[grey_whiskers]

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

9-9-9 birdcage liner!

[Jeff Head]

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.

[DallasDeb]

I agree!

[oneamericanvoice]

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.

[oneamericanvoice]

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.

[Vendome]

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.

[Inyo-Mono]

You nailed it!

[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.

[jcsjcm]

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?

[Sister_T]

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

[nathanbedford]

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.

[FredZarguna]

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 Totebag^TM" 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.

[Absolutely Nobama]

BTTT!

[little jeremiah]

Placemark.