Sadly true. I was very offfended by the comparisons with Thomas, because first of all, there was no paper trail (Cain actually had two employment complaints against him) and the allegations were more than tenuous. Also, I don’t like the race card that Cain is playing: he is not being attacked for being black, and any white GOP candidate with that track record would have had exactly to answer exactly the same questions. He knew what was in his past and he should have been prepared to answer when he became a candidate.
But the sad thing is that GOPers are acting exactly like the Dems when Bill was accused: trashing the women, saying all women are liars, and if it really happened, it was all “just about sex” anyway. It’s actually about honesty and trustworthiness - and judgment, none of which I would say are possessed by Cain.
So sorry your offended.....are you a Willard supporter?
Worth repeating:
“But the sad thing is that GOPers are acting exactly like the Dems when Bill was accused: trashing the women, saying all women are liars, and if it really happened, it was all “just about sex” anyway. It’s actually about honesty and trustworthiness - and judgment, none of which I would say are possessed by Cain.”
so you find this lady at all credible. I do not. The first one was clearly and undeniably a bottom feeder who made false accusations, found not credible and shown the door for the lowest possible severance package.
There was a $850,000 settlement in a Clinton case..a legal settlement of the case. With Cain, there was no settlement on the charges, and simply a minor severance package agreement to go away for $35,000. As many corporate attorneys have stated, that is the award for a nuisance case, not a case with cause.
I couldn’t disagree more. On a more probable than not basis (IMHO, fairly significantly more probable than not, based on what we know), this woman is out and out lying.
If the woman is out and out lying, the meme here is the Clarence Thomas meme—this is nothing but a high tech lynching.
And even if what she said were (mostly) true, so what? The guy made a crude pass—and stopped when the woman said no. It does NOT involve a chronic misuse of power, the way Clinton’s problems did.
If true, I would agree with you. The issue is whether the woman's claims are true. I don't find them terribly plausible at this point, and I'll admit that is partly because I assumed the far left would try the "black man threatening a white woman sexually" gambit because in their racist minds that seems like a frightening thought. If this turns out to be true, then I agree, and it might be time to settle for Newt. Otherwise, I'm still supporting Cain for now. It's not a pretty political field for America, but Cain is the best we have with you-know-who not running.
"It is hypocritical in the extreme for those members of the media who didn’t take the charges and allegations against Bill Clinton seriously to be taking the allegations against Herman Cain that we now have as seriously as they are. Hypocritical is probably too soft a word, frankly.Seems like people on these threads, the "Cainiacs," are more interested in bashing these women and protecting their beloved candidate than they are in finding out the truth.
That said, Herman Cain and his campaign chief of staff, Mark Block, cannot go on as they have. There has been a pattern now that is both unhealthy for our politics and unhealthy for our polity.
Four women are not an insignificant number. One or two anonymous charges, perhaps. Three anonymous charges (where, as I understand the story, Cain knows of at least two of the women) plus one woman who went very public and opened herself up to all manner of investigation are a lot. It is no longer insignificant. Neither is it insignificant that the Cain campaign discounted the charges in the initial stories, saying they were based on anonymous sources, only to make a mockery by blaming other campaigns with less substantiation than the original stories.
If Herman Cain wants to be taken seriously as a public advocate for anything, never mind running for the chief executive and commander in chief of the most powerful and important and blessed country in the world, he needs to give a full press conference dedicated exclusively to this issue and these allegations.
I have watched long enough and held my tongue long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, but can no longer say this is a witch hunt, “a lynching” to use his word, or any other euphemism. There are allegations out there that matter and they have stacked up. For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn’t matter makes us the hypocrites as well."
Wow. So despite the fact that Cain’s side of the story has been corraborated by outside witnesses, as well as NRA’s own statement on Friday, you choose to believe instead some “anonymous” allegations (of what we are still not sure) as well as Shannon Bialek whose story is falling apart right in front of our eyes.
It must be sad to need your candidate to win so badly that you would perpetuate an incredible unfounded bias towards another, honest, Christian conservative.
Some of you need some real heart and soul searching to see what is the bottom of all this hate. I’m not saying support Cain’s candidacy, but check the level of animosity you exhibit towards him. It is not healthy.
**********************************
I believe all of this woman's story except the crotch grabbing/head pushing part.
I agree with you on the part about Cain lacking in judgement.
The stories we have heard certainly points to lack of good judgement by Herman Cain, in my opinion.
It doesn't matter if it is fair or not, true or not-- it is poor judgement that got him in this predicament.
Heck, even the picture of Cain with that woman at a Tea Party a month ago shows Cain's hand in a position that has gotten costumed Disney characters in trouble.
Not that I think it IS a grope or anything bad at all--but he needs to pay attention to these details no matter how innocent.
Nowadays people will find anything to nail ya with.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/8592168-452/witness-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html#.Trk7rvDDDrA.twitter
It’s actually about honesty and trustworthiness - and judgment, none of which I would say are possessed by Cain.
Cain’s the liar, ala Bill Clinton. I am disgusted by the way he is cynically manipulating people who trust him.
He obviously went after people he thought were vulnerable, not interested in anything more than a fling, and probably did this on many occasions with people who did not complain because it was their habit to have a one-night stand on a business trip.
It has been very ugly. And I simply don’t understand the insane devotion to a personality. I thought conservatives were more mature than that, but I guess not.
These are pretty strong judgments from someone who admits,
I don’t know whether the claims against Cain were true and frankly I don’t care.
I am personally offended by people who are willing to condemn others based on a scurrilous political smear jobs before any credible evidence has been offered. Comparing the allegations against Mr. Cain to those brought against President Clinton are laughable. There was ample proof and substance to the allegations against President Clinton. The fact that you admit that you could not care less about whether any of the claims against Mr. Cain are true makes me wonder about your mental stability.
and slick served 8 years and was impeached for lying under oath about an affair he had in the WH. Slick was slime, Cain is not even close to that. ALWAYS remember; Cain is not a lawyer and that is a huge plus in my book