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 ...
There's another older adage, actually a mainstay of our free country.....innocent until proven guilty!
Show one bit of proof that Cain has does anything untoward with these women.
I can tell you that my teenage son was sued because of a car accident.It took them almost one year to figure out how they were going to 'get' us....the "victim's" husband sued for lack of consortium. She was a shyster but our insurance company settled. We were never informed of the settlement.
That's how it works in the real world. You are not necessarily told what is going on when a settlement occurs.
Before you lay all blame at Cain's feet, look at the motive of two suspect women. Miss "Happy at the mic" lives in the same apt. complex as David Axlerod and the other one brought suit against a subsequent employer partly for an email that she deemed inappropriate (too sexual in nature).
Plus, Cain has a long public career, why are these claims from only a 2 year period out of what, 30 years?
You should really think things through instead of just throwing out baseless accusations.
You said: “...the appalling smearing of the accusers - and even attacks on the verified victims, since the women who filed the original claims have been blamed and then intimidated into not defending themselves or even revealing their identities...”
**************
Be specific:
How did Cain “smear” the accusers?
How did Cain “attack” the “verified victims”
Who “verified” them and how were they “verified”?
How did Cain “intimidate” these women?
Please explain in detail providing sources and specifics.
Who is "we?" Got a mouse in your pocket?
What demeans us? There is no "there", there. All this is a non-event. It's manufactured. Helloooooo.
Sheesh. Some people are so easily deceived. No wonder Alinski is considered a God.
how does one determine these “he said /she said” accusations that all come from Chicago during a specific time frame?
The only accusation I have heard has Caine acting like a potential rapist then hearing her say no and driving the woman to her hotel.
How will I ever know if that is true ?
In Clinton’ s case you had Paula Jones pursue her recent charges in court. and you had Jennifer Flowers with tapes.
where is the evidence here?
You are correct; however, it is obvious most people (FReepers included) really don't understand how these types of complaints are handled or what the rules/regulations regarding them are. I have been down this road; so, I have intimate knowledge of the process
The whole complaint process is not like a standard judicial proceeding where the rights of the accused are protected and he/she is considered “innocent until proven guilty.” These types of complaints are filed against the ORGANIZATION (the NRA in this case) and THE ORGANIZATION makes all the decisions regarding the validity and dispensation of the complaint.
In effect, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. He or she has few rights and absolutely no control over whether the complaint is settled or rejected. It is a very costly process and organizations routinely make settlements for complaints that they know are frivolous; because the cost of the proceedings (both administrative and legal) is is extremely high. Usually, this means a relatively small settlement w/no admission of guilt or wrongdoing by the individual or the organization.
When a final agreement/settlement is made w/a complainant it is COMMON PRACTICE for the the accused individual to be excluded from the details. Gloria Allred ADMITTED that fact on Hannity last night. Mr Cain said he recused (removed) himself from the whole complaint process at the very beginning and that would also be standard practice where the accused is part of the direct chain of command for the complainant. Certainly this would be the case where a CEO was accused. Therefore, it is quite likely that Mr Cain would not have been given the details of the final agreement/settlement that the NRA made w/the complainant.
Yes, that is the question. The smear campaign did not happen by accident.
Great! Too many times good posts get written here in FR and the only people who see them are the people here in FR.
I’ve often thought of opening up a bunch of login accounts on various newspapers and posting stuff in comment sections lifted directly here from FR.
The effort would be huge, and I’d have to ask everyone’s permission of course, and I just don’t have the time.
But if I ever GET spare time, that’s one of the things I might spend it on.
And what is it about Cain that make accepting his assertions in this "one step too far" for you?
At least you are being consistent - you ignore the accusers track record to give them the benefit of doubt, you also ignore Cain's track record to continue to doubt him.
I choose to take into account both side's track record.
If you can’t figure that one out, I will be unable to help you.
Thanks for your post.
I do like this article and accept her premis.... I remember people in Arkansas had lots of stories about Clinton and sex..... I heard from a relative there who told me Clinton left an event and got into a hot tub with several young women.
Are there any similar stories or rumors about Caine?
An interesting idea. “Knowing” you as I do from here, I’d trust your judgement wrt posting any post of mine you see fit on newspaper sites. But yes you’d have to ask others for their permission.
Actually, I’ve thought as you have on occassion. I have made attempts in the past to post my own thoughts elsewhere in this regard. I’m not sure how effective they were. (last concerted effort on my part was during the 2004 reelection of Bush). I’d like to think I had some impact in some key states, of course I’ll never know. I’ve been discouraged by my local situation (the Republic of Maryland is so hostile to conservatism here in the Baltimore area)
Since 2004, and especially since the discouragements of 06 and 08, I have decided to focus efforts here on FR. It’s true “we” are the only ones to see it. However, as I’m sure you are aware, this isnt your normal, average “chat site” or “message board”. This site has a proven track record of affecting the “real” world directly! It’s definitely the “premier” site for conservatism on the Internet. Definitely, worth the time, especially for those with little time to spare.
FReep on,
It was a specific attack of both Free Republic and Jim. Saying “We have been ordered...” is an outright lie on how Jim manages this forum. I don’t know his prior posting history, though others on this thread remarked about it. But this was way over the top.
Not to hijack a thread, but how’s the graphics work coming? I’ve been more in to capturing jazz video online for making personal DVDs lately.
Bullshit!
National Review is gunning to knock out as much of Cain’s support as possible.
They are an establishment rag, and should be rejected out of hand.
Maybe just a little OT:
http://nation.foxnews.com/sharon-bialek/2011/11/11/fianc-cain-accuser-now-ex-fianc
The Bialek fiance says they aren’t engaged anymore, and she has not been living with him since February. So how does the “full-time single mom” support herself?
>> “That gives me a downright creepy feeling.” <<
.
Judging by your posting history, you are downright creepy, it isn’t just a feeling.
Now go back to the Romney 2012 office and have a cold one (and I don’t mean drink)
I’ve never understood what a “moderate, independent” woman is anyway...the ones I know who like that title...are libs/dems but don’t want to admit it.
Supposedly (from the video), it’s through child support from the boy’s father (Naze West, based on the documents found earlier here on FR). He’s wealthy, so it may be a fair amount. IOW, child support = her income.
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.