Booing the Character Issue - We should care if the accusations against Cain are true.

National Review ^ | 11/11/2011 | Mona Charen

[wardaddy]

I have never been a Cain supporter. I simply have come to the conclusion I don't much cotton to him even before all this.

I noticed before that some who opposed my candidate Sarah Palin were zotted.

I have not seen other zots over other candidates till now with sklar

I don't know what sklar said but is Cain now in the favored position that Palin occupied here?

I support Newt with reservations unless Palin changes her mind but I'd like to know how much Cain dissent is allowed and is it allowable to support Gingrich?

There are plenty non Cain folks here arguing the battle over who faces Romney.
Thanks in advance.

[bcsco]

Sorry, but that is abusive and needs to be reported. And my doing so doesn’t give them strength, only exposure.

[FourtySeven]

Thank you. I will try to post it at the site, or maybe email the author directly.

[TheOldLady]

So long, sklar (Posting History)

Hat Tip to Psalm 144 and lonestar

Particularly annoying anti-conservative troll mouths off for the last time and becomes a puff of smoke and a pile of steaming ashes


You can say anything you want here, but what you say will have consequences

           
Thank you JoeProBono

FReepmail TheOldLady to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list.

[5thGenTexan]

Let's see if I can capture the differences:

Clinton:

• Accused of actual sex acts with multiple woman, some non-consentual. All in the context of work relationships.
• One woman had physical evidence of sexual contact (the blue dress).
• Multiple credible witnesses to multiple women being escorted to hotels with Clinton (the AR troopers).
• None of Clinton's accusers have a history of other accusations, before or after.
• Multiple women testified as to intimate physical descriptions of Clinton (they don't call him "the bent one" for nothing).
• Multiple accusations throughout his career in AR and DC.

Cain:

• Accused of, at best, sexual innuendo or a brazen physical pass that was stopped at the point of non consent.
• No physical evidence of any actions, or even if any or the meetings occured.
• No other witnesses of any wrongdoing, the opposite in fact (multiple witnesses to only appropriate behavior).
• Both known accusers have a history of multiple accusations against multiple people (one had complaint at next job as well which was also found to be unfounded, one had failed paternity suit against another CEO at another company).
• All accusations eminate from a 3 year post at the DC based National Resturant Associaion but all are from Chicago staff members. No other incidnts in his 40+ year career.

So, no I do not see the two situations as the same. Nor should I based on the facts around both cases. And neither should Rush, Hannity or Levin. Why do you see them as so similar?

[dforest]

What Cain said is that he wasn’t privy to the how the NRA ended it.

He first said he hoped they didn’t give for too much based on what she accused him of that he knew about.

How is that a lie?

[concerned about politics]

Well, it looks like Cain got away with his "guilt by accusation smear" against Perry. Now he's saying it's the Dems who were behind the leaks.

It's both. The first came from Rhom Emanuel to Perry's camp. The rest came directly from the left. They waited for Perry's camp to break the ice and take the blame. It made it "appear" their hands were clean.

[5thGenTexan]

Th AR trooper stories were fairly early on, too. It was not just the blue dress...

[opus86]

Sorry, I think Mona’s wrong here. If there were some solid evidence and/or believable stories, there would be no booing to the question. Additionally had this been a dem debate under similar circumstances the question never would’ve been posed.

[MNJohnnie]

Screaming a lie louder doesn't change it to truth.

How about you quit lying about Cain and make a case FOR your candidate instead.

[bcsco]

I don't know what sklar said but is Cain now in the favored position that Palin occupied here?"

You can get an idea of sklar's comments from my reply to him in post #40. He essentially stated Free Republic orders us to stand behind Cain. That's patently absurd as proven by this thread alone, but is an affront to FR and Jim Robinson. What he said was uncalled for.

As for Palin, I became a Cain supporter early on (of all the announced candidates), but waited for Palin to make a decision. She was, frankly, my main choice at the time. When she declined to run I gave my allegiance to Cain and see no reason to change that.

[concerned about politics]

Sorry, but that is abusive and needs to be reported. And my doing so doesn’t give them strength, only exposure.

That's ok. My post was just a warning about the "Incite the enemy to anger" tactic. They use it a lot.

[Norseman]

There’s an obvious strategy available to Cain here: The two main accusers are now known to be gold-diggers (in that they have established patterns of going for money in ways that most of us would pass on for ethical reasons.)

So, pay them. Pay them enough to recant their stories and tell us who put them up to it. Be upfront about it too. Ask them publicly how much it will take. Build a website with a fundraising thermometer on it. As each woman watches the total grow past $1 million, their stories will change.

Maybe they’ll tell the truth; maybe they won’t. All they need to do though, is change their stories for payment. And they will; they’re known gold-diggers. It’s just a matter of how high the dollar amount has got to get.

Of course, it would be best if they’d actually implicate someone who put them up to it, but that would be a bonus. In fact, offer a bonus payment if they do. Doesn’t have to be the truth either. All they need to do is say it. The MSM has shown that that’s sufficient to burn a reputable person; certainly they’ll burn a disreputable person with similar evidence.

Am I serious? No. But it sure makes an interesting thought experiment...

[bcsco]

His post was an offense to Free Republic and Jim in particular. I replied in post #40. People are getting pretty brazen lately. I was later called a “Fascist” upthread (not related to sklar’s post), for which I reported abuse. There’s no call for that kind of rhetoric.

[TBBT]

Don’t care about the similarities - or lack thereof - between Cain and Clinton’s scandal... Many points in Cain’s defense are valid. I just think that some caution should taken in making a defense. Going over the top either way is inadvisable. The truth is unknown. All that is really known is that there were allegations and there is a denial. How this is handled - regardless of the facts - will be a reflection...

[22cal]

Try using your brain. And my grandma said "can't never got anything done".

Mark Levin has opined that this 'scandal' is a Democrat set-up through and through. It did not erupt until Cain was way up in the polls.

Datapoint: David Axelrod lives in Bielik's building in CHICAGO.

[MNJohnnie]

Conservatives of all people should know better. We are fraudulent accused all the time. Where racist..sexist.homophobic. etc etc etc

Making an accusation does not equal proof. Really sad and sorry statement about the state of Modern Conservatism when the most rational, intellectually honest position on Cain is being spoken by uber Liberal Juan Willians on Fox News.

"Cain has denied the accusation. If the women have proof, Cain has teed up the ball. Where is their proof?"

[concerned about politics]

Am I serious? No. But it sure makes an interesting thought experiment...

Cain hired a very good defamation lawyer. Haven't heard much from the bimbos since. They'll have to prove THEIR accusations in court if they keep it up.
If I were Cain, I'd politely ask for a public apology from these women.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> I have never been a Cain supporter. I simply have come to the conclusion I don’t much COTTON to him even before all this. >>

You don’t much COTTON to him? RACIST!!!!! /sarc :)

[murron]

That blond Bialik woman has so much baggage how can anyone believe her except those who want to see Cain fail. It’s funny, but on Drudge, there are headlines on the side that say that Romney stays strong while Cain and Perry falter. But on the center top his headline screams with a picture that Cain is still on top! The Romney people are engaging in wishful thinking.