confused if there were actually 3 in the beginning or just 2. Then the 3rd or 4th Sharon Bielek which also could have been one of the 3 since Bennett (lawyer) stated that a woman called him named Sharon from the Chicago area 5 times. But she never followed through. So was she one of his original 3?

If so, we are still only dealing with 3. 2 of which allegedly took settlements from the NRA and the 1 of which called this Bennett guy and only stated her name was Sharon.

Are you confused yet?

So, really how many anonymous people were there and is the count actually only 3?


24 posted on 11/08/2011 5:06:52 PM PST by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
" Can she *give* a job?

(Maybe she is not very discriminating in whom she chooses to bestow favors upon, but she is discriminating about whom she attempts to sue afterwards?) /Dem-anti-Clinton-accuser-mode> "

Could she be Axselrod's hoe ?
25 posted on 11/08/2011 5:08:53 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm
None in my book. They're ALL lying, as far as I can tell.

The answer is the look in the eyes. Mrs. Cain's eyes.

Cheers!

26 posted on 11/08/2011 5:09:34 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I do agree with you grey, I’m with Cain all the way and this is a hatchet job for sure. BUT....

I’m just peeved that they are reporting that now 5 have come forward and I don’t think that count is accurate!

I believe it was the 2 anonymous (this Bennett guy is trying to ruin Cain with) and then the 3rd that called Bennett which was Sharon (gold digger) Bielek.


27 posted on 11/08/2011 5:12:56 PM PST by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Attack Watch ? can you look into the reason why there are only white blonde women accusing Herman Cain of false sexual harassment ?

I wonder if Obaama tried to volunteer to be an accuser but Axelrod and Plouffe stopped him? /Larry-Sinclair-rumour-sarc>

28 posted on 11/08/2011 5:14:01 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

Nope.

Cain is being accused of cheating on his wife.

Newt cheated on wife #1, divorced her,
cheated on wife #2, divorced her.

Thank you though, Cain, for showing how important martial fidelity is.

Newt would prefer this not be an issue, but now it is.


29 posted on 11/08/2011 5:19:13 PM PST by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Since you mentioned Jesse Jackson, what about his sexual harassment suit? Do you recall any media frenzy over that?


30 posted on 11/08/2011 5:26:37 PM PST by Sister_T ("Calling ILLEGAL aliens "immigrants" is like calling shoplifters 'customers'!"-UCFRoadWarrior ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Obscure hip/hop reference warning.

“Ain’t no half-steppin/He’s the BIG DADDY CAIN”


31 posted on 11/08/2011 5:27:27 PM PST by SirLurkedalot (OccupyMinefield, you communist filth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Pretty good post!


32 posted on 11/08/2011 5:30:41 PM PST by Osage Orange (Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

With what? Being Queer? Of course there is. It is a sickness and an abomination. In the same category as pedophilia, bestiality and other abominations.

33 posted on 11/08/2011 5:35:31 PM PST by bluecollarman (Wanted,,,,witty tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oneamericanvoice
Think Rick is stuck with a 'perception' bias - that includes; and as well; goes beyond his politics. He looks too young to get the role of President - much less intimidate our enemies; if he were too. All to say; his 'fresh face'/stature; get no respect.

Unfair; perhaps; but hardly the first time; someone rejected for a job on account of their 'looks'/sigh. And of course; his own/past political efforts; never, totally appreciated.

34 posted on 11/08/2011 5:42:09 PM PST by cricket (Stop the madness. . . Vote the KING out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

My point was both candidates have negative things said regardless of the facts. The fresh accusations always out weigh the old ones in the minds of voters. ie: Bill Clinton


35 posted on 11/08/2011 5:44:07 PM PST by Orange1998 (Obama also inherited AAA credit rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All

Seriously, I’m to the point where if Cain goes down over this, I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that the Republic is finished.

Not because I believe that Cain is the only guy that could possibly save it. I like him and support him, but I dont worship him.

But because of two seperate things:

1. because it means that now the media truly can pick the candidates, because if anyone they dont like decides to run, they just will bring anonymous accusation out, then two, then three, then four....and once they get so many, say “well, sure, there isn’t any proof, but with this many charges theres GOT to be something to it”, and too many of the sheeple will just blindly swallow it and move on. And voila the media has now set up every election between the Dem and the RINO.

2. it means that a person can not truly win an national elective office if they aren’t a career politician, which is so far away from what the founders intended, that maybe its time to do what the declaration suggests and abolish the present form of government, and build another a little farther out west.

I do believe that if it isn’t Cain, its going to be Romney. As cool as I am on Romney to begin with, it absolutely terrifies me that the end result is going to be that we’re going to end up with the EXACT candidate that the media told us all along that we were going to end up with, because the media set it up so we had to end up with him. It will mean that two elections in a row we’ve gone the “moderate” route, and probably the second time in a row, we’re going to lose because the same liars in the MSM that tell us that this “has” to be our candidate, then tear him to shreds in the general election agains the lib. End the end, we get the Government we deserve, and judging from the electorate, I dont like the prospects.


36 posted on 11/08/2011 5:45:50 PM PST by SoCalTransplant (Failure is always an option...just never a good one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: truthfreedom
The damage is done for Cain. Its a shame accusers can have a press conference and spew the innuendos. The media still hold plenty power over this country. Last Saturday night when Cain said "There are too many people in the media who are downright dishonest." I knew right then the firestorm had begun. As much as I agree with his statement he is picking a fight he cannot win. IF Obama said that during the Sinclair fiasco the media would have paid more attention to the accusations.
37 posted on 11/08/2011 6:02:12 PM PST by Orange1998 (Obama also inherited AAA credit rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]




Click the Pic             Thank you, JoeProBono

Gary Gets a Job in Construction and Gets a Hard Hat
After Being Busted by The Cajun for Not Wearing One

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!


Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

If every FReeper and Lurker gave just $7 a month
No More FReepathons!

38 posted on 11/08/2011 6:25:47 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
The conservative movement is writhing in an agony of frustration which often proceeds out of false premises.

We are lashing out at Rick Perry, Barack Obama, the media, the women, their lawyers, and, tragically, each other. We are blaming everyone except Herman Cain himself-and I do not mean for the way he has handled the accusations-and the underlying sexual harassment law.

Ultimately, the federal sexual-harassment statute and its regulatory enforcement has presumed to codify good manners. For millennia women have had to deal with sexual harassment without a federal bureaucracy to defend them. It is this ill begotten statist drive to criminalize bad manners that has led us to the point where the Republican Party is virtually alone in its vulnerability to these scandals, leaving the Democrats relatively immune.

I consider myself to be a social conservative with a contradictory and pesky libertarian streak that erupts from time to time like a virus to affect my views. So long as we have a wing of the Republican Party insisting on sexual purity among our alpha males we will suffer under this contradiction. Men do not become president of the United States without giant egos and men with great egos are men with strong sexual drives. Anticipating a howl of protest from social conservatives for my apparent rationalization of adultery by "alpha males" I offer the following:

Some people might feel that it is nice to have a chief executive who was not an adulterer. Others might ask, how does that affect me as a citizen and how does it affect the candidate in how he governs? I have looked at the presidents in the modern era and I can find no correlation between marital fidelity and what we conservatives should seek in a president.

Here is my list and my subjective analysis:

Presidents who cheated (both before and during tenure): Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton = (5).

Presidents who did not cheat: Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Obama = (8).

By my calculations 38.4 % (nearly 4 in 10) of the modern presidents cheated.

Of those who did not cheat, Nixon, Carter, Obama (3) 37.5% were utter, unmitigated disasters as president. If we are to select our presidents by virtue of their marital fidelity, history tells us that we will get our worst presidents more than one third of the time.

Yet, like our sexual-harassment law itself, our persistence in relating marital fidelity to competence in office when history does not support that relationship, leaves the Republican Party vulnerable to real or trumped up sex scandals.

So the Republican Party is turning on itself like ravening wolves and diminishing our chances against Obama, all in pursuit of a reality that is artificial and out of keeping with our culture. That is not to say that we should not strive for the virtuous but it is to say that we should not crucify ourselves on crosses of hypocrisy.

I happen to believe that Herman Cain has committed the "offenses" alleged. I came to this conclusion watching him in an interview with Greta on Fox in which his body language betrayed a man who was lying. Since then we've had more women come forth and the odds of him telling the truth against three negotiated financial settlements and one live witness become more and more difficult to sustain. One of the anonymous women who received a settlement has conditionally offered to go public. The harder we try to support Herman Cain's increasingly unsustainable position, the more we harm ourselves.

Yet, our problem does not end there. Our history as a party is cowardly in the extreme. We abandon one champion after the other if they are merely accused of an intimation or penumbra of racism. We have seen this with Senators Lott and Alan and I have had something to say about this on my about page. Much of the "baggage" encumbering Newt Gingrich today comes from the shameful desertion of him by the party at the end of the speakership.

There has to be a time and a place where we Republicans and conservatives resolve to stand together against all of these attacks. Since I do not believe that Herman Cain is telling the truth, I do not think this is the time or the place to stake our claim to the confidence of the nation on the outcome of the scandal. I accept that when it comes to Democrats' scandal, the matter of truth is utterly irrelevant to their decision to defend their politicians. I hope we are better than that, so I think our job should be limited to defending Herman Cain's right to due process. I think we should refrain from some of the idiotic attacks on the women and especially on other Republican candidates such as Rick Perry.

We should understand that what we are doing is almost the inevitable results of the incoherence of our basic assumptions.


39 posted on 11/08/2011 6:42:58 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Why so sympathetic to those who have zero documented evidence of their supposed encounter with Cain? Yet, here is a man who has provided receipts of his encounter with Zero and gets no media coverage whatsoever. At the very least, the media should acknowledge.....”Yes, we continue to hear about Zero’s homosexual liaisons, but we refuse to report it because we have been threatened by Axel-rod, Jarret, Emanuel, Mrs Zero and Zero himself so we refuse to report it.

This is the real story. That the guy living in the white house is gay. And the media refuses to touch it even though they know it's true.


40 posted on 11/08/2011 6:56:23 PM PST by postt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Notice how all the anti Cain threads shut down once confronted with zero’s gayness factor. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Those who bring false charges about a conservative candidate in regards to his sexual encounters will continue to confronted with zero’s gayness and why the media has a double standard. CAIN ... full court press for the win. Because Cain can address and handle the fake media.... whereas zero’s gayness cannot. No wonder he fled the country, even he can connect the dots and knows that his gayness will eventually make it into mainstream now that these whack jobs are going after cain.


41 posted on 11/08/2011 7:07:08 PM PST by postt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Thanks for the ping, dear grey_whiskers!


42 posted on 11/08/2011 8:23:36 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
The logic of this, frankly defies me.

First, I don't regard any of the Presidents who cheated as especially good Presidents, including Eisenhower. So, we must conclude we are virtually certain to get a mediocrity (at best) if we pick a cheater, but only likely to have an awful one 1/3 of the time if we pick a non-cheater. I have to go with the 2:1 odds.

Second, regardless of the size of a man's ego, an inability to control his sexual appetites when it endangers his career and more importantly the most important relationship in his life does matter. Being in command of things -- especially yourself -- is an important aspect of masculinity, unless you're a boy. I don't want another boy President.

Heraclitus had this right 2500 years ago: Character is destiny.

I was always darkly amused at the claims that Bill Clinton's job as President, not his urges, were what really mattered. Anyone who has ever had a skirt-chaser as either an employee or a boss knows perfectly well that it's a full time job, and the man's career is really just a hobby in pursuit of the next ankle-twist. So, the question in 1998 should probably have been did his indiscretions affect Hillary's ability to "run the country" -- an idiotic exaggeration if ever there was one -- because Bill certainly could not have been.

Third, you determine on the basis of body language that Herman Cain is lying. OK, well... that job is already taken on Ted Baxter's show, but maybe you can make your name "with the folks" by reading the entrails of a goat on Wednesday evenings.

Please be serious.

Even if we stipulate that body language can be used as an indicator of deception for the purpose of advancing this silly discussion, there's no real specificity in the technique. Maybe Cain didn't quite believe his claim that the severance package wasn't a payoff, because he doesn't want to admit there was a payoff. A lot of people don't understand that corporations will do a calculation and gladly pay $50,000 to make a liar go away, and Cain may resist admitting to a payoff that he knows full well was a payoff for that very reason. But in any event, body language? Really?

Fourth, Republicans created this mess for themselves; there I will agree with you. Since the common law, the legal fiction applied to injuries has always been that of a "reasonable person." For reasons beyond the understanding of any sane (let alone reasonable) person, there is no reasonable person standard in sexual harassment jurisprudence or settlement. What constitutes harassment varies with every individual and circumstance. This is a source of endless mischief and downright evil, and -- it goes without saying -- a tremendous gift to ambulance chasers and publicity whores such as Gloria Allred.

All that said, please note that no credible witness has yet appeared. It's not necessary to circle the wagons in defense of Cain on the basis of the everybody-does-it defense quite yet. I don't need to read body language to know that the media lies, and as long as no blue dress appears, I'm going to take Cain's word over the claims of anonymous sources, known prevaricators, and outright liars.

43 posted on 11/08/2011 9:29:21 PM PST by FredZarguna (I think this friendly approach has been what 0's already been trying for nearly three years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; nathanbedford
I have been ambivalent about Cain from jump street two years ago and have wavered from thinking him a race pick to liking him well enough to now getting danger will robinson feelings about his veracity and being a little bit preacherish like Huckabee

It's a veritable mess. Sure the media and Dems are very biased and unfair...it's disgusting.

But I am not pleased with conservatives parsing and excusing here either.

I mean I have seen folks here I normally respect claiming that the judgment stick by which to measure is if a conservative candidate's transgressions add up to or surpass those of Bill Clintons’?

Geezuss...by that benchmark then anything goes...

I did not like Cain's vague memory at first and then his parsing over and over.

I do think it's admirable that he fights back...that is in his favor.

But I ask myself is this all we have..to back a so called social conservative with this much “smoke” around him going into a possible general with Obama...or worse..Hillary?

Contrary to freepers views that this is commonplace...no it isn't. I have been family owner of businesses with 1000s of employees and not once any of this.

I personally do not cotton to boorish behavior like is alleged against Cain..sorry

It appears that we still do not know all the truths but my instinct tells me too much smoke..and I'm just not a supporter. It seems in today's world candidate supporters simply tolerate anything...maybe even the proverbial dead girl or live boy...for sure Dems can survive a live boy can't they?

If he wins I would support him against Obama reluctantly.

This is not a popular view here ...so be it. I was critical of Palin whom I adored when I disagreed and that was frowned on here too by zealots..many of whom are now Cain folks.

I think most disturbing is to a man and woman...listening to talk radio rationalize it all...they all sound like Carville with Bimbo eruptions

yes...I did think Allred’s “victim” was very flaky..no doubt.

but I don't think the two settlements we know of so far were paid just for the hell of it either

it's just a damned mess..like I first said..very disappointing...helluva primary with my girl sitting on her butt and me looking at Gingrich with moon eyes...color me not very enthusiastic with any of them...and with Obama on the damned ropes too..

44 posted on 11/08/2011 9:49:01 PM PST by wardaddy (Ethnonationalist...I'll cop to that....Suicide of a Superpower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Better than bird-cage liner. I think with regards to the parallels you missed at least one thing which is glaring (and has been largely forgotten.)

Initially, in both cases, the accusers were anonymous and their charges were nonspecific. There were initially three accusers in the Thomas vs. Hill circus; two were simply so thoroughly lacking in credibility that even the Lefties wouldn't subpoena them. Hill herself preferred an anonymous ambush, but when it became clear that nobody would buy a story without a face, Sen. Paul Simon's wife leaked her name to Nina "The TotebagTM" Totenberg, who "outed" her, forcing her to appear.

In the instant case, when it became clear that repeating the same anonymous, non-specific (and in one case non-sexual) charges -- even hundreds of times -- would not bring Cain down, the legal world's premiere attention whore conveniently appeared, client in tow, to put a face to the "crimes. "

In both cases, the press inflated the charge to "sexual harassment," as rapidly as possible, although the original accusers did not claim even this incredibly nebulous standard of behavior. Anita Hill herself, in her opening statement said, "I want to stress that sexual harassment is different for every woman and every claim, and I am not accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment." One of Cain's accusers charged him with making an "inappropriate non-sexual gesture" [which prompted most of the males in the audience to make an inappropriate mono-sexual gesture which consists of pumping the fist of one hand repeatedly sideways.]

There were problems with the actual facts on the ground in both cases, which did not stop the press from continuing to advance the narrative as if it were true. In particular, the timeline of the "corroborating" witnesses is extremely suspect, then and now. Susan Hoerchner's repeated changes as to the time and identity of Anita Hill's alleged harasser were so transparently altered that veteran prosecutor Arlen "Snarlen Arlen" Specter went as far as to accuse her of "flat-out perjury."

Actual crimes and actionable events have statutes of limitation for a reason. Memories fade and evidence deteriorates. Like Thomas, Cain is being accused of boorish -- maybe even criminal behavior -- but except in a single case with an entirely incredible claimant, we have no reason to believe that any of it is true.

45 posted on 11/08/2011 10:05:37 PM PST by FredZarguna (I think this friendly approach has been what 0's already been trying for nearly three years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I am a complete fence sitter, although leaning slightly Newt. I would be very enthusiastically Newt, but I don't care for Newt's past moral behavior at all. He has had a life-changing religious event; maybe that means something. Much more for his sake than anything else, I hope so.

I've no opinion yet on what I think of these allegations, except to say, I don't agree there is a double standard here with respect to Clinton and a possible Republican nominee. The claims made against Clinton involved specific women at specific times and places with specific charges. So far -- except in one case in which I simply do not find the accuser credible -- there has been no specificity whatever. I'm just not willing to disqualify one of our guys on the basis of so little substantiation.

If there is more substance to these allegations than currently appears, as I think I made clear in my post, I'm with you; I would want another nominee and would vote for Cain (in that case) in the general election only because I fear for the Republic's survival if 0bama has another four years (and, likely a legacy of 30+ years of liberal Supreme Court dominance as well.)

So I can't rationalize NOT voting, as some FReepers have with the prospect of a Romney candidacy. I'm voting for our guy, I'm giving money to our guy, and I'm working the GOTV effort for our guy. We are literally staring into the abyss. What stares back is a darkness that portends the end of the "last best hope of Earth." I wish we had better choices, but, as a wise man once said, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had."

46 posted on 11/08/2011 10:29:14 PM PST by FredZarguna (I think this friendly approach has been what 0's already been trying for nearly three years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Fred:

There is more to go on than just body language, although not too much.

The most important thing to go on is the existence, indeed the pre-existence, of documents which reflect that the allegations were made long before anyone could have expected Herman Cain to run for political office.

It is true we do not know the nature of the allegations and, because of the overbroad scope of the law, it is possible that allegations of the most trivial nature might constitute their contents. But there are three such collections of allegations and the odds are that they are not all trivial.

It is possible that the allegations were settled for money merely to dispose of them as nuisances, but, again, not likely that all three fell into that category. Especially is it unlikely because they were sealed, indicating that one side or the other felt that the contents would be damaging. Odds are that the side felt most threatened by the allegations contained in the documents was The National Restaurant Association. If the allegations were trivial the association had nothing to hide. If the allegations were egregious the association would have acted to protect its image. Those considerations do not apply to the women who, at most, might have had an interest in avoiding embarrassment but not guilt.

We do in fact have a credible witness, credibility is a subjective value, and I find Bialek to be more credible than Cain. That judgment is based on many factors besides body language but it includes motive to lie and, clearly, Herman Cain has a more potent motive to lie. He is motivated to become the most important and powerful man in the world. I cannot perceive any personal aggrandizement which she might reasonably have expected to gain by insinuating herself into this scandal which could possibly compensate her for the calumnies which she must have known she would sustain. In determining this, we must conclude that one of the two is lying; we cannot simply attack Bialek in the abstract but in relation to the credibility of Cain and weigh one against the other.

We have Cain's less than credible handling of the scandal, his backtracking etc. You have felt constrained to defend it and that is only illustrative of its weakness. So far, his public statements on the matter have been far, far less credible than Bialek's. Bialek's credibility must be judged relative to Cain's and vice versa. He does not come off well in comparison.

Now we have another woman who has gone before the world and said that she would publicly comment, conditioned on the participation of the other two anonymous women. So we have women, we have documents, we have motive, and, yes, we have body language. Drip, drip, drip.

I do not maintain that the evidence is overwhelming but it is certainly in preponderance against Cain. My conviction is that it will get worse.

As the evidence against Cain mounts as it did against Bill Clinton, his supporters will be forced into ever more and more ludicrous rants which damage the Republican brand and improve Obama's chances in the general election.

As and when that scenario emerges it will be appropriate again to ask yourself whether we are painted into this corner because we persist in associating adherence to cultural mores about sex with effectiveness of a chief executive. Maybe it's a question of something we believe because we have always believed it.


47 posted on 11/08/2011 10:32:58 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
48 posted on 11/08/2011 10:33:29 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

BTTT!


49 posted on 11/08/2011 10:45:06 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama (Chairman Obama And Ron Paul Are Sure Signs The Republic Is In Serious Trouble. God Help Us All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
What you do not weigh, and what you need to additionally weigh in determining Bialek's credibility are several other factors:

As for the rest of your reply, one course of action most certainly would be to resort to more and more contrived and convoluted defenses, should a credible witness ever appear. But I won't defend that course, because I will not embark on it.

Good character is defined within the culture by commonplaces upon which we all agree, and those whose egos place them above even the minimalist standards of the early 21st century are dangerous. The betrayal of one's wife and family for the sake of ego gratification is not on par with wearing white after Labor Day or running through the classroom with scissors. It's symptomatic of immaturity (at best) and sociopathy (at worst.) Neither of those traits aligns favorably to a nation originally dedicated on the altar of sacred honor.

50 posted on 11/08/2011 11:15:32 PM PST by FredZarguna (I think this friendly approach has been what 0's already been trying for nearly three years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson