Truly I cannot say a disparaging word about Cain's accusers without making myself a hypocrite for compiling for display and thus besmirching the sources of many disparaging words about Juanita Brodderick, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and others on the Downside Legacy.
Like Bialek, the main evidence for Juanita Brodderick's claim was that she told five other people at the time it happened. And Bialek has a similar appearance to Gennifer Flowers and a financial record similar to Paula Jones. And most everything Kathleen Willey had to say was a "she said" to which the Democrat machine was a "he said."
It is however apparent to me that this "politics of personal destruction" is coming from the liberal side and the media, but I repeat myself.
Indeed accusing conservatives of moral turpitude appears to be part of the Democrat general campaign strategy.
They must be very much afraid of Cain to do this much of it so early in the election cycle.
The objective I believe is to have Obama run against Romney. I imagine they have files of late night talk show jokes to make a mockery of Romney at the expense of the LDS, e.g. sacred underwear, "white and delightsome".
They probably believe that Obama would easily win because Romney could no more recover from mockery than Howard Dean and would be stuck with ridicule-as-truth much like Palin was with the claim that she could Russia from her house.
Sadly, many of the youngers out there - who Obama needs to get reelected - think Jon Stewart is a journalist.
This is something I hadn't thought about. My only disagreement would be that other than Allred's client I don't believe there has been an accusation of physical contact. What little we know from the NRA settlement was it was because of words that made them feel uncomfortable. In a case like that I'm not inclined to condemn Cain just because he said things he shouldn't have.
Indeed accusing conservatives of moral turpitude appears to be part of the Democrat general campaign strategy.
Our candidates are expected to be "sinless" since we are those "hypocrites" who go to church, believe in God and have a moral code. Obviously, it's an impossible standard but it makes their base feel good and it seems to work among the independents.
They must be very much afraid of Cain to do this much of it so early in the election cycle.
I think it's more a desire to face Romney in the general election. Romney has no core values, other than being elected. He is not conservative and if nominated will probably lose 25% of the base.
We saw Perry's character attacked with the hunting lodge stone issue, which Cain was eager to use against Perry when the opportunity presented itself. Perry was the front runner at the time. I'm hoping Perry recovers I think he's our best shot at a conservative POTUS. I just saw a quote on Red State that Cain is down 10 pts with women in IA. His poor handling of this has done him in.
Cain would have been much better off to have said that because of his exuberant personality he had told jokes in the past that some took offense to and he was sorry that people had been uncomfortable. Also, traveling on the road gets boring at times and that he often asked people to join him for a meal so he could engage in good conversation. If he had done this from the get go I think women would not have turned on him. Now it looks like he will lose some support among women Pubs and probably independents.
I think your observation that the Rats want Romney is spot on.
I agree, A-G. You are famous for your downside legacy of Bill Clinton.
As always with sexual harassment, we know it exists, but we also know it is very hard to prove since it almost always involves a "he said/she said" type of charge.
That is why it is acceptable circumstantial evidence in favor of the defendant if a variety of different people go public with the same accusation against the same individual.
You may never go visit John Doe. However, if one person tells you John Doe is a dairy farmer, then you might suspect that he is a dairy farmer. If over the course of the next year, 5 different people mention John Doe as a dairy farmer, then you are going to start thinking of John as a Dairy Farmer whether you ever meet him or not. That's because the multiple testimonies to the same fact strengthen the original story that John Doe is a dairy farmer. Could these allegations be false? Sure, but at least 3 of the witnesses are not anonymous, in that Herman Cain knows who they are, and they have come forward to some degree in all 3 cases. What this all boils down to, though, is that I will not vote for Mitt Romney in any case, even if he's the last republican standing. I have switched to Newt, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, and Paul in that order. Huntsman claims to be pro-life. Does anyone know the truth of that?
Clinton had a confirmed history of assaulting women and being a womanizer. The same cannot be said of Herman Cain.
Where are the Cain accusers from his positions at Pillsbury and Godfather’s Pizza?
I find it hard to believe you would even consider lumping Cain in with Clinton with no evidence.
The Clinton accusers did not need to read their statements and certainly were not smiling when they gave them.
Did any of Clinton’s accusers have political motives? No. Cain’s accusers have only political motives and have only made the accusations once Cain became a threat to Obama.
Also, Clinton’s accusers didn’t wait for over a decade and there was physical evidence Clinton assaulted Broderick, a very large payment to Paula Jones, and tape recordings of conversations between Flowers and Clinton. Then there was a detailed plan to deal with Clinton’s bimbo eruptions.
This nothing other than an attempt to smear the biggest threat to Obama.