Cain Campaign Gets Smoked on Harassment

Fox News ^ | Published October 31, 2011 | By Chris Stirewalt

[marty60]

To my knowledge, this is not an accurate story.”

-- Herman Cain campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon on allegations of payments to two former female subordinates whom Politico reports made claims that Cain sexually harassed them.

Maybe if Herman Cain’s campaign manager had spent less of the past two weeks on self-promotional smoke breaks, the GOP’s putative presidential frontrunner would be having a better Monday...........

Despite having known that the story was in the pipeline for weeks, the Cain team and the candidate seemed utterly unprepared for the onslaught that has predictably followed. They have issued evasive denials and immediately gone to political DEFCON 1 by invoking the fricasseeing of Clarence Thomas, also a conservative black man from Georgia, in 1991 for allegations of bawdy talk at his office.

“Sadly, we’ve seen this movie played out before -- a prominent conservative targeted by liberals simply because they disagree with his politics,” said spokesman J.D. Gordon (who is the campaign’s “vice president for communications” as well as a senior foreign-policy adviser).

still bristle at having Thomas hectored by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy for lasciviousness, jumping right to the infamous “high-techWhile conservatives lynching” doesn’t leave Cain a lot of running room. success, even if he survived to go on and become a distinguished jurist..,.............. So how could Cain and his team not have been prepared for this? If there was a payout to these women, which the campaign seems to allow is possible, then how was there no plan in place for this contingency? Surely they long knew that some rival campaign would unearth these allegations and that this would be tremendously dangerous for a candidate who is an ordained minister.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/31/cain-campaign-gets-smoked-on-harassment/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo#ixzz1cN6aqRKv

[GatorGirl]

I get it, you’re anti-Cain.

But 9-9-9 is not a VAT any more than we currently have a VAT. The percentages don’t matter. Is tax applied at every stage, or not?

Yes.

Just because Michelle Bachmann, CharlesWayneCT, and some lib Brookings dude call it a VAT does not make it a VAT.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I'm not really anti-Cain, although every day I'm less enamored of him. I don't care too much about 9-9-9, because while it is a stupid plan, it also will never pass, and at least Cain proposed SOMETHING.

BTW, on the VAT thing, you have made a rookie Cain-supporter mistake. You didn't wait for all of his clarifications.

So I can't fault you for missing this tidbit from his Monday AEI presentation on 9-9-9, as reported by National Review:

And real news was made: Cain acknowledged that the consumption-tax portion of 9-9-9 is indeed a VAT.

So I guess if you don't think it is a VAT, you can go argue with Cain. Unless he "clarifies" this again tomorrow. He's getting to be a professional clarifier. I hope that doesn't discourage his supporters, who believe that only amateur, inexperienced people can fix our problems.