Right. If Cain is telling the truth and this is much ado about nothing then Cain should loosen up, smile, take questions and laugh it off. There are two possible reasons for the way they are poorly handling this - Cain is a non-politician or the accusations are more serious than Cain admits. I happen to believe the former. We didn’t want a politician and the flip side is inexperience in dealing with crap like this. I haven’t given up. Cain is basically a good man and he will continue to learn and grow
Hah! Clinton was very good at the latter. I’ve supported Cain since he announced. I have more issues with his 9-9-9 plan than I do with this contrived BS. But, and a big one at that, I still believe Cain is the very best choice that we can make.
Cain 2012
I am still with you, I think, except if that is the case, accusing a guy who worked on your campaign in 2004 of being a racist makes no sense. Charging him with leaking a story without any evidence makes no sense.
We are now supposed to believe that Cain, who claimed he had no real remembrance of anything, not only remembered this in 2004, but briefed his campaign. Or did he only brief this ONE GUY? If he briefed his whole campaign, how does he know that it wasn’t one of the other people? And how has he determined that it wasn’t one of the two women who actually think they were harmed by him, or one of their friends? Why would he assume it was a guy who worked for him before, and why call him a racist?
(By “call him a racist”, I mean that earlier Cain said this was a racially motivated attack, although he had no evidence for it, and now he’s named a specific person he said leaked it — which means he’s accusing that one guy of a racially motivated attack on him).
I know, I’m not supposed to ever parse words for Cain, or make any inferences based on what he has said, or expect that what he says in the morning is supposed to match up with what he says at night.
But I’m still pretending we should be able to put together 4 conversations from a candidate, and have them make sense together.
I think your analysis is correct.
If we're going to treat the presidency as an entry-level job — and the voters came very close to doing that when President Obama was elected with very little experience — we're going to get candidates who 1) have problems in their past that haven't yet gotten exposed during prior campaigns or 2) don't know how to handle serious accusations very well because they've never had that kind of attacks leveled against them before.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that Herman Cain is “not ready for prime time.” I don't like saying that at all, but he has been running for president for quite some time, and if he didn't check his closet for skeletons, and if he didn't get preparations for crisis management, he's simply not ready to be president. Maybe he'll get ready; maybe this crisis is what will wake him up and make him ready. But he's not ready today.
The problem is that I'm not sure we have a better candidate out there who is a conservative.
As someone else said elsewhere in the Cain threads — we had three years to come up with a conservative candidate against Obama. How did we get ourselves into this position? There is simply no excuse for us, as conservatives, being so unprepared.
Obama is probably looking at this and laughing. If this stuff continued he has a realistic shot at re-election, and that will be **OUR FAULT** if we throw away what should have been an easy chance to defeat Obama.