FACTS matter to most people. Rumor and innuendo do not.
You do not get to simply make up new accusations. You have to address the facts,
Cain was accused, He responded. Not up to him to prove the lie.
Or is guilty until proven innocent going to be the new standard when you happen to dislike the target?
I don't dislike the target.
I've posted so much on the Penn State scandal that you would have to go through a lot of my posts, but you'll find out that I was a Herman Cain supporter. Although I'm a Texan (a non-Perry Texan), I've lived in Atlanta for years. I was introduced to Mr. Cain when he subbed for Neal Boortz (and I streamed WSB on the 'net if I was in the office; and listened to it in my car when I was in my car). I listened to Herman Cain in the evenings when he had his own show and I was in my car.
I always considered him to be a decent man and I was excited about the prospect of having a successful business man - a successful turn-around man, at that - in the White House. I've been frustrated sometimes when his campaign hasn't seemed professional, but I've tried to shrug it off by saying it's precisely because he's not a politician.
You jumped to conclusions when you suggested that I didn't like Herman Cain.
I will not vote for Perry or Romney. My problem now is deciding who I would - no, who I could - vote for without Cain.