Posted on 11/11/2011 5:56:26 AM PST by TBBT
I think I understand why the audience at Wednesday’s CNBC debate booed Maria Bartiromo’s question to Herman Cain about sexual-harassment allegations. They don’t believe there is any truth to them. They suspect, along with the candidate, that the women concerned are part of a liberal lynch mob out to smear another strong, conservative, black man. They know that accusations of sexual harassment are often nebulous and PC. If I guess correctly, they also believe — with considerable justification — that the press is less interested in the dry details of policy than in salacious tales of misbehavior. They resent being dragged into another smutty distraction.
Yes, but. As someone who was well-disposed toward Herman Cain as a public figure (if not as a potential president), I cannot help recalling the response of Democrats to revelations about Bill Clinton. “We know all about it,” one exasperated reader wrote to Newsweek magazine, “and WE DON’T CARE.” In fact, the majority of Americans did not care — and it was not our finest moment as a nation. Liberals, who professed to be appalled by the one accusation against Clarence Thomas (just one non-contemporaneous accusation — not four or five), dismissed Bill Clinton’s behavior as no big deal. Stuart Taylor noted at the time that even if everything Anita Hill said about Clarence Thomas were true, it would not be nearly as serious as the allegations against Bill Clinton. Conservatives argued at the time that character mattered. Liberals replied, in effect, that it didn’t...
Read the rest here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/282909/booing-character-issue-mona-charen
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
As I posted upthread (you go find it, I won't do your work for you), knowing what was in the complaints is separate, and can't be compared to, from knowing what the details of the agreements were. Get that in your head. He was already gone from the NRA when the settlements were made. Now you've been told (again). Another disingenuous claim by you on this and we'll know you're agenda driven and not interested in the truth.
There are no lies in what I posted. They come from the same press sources available to all of us.
I am particularly interested in this issue because I think it reveals a seriously disturbing moral decline in the conservative movement and also a really unpleasant willingness to use exactly the same tactics we accused the Dems of having used during the Clinton and other investigations (vicious assaults on witnesses or victims, “my Clinton right or wrong,” etc.). One of these, tactics, of course, is attempting to obliterate anyone who disagrees with your point of view, and I have seen a lot of that on these threads.
Romney has so many skeletons in the closet, some one has to take him down.
Every time the TEA party gets close to the top, they're taken out.
The left went after Cain because of the black vote, but the "Roves" are taking out the best of the rest.
The elites want Romney, and they're trying to shove him down our throats. We can't let that happen. We've got to stop them somehow. It isn't easy trying to fight our masters.
That's your big mistake. Not listening to what the accusers have to say, but drawing conclusions from them. They have not said anything from which conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions should only be drawn from facts, not unconfirmed statements. And the statements made by these accusers aren't backed by facts simply because we do not know what those agreements entailed. The existence of an agreement does, in itself, not substantiate any of their claims. But, you go merrily along making assumptions based on..........NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE!
Get a clue and then, get a life.
I read that the NRA said, sure, we'll release them. Only the accusers didn't take them up on it.
He didn’t sign the final agreements because his attorneys signed. These were not suits but employment complaints handled by the company and its attorneys. But his attorneys were in there representing him and working it out, so unless he is completely irresponsible and inattentive, he must have known something about what was going on. Certainly, he knew that they existed, and he even denied this when the story first broke.
We’re getting down to parsing what the meaning of “is” is, and that’s exactly the point that Mona Charen was making, I think.
The number one principle in all of this should be “innocent until proven guilty”. You seem to want the opposite.
“But, gee, there’ve been 5 women accusing him of something - where there’s smoke, there’s fire! He must have done something wrong if this many women are saying he did!”
/someone falling for leftist tactics
“The elites want Romney, and they’re trying to shove him down our throats. We can’t let that happen. We’ve got to stop them somehow. It isn’t easy trying to fight our masters.”
It is going to take another election cycle for most conservatives to really understand it, but the fact of the matter is that the GOP is the OTHER big government, social liberal party. As long as voodoo Republicans are respected, live with the voodoo.
These are Romney botts. They're pushing Romney down our throats.
All I can say is - if it's Romney, we're going to loose in a landslide. It'll be another no vote election like McCain. Our own party is handing this election to Oboma on a silver platter.
Oh, now I understand. I’m supposed to not listen to the accusers, and then come here and see what YOUR opinion is, and have the same one.
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll reach my conclusions in my own way. You can think what you like, I’ll think what I like.
I’m convinced I’ll have plenty of salt to rub in your wounds when your idol has been deposed. Continue to follow your herd. Unlike you, I can see where they’re leading you.
Isn’t changing your position like a chameleon also a character issue?
Mitt Romney is now suddenly saying he favors a flat tax, despite the fact that his plan not only doesn’t contain a flat tax, but actually proposes the exact opposite—making the tax code more complicated.
The day the "victim", through her attorney, Joel Bennett, said she was considering making a statement, the NRA made a statement saying they would release her from her confidentiality agreement, opening the way for her to discuss the agreement. Bennett then came out to say they decided not to. Makes one wonder, doesn't it (well most of us...)
Usually the company's insurer handles these things the way it deems best. Should the company choose a different course, any settlement, award, legal costs, etc. are not covered. I don't know about this particular case, but frequently the insurer insists that its own attorney be used, not the company's.
Instead of racing around making sleazy personal attacks at Cain. Make a case FOR your candidate instead.
The 9th Commandment is not a suggestion.
Oh really? How do you know that? The company attorneys were working it out after Cain left the NRA. These were employment disputes handled by the corporate attorneys, not Cain and his attorneys. They were not signed by Cain. It was a standard HR complaints, with severance packages to end them.
If it was soooo egregious, why didn't they refuse the (relatively small) severence package and press charges? Why were no further complaints filed, or charges made? THINK!
I don’t have a problem with coming to ones defense against what may be baseless accusations. Presumption of innocence is the correct default position. However, I think one needs to mount a defense with a bit of caution. My main complaint is that the defense by the talking heads on our side is bordering on being over the top. Nobody can really know the real truth here based on what is actually known so far. All we have is speculation either way. Our talking heads need to be careful in case this comes back to bite them.
The other truth here - justified or no - is that this will at the very least linger over the head of the Cain campaign from here on out. Hope no further revelations are forthcoming especially if he becomes the nominee and it close to election time.
My other point is that there are enough issues with Cain to question whether he is ready for prime time. This scandal doesn’t help.
If you want more fodder - just as one example - replay the Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Newt. Twice Cain had to take a pass when the questions required a little more there there than canned campaign slogans and prepared responses. That should give anybody pause and that stuff isn’t going to fly when Cain gets on the stage with Obama and the whole nation is watching.
You are borderline despicable in your ideas and assumptions and your postings. I have no agenda (but to get Obama out of the White House and as many liberals out of congress as possible.) and I have no patience for agenda driven posters who assume all other posters are agenda driven.
I am only interested in ideas, and the idea that you would show no perspective on the charges against Cain versus that of Clinton and Weiner is offensive to my intellect and shows that you are devoid of ideas and driven by some sort of hero worship for another candidate.
Check my tagline. You think I got that gig if I were a shill for a given candidate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.