Posted on 11/28/2011 1:55:45 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Fox 5 Atlanta’s Dale Russell is promoting on his Facebook page a piece alleging that GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain had a 13-year affair with a woman. “Cain denies an affair, but not a relationship,” says Russell.
The story is aimed for the station’s 6 p.m. broadcast.
Carter admitted to lust, back in the day. No proof of more, but still...I’ve heard it through the grapevine that only Nixon never strayed. :)
As for Herman and Lily White...no wait, I’m thinking of Lily Munster...Herman and the White woman...my spidey sense says Romney cut her a check. If not Romney — Obama for sure.
LMAO... you owe me a keyboard and a glass of tea.
What’s ACTUALLY becoming apparent is that the Republican Party is screwed, blued, and tattooed. We can’t field a CONSERVATIVE candidate that is acceptable to a majority, and when we do they either withdraw from the race (even before they get in), they do or say something totally idiotic, or something is drug up from their past that takes them out of the running.
The cold, hard facts are...Barry the Boob is cruising to a re-election, and we ain’t got s**t to stop him.
Talk about being depressed.
For most of my life, many of my close friends have been women, but I have been true to my best friend and darling bride for over 40 wonderful years.
Cain could be dirty, he may very well not be.....perhaps evidence will provide the truth.
So one might say you had a relationship with them, but not an affair.
Actually, I’d go to Bachmann, or Santorum or Perry before I’d go Newt.
Apparently people forgot that he was in the race before Cain. If I wanted Newt, I would have picked him then.
That’s a fact.
“Relationship” carries innuendo with it so much of the time, much of the innuendo being generated by people who want their own overinflamed sex desires to appear normal.
:-)
Newt can.
Romney can't, and neither can Cain...IMO.
True.
From the NY Times article:
"Mr. Cain said the latest allegations would not cause him to leave the presidential race. He said the woman was an acquaintance, but not a friend."
Good enough for me. If this woman has one scintilla more credibility than the Gloria Allred travelling circus act, she would be able to at least produce evidence of a 13-year friendship. Cain says he knew her, but he says they weren't even friends.
Cain and Perry were not fighting.
Cain was fighting.
Perry neve said a bad thing about Cain that I know of.
Do you know any?
I don’t care about any of this —in fact, it makes me like Cain MORE.
This simply means the MSM and the Countryclub Republicans hate Cain —what bigger seal of approval does one need, you know?
I’ve heard this many times about Newt and his “brilliance”. the problem is that he will have an image problem. The Dems will eat him for dinner and I can already picture the ads. We have also seen Newt in previous debates likes these...see, Kerry and Newt. He rolled over; why should now be any different? Finally, do these debates really matter? Do they influence a large amount of people? Not hardly. Most voters will be watching things other than the debates.
Cain was accused of playing the race card by Perry supporters, and Cain supporters accused Perry of leaking sexual accusations.
Do you deny there has been bad blood between the two camps?
That is what I am sure Cain meant by relationship.
Okay......whatever.
Why is it so hard for Newt supporters on this site to ignore the facts on his record? We have evidence of past debates, and all we get is “ok...whatever”. A brilliant argument from the supporter of a “brilliant” candidate (one who can’t figure out that manmade global warming is a hoax).
Not a chance! I’ll go to Perry. He may be lower in the polls but he isn’t a Washington insider or someone who picks out his next wife while being married to his current one.
Cindie
They want to make sure that he isn't considered as a VP by anyone or is in any way able to build on this campaign as a way to run for the House or Senate. Plus, should he be around and considering another run for the nomination in 2016, they want as much dried mud on the wall as possible to come back and dig at as if it were a fact. They put it out now and people don't believe it or they doubt it. Four years from now they can refer to these things as if they were proven facts and a lot of people who now doubt them will just assume that they were proven somewhere along the way because they'll only vaguely remember the specifics.
That's the thing about the democrat fascists, they always have the current plan, the intermediate range plan, and the long range plans in sync. They have a systematized way of not only slandering people but of building on the slander over time even if it never gains any traction when it was first put out before the public. Look at the number of things you hear fascist democrats talking about as if they are a fact when in reality they were never anything other than a lame conspiracy theory at best. Professional propagandists know how to play to human psychology and know that something just barely planted today can be watered over time and eventually be accepted by fact even by those who laughed at it initially.
If you want to understand American democrats, don't read up on the usual communist oriented movements, read up on the fascist socialists in Italy and Germany before WWII. Especially the development of German propaganda from the time Hitler was released from prison to the first few months after the Reichstag Fire incident.
Regards
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.