Replies

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.

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..

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.