November 03, 2011
— Ace Nuisances?
A lot of people are angry that this blog has given any credence at all to this story, or has even mentioned it.
What is the alternative suggested? A simple embargo?
What purpose would that serve? All that would happen is that readers would go to Politico and liberal sites (and non-participating embargo-refusing conservative sites) to get the latest details.
I'm not sure what the plan is. If I had to guess, it's this: Cain supporters know that if he becomes the nominee, the whole party will be obligated to spin like the Dickens for him. As we had to with John McCain, once he became the nominee. We had to make peace with his obnoxious flaws and put a positive light on everything.
So is the plan that we try to keep this information from conservatives, so that conservative voters don't have it (or don't trust it, if they hear it), so they all just vote for Cain without the relevant information, and then, when he's captured the nomination, everyone, whether Cain supporter or Cain skeptic/opponent, will be obligated to be on the same page as far as spinning the story/defending him?
If so, that sounds like the "plan" being offered by Cain supporters is to get the rest of the party a little bit (actually, a lot) pregnant with Cain, and, once pregnant with him, thereby forced to do a bunch of things we might otherwise not have done.
That doesn't sound very honest to me -- springing an unfair surprise on the rest of the party.
I don't know what Cain did or did not do, yet. But I do know I want this information before we select a candidate. Maybe what Cain did is fairly forgivable and pedestrian, a semi-nothingburger, and we can agree that this only makes him slightly damaged but otherwise a good candidate. Maybe in that case we can make a knowing judgement about whether to select him, and take his flaws as well as his strengths.
Some people are debating that very issue right now with Newt Gingrich (and Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney, and the rest of the flawed candidates).
But the key is making a knowing decision, knowing the promise and the baggage of a particular candidate.
I get the feeling that some are so on the Cain Train they've decided the rest of us don't need to know, and should just suck it up, whatever the ultimate facts turn out to be.
Well, I think that's kooky. I have said before that I do not understand this certitude that Cain is such a great conservative candidate -- I have challenged supporters to offer up examples of his great articulation of conservative principles, and no one has met the challenge.
Here's what I think has really happened:
1. We start with the premise that There must be a great conservative candidate we can get excited about, there must be; it couldn't be the case that the current field is simply weaker than usual when we need it to be stronger than usual.
2. We know the least about Herman Cain, for good or for ill.
3. All of the other candidates, who we know better, are not Great Conservative Candidates.
3. Since there must be a Great Conservative Candidate, and we know the least about Herman Cain, and we know the others are not Great Conservative Candidates, then, putting all our premises together, It must be the case that Herman Cain is a Great Conservative Candidate.
And this is why the largely unknown Cain, who stumbles over extremely basic questions about abortion and trading every Gitmo prisoner for a single hostage, is assumed to be, despite the evidence on the table, a Great Conservative Candidate.
But I don't buy that. I think the syllogism fails at step one: It is not, in fact, necessarily true that we must have a Great Conservative Candidate. That is merely what we wish. (That is why I got so in the bag for Perry, by the way; I subscribed to this syllogism myself, and decided that Perry must be our shining hope. Turns out, of course, that he is very flawed.)
I don't intend to say, or believe, that Herman Cain isn't a potentially good candidate. What I am objecting to is this unstated assumption, which I do think is lurking around, that we must have a Great Conservative Candidate among us, and oh, I guess it must be Cain, then.
I'm still waiting to hear the great articulation of conservative principles from him that should be natural for a real Great Conservative Candidate. Honestly, I never hear anything particularly interesting or persuasive from him.
It just seems like he's the Outsider, and of course the Outsider must be the best candidate.
I forget who, but a commenter put it very well. He said something like, "It doesn't bother me that Cain doesn't have any experience in government office. It bothers me a great deal that he doesn't have any experience in campaigning for a government office."
Now, actually, Cain did run for Senate in 2004, but he didn't even win the primaries, so 1, he didn't do a particularly good job of it, and 2, he didn't get the increase scrutiny of being a general election candidate.
So, for all intents and purposes, this is the first real scrutiny Cain has gotten.
What that commenter meant was that if you campaign for high office, at least there's a good chance that most of your skeletons have already fallen from your closet.
If you haven't, then your entire past life is a great big Black Box of surprises. Sometimes there will be no bad surprises. Sometimes there will be a very, very minor bad surprise, as with Joe Miller and his stupid Freeping of an online poll. (And in that case, Miller's inexperience with campaigning cost him badly, since he made such a big deal of that himself, acting like he had something big to hide, and wound up seeming shifty -- over nothing.)
Sometimes there will be bad surprises in that Black Box.
So that was this guy's point. A lot of Tea Partiers are very, very firm on the idea that they do not want any professional politicians or people with experience in government. Untainted by the system.
Well, such people may be untainted by the system, but they're also so far unvetted by the system, and it is foolish to expect that there aren't going to be problems in people's pasts. People are flawed, often badly flawed. There are relatively few exemplary individuals among us -- some, but a minority. Few people can look good under a very high-powered microscope.
There are upsides to pure political neophytes. But there are also downsides.
At any rate: Since I don't support Cain it's rather easy for me to say "I'd like to know all the facts." After all, I've got no skin in the game. Won't hurt me if the facts wind up damning him (and actually, that would "help" me, as I've never been on the Cain Train anyway).
But even though it's easy for me to take that position, what possible other position can one take, even if a Cain supporter?
Can you really take the position that conservative media outlets should withhold relevant information from its audience, so that people are intentionally disabled from making knowing, informed decisions?
I have to tell you I was getting kind of worried about this story, because I knew (or believed I knew) it was coming at some point, and yet hadn't broke yet. What was the media up to?, I wondered. Were they going to suppress the story through the primaries and only "discover" it after Cain had won the nomination?
I'm sure everyone remembers how the NYT campaigned for John McCain to get the Republican nomination -- and then, weeks after he secured it, dropped a story implying that McCain had had a long term affair with a lobbyist.
They could have published that months before. But they held it. Because they wanted him to win the nomination, and then they wanted to destroy him.
As much as you might not like Politico, it being obviously a Democratic water-carrying outfit, at least they did not pull a NYT special and hold the story until after Cain was well on his way to winning the nomination.
We should know these things. Some secrets may remain secret. But if some secrets are guaranteed to come out -- and this one seems to have been absolutely guaranteed to come out -- we should know about them sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Ace at
10:38 AM
| Comments (545)
Post contains 1468 words, total size 9 kb.
I was hoping for a romney smackdown thread.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 03, 2011 10:40 AM (HvPlb)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 10:40 AM (oKLTg)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 03, 2011 10:41 AM (PLvLS)
We need to purge RINOs from the party once and for all. ThatÂ’s why IÂ’m supporting Herman Cain.
YouÂ’d have to be retarded from Gardasil not to realize that Cain is the one and only true conservative in this field. Just compare his record running that pizza company with that RINO PerryÂ’s record in Taxes. Hell, only steers and queers are from Taxes and I donÂ’t see any horns on Perry. General Cain cut taxes on pizza dough, balanced the anchovy budget without raising taxes on sausages, cracked down on mushroom theft, appointed strict constructionist tomato sauce tasters and controlled the borders of the pie crusts. To top it off Dr. Cain built up his foreign policy bona fides by negotiating those treaties with foreign pizza manufacturers.
Cain is like a modern day political Moses. HeÂ’s gonnaÂ’ lead us true conservatives to the promised land. All you RINOs either need to hop on board the Cain train or get left behind.
Cain-Palin, Â’12. Put up or shut up, punks.
Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at November 03, 2011 10:41 AM (f8XyF)
Posted by: Max Power at November 03, 2011 10:41 AM (q177U)
I'll still go ahead and give Cain as much of a benefit of the doubt on these stories as he did with Perry's "racist rock".
IOW-- you're on your own buddy.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 03, 2011 10:43 AM (pLTLS)
His biggest asset. . .that he's got no political baggage. . .is also his biggest political liability. . .that he has no elected political experience.
After this last White House seat-warmer, frankly, I'm not willing to vote for someone who doesn't have some experience holding elected office.
In theory you shouldn't need it as POTUS, but in practice, in this day and age, I really think you do.
I'll still Cain over the clown in the oval office now, and if he is the Republican nominee, he'll get my vote, but I'm most definitely not wasting my precious SC primary vote on the guy.
Posted by: looking closely at November 03, 2011 10:43 AM (PwGfd)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 03, 2011 10:43 AM (PLvLS)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 10:43 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Lifeisdeath at November 03, 2011 10:43 AM (cv1x0)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 03, 2011 10:44 AM (8y9MW)
I only wish we knew as much about conversations Obama and Bill Ayers had as we are finding out about Cain's sex life...
Posted by: RKB at November 03, 2011 10:44 AM (SJmDQ)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 03, 2011 10:44 AM (s+J9D)
Good grief, I have a headache I can't read all that.
Posted by: Scott J at November 03, 2011 10:44 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 10:45 AM (nj1bB)
Still waiting for the sexy details. Or any details.
It just seems to me that the lack of explicit details shows how non-committal these accusers want to be.
In other words, they want to dip their beak in the water and make a few ripples, but they don't want to take a swim.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 10:45 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 03, 2011 10:45 AM (JYheX)
Politico IS a liberal site.
Posted by: Vic at November 03, 2011 10:45 AM (YdQQY)
Like I've said before, every month or so Ace writes something that blows away everybody else in the conservative media. This is one of those times.
Ace actually seems like an honest guy, doesn't seem to be a fool, and doesn't mind saying stuff that his audience isn't going to like. Maybe that's the secret to his success.
Posted by: proreason at November 03, 2011 10:45 AM (nnlXI)
Posted by: lorien1973 at November 03, 2011 10:46 AM (usXZy)
I'm still waiting to hear the great articulation of conservative principles from him that should be natural for a real Great Conservative Candidate. Honestly, I never hear anything particularly interesting or persuasive from him.
To give you a sense of what a candidate who really understands conservatism would sound like, consider this from a town-hall meeting with Paul Ryan:
"You may as well put a gun to my head," he says.
"I've got good news for you," Ryan says. "What you said is not correct, and I mean that in a sincere, kind way."
Ryan explains empathetically and articulately that people now on Medicare will be grandfathered into the old system, that those in the new system could not be denied coverage by providers, that high-risk subsidies would stabilize their rates, and that Obamacare is what will "collapse the health care system, and especially the Medicare system."
"You have a very unique health care condition. I'm very familiar with it," Ryan says. "The federal government basically stepped up and said, let's cover this disease because there's no way private insurance can cover this. We learned a lot about end-stage renal disease, and that is this: There are some people in society who through no fault of their own--you're a perfect example--get hit with an unpredictable extremely expensive illness."
Ryan explains that the solution is state-based "high-risk pools," which would protect the 8 percent of the population that needs such subsidies and lower premiums for the other 92 percent.
The audience applauds. And the man suffering from end-stage renal failure sits back down.
That's an answer with everything: empathy, information, details, principle. Too bad Ryan's not running for anything, other than reelection to Congress.
Posted by: The Regular Guy at November 03, 2011 10:46 AM (qHCyt)
In theory, obviously it would be better if the Republican nominee didn't have this sort of baggage. In practice, not an issue for me.
We've got one ex-President who had sex with an intern in the oval office, and one current one who chums around with Communists and Jew-haters, and who was simply NEVER vetted by the press at all when a candidate. I'm pretty sure whatever Cain may have done pales in comparison to either of the above two.
Posted by: looking closely at November 03, 2011 10:46 AM (PwGfd)
Posted by: Zombie Domenico Modugno at November 03, 2011 10:46 AM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 03, 2011 02:43 PM (PLvLS)
DING DING DING! We have a winner. Herman Cain has no plans to be president.
Posted by: Max Power at November 03, 2011 10:46 AM (q177U)
Posted by: Iblis at November 03, 2011 10:46 AM (9221z)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at November 03, 2011 10:46 AM (1DqBk)
"The SCOAMF Re-Election". Based on the spooky Ludlum thriller.
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 03, 2011 10:47 AM (dmuft)
Posted by: DaMav at November 03, 2011 10:47 AM (QNU76)
Posted by: Old Man In The Cave at November 03, 2011 10:48 AM (KqwSL)
Incidentally, the Republicans have a golden opportunity at their feet right now.
They can use Corzine's fraud and embezzlement to show people it is the Democrats who are in the pocket of Wall Street, not the Republicans.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 10:48 AM (G/zuv)
This is related to my problem with Cain's attempt to lay the blame for leaking the story at the feet of Perry. Who, if they're going to leak the information, gives their opponent 10 days' notice? Don't you spring it on them fast so they don't have time to marshal a response?
I'm going on the record (again): I don't know if any of this is true- and at this point it doesn't matter to me. If it's true, that is, of course, bad, but even if it isn't, I trust Herman Cain less today than I did on Sunday (before I'd even heard about this).
To me, the story isn't even if he "had sex with that woman." I agree with soothsayer from the previous thread: conspicuously absent from any of the accounts of the sex scandal is any sex.
The story (now) is Cain's obvious obfuscation. The fact that he either thought he couldn't be honest with me, or that I was dumb enough not to notice his evasion of the issue, bothers me far more than if he had sex with one or more staffers (presuming it was consensual).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 03, 2011 10:48 AM (8y9MW)
Other than that I was pretty happy that old Gingrich story got cleared up, because I believed it for the longest time too.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 03, 2011 10:48 AM (JYheX)
Posted by: Rick at November 03, 2011 10:49 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 03, 2011 10:49 AM (UlUS4)
I think its been said that EVERYONE running for elective office only does so if the opportunity is right.
Cain may not have been serious about making it to the oval office three months ago, but you better be DAMNED sure he is now.
Same, by the way, could have been said about Senator Obama, who said about a year before running for office, that he wasn't going to do so, specifically because he felt he was unqualified. If you had asked him in Nov '07 if he thought his campaign was going to be successful, his candid response (had he offered one. . .) would probably have been "hell no".
Posted by: looking closely at November 03, 2011 10:49 AM (PwGfd)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 03, 2011 10:49 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: t-bird at November 03, 2011 10:49 AM (FcR7P)
30 From Andy Levy, guess who just endorsed Cain (rhymes with Slam Fellar)
http://t.co/Wr4K0OTT
-------
Looks like that tranny who's been impersonating Gellar has been up to his tricks again.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 03, 2011 10:50 AM (qqn3x)
Maybe what Cain did is fairly forgivable and pedestrian...
Speaking for myself, I took objection that you never even considered the possibility he'd done nothing at all. This is not unlikely, or wasn't at that point. Some of these other stories about taxis and tears, I dunno...
And you're just plain wrong about the settlements. The size of the settlements being anywhere around the number it would have taken to defend the NRA tells you these were weak cases.
I don't usually bust your chops unless I know something about something and it appears you don't. In this case I learned the hard way.
Posted by: spongeworthy at November 03, 2011 10:50 AM (puy4B)
Posted by: doug at November 03, 2011 10:50 AM (75C2c)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 03, 2011 10:51 AM (JYheX)
Though frankly, the Perrywinkle/Romneybot/Cainiac/whatev infighting is starting to get really, really tiresome. Fighting in a burning house, anyone? We need to decide on the best of a bunch of unpalatable options to try to carry out as conservative an plan for fixing this mess as possible, not practice scorched earth raids against our rivals, as odious as we may find them. (Yes, even Ron Paul. No, I'm still not voting for his crazy ass.)
Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez!
This message brought to you by Morons Against HTML Abuse
at November 03, 2011 10:51 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at November 03, 2011 10:51 AM (ggRof)
Why are none of these damn candidates not attacking Romney? Or are they and the press is just not reporting it? Do we have a tree in the forest syndrome?
Posted by: Vic at November 03, 2011 10:51 AM (YdQQY)
I don't know, a year's salary seems like a generous severance package to me.
Twice?
Or: twice that we know about, so far.
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 02:45 PM (nj1bB)
Ay ear is pretty generous, especially back in the 90's before these lawsuits really took off.
And two different people paid years salaries? That seems like a lot. How many employees are there at the National Resturant Association that haven't been under Cain? (que drum riff)
Posted by: Jollyroger at November 03, 2011 10:51 AM (NCw5u)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at November 03, 2011 10:51 AM (AF1jB)
Sarah Palin, you betcha.
Posted by: MrTea at November 03, 2011 10:51 AM (cZT2v)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 03, 2011 10:52 AM (IqM9e)
Someone had to...if they are true.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 03, 2011 10:52 AM (X/+QT)
Could it be that this story was a big nothingburger from the get-go?
I don't know, and I'm thinking we will never know the way things have turned out.
But one thing is certain: after seeing the way the "conservative punditry" jumped all over Cain's ass before anyone had offered anything like proof, or did any more than prattle on about "anonymous sources" and "I heard from a guy who knows a guy, and we were all talking about it...," expect SCoaMF's acolytes and enablers to be shoveling shit in quantity about each and every candidate in unprecedented quantities between now and the election.
It's easy. No facts needed, and no one has to publicly accept responsibility for making accusations. Just claim Mutt Romney (or Perry, Cain again, The Newt or anyone you want to torpedo) had a long, mutually satisfying relationship with a goat "according to a source" and everyone from the NY Slimes to AoSHQ will be all over it like flies on shit.
Posted by: MrScribbler at November 03, 2011 10:52 AM (HkOAc)
Meanwhile, in news that more people should be paying attention to, United Steelworkers International president Leo Gerard tells Ed Schultz, "You're damn right the Occupiers speak for us... We need more militancy."
(Link to Newsbusters, h/t WZ)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 10:53 AM (4df7R)
Ace, you are spot on. Not only has this story revealed a possibly very negative issue for Cain - but it's also given us a chance to watch how he and Mark Block treat others like shit.
Blaming Perry for a leak via Curt Anderson - on national tv - saying they KNEW it came from Perry was abysmal.
And we now know it was all shit-blowing - because Mark Block just walked it back and says he now accepts that Curt Anderson isn't the source of teh story.
What losers.
Posted by: HondaV65 at November 03, 2011 10:53 AM (8NiWI)
I would like to do that without making the general impossible to win. But that depends on how hell bent the Establishment is at getting their first pick.
As far as the Cain thing. Now is much much better than later. I hope this whole thing is blown open and blown away by the end of next week, so the affected voting blocks can regroup.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 03, 2011 10:53 AM (0q2P7)
At this point, to my way of thinking, a high-tech lynching
Know what we can judge? The horribly incompetent way he's handled this, with ever-changing stories and attempts to blame GOP rivals instead of offering a straight answer about what did actually happen.
Does anybody really think they paid off one of the accusers with a full year's salary because Cain compared the woman's height to that of his wife?
Does the way Cain has handled himself look more, or less guilty?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 03, 2011 10:54 AM (Jl4kG)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at November 03, 2011 10:54 AM (ggRof)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 03, 2011 10:54 AM (3vSLn)
Posted by: Lifeisdeath at November 03, 2011 10:55 AM (cv1x0)
http://t.co/Wr4K0OTT
Posted by: The Robot Devil at November 03, 2011 02:46 PM (136wp)
Re: the pic in that link. With the boobs covered and not distracting attention from the face it's, well, unfortunate.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 03, 2011 10:55 AM (7EV/g)
#28 has it right.
The conservative candidates that you'd would like to see are not in the race. The number one goal is to get win the election against Obama. I've had enough of the circular firing squad.
If you have to hold your nose while you pull the lever, fine. Just remember the alternative.
Posted by: Pedro at November 03, 2011 10:55 AM (NHNJt)
Though frankly, the Perrywinkle/Romneybot/Cainiac/whatev infighting is starting to get really, really tiresome. Fighting in a burning house, anyone? We need to decide on the best of a bunch of unpalatable options to try to carry out as conservative an plan for fixing this mess as possible, not practice scorched earth raids against our rivals, as odious as we may find them.
This x10,000
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 10:55 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Yet Another Anonymous Woman who never filed charges against Cain at November 03, 2011 10:55 AM (CE2wR)
I dunno, more posts about something other than Cain? Maybe a 4 to 1 instead of a 1 to 9 ratio?
Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 03, 2011 10:55 AM (8JpQH)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 03, 2011 10:55 AM (IqM9e)
"Could it be that this story was a big nothingburger from the get-go?"
You mean like the racist rock thing that Cain involved himself in without the facts?
Possibly. However, apparently Cain has had several sexual harrassment problems in the past that are coming out daily. Who knows where this will end at.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 10:56 AM (kaOJx)
Ha, you fell for my mind-control ray, and to think I was going to make you POTUS. It's Jon Huntsman all the way, now
Posted by: Karl Rove at November 03, 2011 10:56 AM (136wp)
Politico is the dirty tricks division of the Washington Post...
Posted by: MrTea at November 03, 2011 10:56 AM (cZT2v)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 03, 2011 10:56 AM (D5iHx)
Could it be that this story was a big nothingburger from the get-go?
Could it be she doesn't want a million Cainiacs calling her a lying whore no matter what she says or how truthful she might be?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 03, 2011 10:56 AM (Jl4kG)
Posted by: Democrat Operative hoping Romeny is the nominee at November 03, 2011 10:56 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: Herman Cain at November 03, 2011 10:57 AM (hFLSA)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 10:57 AM (nj1bB)
One last thing: When a guy is accused of SH, everybody;s first response is, "Well, he must have done something!"
It isn't true, not at all. All you have to do is be a guy and go to work. A disgruntled employee looking for a payday writes down everybody with a dick in the office and goes to an attorney.
It can happen to anybody and it fucks up your life.
Posted by: spongeworthy at November 03, 2011 10:57 AM (puy4B)
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 03, 2011 10:57 AM (OhYCU)
Guilty!!!
As long as you let the MBM pick our candidates, we will get losers like McCain, Romney, and Huntsman. End of story.
Posted by: cranky-d at November 03, 2011 10:57 AM (nRliU)
That fuckwit is even more incoherent than your usual run-of-the-mill Marxist shitbag. Occupy banks because Congress hasn't passed a "jobs bill", whateverthefuck that is? Your messiahs have failed, Leo, both Lenin and Obama. Choke on it.
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 03, 2011 10:57 AM (dmuft)
So... when you find some, let us know. Seriously, when you find out some actual facts, like the names and the actual accusations being made, then please let us know because that is in all seriousness important news. Because even the newest "information" from PJM includes no actual witnesses of anything.
Until then, what else is going on? Anything? Gonna bomb Iran anytime soon? Nothing? Any Obamacare architects running for President? You got anything? Some... news, or something?
Posted by: Darel Finkbeiner at November 03, 2011 10:57 AM (Z1WKS)
Co-workers know salary brackets, sometimes openly documented in job description when positions are vacated. Friends would have heard the women were awarded a year's salary when dismissed from employment. Friends weren't necessarily those sworn to the non-disclosure.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mom Feared at November 03, 2011 10:58 AM (lpWVn)
"And we now know it was all shit-blowing - because Mark Block just walked it back and says he now accepts that Curt Anderson isn't the source of teh story."
Wonder if the Romneybots will retract their accusations that Perry did this?
Hint; The answer is doubtful.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 10:58 AM (kaOJx)
Cain LIED. He is not an honest man. He LIED HIS ASS OFF about it, even though he had 10 days to get ready for the news to break, even though he had 12 years to come up with a plausible story, he STILL couldn't keep his tale straight hour to hour.
So he's a bumbling incompetent idiot as well as a liar.
AND he tries to deflect the negative attention by blaming a fellow Republican for breaking the story - with no evidence at all.
So he's a nasty bastard as well as an incompetent, lying idiot.
THAT's your "great conservative candidate," people? THAT's what you look up to, admire?
You must want four more years of OBAMA.
Posted by: Adjoran at November 03, 2011 10:58 AM (HJBJB)
and should just suck it up
Those Cainiacs. They're making me feel...harrassed. Can I haz settlement?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at November 03, 2011 10:58 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: Phred Thompson at November 03, 2011 10:58 AM (MMC8r)
Perry Readies Assault on Romney
....Perhaps most important, Perry has brought on board a new group of media consultants known for their brass-knuckled tactics and sharp read on the GOP base. Joe Allbaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush, added major national heft to the Perry team by signing on as a senior adviser....
....But Perry’s new consultants are a roster of some of the most nationally seasoned and toughest names in the Republican media world. The Scott campaign was among the most searingly negative — and effective — message machines of the 2010 cycle, tearing through two well-liked statewide officeholders with a barrage of self-funded attack ads....
....Republican media strategist Alex Castellanos suggested that Perry is likely to focus his attention on the last of those imperatives: tearing down his most formidable opponent in the race instead of "repairing PerryÂ’s broken image."
"My guess is they believe that if they can kill Romney, no one else can get the nomination but Perry," Castellanos said. "I expect that a few Perry positives will soon hit the TV airwaves, but they will just be cover for a brutal assault on Romney from the Perry campaign and his super PAC."
He warned: "Perry wonÂ’t just go negative. HeÂ’ll make your television bleed and beg for mercy."
One Republican operative familiar with the work of PerryÂ’s new team expressed concern that the coming campaign could be so negative as to "jeopardize the general election."
"They want to destroy Romney, and they donÂ’t care if there is no GOP elephant left," the operative said. "Total destroy mission. And PerryÂ’s bought into it."
Another Republican braced for a savage assault on Romney that could weaken the GOP for the fight against President Barack Obama: "If thereÂ’s no party left, thereÂ’s no party left, and thatÂ’s what Axelrod and ObamaÂ’s guys are hoping for."
Even among Republicans less inclined to fret about the general election, thereÂ’s a healthy degree of skepticism about whether PerryÂ’s really capable of making a national political comeback after one of the worst political months in recent presidential campaign history.
An AP-GfK poll released last week found that PerryÂ’s favorability ratings were now in decisively negative territory: Forty-four percent of Americans say they have an unfavorable view of him, including 24 percent who had a very unfavorable impression. Only 38 percent had a favorable impression of Perry, including a minuscule 9 percent who had a very favorable view.
That leaves Perry with a very steep hill to climb if heÂ’s going to make himself acceptable again to Republican primary voters, let alone the rest of the American electorate.
At the moment, Herman Cain is occupying much of the populist space that Perry — and Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump before him — occupied before losing steam. But the assumption among Perry supporters is that Cain’s numbers will come back to earth the more scrutiny he faces — and that voters, if given a reason, may return to the Texas governor.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 10:58 AM (oKLTg)
A lot of words about nothing. All we have gotten is allegedly this, and anonymous that. I don't say ignore the story, but why the wall-to-wall coverage? I mean in the grand scheme of things, if you take at face value the allegations, it was resolved over 10 years ago. There is no evidence that the NRA fired him because of it. There is no evidence that he did anything. And yet our biggest criticism is that he is mishandling the response or that he may be lying about anonymous sources willing to infer. Willing to smear, but hide behind NDAs to save their reputation, their name.
But let's say he did EVERYTHING they claim he did. Does this rise to the level of derailing his nomination? I don't think so. I remember Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and the Flowers press conference. It was a debacle. And yet he won. TWICE.
There is no perfect candidate for conservatives (REAGAN failed Conservatives a time or two in office) so let's give up the messiah search. Leave that to the Dems.
This is a no win for Cain. Its grasping at ghosts and he has mishandled it. Big deal. His policies are popular. His charisma is popular and his character has remained pretty solid. Unless some woman comes out with a stained blue dress and a photo of a fat lip, MOVE ON.
Posted by: JCELEPHANT at November 03, 2011 10:58 AM (TYm2g)
Posted by: t-bird at November 03, 2011 10:58 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Vic at November 03, 2011 10:59 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Spike at November 03, 2011 10:59 AM (g/arr)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 03, 2011 10:59 AM (QF8uk)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 03, 2011 02:56 PM (Jl4kG)
God, they are a hard headed bunch.
Posted by: Your Papers Please at November 03, 2011 11:00 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 03, 2011 11:00 AM (s+J9D)
Posted by: Herman Cain at November 03, 2011 11:00 AM (hFLSA)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:00 AM (nj1bB)
If you have to hold your nose while you pull the lever, fine. Just remember the alternative.
We've been holding our nose for many years. The elephant is dead. If it weren't nailed to the perch, it'd be pushing up posies. Time for new leadership...
Posted by: MrTea at November 03, 2011 11:00 AM (cZT2v)
This is why you should never pay off a black-mailer. And companies (yes, way back in the 90's) should have figured that out.
I wonder if the cost of seeing one or two of these through the courts (to curtail the false charges looking for a pay-off) would have been less than the aggregate costs of the pay-offs as they stand?
Stated another way: if these women really brought unsubstatiated, or trumped-up claims against Cain, then the NRA paid black-mail hush-money. The problem with a black-mailer is that they're already proven to be untrustworthy, so why would you trust them to keep a confidentiality agreement? Wouldn't it have been better to prove (with the first one) in a court that no misbehavior had occurred, and thus deter future women from attempting to get a pay-day?
Which, of course, is a complete hypothetical, and has nothing to do with current events. I'm just musing.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 03, 2011 11:00 AM (8y9MW)
And the answer is no. Primaries are darwinian by design. The idea is to weed out the weak so that only the strong go to the general. We need information to know who is weak and who is strong. People need to know what they're getting so they can back the strong candidate.
Posted by: Rick at November 03, 2011 02:49 PM (RD7QR)
There's a decent-sized segment of conservatives (maybe 15 to 20%) who really do want an embargo on any negative news about conservative candidates. The unspoken assumption here is that if we don't speak or acknowledge it, the bad news somehow won't become 'real' and will just go away. Of course this isn't true and is irrational thinking. But it's out there.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 03, 2011 11:01 AM (pAlYe)
Yeah, Ace, have you ever done NaNoWriMo?
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 03, 2011 11:01 AM (dmuft)
WOW.
That is really awful for Cain. They took some relatively minor guy that helped them out in the past and tried to screw him over for the completely miniscule chance it would hurt Rick Perry's campaign.
How could anyone support Cain after that?
BTW, I know why they walked it back. Curt denied being Politico's source to Politico itself. They would never permit a lie of that type, even though they are biased and all that. It became ridiculous, and Cain had no choice but to pull it back.
Have they apologized to Perry and Curt? They demanded apologies for MUCH less than this.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:01 AM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: WhatTheFuck at November 03, 2011 11:02 AM (F6KtL)
For the slow ones in the family. Vote your candidate in the primary. Vote GOP nominee in the general.
No apologies from the Romneybots yet for smearing Perry. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 11:02 AM (kaOJx)
56 I'll repeat; the things that pisses me off the most about this story is Cain's guy blaming Perry for floating this story. That was strike two of major hits. Strike one was him jumping on the "racist rock" not-troversy.
Why are none of these damn candidates not attacking Romney? Or are they and the press is just not reporting it? Do we have a tree in the forest syndrome?
Perry has still been hitting Mitt....every time someone brings it up. He did it on Sunday with Chris Wallace. And he did it last night on Hannity.
I agree Vic, that it is strange how Cain seems to have it in for Rick Perry. It adds fuel to the suspicions about Cain being in this to serve Romney.
Newt or Ron Paul would benefit from Cain being brought down, and are just as capable of finding out about these stories in Cain's past as the Perry camp is.....but I don't see anyone pointing this out.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 03, 2011 11:02 AM (qqn3x)
So far there aren't any real facts out there. There is a lot of inuendo, supposition and rumor mongering, but we are surprisingly short on facts.
Cain can't really talk about it because of the confidentiality agreement. The lawyer is blabbing his head off, but so far I haven't even heard any more than innuendo from him. And don't forget, he is a Clintonista, which makes anything he infers automatically suspect.
So far, all I see is Republicans jumping on Cain to show how fair-minded they are -- or to push their own candidate. Why do we always cooperate with the media to destroy our own?
At this point, this is a high tech lynching of an uppity black man. Eventually all the facts will come out, but can't we wait until we know what they are before we commit political suicide?
Don't cooperate with the media's effort to destroy our people. Wait for the facts, because some form of what is happening to Herman Cain is going to happen to all the others, just as soon as they become perceived as a danger by the press. You can count on that.
The media are determined to salvage their messiah's hide, no matter how many lives they have to destroy, and no matter how much damage they do to the country. Think about that before you throw Cain and any others who follow him under the bus.
Posted by: Lee at November 03, 2011 11:02 AM (FsSFV)
What do we say if it turns out to be 3,500 and 4,500? Ooops, sorry.
I do not trust politico or the mfm to even get basic facts right.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 03, 2011 11:02 AM (JYheX)
Determine your chosen platform, the candidate on that platform, and be certain you're getting your vote's worth by doing your own due research.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mom Feared at November 03, 2011 11:03 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Andrew at November 03, 2011 11:03 AM (WSj9U)
Posted by: Heraman King-Kong Cain at November 03, 2011 11:03 AM (136wp)
ace, the key to winning NaNo is to pace yourself.
Posted by: alexthechick at November 03, 2011 11:04 AM (VtjlW)
61Regardless who it involves I think it sucks that the confidentiality agreements have been violated.
----
I don't. I want to know what penalty is spelled out in the agreement in case of breach of contract. If its a dollar amount, such as paying back the 45K, I'm sure the Enquirer would gladly comp that, plus some.
Posted by: Jimmah at November 03, 2011 11:04 AM (dW0Dp)
Posted by: Brock O'Bama at November 03, 2011 11:04 AM (n1JN0)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 11:04 AM (4df7R)
I said this in another thread, and I'll say it again: can everyone stop taking everything so personally, support a candidate based on the merits, and work on making Obama the one termer he deserves to be?
What pisses me off the most is that 75% of the base clearly doesn't like Romney, but that can't stop fighting each other long enough to pick one not-Romney to support. We're going to end up with Romney by default, and even though he's lightyears better than Obama, he's also further from being the "perfect conservative candidate" than anyone else running (other than Huntsman).
Just thinking about this crap is making me so pisssed that I might have to stop reading these threads and do some actual work.
Posted by: OSUsux at November 03, 2011 11:04 AM (DFXmi)
As far as "baby threats" go, what is the point in electing Romney? There is no reason to do so. He will not eliminate Obamacare. Instead, he said he'd give a waver to every state. The law will still be in place, waiting. Plus, people will point to his presidency as an example of how "conservatives" govern, which is a crock of shit. Just because he has an R next to his name, he doesn't deserve my vote.
If there is no clear choice in philosophy, there is no point in choosing one president over another. In fact, I think Romney damages what's left of the GOP brand even more than it normally damages itself.
I would vote for Cain or Perry, or Palin if she were running. There is a difference between them and Obama.
Posted by: cranky-d at November 03, 2011 11:04 AM (nRliU)
"I don't intend to say, or believe, that Herman Cain isn't a potentially good candidate."
What planet am I living on? I don't give a crap what happened 15 years ago and as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as sexual harassment. I crack open my first beer by 9AM so I could give a flying crap how many white wines Cain has with his breakfast. He's a gregarious guy who spent years in the hospitality industry and if he has shown a few young things his "etchings" then more power to him. BUT...
Herman Cain is a known, proven liar and that's just from what he has said over the last four days. He has no idea what he's talking about and won't shut up about what he doesn't know. He's a Republican whose own tax plan says it will "tax everything" and responds to complaints by telling poor folk to buy used.
Cain is an absolute disaster and anyone stupid enough to still support him deserves to be ridiculed. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at November 03, 2011 11:04 AM (4zKCA)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 03, 2011 11:05 AM (l23WN)
I'm so fucking tired of this double standard.
Posted by: Iblis at November 03, 2011 11:05 AM (9221z)
You you are anonymous, you have not come forward. All you've done is cast aspersions that you're not willing to back up with your own reputation.
Reveal the sources. Then I'll decide if I believe any of this. There's a reason why our founding fathers outlawed anonymous accusations.
Dan Rather had documents, remember?
Posted by: Sarge at November 03, 2011 11:05 AM (We5IL)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 03, 2011 02:44 PM (s+J9D)
Don't forget to take off your socks, or he will suspect something.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 03, 2011 11:06 AM (D5iHx)
My real objection to the coverage of this story has been ratio of breathlessness and hype involved (lots and lots and lots) to the known facts of the case (until recently, veeeery close to nil, and all of that from less-than-fair/honest sources like Politico). There's usually a happy medium between Total Embargo and Most Important Story of All Time! Of All Time!.
Now that there's some substance, okay, sure. But before? Thinly sourced and heavily innuendoed.
That all being said, yeah, Cain didn't respond well to the weaksauce that was out there, and that was also frustrating.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at November 03, 2011 11:06 AM (zgHLA)
Just imagine if this blog were around during the Clarence Thomas hearings, to help that high-tech lynching along. We'd probably have Castro on the Supreme Court by now.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 11:06 AM (oKLTg)
Posted by: Lifeisdeath at November 03, 2011 11:06 AM (cv1x0)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:06 AM (nj1bB)
For their own reasons and based on their own experiences which differ substantially, it's not Paul's style to do this hit piece, and it's not in Newt's best interest to bring up sexual indiscretions pointing fingers or not.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mom Feared at November 03, 2011 11:06 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Herman Turgidson Cain at November 03, 2011 11:06 AM (136wp)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 03:00 PM (nj1bB)
I meant to do this back in 2008 but as usual my thirst for revenge lost out to my inherent laziness. But this time I'm really going to make the effort. So every time a True Conservative bitches about Obama's second term I can cite how their sacred conservative honor kept them from voting for the leading non-Obama candidate.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 03, 2011 11:06 AM (pAlYe)
So far there aren't any real facts out there. There is a lot of inuendo, supposition and rumor mongering, but we are surprisingly short on facts.
Cain can't really talk about it because of the confidentiality agreement.
Except that he has been talking about it, though his story keeps changing. He gave details about what he thought the complaint was about, he acknowledged there was a legal settlement, etc.
If Cain denies that one woman was paid $35k and another $45k, then fine- go ahead and believe him if you choose. Thus far, he hasn't.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 03, 2011 11:07 AM (Jl4kG)
ace, the key to winning NaNo is to pace yourself.
Note to self - don't quaff beverages while reading the comments. It may cost a computer screen.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 03, 2011 11:07 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Jeanne Barfalo at November 03, 2011 11:07 AM (F6KtL)
Ain't funny. But yeah, I would vote for Ron "crazy" Paul before Romney.
Posted by: Vic at November 03, 2011 11:07 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: buzzion at November 03, 2011 11:07 AM (WAMk8)
Posted by: joncelli at November 03, 2011 11:07 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: mugiwara at November 03, 2011 11:08 AM (D5hxK)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:08 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 03, 2011 11:09 AM (s+J9D)
Yes! This is the what is bothering me to. I still don't have hard evidence that Cain did anything. And I'm also sick of each candidates hard core supporters jumping up and down gleefully every single time a candidate makes a mis-step.
Posted by: Lana at November 03, 2011 11:09 AM (m45D/)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 03, 2011 11:09 AM (l23WN)
Posted by: Herman Strangelove Cain at November 03, 2011 11:09 AM (136wp)
Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at November 03, 2011 11:09 AM (qndXR)
I'm not a big fan of Cain as I don't think the fact that he's the outsider is as big a plus as it is a minus.
That said, Ace's premise that we will get enough information to raise this issue above slander is slight.
Yeah, multiple settlements for a year's salary over 'performance issues' are in my limited experience, unusual. But so far rumors of rumors is all I've seen.
IMHO, Cain is such a dumbazz, churchmouse or hayseed notwithstanding, that he could've gotten into inadvertent trouble repeatedly.
Wilson, the first witness with a name, who's put up nothing but agitprop is a focKR(friend of corpulent Karl Rove). No cred whatever.
Posted by: icepick at November 03, 2011 11:09 AM (o0Uno)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 03, 2011 11:10 AM (IqM9e)
So now we can't even judge Cain by Cain's own words lest we be "playing into the left's hands"?
What are we supposed to judge him by? What we wish he had said, but didn't?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 03, 2011 11:10 AM (Jl4kG)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:10 AM (rJVPU)
The problem with this story is simply the ability the dishonorable, non-ethical media has to Bork any Republican while coddling their Democrats. You can present the facts, when there are facts, and not amplify the meme at the same time. There are facts that need to come out in this case, but there has been more hearsay.
Posted by: Dave at November 03, 2011 11:10 AM (hm8tW)
This crap is making me feel like a manic-depressive, and now I'm having apocolyptic visions of our Country in flames ala Rome circa 387bc.
Posted by: USMC 8541 at November 03, 2011 11:10 AM (v3pYe)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 03, 2011 11:10 AM (B+qrE)
Amen.
BTW, those complaining that this is hurting Cain should consider that Cain has hurt innocent people like Curt. Perry repeatedly. Cain's reaction to this story is MUCH worse, IMO, than the silly allegations of harassing or sleeping with his employees.
He's tried to scapegoat people, had that proven wrong, and then...?
That is pretty serious, IMO. Cain is trafficking in paranoia at best, and dishonesty at worst, just to handle a very minor scandal with scant evidence? That kind of reaction is ridiculous, and Cain taking damage is justified.
I look forward to Cain apologizing to Perry and to Curt and his family.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:11 AM (rQ/Ue)
A lot of people are angry that this blog has given any credence at all to this story, or has even mentioned it.
What is the alternative suggested? A simple embargo?
I like french fries. I don't want them until they come out my ears.
You are quite right, vetting is necessary, but Cain 24/7 gets hard to take.
Now show us your tits.
Posted by: fluffy at November 03, 2011 11:11 AM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:11 AM (rJVPU)
Hmm... A vetted candidate.
Who is conservative.
Who will fire up the base.
Never heard of Palin it.
But you know what Ace, you have fun with Mitt as he sets conservatism back 40 years. If happens to win, I'm sure we'll be estatic his with clear and true moderate SCOTUS picks which will turn liberal in about, oh , three years after getting on the bench.
Posted by: WisRich at November 03, 2011 11:11 AM (hdpay)
What actually happened?
See, that's the problem with this entire hit job, isn't it?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 11:11 AM (oKLTg)
Posted by: mpfs at November 03, 2011 11:12 AM (iYbLN)
1. Denial -- SARAH!!!!!1111!!!
2. Anger -- Fuck T-Paw!
3. Bargaining --- Okay, maybe if that guy in Indiana, what his name, comes in...
4. Depression -- Rick? What happened? Where's my gun?
5. Acceptance -- Yes, okay, Mitt. And no more temple underwear crack
OK, that hurts
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 03, 2011 11:13 AM (OhYCU)
I'm slowly moving into the "Fuck It" camp.
Fuck it. Let's just nominate Romney and expidite the inevitable collapse of this country anyway.
I'm begininng to doubt any Republicans will do what is necessary to fix this country. Even with our big win in 2010, we're on pass to spend more money this year that last year.
If we're going to go down, let's just do it already.
Posted by: The End is Nigh at November 03, 2011 11:13 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: The Greys at November 03, 2011 11:13 AM (NRygI)
Can someone who knows him PLEASE get Paul Ryan on the phone?
Reliably conservative? Check
Vetted? Check
Articulate? Check
Integrity? Check
Acceptable to all wings of the GOP? Check
Would make supporters of every other candidate feel stupid? Check
Come on, Paul. You would be at 50% in the primary polls within 48 hours after an announcement.
Posted by: Kansas Gman at November 03, 2011 11:13 AM (u4a/I)
I think we've gone from beating this dead horse to cutting it open and crawling inside.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 03, 2011 11:13 AM (tf9Ne)
Uhhhh. I think you have done more than just "mention" it... The blog has been pretty much devoted to this issue for some days.
But it is your blog Ace....you can do with it what you want....
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at November 03, 2011 11:13 AM (HqpV0)
Now show us your tits.
Posted by: fluffy at November 03, 2011 03:11 PM (4Kl5M)
Ah yes, come for the incisive political analysis, stay for the tits.
I like it here!
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 11:14 AM (sbV1u)
I was for Cain for a short while, until the racist rock episode and I was even willing to let that go. His latest misadventures leave me cold though.
He knew about this story 10 days before it broke. Politico called him and told him the name of the accusers.
After the story broke he has lied, changed his story every damn day, accused other people, backed off accusing other people and acted like a total Weiner so far. He's used the race card at least 3 times since the story broke.
I don't know what happened with these women except it was enough to cause them to quit their jobs and the company they worked for to pay a settlement.
This doesn't even take into consideration his gaff a day about other stuff.
I don't trust him, I don't think he is serious. If he is serious I don't think he is competent.
Right now for me it's between Perry and Romney, if one of those two win I am good with it.
Posted by: robtr at November 03, 2011 11:14 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:15 AM (nj1bB)
That's why the PJM correction bothers me, they usually aren't that sloppy.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 03, 2011 11:15 AM (JYheX)
" but your insistence that 'romneybots' were blaming Perry is silly. "
Yeah, the fact there are posts in this very thread doing that is rather inconvenient isn't it?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 11:15 AM (kaOJx)
Posted by: deadrody at November 03, 2011 11:16 AM (Gc1ql)
Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether Cain gets the nomination or not......I have no emotional attachment to him, although I did think that in America a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty.
I DO have an emotional attachment to the "not Romney" candidate. I am tired of being given the sorry choice of "Vote for the full blown Communist or the half-ass Communist" and I WILL NOT participate any longer.
I know that the Rinos here will wail and cry woe and blame me if Obama gets reelected, but let me just say "When is it your turn to eat a shit sandwich?". The only conservative that has been nominated in recent history is Reagan. Conservatives ALWAYS have to hold their nose and suck it up. I did it with McCain's lame ass....I will not do so with Romney. I am tired of being the back up date for the Republican party. If you cant nominate a candidate palatable to the base, then YOU figure out how to drag his sorry ass across the finish line.
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 03, 2011 11:16 AM (+tc8l)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 03, 2011 11:16 AM (tazG1)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:16 AM (nj1bB)
just an aside, but if Human Cain was a Democrat his payoff would described in the media as a...
gutsy call.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 11:16 AM (G/zuv)
I'm looking for a leader of men. It ain't Romney, Cain, Bachman, Paul, or Perry. Can I be satisfied with Newt? Maybe. Right now he looks like the least smelly piece of shit.
Posted by: Chuck at November 03, 2011 11:16 AM (1oE9r)
Word count is 1456 for this post of his. He is almost there for the day (NaNOWriMo goal is 50k in a month, or1667 per day).
Btw, I agree with the need to pre-vet; we don't want this kind of crap to drop in October 2012 whether substantiated or not.
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 03, 2011 11:17 AM (ENKCw)
Well, according to the corrections, neither did Cain.
Posted by: Tami at November 03, 2011 11:17 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: USNA1985 at November 03, 2011 11:17 AM (VfCmK)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 03, 2011 11:17 AM (l23WN)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 03, 2011 11:17 AM (QF8uk)
The foreign policy flubs are a bigger deal to me.
I'd ask you to show me your tits, but you might hurt me.
Posted by: fluffy at November 03, 2011 11:17 AM (4Kl5M)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:18 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Miss'80s at November 03, 2011 11:18 AM (d6QMz)
They forced me to do do, along with the anal probings.
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 03, 2011 11:18 AM (OhYCU)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:18 AM (rQ/Ue)
Turds stop smelling after they've been around a while
Posted by: The Robot Devil at November 03, 2011 11:18 AM (136wp)
Mittens and Obama and Perry and Gingrich are all members of this group. They may "agree to disagree" about certain things, but the Human Weathervane, The Won, the former campaigner for Gore, and Mr. Think Tank all think (a) "There oughta be a law" and (b) it'd all be better if they were in charge.
I happen to think that law follows the principle of diminishing returns -- it's very easy to write good laws on a blank sheet of paper, but the current complexity makes it nearly impossible to do anything but make the situation worse. And, further, it'd all be better if the power of the Federal government were limited to the point where "in charge" was almost meaningless.
That Cain got caught up in the 90's harassment lottery isn't all that important to me -- there was a lot of that going around at the time. His campaign getting caught flatfooted about it isn't even that big of a deal -- it shows that he's not so plugged into the game of politics that he has a spin for everything. I'm not concerned about his foreign policy inexperience or the feasibility of 9-9-9 -- that's why you hire experts and manage them. Instead, I'm more worried about Cain's involvement with the Federal Reserve. Has he been co-opted?
There's a 1% problem in this country -- but it's almost 180 degrees from what the OWS thinks it is. I'd just like to see a president who wasn't part of it.
Posted by: cthulhu at November 03, 2011 11:18 AM (kaalw)
Posted by: John Galt at November 03, 2011 11:19 AM (9NQ6I)
See, that's the problem with this entire hit job, isn't it?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 03:11 PM (oKLTg)
There was an allegation of sexual harassment, and it the NRA settled. That happened.
Whether or not there are any tawdry details is besides the point, he's had years to prepare for this moment. He fucks up and uses it as yet another opportunity to attack Perry. I've given Cain several passes so far, but seriously, fuck him, he's an ass.
Posted by: mugiwara at November 03, 2011 11:19 AM (D5hxK)
Human Cain will go down in history as the first presidential hopeful to have his
campaigned stopped short by a G-rated sex scandal.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 11:19 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: USNA1985 at November 03, 2011 11:19 AM (VfCmK)
@185
Ace, I have to give you credit. One of the reasons this is my must go to sites is because of the surprising insights you often have into human psychology and political thinking. Its like I actually learn something from you than just a basic regurgitation of facts.
That, and the sexy Ewok rape letters to Marco Rubio.
Posted by: Jollyroger at November 03, 2011 11:19 AM (NCw5u)
Posted by: free at November 03, 2011 11:19 AM (cLLTM)
"Ok Ace, no problem. Once there are some facts then you can be worried about them.
So... when you find some, let us know. Seriously, when you find out some actual facts, like the names and the actual accusations being made, then please let us know because that is in all seriousness important news. Because even the newest "information" from PJM includes no actual witnesses of anything.
Until then, what else is going on? Anything? Gonna bomb Iran anytime soon? Nothing? Any Obamacare architects running for President? You got anything? Some... news, or something?"
Bingo! and WTF? Who's wanting to ignore this Ace? All I read from Cain supporters is a request for some kind of specifics, names something before we crucify this man. You don't require it, but some of us do.
Posted by: flyonthewall at November 03, 2011 11:20 AM (aZ7lL)
I'd ask you to show me your tits, but you might hurt me.
Posted by: fluffy at November 03, 2011 03:17 PM (4Kl5M)
Here, you can see mine!
Posted by: Michael Moore at November 03, 2011 11:20 AM (DrWcr)
Right now for me it's between Perry and Romney, if one of those two win I am good with it.
Posted by: robtr at November 03, 2011 03:14 PM (MtwBb)
I have good news for you: only those two have the money to compete to the end of the primary.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 03, 2011 11:20 AM (D5iHx)
You can say that again. Nation building, winning the hearts and minds of our enemies, compassionate never ending wars, US/NATO Muslim Brotherhood alliance handing over the Libyan Military and oil wealth to al-Qaeda, US tax funded bail-outs of global investment industry frauds, US tax funded bribes to support completely corrupted governments including Afghanistan's Karzai and his Attorney General, etc.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mom Feared at November 03, 2011 11:20 AM (lpWVn)
*stands on soap box*
Hello, my name is MWR and I really can't stand any of the candidates.
They all lack the conservative cred that I require in my candidate.
They all lack the political acumen I require in my candidate.
They all lack the media savvy I require in my candidate.
I would rather eat rusty nails than have to vote for any of them.
But I will crawl across ground glass and swim a river of salt to vote Obama out of the White House. Call me every name in the book. Call me a "lousy purist" if I spit on Romney's name on the ballot at primary time and vote for Bachmann. Call me a "traitor to the cause" if I GOTV for Huntsman leading up to the general. Tell me I'm "delusional" if I pull the lever for Paul instead of Obama next November. Whatever. I care about my country a hell of a lot more than I do any of the candidates. If you're prepared to go all in for your chosen guy or gal, more power to you. Campaign your ass off and maybe they'll get the candidacy. If they do, I'll be voting for them But if they don't, I hope folks will kindly STFU, stop acting like spoiled children, and focus on the actual enemy - yes, enemy - in the Oval Office. Jiminy H. Christmas, I roll my eyes every time someone still fucking mentions Christine g-ddamn O'Donnell!
And if you don't feel the same way, I really don't give a flying shit crystal.
*steps down from soap box*
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 11:21 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:22 AM (nj1bB)
THAT's the best Cain defenders have.
Get a clue: Clinton is a DEMOCRAT. Everybody knows they are lowlifes. Everybody knows they treat women like tissues. You believe that's cool, GO BE A DEMOCRAT, ASSHAT!
WE Republicans have higher standards. WE don't put up with misbehavior and we don't put up with lying when we find out about it.
You want us to adopt Democrat standards just because your preferred candidate is a lying horn dog? Flock you and the whores you rode in on.
Posted by: Adjoran at November 03, 2011 11:22 AM (HJBJB)
And then Cain arrived as we were looking for our true conservative candidate. He also had no voting record or policy failures, just platitudes and speeches. And we saw Cain's blank canvas and we put on it our beliefs and hopes. But sadly, he is flawed and almost certainly would be defeated. We need to move forward as Cain is showing he will not be able to be a strong candidate or president.
And don't blame Romney for his weak resume. Blame Christie, Ryan, or even Daniels for not having the gonads to fight for the republican party and this country. They let us down.
Posted by: benson at November 03, 2011 11:22 AM (k8v1W)
Posted by: joncelli at November 03, 2011 11:22 AM (RD7QR)
"How many Connecticut independents would even consider voting for Perry? "
How many pro life Republicans will vote for Romney? How many Tea Partiers will vote for Romney?
12 months til the General election. No one is unelectable at this point, except Bachman (broke), Santorum, and probably Huntsman due to very low single digit support and funding problems as well. Gingrich, Perry, Cain, and Romney are viable at least through Iowa.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 11:23 AM (kaOJx)
Posted by: fluffy
LOL
Not today fluffy, I'm sad.
Posted by: mpfs at November 03, 2011 11:23 AM (iYbLN)
The filing deadline passed.
Posted by: Miss'80s at November 03, 2011 11:23 AM (d6QMz)
FIFM
Posted by: jwpaine at November 03, 2011 11:23 AM (FUozQ)
So what? That's what corporations do with allegations of sexual harassment, whether they have any validity or not. And a figure of $45,000 is pennies for this sort of thing. This is the kind of money paid out to a disgruntled employee who heard a dirty joke from across a room and wants a payday.
So, I ask again, for those so desperate to smear Cain personally because they don't like him politically: What actually happened?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 11:24 AM (oKLTg)
local radio guy doing a mock Cain harassment phone line, it's been hillarious
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:24 AM (yAor6)
Here, you can see mine from space!
Posted by: Michael MooreFIFY
Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 03, 2011 11:24 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:24 AM (nj1bB)
I posted this one because it's actually fresh and allowed me to say some things I've been thinking
and the fact its his blog...
Posted by: EricPWJohnson at November 03, 2011 11:24 AM (FXiHS)
Posted by: Knemon at November 03, 2011 11:24 AM (d8hpo)
Posted by: Brock O'Bama at November 03, 2011 11:25 AM (n1JN0)
Herman Cain touched me in my no-no spot and the NRA paid me a gazillion dollars. That's like a year's salary or something!
Just thought I'd skip Politico this time and spread this one here.
Posted by: Ms. Ittmay Omneyray at November 03, 2011 11:25 AM (ggRof)
i'll just note the babies with the baby-threats of tanking the election so i know who to blame.
Meh.
Here's the purity debate with the Establishment (Not saying you are "establishment" ace)
Base: We want 100%
Est. You get 10%
Base: Ok we can bend, We'll take 70%.
Est. You get 10%
Base: Look give me a little here, we could go as low as 50%.
Est. You get 10% and no more.
Base: Ok 30% but not any less. 30% is as absolutely low as we can go! 30% or NO DEAL!
Est. You are gonna take your 10% and be happy that we didn't make it less. Because we could have.
Yes that 10% is still a better deal than what we have. But unless I can walk away from a deal I have no bargaining power within it. It is stupid to not take the deal, but I cannot bargain unless I am willing to do so. Holding that position is not "childish". It's just a response to the parameters of negotiation defined by a negotiator in an advantageous negotiating position.
Base: We want someone conservative.
est: You have your opportunity to run whomever you want in the primary.
Base: But you control to some extent, all the qualified candidates, and, influence the primary toward your favorite.
est. Well that's the system either work with it or get out.
They want to put weight on the scales with the RNC and influence all the qualified candidates to run and not run such that it is no longer a balanced fair campaign, fine so be it, but now I am forced to negotiate with the RNC for a good deal on a candidate I like because they have so much influence on the process.
Saying I get a better deal than this or I walk. Is not childish, it's politics. Politics defined by negotiating with someone who seems to only be able to take a hard line and drive the hard bargain when they negotiate with me.
Dems they can compromise 100B in cuts down to a few million. With me they can't give a F*ing inch. Ok then, you want to drive a hard bargain; lets do it. But I know what I am going to have to put on the table to bargain. I know all the scales of influence in this little discussion tip your way and I only have *one* thing of any real value to you. If you make me bargain with it I will.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 03, 2011 11:25 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 11:25 AM (OlN4e)
I have a question for some of you:
Do you really believe all the Romney-means-the-end-of-our-republic ghost stories you tell on this blog, or do you do it for the benefit of others?
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 11:25 AM (G/zuv)
This should have been a nothing story. It should have died the day after it was aired, because Herman Cain should have said (and stuck to) what his supporters are now screaming: "Give us specifics, and we'll address specifics. Until then, since I don't know what you're talking about, I can't address it."
Had he handled it that way, the MFM might still be screaming about it, but Conservative Media would (in all likelihood) be saying, "The man's right: give us specifics or shut up."
He didn't. In the very first day he had 4 different responses. He had at least one more on Tuesday. By Wednesday he was trying to deflect the issue by blaming an opponent with whom he seems to have some personal beef (about what, I don't know) of leaking the story. Even in doing that he opened up more questions, because that claim required that he admit he knew this could be a problem 6 years ago.
In short: Herman Cain made this story about his handling of it, instead of about the scandal. Had he done otherwise, then even if the PJM article as originally published (they've since "corrected") was absolutely true, most conservatives (including myself, I think) would be saying "so he hooked up with a girl from work. Not good, but not horrible-scary-sexual predator either." It would still be a black mark (he's supposed to be the Christian Candidate, remember), but not insurmountable.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 03, 2011 11:26 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:26 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 03, 2011 11:26 AM (deaac)
Posted by: John Galt at November 03, 2011 11:27 AM (9NQ6I)
Posted by: benson at November 03, 2011 11:27 AM (k8v1W)
I have good news for you: only those two have the money to compete to the end of the primary.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 03, 2011 03:20 PM (D5iHx)
Right, if you think dollars then it's Romney vs. Perry. Some people STILL don't get that.
Posted by: Max Power at November 03, 2011 11:27 AM (q177U)
So, I ask again, for those so desperate to smear Cain personally because they don't like him politically: What actually happened?
as Ive stated again and again as someone who's not a Cainiac, I dont see he's done anything wrong but the way he's handed this makes me really not want him as the nom
(couldn't get the boldface to stop)
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:27 AM (yAor6)
Ace is a misanthrope not a misogynist. Your narrow focus on ovaries blinds you to that fact.
Posted by: The Robot Devil at November 03, 2011 11:27 AM (136wp)
" perry's polling is bad. "
True. But it all gets real in about 60 days or so. IF, and big IF, Perry makes it in the top 2 in Iowa, he will win the nomination. Just my opinion.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 11:27 AM (kaOJx)
WTF. I agree w. the premise of Ace's post, that we need to vet candidates. The problem is not the vetting of the candidate, and the publication of actual, substantive negative stories about them. The PROBLEM is there has been no proof of any wrongdoing offered. There is no PROOF that politico has any documentation indicating the amount of the settlement. There is only a statement that Politico has "learned". Learned from what, from whom? Statements of the as yet unidentified and perhaps non-existent "victim"?
The media has proven they will falsify evidence to smear a Republican. Remember when Bill Burkle was shopping false documents about Bush's going AWOL from the Texas ANG? This is WORSE, because we don't even have falsified evidence to debunk!
YET, you are taking the reporting of the biased media and reporting it as fact and then extending your argumentation without any basis. THEN, you criticize those of us who are defending Cain as innocent, as there has been no evidence of guilt offered, as being blindly partisan.
YOU are the one who is letting your allegiances blind you to the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty and grasping onto straws to attempt to salvage a deeply flawed candidate. NOT the Cain defenders some of whom, BTW, are not even Cain supporters.
Posted by: mjhlaw at November 03, 2011 11:28 AM (YQ4mh)
"Just say no." She made the right decision given family concerns. And it would not be right to put social conservative America through another defense for Palin family pregnancies preceding marriage, whether or not timing matters.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mom Feared at November 03, 2011 11:28 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:28 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:29 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:29 AM (nj1bB)
i do think this is what some want. they would rather obama win than have to support a 'rino.'
Maybe I'm too extreme a conservative. However, I see little substantive difference between the RINO du jour and Obama. The big things are (IMO):
Amnesty? Obamney Care? Government spending? Economy?
Ok, Romney would be leaps and bounds better for the economy than SCoaMF. But with the trillion dollar boat anchor known as Obamney Care, I don't think the economy would improve much even if Romney was perfect (and had a Republican Senate) and he hit all the right notes.
I'm going to cut in on Monty's DOOM! action, and say the difference between Obama and Romney is the speed at which we impact the wall. If we impact it at 300 (Romney) or 600 (Obama) MPH, it's still gonna leave a mark. I'd rather see the Democrat Party take that hit.
Don't take that to mean I won't vote, and vote for the RINO. The potential for vacancies at the Supreme Court is too important to leave to that SCoaMF. We must have something other than a rubber-stamping Democrat SCOTUS on the off chance we can get our fiscal house in order before the collapse.
And if we don't? it won't matter, once the house of cards comes tumbling down. I'm not sure if even Zombie Reagan could pull off that feet. Well, I think he could do that...I meant feat, but feet is funnier.
And I need funnier when I contemplate the end of this country as we know it.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at November 03, 2011 11:30 AM (1hM1d)
The best plan of action I've seen was from Bill Whittle who suggested that the only response be "show me the evidence".
Why does anyone need to know anything about a made up story sourced anonymously? If Conservatives want the lying progs like those at Politico to stop stunts like this then it is the liars who must be held to account. Don't accept that anyone accused anonymously is in the wrong or has to answer to anything. Throw the story back in anonymous's face, call them cowards for hiding behind anon, mock them mercilessy, and let them know if they want to talk they need to bring facts and evidence to the game.
But please STOP saying the accused has some explaining to do. That is a pathetic response that simply encourages the attacks to continue. Which team are you on anyway?
Anonymous, you cowards, step out from behind those skirts or suffer the mockery you so deserve.
Maybe Conservatives should walk around with a white glove in their pocket for those times when proggys make crap up. Then pull out the glove and slap the lying tool across the face with it!
They need to be challenged, fought, and defeated. Period.
Posted by: Marko at November 03, 2011 11:30 AM (MjNTe)
Well played Sarah, well played.
Posted by: John Galt at November 03, 2011 03:27 PM (9NQ6I)"
Despite this sounding a bit like the crazy 'Palin is brilliant at strategy' stuff from a couple months ago, I think you are 100% right. Palin saw this coming. This year, the appeal for conservatives has made their field split. The establishment is, as usual, much better, with Romney's ideological competition being ignored or actually pushed into endorsing Romney.
so it's just a mess for the right.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:30 AM (rQ/Ue)
That's at least what happened. Two other women say they got a come-on vibe from him and given he had sex with the one woman I do not believe they are just hallucinating.
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 03:26 PM (nj1bB)
Whoa! I'm not a Cain supporter; I'm still on the Perry train even though we're stuck at the station but....you have proof of this? I'm seriously asking that question because that's an absolute statement to make if you don't have proof.
Posted by: Tami at November 03, 2011 11:30 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at November 03, 2011 11:30 AM (deaac)
Posted by: mpfs at November 03, 2011 03:23 PM (iYbLN)
I hope it's not over Cain.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 11:30 AM (sbV1u)
Instead of always being in reactive mode with respect to the debates, why don't we prepare ourselves and decide what are priorities are? It would be easier to then assess who comes closest to actually aligning with what we care about.
Posted by: Y-not at November 03, 2011 11:30 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 03, 2011 11:31 AM (21lBC)
It's been said that all other things being equal, it's the manager that makes or breaks a campaign.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mom Feared at November 03, 2011 11:31 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: joncelli at November 03, 2011 11:31 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 03, 2011 11:31 AM (QF8uk)
Why I will hold my nose and vote for Romney. I suspect there's not audio out there of him saying this:
I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries
on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot.
[Â…The Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
At least he passes the "doesn't hate this country and its founding document" hurdle.
Posted by: Scott J at November 03, 2011 11:31 AM (/bVuS)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:32 AM (rJVPU)
Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the stateÂ’s abortion laws.
Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.
He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.
“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.
Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term."
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at November 03, 2011 11:32 AM (HqpV0)
Posted by: benson at November 03, 2011 11:32 AM (k8v1W)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 03, 2011 11:33 AM (21lBC)
2012 - the field is weak. I won't vote for Obama and I won't stay home. Whoever the pick is, I will vote for them. Result -
Am I missing something? That's an honest question.
Posted by: tubal at November 03, 2011 11:33 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: will folkes for money at November 03, 2011 11:33 AM (FUozQ)
Were that true, Obama would be impeached already and being prosecuted.
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mom Feared at November 03, 2011 11:33 AM (lpWVn)
At least he passes the "doesn't hate this country and its founding document" hurdle.
A mighty low bar there. What you're saying is that at least Romney isn't a SCoAMF.
Given his inability to pick a story and stick to it, that remains to be seen.
I can hardy wait for SCoAMF 2: Electric Boogaloo.
I think I'll kill myself now.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 11:33 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 03, 2011 03:06 PM (pAlYe)
Does this mean I can cite The Paragons of Rationality when they're bitching about why nothing has changed when their Electable™ candidate squeaks into office?
Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 03, 2011 11:34 AM (8JpQH)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 03, 2011 11:34 AM (vzFJV)
FIFY
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 11:34 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at November 03, 2011 11:34 AM (qndXR)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at November 03, 2011 11:35 AM (9IFxO)
Ace qualified that with 'what happened seems to be', so no, it's not an absolute and proven statement.
It's based on that woman waking up in Cain's bed, I'm sure. That is what seems to have happened, but it's hardly proven, of course, and Ace never said it was proven. In fact, his language is that it is not proven.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:35 AM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:35 AM (rJVPU)
Oh, I couldn't agree with that more. Of course he fucked up the response to this, and I never wanted a guy who's never held office and is running on creating an embryonic VAT as our nominee either.
But that doesn't mean I believe in personally destroying the man. And I never thought I'd see the day conservatives got so desperate they'd be willing to take a page from the Anita Hill playbook.
Hell, even Anita Hill had a name and a face to go with her bullshit. Which set of unsubstantiated charges from shadowy, anonymous sources would you like to be ruined by today, Herman? Behind Door #1, we have....
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 11:35 AM (oKLTg)
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:36 AM (rQ/Ue)
2012 - the field is weak. I won't vote for Obama and I won't stay home. Whoever the pick is, I will vote for them. Result -
Am I missing something? That's an honest question.
Posted by: tubal at November 03, 2011 03:33 PM (BoE3Z)
You're forgetting to factor in the 9.X% unemployment, riots in the streets (see Oakland), the rise of sharia in the mid-east, the corruption of the DOJ, the union thuggery, Obama's constant narcissistic drumbeat of a whiny voice and his maggot-mouthed wife, plus how many dozen rounds of golf?
Just to name a few things.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 11:36 AM (4df7R)
That last part may be the biggest indictment on him as a candidate. How can he not get it that you don't comment on women's appearance, even back in 1995, and you don't compare their height to your wife's.
This. I haven't complimented a female coworker's appearance for a very long time, and when I do it's a bit of pablum like you have excellent taste in fashion and in the presence of others. Otherwise, I keep my trap firmly shut.
Hell, I don't even like being in a woman's office if the door isn't open. When students come by for help, I ask them to adjourn to a public area.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at November 03, 2011 11:36 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: The Pirates Your Mom Feared at November 03, 2011 03:33 PM (lpWVn)
we control the Senate?!
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:36 AM (yAor6)
They did have time to marshall a response. "Let's blame everything on Perry, and hope the marks don't realize that yet again I'm running interference for Romney."
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at November 03, 2011 11:36 AM (rVfMa)
"No evidence"???
That's the problem. There is evidence. Setting aside the statements of the women (which is "evidence" by any standard), Cain's own weasel words and his serial modification of his story is strong evidence that there is more to the story than presently meets the eye.
I'm with Ace. (You're welcome Ace.) We need to get the entire story out before judgments can be made, and it isn't out yet.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at November 03, 2011 11:37 AM (QKKT0)
That woman woke up in a bed, of this I have no doubt.
And she was well acquainted with Herman Cain.
Therefore...
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 11:37 AM (G/zuv)
>>>Cain 33
Mitt 23
Newt 15
Perry 9
I hate Romney, but if it's down to Romney and Cain, I'm voting Romney.
Every Cain interview ends with him saying something dumb.
I don't want to lose to Obama in 2012.
Posted by: The End is Nigh at November 03, 2011 11:37 AM (wuv1c)
Face it Ace. No matter how hard you slam Cain into the ground, or Bachman, or Paul, or Newt, or even mittens, it's not going to bring Perry's poll numbers back up.
The Cain train may be derailing but Perry wagon has already crashed and burned itself out. Welcome to reality.
Posted by: GMB at November 03, 2011 11:37 AM (wY55N)
Posted by: The End is Nigh at November 03, 2011 11:37 AM (wuv1c)
And look what they did to Him!
Haha, Republicans always crucify their saviors
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 03, 2011 11:37 AM (OhYCU)
Cain 33
Mitt 23
Newt 15
Perry 9
Posted by: Doctor Fish at November 03, 2011 03:35 PM (Lt/Za)
Thats not a statement on how good Cain is, its a statement regarding relative suction.
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 11:38 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 03, 2011 11:38 AM (tazG1)
You truncated Ace's quote to eliminate his qualifier "seems".
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 03:36 PM (rQ/Ue)
And you truncated ace's quote to eliminate his entire second paragraph, which contains no qualifier and is stated with a tone of absolute fact.
That's at least what happened. Two other women say they got a come-on vibe from him and given he had sex with the one woman I do not believe they are just hallucinating.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 11:38 AM (4df7R)
It's based on that woman waking up in Cain's bed, I'm sure. That is what seems to have happened, but it's hardly proven, of course, and Ace never said it was proven. In fact, his language is that it is not proven.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 03:35 PM (rQ/Ue)
So you can say anything about a person if you qualify it with 'what happened seems to be'? Come on...that MSM territory. He also said "given he had sex with the one woman"....that's a definitive statement.
And the woman did not wake up in Cain's bed...that 'fact' has been corrected by PJM.
Posted by: Tami at November 03, 2011 11:38 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 03, 2011 11:38 AM (QF8uk)
How about a small government candidate who's not a globalist?
Posted by: MrTea at November 03, 2011 11:38 AM (cZT2v)
157. Re: Cain's precipitous judgements of Perry.
I see where Cain can actually like and respect Romney, he was a KC Reserve Board Chair. He was for TARP on the drawing board. He likes Greenspan today.
These very things make him less than conservative, however, quite apart from his suffering antiChrist-Lite.
I'm with Riehl--this guy has Urkel's work ethic and isn't even running for VP. He'd really like Ambassador to somewhere most people speak English, like Norway, or Switzerland or Holland, etc., not for the white women but for the evening news sound bites.
Posted by: icepick at November 03, 2011 11:38 AM (o0Uno)
>>>So, I ask again, for those so desperate to smear Cain personally because they don't like him politically: What actually happened?
What actually happened? The Politico wrote a hit piece on Cain that apparently has enough facts behind it that Cain just can't tell them to go pound sand. He floundered in responding to it, and lashed out blaming Rick Perry without any evidence of this. Then he goes and talks about how "the D.C. Culture is guilty until proven innocent"
Posted by: buzzion at November 03, 2011 11:38 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 03:24 PM (oKLTg)
Dunno, don't have a clue. I do know that he's handled like a total doofus after the story broke. He's either got a terrible memory or he's been doing a bunch of lying. It's going to keep dripping out until he contacts the women with the NDA's and ask them to tell what they think happened and then hold a press conference and answer their charges and every other question the media want's to ask and after that say he's done with it.
Every hour there is something new, they left in a cab together, they didn't leave in a cab together, he made lude comments to a talk show hosts employees, the settlement amounts become public.
It's a mess and a distraction and he could make it go away but he is choosing not to.
Posted by: robtr at November 03, 2011 11:39 AM (MtwBb)
The SC republican Party has gone to court three times to get the primaries closed and have been rebuffed every time.
Posted by: Vic at November 03, 2011 11:39 AM (YdQQY)
Cain 33
Mitt 23
Newt 15
Perry 9
Posted by: Doctor Fish at November 03, 2011 03:35 PM (Lt/Za)
4 more years of Obama here we come!/sarc
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:39 AM (yAor6)
so it's just a mess for the right.
Nobody could predict the absolute farce this primary has become. Also, while the Establishment came to embrace Romney, parts of the base have been bandwagon-jumping every few weeks in search of a savior. Some are feeling dissatisfied, so they are left looking for someone outside the current field to save us. But even the people on the sideline who could do better than this group have their problems. Long story short, the Establishment coalesces around a candidate early and we are always left searching the ideal candidate, and we are always disappointed because we cannot find one. This makes it easier for them to push Romney, because we are divided between the candidates for which we had to settle.
Posted by: Miss'80s at November 03, 2011 11:40 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 11:40 AM (nj1bB)
Cain 33
Mitt 23
Newt 15
Perry 9
...plus...
So is the plan that we try to keep this information from conservatives, so that conservative voters don't have it (or don't trust it, if they hear it), so they all just vote for Cain without the relevant information
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 03, 2011 11:40 AM (OhYCU)
Cain widens the lead after two days of media hits.
Cain 33
Mitt 23
Newt 15
Perry 9
People aren't going to vote this way in the primary, IMHO. Cain's getting a sympathy surge in an imaginary popularity contest. When it comes time to actually pull a lever those numbers will change.
Posted by: Max Power at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (q177U)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (vzFJV)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (rJVPU)
Boom-chika-wow-WOW.
Posted by: Herman Cain at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (FUozQ)
Ace, it is not an embargo that we seek, it is that this and other blogs are continuously trying to compete with each other to see who can post the longest treatises on why Cain should not be the nominee. A simple one paragraph news item the reflects poorly on Cain becomes your opportunity to strike novellas in opposition to him.
No doubt the blogs would love to spend days posting anthems on how Cain shouldn't blame a competitor without showing proof, but they are handcuffed because they themselves have been doing the same thing to Cain.
Posted by: doug at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (gUGI6)
Posted by: the Charlie Daniels of the torque wrench at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (le5qc)
That's a tough hypothetical, but at this point I'd probably go the same way, as much as I'd personally prefer Cain, ass-grabbing or not, as the nominee. Excreting Obama and his army of Marxist turds from power is the Prime Directive.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (QKKT0)
Would you like a job at Homeland Security?
Posted by: Uncle Janet at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (4Kl5M)
Seems to me on it's face that's disqualifying.
Posted by: DrewM. at November 03, 2011 11:41 AM (plesI)
For those of who are worried about Cain's high poll numbers I have a little theory that will make you feel better.
Cain's support in these preliminary polls will not translate into votes in the primaries. People like Herman Cain but they won't waste their vote, not even in a primary, for such a shitty candidate.
Cain is a likable bloke and a great guy. But he really sucks as a candidate for the highest office in the land.
Posted by: Obama & the media at November 03, 2011 11:42 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 11:42 AM (kaOJx)
At any rate: Since I don't support Cain it's rather easy for me to say "I'd like to know all the facts." After all, I've got no skin in the game. Won't hurt me if the facts wind up damning him (and actually, that would "help" me, as I've never been on the Cain Train anyway).
Actually you said you were "anti-Cain" and that's not the same thing as not supporting or not being "on the Cain Train." And that can make this whole 24/7 Cain seem to be solely to discredit him and help your candidate. Is that a problem? Only if that's not what you intended. If you really want Cain to be out and your candidate to survive, then this is a good idea. So be upfront and say it. Say "I'm spending alot of time on this because I want Cain out. And I support..." You might as well because these lengthy rambling rationalizing posts are space wasters. JMO As for me, I don't like Cain, but I don't like any of the candidates so it doesn't matter. I'm ABO.
Posted by: Deanna at November 03, 2011 11:42 AM (Rzxm+)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 03:40 PM (nj1bB)
Except that you did.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 11:42 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: clayton endicott at November 03, 2011 11:42 AM (JU0xh)
The Cain train may be derailing but Perry wagon has already crashed and burned itself out. Welcome to reality.
?! ace has been open about the fact Perry has imploded, your comment makes no sense
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:42 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: mallfly at November 03, 2011 11:42 AM (bJm7W)
A simple one paragraph news item the reflects poorly on Cain becomes your opportunity to strike novellas in opposition to him.
Dude, Ace posts epic monologues on movies. A one paragraph news story rates at least a novella.
Maybe a screenplay.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 11:42 AM (sbV1u)
Iowa is a caucus-New Hampshire is an open primary.
This. They get to go first...why? we need to get rid of the caucus and the open primaries. Otherwise we get a bunch of Dems showing up and tilting the deck in favor the Rep whom they believe that their SCoaMF can beat.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at November 03, 2011 11:43 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: The End is Nigh at November 03, 2011 11:43 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: People We All Were Making Fun Of Three Months Ago at November 03, 2011 11:43 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:43 AM (rJVPU)
If a pollster called me and asked me who I support, you bet your ass I'd say Herman Cain.
And a lot of you would, too.
But if today was your state's primary, neither you or I would pull the lever for Herman.
Posted by: Obama & the media at November 03, 2011 11:43 AM (G/zuv)
even back in 1995, and you don't compare their height to your wife's.
God knows I don't want to go back to those dark days back in the 50's when a man could walk right up to any woman on the street and remark she's 2 inches shorter than his wife.
I thought we as a society had moved passed this sort of barbarous mysogeny. It makes me angry just to think about the idea that little girls today might grow up into women in a world where construction workers make comments about them being average height, or 'kinda tall' as they walk past on the street, as if these human beings of feminine gender where somehow less human, nothing but chattel, or NBA basketball players or something, that could just be held up and graded on their total worth purely on the basis of their height.
Posted by: Entropy at November 03, 2011 11:44 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: John Galt at November 03, 2011 11:44 AM (9NQ6I)
Posted by: People You Were Laughing Yourselves Silly At Just A Short Season Ago at November 03, 2011 11:44 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:45 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Harsh Reality at November 03, 2011 11:45 AM (l12O7)
Posted by: LASue at November 03, 2011 11:45 AM (hrr4h)
I hate Romney, but if it's down to Romney and Cain, I'm voting Romney.
+1, me too and I've been upfront about my issues w/ him and his fanboys
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 03:42 PM (kaOJx)
Newt rounding that corner just like I said he would...
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:45 AM (yAor6)
It's going to Romney, and you will vote for him....
Posted by: Harsh Reality at November 03, 2011 03:45 PM (l12O7)
Yes, but I don't have to like it.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 11:46 AM (sbV1u)
That's what I thought, too.
Let's see what we have:
Foreign Policy: "What is Right of Return?" (Note: many people are allowed not to know about this. A candidate for President is not one of them)
Foreign Policy: "Well put Aegis Cruisers in the Gulf!"
Domestic Policy: "I'm pro-life except when I'm actually talking to someone to whom it might matter."
Domestic Policy: "Let's set up an ADDITIONAL revenue stream for the Feds!"
And now:
Personal Crisis Management: "It didn't happen. But if it did I didn't do it. And if I did it, Look! Squirrel!"
C'mon. This isn't even about the girls, now. It's about how fundamentally flawed he is as a candidate.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 03, 2011 11:46 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: People You Consider Yourself Superior To Because You're Not So Emotional and Kneejerk As at November 03, 2011 11:46 AM (nj1bB)
Only if you have reason to think it seems to be that way.
For example, it seems to be that Obama is an affirmative action beneficiary. I can say that without actually proving it. My basis can be articulated. I'm not lying. But it's impossible to truly prove a lot of stuff. So it just seems to be.
Ace has a basis for his 'seems to be'. He didn't just blurt out that he is absolutely sure it happened, as I think you misread initially.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:46 AM (rQ/Ue)
Weiner's scandal was 100% about sex.
for instance: pics of his penis
for instance: sexual messages left for young women
We have solid evidence showing Weiner's perverted behavior. There is nothing of the kind in Cain's case.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 11:46 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 03, 2011 11:46 AM (0yt4x)
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 11:47 AM (OlN4e)
Everything is defined by this Narrative, isn't it?
How the right enjoys its own Narratives, too.
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 03:22 PM (nj1bB)
I tend to think of it as more of an observation. When Fannie/Freddie are packed full of political operatives pulling bonuses from taxpayer funds, and Goldman Sachs runs the WH financial policy in two consecutive administrations, credentialism has more sway than talent or experience in hiring, and the press is full of politically correct groupthink, what alternative explanation comes to mind?
The Constitution is a brilliant document that attempts to set power against power in a way that citizens can prosper. When power is concentrated among a self-serving group and the citizens are in "flyover country", how is that balance doing?
Posted by: cthulhu at November 03, 2011 11:47 AM (kaalw)
Posted by: deadrody at November 03, 2011 11:47 AM (Gc1ql)
Dudes, if you have a bad employee that the union won't let you fire and they want to cause as much trouble as they can, one year's salary is cheap to get rid of them. Do you have any idea how many public school superintendents, police offices, teachers, etc. are bought out with one or two years' salary because they can't be fired?
You all should be backing Cain's Restaurant association to the hilt on this, sometimes you just have to pay a worker a year or two's salary to get rid of them because firing them isn't an option.
Posted by: doug at November 03, 2011 11:47 AM (gUGI6)
Posted by: Harsh Reality at November 03, 2011 03:45 PM (l12O7)
if it's Romney or Obama I'll be proud to vote Romney
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:47 AM (yAor6)
Newt rounding that corner just like I said he would...
Slide Newt! Slide! The throw is there!
Yere out!
I love the guy, but he's not going to make it to the plate. Among Tiffany's customers, yes. The rest of the voting public? No effin' way.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 11:47 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: tsj017 at November 03, 2011 11:47 AM (4YUWF)
Looks like that tranny who's been impersonating Gellar has been up to his tricks again.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 03, 2011 02:50 PM (qqn3x)
By the way, if anyhere here personally knows her, they should slip her a suggestion to lay off the botox. She's starting to look more stretched-out than usual. And she really should start posting bikini pics and videos again. You know, for credibility. Just tell her that risque pics will drive the muzzies off the deep end.
Posted by: Havedash at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (sFD5n)
And the board of the NRA would have immediately canned Cain's ass. Since that didn't happen, we can make certain assumptions.
Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (Gkhxf)
John Galt at November 03, 2011 03:44 PM
Perhaps you should re read my posts where I state that everyone should vote for the nominee in the general regardless of who it is before you throw mud at me. Or is my position inconvenient for you?
As far as Perry being inelectable, that will be decided in about 60 days or so. Til then, it is all polling and what ifs. Once the votes start being cast, that is what counts.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (kaOJx)
Posted by: People Who Are Ridiculous Because They Put Political Fervor Over A Dispassionate View of the Cicrums at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 03:44 PM (kaOJx)
Well fuck it. I'm going Galt.
Posted by: Your Papers Please at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (EL+OC)
Posted by: Herb Tarlek at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (AYfPj)
Yeah, those were heady days indeed.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (8JpQH)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (21lBC)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 03, 2011 11:48 AM (SB0V2)
>>>if it's Romney or Obama I'll be proud to vote Romney
If it's Romney and Obama, I will proudly vote for Marco Rubio assuming he's the VP nominee.
If Rubio is Romney's pick, it will do a lot to allay my fears knowing that once Romney's gone, we will have a conservative replacement waiting in the wings.
Posted by: Ben at November 03, 2011 11:49 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 03:46 PM
And I don't have a problem with that but can he do it in 5 million words or less and not every other post?
Posted by: Deanna at November 03, 2011 11:49 AM (Rzxm+)
OT:
Could Super Veteran and OWS Darling Scott Olsen have actually been hit by a bottle or rock thrown by one of his brothers?
"We have seen what everyone else has seen on the Internet," said spokeswoman Eileen Hirst. "So, we're investigating. However, we're quite certain that anyone involved with our department was not responsible for anything that hit Mr. Olsen." Hirst said the department is treating the Internet debate as a citizen's complaint and is investigating.
Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at November 03, 2011 11:49 AM (4136b)
Posted by: People We All Were Making Fun Of Three Months Ago at November 03, 2011 03:43 PM (nj1bB)
We had PHOTOGRAPHS of Anthony Weiner waving his junk around for the entire world to see. We had women to whom he'd sent these pictures come forward, women with, y'know, actual names and identities.
For Herman Cain, we have.... what, again? Oh, that's right, nothing.
But hey, the "oh yes, now I remember, this happened!" stories are coming from the most solid and respected anonymous sources anyone could ask for.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 11:50 AM (oKLTg)
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 03:46 PM (rQ/Ue)
Well, his second paragraph was pretty absolute. I don't appear to be the only one that read it that way either.
Posted by: Tami at November 03, 2011 11:50 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 03, 2011 11:50 AM (SB0V2)
I love the guy, but he's not going to make it to the plate. Among Tiffany's customers, yes. The rest of the voting public? No effin' way.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 03:47 PM (sbV1u)
I'm just saying I had my hunch he'd comeback when everyone was piling on him in the summer. will he win? I doubt it.
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:50 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Dave at November 03, 2011 11:50 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: People Who Are Silly Because They Consider It Virtuous To Believe In Silly Things at November 03, 2011 11:50 AM (nj1bB)
Do you know what I hear they're saying at those OWS protests before they rape people?
They say "You look about the same height as my girlfriend".
Then they drag you back to a tent and rape you.
If a guy says that to you, it means he thinks he wouldn't have any trouble raping you, because you're 'about the same size' as his girlfriend, and he doesn't have any trouble overpowering and kidnapping and raping her, so you seem manageable to him.
If you hear that, you should pull out your pepper spray and mace him in the face, and kick him in the nuts. Then file a police report and press charges because he's trying to rape you.
Posted by: Sheriff Joe Entropy at November 03, 2011 11:51 AM (XxXUI)
Posted by: Stephen price blair at November 03, 2011 03:38 PM (QF8uk)"
The way he clearly intended his comment was that he is merely sees reasons why this seems to be the case. There is no other reason to use the initial qualifier.
Yes, part of this probably is Cain's contradictory handling, which smeared at least one innocent person. And part is that settlement for the girl waking up in Cain's bed, I guess. It just seems like something is to that.
Personally, I do not hold the sex scandal claims against Cain because they are, at worst, anonymous allegations. I'm not in agreement with ace on this. I'm just noting he didn't say what you seem to think he did.
Personally, I don't care what the press promises me is true. I only hold against Cain his own actions that I do know, such as the smearing of this Curt guy.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:51 AM (rQ/Ue)
Dude, Ace posts epic monologues on movies. A one paragraph news story rates at least a novella.
Maybe a screenplay.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 03:42 PM (sbV1u)
An interpretive dance illustrating my greatness would also be acceptable.
Posted by: Mitt Romney at November 03, 2011 11:51 AM (ggRof)
>> What pisses me off the most is that 75% of the base clearly doesn't like Romney, but that can't stop fighting each other long enough to pick one not-Romney to support.
Eh, I don't know. I get the sense that a lot of us here have picked our guy (or gal), and we're fightin with each other for that reason. As long as our guy/gal is still in, "my guy is good and you guy sucks".
That will change as candidates finally start winning, and losing primaries.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 03, 2011 11:51 AM (WvXvd)
Posted by: H. Cain at November 03, 2011 11:51 AM (FcR7P)
I'm generally quite a nice person, but I have to say, I kind of hate 75% of the commenters on this post at the moment. It's not a long-lasting hate, and it will fade as soon as a post of any actual usefulness comes along - instead of yet another Perrywinkle/ Romneybot/ Cainiac/ Paulbot/ Bachmannator/ Gingrichian mass slaughter - but yeah.
So right now, I invite everyone here to join me in telling everyone else:
Fuck you. I'm right, g-ddammit, and you're all assholes.
Seriously, try it. It's therapeutic. Then we can all just get it the hell out of our systems and stop flaming each other like Barney Frank's boyfriend.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 11:51 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: argh at November 03, 2011 11:51 AM (xZwKw)
If it's Romney and Obama, I will proudly vote for Marco Rubio assuming he's the VP nominee.
I dont wanna share my senator w/ you clowns not from FL!/sarc
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 11:51 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Tami at November 03, 2011 03:50 PM (X6akg)"
I'm not bashing you. I just think you misunderstood him.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:52 AM (rQ/Ue)
An interpretive dance illustrating my greatness would also be acceptable.
Posted by: Mitt Romney at November 03, 2011 03:51 PM (ggRof)
You sure your name isn't actually Cal Naughton Jr.?
Oh wait, he wanted ice dancers, never mind.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 11:52 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 03, 2011 11:52 AM (vzFJV)
Posted by: Rocketeer at November 03, 2011 11:52 AM (/AHDz)
Ace, we'll know Herman Cain is guilty when Andrew Breitbart attends one of Herman's press conference.
[that was the best day of my life in 2011, btw]
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 11:52 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: People Who Said Silly-Ass Shit For Two Or Three Weeks at November 03, 2011 11:52 AM (nj1bB)
I just want one of the non-Romney midgets to grow 12 inches before the general. Just. One.
Posted by: Truman North at November 03, 2011 11:53 AM (I2LwF)
That being said, I will vote for Romney/Paul/Cain/Gingrich/ Huntsman/dog in a cowboy outfit before I vote for Obama.
Posted by: shibumi at November 03, 2011 11:53 AM (z63Tr)
And I don't have a problem with that but can he do it in 5 million words or less and not every other post?
Posted by: Deanna at November 03, 2011 03:49 PM (Rzxm+)"
No kidding. I asked Ace for a refund and he replied that I don't actually have to pay to read the blog, hence am kinda ridiculous to demand stuff from him. Then I realized none of this was happening.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 11:53 AM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: LASue at November 03, 2011 11:54 AM (hrr4h)
Posted by: Michael Fay at November 03, 2011 11:54 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 03, 2011 03:48 PM (21lBC)
Agreed, chique. Agreed x100.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 11:54 AM (4df7R)
At least we can take heart that there will be no federal sales tax.
Posted by: Max Power at November 03, 2011 11:54 AM (q177U)
Eh, I don't know. I get the sense that a lot of us here have picked our guy (or gal), and we're fightin with each other for that reason. As long as our guy/gal is still in, "my guy is good and you guy sucks".
That will change as candidates finally start winning, and losing primaries.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 03, 2011 03:51 PM (WvXvd)
6 Debates and 2 more months to go!
Posted by: buzzion at November 03, 2011 11:54 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 03, 2011 03:34 PM (8JpQH)
Sure. Because sometimes the best you can do is limit the amount of further harm. And that's where I'm at these days: damage reduction.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 03, 2011 11:55 AM (pAlYe)
...a good and decent public servant who we know must be faithful to his wife because he shares our political beliefs!!!!!!
No one here is that naive. I hope.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 03, 2011 11:55 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: deadrody at November 03, 2011 11:55 AM (Gc1ql)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 03:51 PM (4df7R)
Yes, yes. You are an asshole. A gaping, butt plug filled grand canyon of an asshole. Fuck you into Tuesday with a ditch witch.
Ahhhhhh.....
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 11:56 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Brock O'Bama at November 03, 2011 11:56 AM (n1JN0)
Posted by: NfromNC at November 03, 2011 11:57 AM (MbeEN)
And I don't have a problem with that but can he do it in 5 million words or less and not every other post?
Posted by: Deanna at November 03, 2011 03:49 PM (Rzxm+)
Well you see, Ace is so much BETTER AND SMARTER than you or I, or hell, let's face it, anyone else he deigns to allow to posts here, that it takes several posts to pound whatever point he happens to have dreamed up today into our troglodyte heads.
Of course, this is the guy who was a Birther until he wasn't, so your mileage may vary. Especially depending on what time of the month it is for him. 
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 11:57 AM (oKLTg)
45k. I don't know what to think of that. It's a little high for nuisance value, but not that much higher.
Given the fact that another accusation had been made, they probably had to pay just a little bit extra to make the accusation go away.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at November 03, 2011 11:58 AM (epBek)
Posted by: John Galt at November 03, 2011 11:58 AM (9NQ6I)
That's another great straw argument. The base is ready to compromise from 100% and offers a lot of stuff in between. But if the base won't take the 10% then they are PURISTS who want the, unrealistic, unreasonable, irrational and unelectable.
Just cause someone wants something more conservative then Romney, doesn't mean they are 100% purity or die.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 03, 2011 11:58 AM (0q2P7)
"So- I think it takes a week..."
Even thought the next debate is foreign policy, $50 says Bachmann slams Cain as a serial rapist.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 11:58 AM (kaOJx)
I come to this site about five times a day, beginning with a cup of coffee every morning. Second only to the Drudge Report, it is the top conservative news website I consult. The reason I come here is that I know Ace will deliver the story --- not think for me, dress it up, censor it away, or intentionally discard it to avoid goring some sacred cow. You stick to the story, as it unfolds, come what may. That's genuine journalism, and AoSHQ does it better than almost anyone else. The tit jokes and military hardware updates are the sweet, sweet garnish on the solid editorial nutrition that is your greatest stock in trade.
Keep on keepin' on. And bless you for it!
Posted by: Pops53 at November 03, 2011 11:58 AM (8iDG0)
Yes, yes. You are an asshole. A gaping, butt plug filled grand canyon of an asshole. Fuck you into Tuesday with a ditch witch.
Ahhhhhh.....
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 03:56 PM (OlN4e)
See? Don't you feel better now? And you didn't even have to mention a candidate's name!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 11:59 AM (4df7R)
So what are conservative VALUES today.
Back in the day... adultry, especially hiding adultry from voters, was not a conservative value.
Serial adultry used to cause politicians to go into hiding like Newt had to do after his second time cheating on a wife was discovered... At least he has admitted twice... let the public know his faults. Didn't pay to keep them secret.
So now marital fidelity is no longer a conservative value?
I see, and doing deals under the table, that isn't frowned upon anymore either, because Perry is the champion of "conservatives."
So let's see, conservatives now stand for cheating on your wife and pay-for-play politics.
Do I have that right? It's hard to keep up with what conservatism means in 2011. Not values that's for sure.
But of course Romney has no core, right? All those others they have a core. Because a core has nothing whatsoever to do with personal integrity.
I think this party has no core.
I think the word conservative has no meaning.
Posted by: petunia at November 03, 2011 11:59 AM (hgrmi)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 03, 2011 11:59 AM (IqM9e)
At least we can take heart that there will be no federal sales tax.
Gary Johnson favors one. And he hasn't been disqualified yet.
Posted by: Truman North at November 03, 2011 12:00 PM (I2LwF)
Even thought the next debate is foreign policy, $50 says Bachmann slams Cain as a serial rapist.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 03:58 PM (kaOJx)
She has already started, she said yesterday we can't afford to have a candidate with a bunch of surprises in his past.
Posted by: robtr at November 03, 2011 12:00 PM (MtwBb)
Do I have that right? It's hard to keep up with what conservatism means in 2011. Not values that's for sure.
I guess the saddest part of that statement would be the Democrats don't even rise to that lofty standard.
Pick your poison.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 12:00 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Pops53 at November 03, 2011 12:00 PM (8iDG0)
See? Don't you feel better now? And you didn't even have to mention a candidate's name!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 03:59 PM (4df7R)
Thanks for pointing out my oversight.
Mitt sux.
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 12:00 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 03, 2011 03:59 PM (IqM9e)
Ditto, polynikes, ditto. Hatin' for the team, playa.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 12:01 PM (4df7R)
Annnnd here comes the accusation that since conservatives don't like Romney, we are "one issue voters". Trust me.....it is more than one issue with Romney. Hell, I'm not even sure anyone here could definitively state Romney's positions on every subject. He HAS earned his "flip-flopper" tag you know.
What the RINOS don't seem to get is that RINO officeholders (and particularly presidents) do FAR MORE damage to the country than an actual Democrat because they blur the distinction between the parties and cause the party to be included in people's perception that our government is a cluster ****. Beacuse they go along with two or three things the libs want, it is assumed they eat the whole enchilada (with the exception of taxation and defense).
I'm no purist......one issue here and there I can abide, but Romney is in the Lincoln Chafee mode.....that is a bridge too far.
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 03, 2011 12:01 PM (+tc8l)
I know which way I'd bet, though. And it wouldn't be with the Anthony Weiner Brigade.
If the bet is that he had sex with one of the women who got the settlements mentioned and no other compensation, I'll take that bet and give you odds.
If he had sex with an employee and she sued, the payout would have been much larger. Maybe My Man Herman (he's not my man) kicked in also, and a lot, too.
You really need to talk with some attorneys who handle these cases. Really you do.
Posted by: spongeworthy at November 03, 2011 12:01 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: clayton endicott at November 03, 2011 12:01 PM (JU0xh)
Oh, Ace! You cut that out!
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 12:01 PM (oKLTg)
You can get a lot of info off the internet, but you also get a lot of shit!
Posted by: James at November 03, 2011 12:01 PM (Y5Ri0)
Posted by: Dave at November 03, 2011 12:02 PM (Xm1aB)
We currently have a big opening in our presidential race. We encourage you to apply. Benefits include a big house, a big plane, chef, security, nannies, maids and a big corner office. Pay isn't too shabby either.
Thank you.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 03, 2011 12:02 PM (JYheX)
I think the word conservative has no meaning.
Posted by: petunia at November 03, 2011 03:59 PM (hgrmi)
It does. And the dictionary defines the opposite of conservative by simply showing a picture of Mitt.
Posted by: Brock O'Bama at November 03, 2011 12:03 PM (n1JN0)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 03, 2011 12:03 PM (IqM9e)
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 12:03 PM (OlN4e)
Thanks for pointing out my oversight.
Mitt sux.
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 04:00 PM (OlN4e)
You just had to go and ruin it. You are now banned to an uncomfortable chair in the corner, where you will be forced to watch Mitt signing Romneycare into law - with Ted fuckface Kennedy's bloated, drunk mug grinning like a maniac behind him - for the next year and a half.
This is why we can't have nice things. Like hate memes.
*banish!*
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 03, 2011 12:03 PM (4df7R)
So if 2 or 3 of guys anonymously accuse Romney of fondling them after he's won the Republican nomination, it's fair game?
That's going to happen anyway. Probably worse. We'll be into "'jus makin' shit up" territory by March.
Because it's not about the truth to "these people." It's about "enlightening" the rest of us.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 03, 2011 12:03 PM (sbV1u)
Even thought the next debate is foreign policy, $50 says Bachmann slams Cain as a serial rapist.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 03:58 PM (kaOJx)
She has already started, she said yesterday we can't afford to have a candidate with a bunch of surprises in his past.
Posted by: robtr at November 03, 2011 04:00 PM (MtwBb)
look for her to appear shaken and harrassed herslef as she was going after Perry, then when folks disagree w/ Romney she'll jump to his defense. she's being played like a fiddle
and if i'm Bachmann, do I really wanna bring up suprises in the past?
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 03, 2011 12:04 PM (yAor6)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 12:04 PM (nj1bB)
As-yet-unfounded accusations of marital infidelity != marital infidelity. But you knew that.
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 03, 2011 12:04 PM (dmuft)
Posted by: Tami at November 03, 2011 04:02 PM (X6akg)
But for some "odd" reason you'll probably notice a lot of the same commenters defending the guy...
Posted by: buzzion at November 03, 2011 12:05 PM (GULKT)
I think this party has no core.
I think the word conservative has no meaning.
Great way to persuade a skeptical base. I am in awe. Knowing that you think conservatism has no meaning just puts all my fears about Mitt's commitment aside.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 03, 2011 12:05 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 12:05 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 03, 2011 12:06 PM (QF8uk)
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 03, 2011 12:06 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 12:07 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 12:07 PM (nj1bB)
Cain: Bumbling
Romney: Charlatan
Bachmann: Hair
Perry: Bush
Santorum: Weird
Gingrich: Cheater
Huntsman: Who?
Posted by: grognard at November 03, 2011 12:07 PM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: clayton endicott at November 03, 2011 04:01 PM (JU0xh)"
Agreed. I don't hold the allegations against Cain based on what we've got. It does 'seem' like something happened, but it's obvious that was what the 'deciders' in the MSM wanted to portray, and it's also obvious I'm not getting the whole story. Also, honestly, I don't think this is the kind of issue that matters the most these days.
What I hold against Cain is merely his handling of this. Not because it was incompetent (though that's true), but because it was nasty. Nasty, baseless, paranoid, perhaps even dishonest. That is not cool. All the things he's accused Perry of, it's plain that Cain is actually doing something similar to Perry, and not at all clear his accusations are correct. His most specific allegation affected a specific guy who they have backed off from, yet they demanded the apology and I'm not aware that they apologized themselves.
The MSM has to provide me with proof for me to believe them. Cain has already provided proof of his method of defending himself.
Still, this is not nearly as major an issue to me as electing a president who will get spending under control. This nation has a huge spending problem, and only Newt and Perry seem to take it seriously. They are the only two guys I really think are qualified.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 12:08 PM (rQ/Ue)
All you got to do is tell Jonathan Martin...or Ace and we'll have us a real news story!!!
Posted by: James at November 03, 2011 12:08 PM (Y5Ri0)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 12:08 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: deadrody at November 03, 2011 12:09 PM (Gc1ql)
That's a good point, Stephen. But we all have to rely on our gut instincts. I think if Cain was handling this less hysterically, and providing a consistent and smart defense, it wouldn't seem as bad.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 12:10 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 04:08 PM (nj1bB)
Did he shake his finger at the camera when he made that pronouncement?
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 12:12 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: buzzion at November 03, 2011 12:14 PM (GULKT)
Nothing, if he had more than that. By itself? How about the fact we can't (for myriad reasons) just park a significant portion of our anti-ballistic-missile fleet in the Persian Gulf.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 03, 2011 12:14 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Africanus at November 03, 2011 12:14 PM (ITskg)
Shoot, the allegations are a sideshow now. His handling of the whole round robin Charlie Foxtrot is the story, and it ain't pretty.
Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez!
This message brought to you by Morons Against HTML Abuse
at November 03, 2011 12:15 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: Iblis at November 03, 2011 12:15 PM (9221z)
Posted by: cthulhu at November 03, 2011 12:16 PM (kaalw)
Did he shake his finger at the camera when he made that pronouncement?
Posted by: maddogg at November 03, 2011 04:12 PM (OlN4e)
Don't forget the thumbpoint, lip bite.
Posted by: buzzion at November 03, 2011 12:17 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: blogforce one at November 03, 2011 12:18 PM (7cXfH)
tasker at November 03, 2011 04:07 PM
Here is how it will work. "Of course we have to stop Iran now. Like how someone should have stopped Herman Cain from raping those ten women."
Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 03, 2011 12:18 PM (kaOJx)
Seriously, this is the best the Republican Party can do? A golden opportunity, and they are going to shit it away with a gang of has-beens, never-was, and hand it to an establishment suit who's main accomplishment is architecting the one thing that started the movement to the right to begin with. The best hope we have is someone who won't fuck it all up in a primary?
This is getting beyond depressing.
Posted by: Kotter at November 03, 2011 12:19 PM (F937F)
Posted by: The terrorist Hobbit formerly known as Donna at November 03, 2011 12:19 PM (5Wl/f)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 03, 2011 12:19 PM (QF8uk)
Posted by: blogforce one at November 03, 2011 12:19 PM (7cXfH)
Posted by: blogforce one at November 03, 2011 12:20 PM (7cXfH)
Posted by: Mike Devx at November 03, 2011 12:21 PM (kEFed)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 03, 2011 12:21 PM (QF8uk)
Isn't that deeply unfair to Thomas? Thomas is one of the most brilliant jurists of our country's history. One of the boldest and most clearly philosophical and frankly, honest. He's been through the ringer for ages upon ages, and frankly, should have statues in his image when he passes (hopefully in over 50 years from now).
Cain is not like Thomas in any way I'm familiar with.
Their sex scandal accusations are not even remotely similar. A single strange non-anon lady with weak claims who follow Thomas from job to job and made allegations a decade late, then taking plum academic jobs is not similar to a crew of various anonymous ladies, some of which made accusations very close to the time the event occurred, winning settlements.
I'm not saying Cain is guilty. But his problems are not similar to Thomas's, and I do not understand why people keep lumping the two together. The men could not be more different intellectually. That's not meant to say one is smarter than the other, but they are totally different types of guys.
Is this really just that they are black guys? Really? I mean, come on.
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 12:23 PM (rQ/Ue)
I'd be perfectly happy, myself, if it went all the way into the GOP convention. I don't understand the huge rush. (And nothing about this election year seems convention to me, nothing at all.)
Posted by: Mike Devx at November 03, 2011 04:21 PM
Exactly. We have a rush to judgment and a rush to nominate. Actually I think it would work out better if we don't have a nominee right away. Then the Dems have to keep shooting at different targets. Of course we keep helping them load the ammunition.
Posted by: Deanna at November 03, 2011 12:24 PM (Rzxm+)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 03, 2011 12:26 PM (QF8uk)
Ace,
As youÂ’re making your list of Tea Partying Palinistas who wonÂ’t vote for anyone but the One True Conservative, why not publish it daily.
I keep hearing you and a few others hear whining incessantly about them, but IÂ’ve never actually read a comment from one of them. Are you sure they donÂ’t just exist in your mind?
Posted by: jwest at November 03, 2011 12:27 PM (qeYI9)
Yeah see....this is what I don't understand about people like Ann Coulter and Hannity who have been so supportive of Romney. They claim to be sooo solid on issues like abortion.
I agree with Ace. ....We see people forgive Romney for every waffle, lie and mispeak. Same with Cain, he get's a pass for all his gaffes, mispeaks and out and out lies. .....But Rick Perry gets declared dead for....what? What exactly is so unforgiveable that Rick Perry has done or said that is really so fucking bad?
Perry has the best record, of all of them. So I am sticking with him.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 03, 2011 12:27 PM (qqn3x)
No, but Cain gets 100% responsibility for supporting that smear in what I consider the lowest form of political discourse: race hustling.
It was really aggravating to me. The guy could have waited for the facts, or given some benefit of the doubt, but instead, he parroted lies and even drew wild insinuations about Perry's views on race which are ridiculous when you consider Perry's actual record. The guy doesn't have a racist bone in his body and was even being very generous to Cain in his words about him, but Cain saw an opening and he hit Perry as hard as he could.
Now, the show is on the other foot, and I don't see Perry doing anything wrong. He had a classy comment yesterday that we have no facts implicating Cain, so we shouldn't worry about this issue, and instead talk about the real issues.
I think Perry is more presidential. He did fall on his ass in the first debates, and then he did OK in the latter two (In my opinion, anyway), and other than one really stupid comment, I think he's run a good campaign (obviously I'm wrong, though).
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 12:27 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 03, 2011 12:28 PM (tazG1)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 12:28 PM (rJVPU)
Newt is beginning to look quasi-respectable and almost tolerable.
Just lose the Liberal around the midriff. Liposuction?
Posted by: icepick at November 03, 2011 12:28 PM (o0Uno)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 03, 2011 02:41 PM (PLvLS)
No. If Cain were a Democrat, we wouldn't even have heard about it yet.
Posted by: antisocialist at November 03, 2011 12:29 PM (DMvUp)
Palin? What are you talking about? Why bring up Palin? Most of the ugly Palin fans are just trolling democrats who can't stand Palin, but want to make her supporters look ridiculous. I'm a huge Palin fan, and have never had a problem getting over her not running. It's a free country.
BTW, what's up with the font? Does your VPN not support javascript?
Posted by: Dustin at November 03, 2011 12:30 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: elizabethe at November 03, 2011 12:30 PM (hCc/i)
You'll love my Which-Way-Did-They-Go-George tax reform plan.
Posted by: dog in a cowboy outfit at November 03, 2011 12:31 PM (FUozQ)
@465: "It's time for some Chevy Chase-Richard Pryor style word-association:
Cain: Bumbling
Romney: Charlatan
Bachmann: Hair
Perry: Bush
Santorum: Weird
Gingrich: Cheater
Huntsman: Who?"
At least stay with the style of the gag:
Cain: Survey-taker
Romney: Investigator
Bachman: Researcher
Perry: Studier
Santorum: Pollster!
Gingrich: Pollster Pollster!
Huntsman: DEAD Pollster!
Posted by: Zombie Richard Pryor and Zombie Chevy Chase's career at November 03, 2011 12:32 PM (xy9wk)
Did she get all of this money or did she have to share it with her lawyer?
Posted by: AmishDude at November 03, 2011 12:32 PM (T0NGe)
One of the reasons I love reading this blog is Ace's "thought process" posts on the political horse race, because he is very intellectually honest and transparent for the benefit of the reader, and the logic is usually impeccable. I think he is right on the money, as least as to me, because I really wanted Cain to be the guy. And in my years of experience doing management defense work, there are a lot of baseless charges that are simply settled because the cost of litigating them to a dismissal is too high.
The money quote for me -- "It doesn't bother me that Cain doesn't have any experience in government office. It bothers me a great deal that he doesn't have any experience in campaigning for a government office."
I would add "campaining for a national government office." E.g., Palin was a fine elected official but a few slips on the (one-sided) playing field and it was all over. We can't afford that this year.
I don't want someone as the nominee who, when I am watching an interview, will make me feel like I do when watching Tony Romo drop back to pass: TD or Pick 6?
Posted by: Harry Johnson at November 03, 2011 12:34 PM (82VpC)
@467: "Still, this is not nearly as major an issue to me as electing a president who will get spending under control. This nation has a huge spending problem, and only Newt and Perry seem to take it seriously."
No sale. The gummint spends just under $4T/yr and takes in just over $2T/yr. Any "serious" candidate would be explaining that, to survive, the government must be shrunk by 45-50% immediately. No one is saying that; no one is even remotely suggesting anything approaching that. There is no serious candidate on this issue.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at November 03, 2011 12:35 PM (xy9wk)
So Ace, you're willing to parse the difference b/t Cain stating that he never sexually harassed anyone and never having had sex with anyone; but not willing to parse the exceedingly circumspect language in Politico's fact-free reporting of the scandal. That is, you'll criticize Cain's imperfect/incomplete denial; but you won't criticize the leftists' baseless allegations.
For example, the fact that Politico's original story stated, with no explicit causative link, that the NRA accuser alleged sexual harassment and also left the company under an agreement that paid her a separation amount and also required signature of a non-disclosure. From this, you (and every other conservative blog) has leapt to conclude that the harassment charge precipitated the departure when in fact the story did not say such a thing.
But, the important thing to note is that Herman Cain, in response to unsubstantiated allegations from 15 years ago, denied sexual harassment which, in your mind, is not inclusive of actual sexual intercourse. Gotcha.
Posted by: mjhlaw at November 03, 2011 12:36 PM (YQ4mh)
Posted by: Osama bin Truck Monkey, TEArrorist Son of a Bitch at November 03, 2011 12:39 PM (jucos)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 12:42 PM (nj1bB)
perspective on GA primary 2004 - Isakson had been active in actually working since the late 1970s to make GA republican after centuries of demo control. he had a LOT of chits to turn and did. That fact that Herman Cain, who almost no one knew, got more than 5% was astounding. In fact he got 26% percent (Mac Collins got 21% and was a very popular several term us rep)
Cain also only campaigned for about 4 or 5 months
I've been involved in GA politics for 20+ years - trust me, the Isakson camp was shitting itself election night. They were truly worried about a runoff.
[in GA you have to get a majority and not a pluarity]
Posted by: Heartless Nora in Georgia at November 03, 2011 12:42 PM (VxqUc)
Posted by: John Galt at November 03, 2011 12:43 PM (9NQ6I)
Posted by: Heartless Nora in Georgia at November 03, 2011 12:44 PM (VxqUc)
With this blogs support of Mike Castle, Rick Perry, and countless other RINOs, with this blog ignoring major news stories just to torpedo a conservative Republican candidate....
Maybe their is a reason you haven't won a blogging award in 4 years.
Fuck you, Ace. Fuck you in your RINO-Loving sphincter. This site is going on site-blocker.
I'm out.
Posted by: Lefty Premise at November 03, 2011 12:45 PM (dgF1P)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 04:42 PM (nj1bB)
Danegeld tends to occur in clusters. Once it gets around that it's possible to extract a chunk of money over nothing, it becomes a popular option -- until anyone who has that sort of mindset is gone.
Posted by: cthulhu at November 03, 2011 12:48 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: rows d at November 03, 2011 12:52 PM (huxh9)
Posted by: jwpaine at November 03, 2011 12:55 PM (FUozQ)
(a) I hate hate hate hate hate the media and if they tell me the sky is blue, I'll accuse them of painting it. Politico's original story was filled with anonymous sources on top of anonymous sources on top of vague accusations. As with Palin, I will defend Republicans against the sleazy media even if I don't think they should be in office.
(b) When it comes to sexual harassment, it's a matter of being in the eye of the beholder and if I don't get specific allegations, I take an innocent-until-proven-guilty approach and assume that it's just the accuser deciding to get offended.
(c) I don't support Cain because he could not have gotten nominated even before this scandal but still I don't support this character assassination via anonymous sources and nondisclosure agreements (which have apparently been broken) and innuendo. As far as I'm concerned, he is still only guilty of having a sexual harassment complaint against him. That is a nothingburger.
(d) As to how he's handled this, I give him half-a-pass on this. After all, when did you stop beating your wife?
Posted by: AmishDude at November 03, 2011 12:55 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 04:42 PM
Actually you don't really mean that as a comparison do you? I mean, you've made it clear that you are "anti-Cain." Let say you don't like Saturns. Or maybe you are anti-foreign made cars. Would you even bother to go through all that for a car you don't like? Maybe you're doing all this to inform us so that if we go to buy a car we will know this information or whatever? Or wait, are you making all this effort so we won't buy the car? Or so that we will buy the car you like instead? Hmmm....
Posted by: Deanna at November 03, 2011 12:56 PM (Rzxm+)
Posted by: Sgt. York at November 03, 2011 12:57 PM (9AsIi)
Year's severance isn't at all that unheard of in the corporate world. Sure, it's a lot less likely for someone making $45k than for someone in a corner office with a guaranteed payout, but not impossible.
Posted by: matt at November 03, 2011 01:00 PM (2WDMC)
That isn't a relevant fact. Suppose their complaint consisted of "he called me `honey' once".
Well, it would still be true that he was accused but any reasonable person would consider that a frivolous complaint.
Also, the relevant cost here is not what the complainants got but what it would cost for the NRA to defend itself (and in context here, the 90s). I think it's telling that it was so small. Paula Jones went for much more.
You see, if you believe that the legal profession is not a hive of scum and villainy that practices extortion under cover of law, then your view would be different from reality.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 03, 2011 01:03 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 03, 2011 01:08 PM (r4wIV)
Nobody is doing that. We're comparing what is being DONE to him to what was done to Clarence Thomas.
Is this really just that they are black guys? Really? I mean, come on.
If that's the first thing you see, then so be it.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 01:10 PM (oKLTg)
Has anyone ever seen anything like that before...
In the Republican primaries?
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 03:35 PM (rJVPU)
For some reason, that feels very much like the phenomena called Matrixing.
Posted by: grognard at November 03, 2011 01:10 PM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: tasker at November 03, 2011 01:29 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 01:31 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at November 03, 2011 01:31 PM (6IV8T)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 01:33 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 01:33 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 01:34 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at November 03, 2011 01:36 PM (J4B6X)
Posted by: Evan3457 at November 03, 2011 01:39 PM (J4B6X)
Posted by: ace at November 03, 2011 01:42 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 03, 2011 01:43 PM (PYxvn)
Posted by: steevy at November 03, 2011 01:44 PM (fyOgS)
From HA:
Whatever he did mustÂ’ve been really awful, if nobody can even bring themselves to describe it.
-- Jim Treacher
Posted by: cthulhu at November 03, 2011 02:07 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: norrin radd at November 03, 2011 02:09 PM (O0TOM)
Posted by: Huggy at November 03, 2011 02:13 PM (3ow/4)
What about media bias is spin? It's observable.
It neither excuses nor negates anything someone has actually said or done, but there is no reason in 2011 to give these guys any benefit of the doubt about being fair or seeking truth. They interjected themselves into the game as players, and to pretend that they're impartial referees doesn't wash.
Posted by: cthulhu at November 03, 2011 02:15 PM (kaalw)
Posted by: zoomwsu at November 03, 2011 03:07 PM (Papdd)
9-9-9 (now 9-0-9) might be a good economic plan, but it isn't what America needs most. The USA needs a leader to articulate and promote the IDEALS that have worked in the past and can work again in order to LEAD the country into better times.
I'm not impressed with Herman Cain's intellect. It's not that he's stupid. Obviously, he's a smart guy. But it's the way in which he is smart that concerns me. Seems better suited to running a chain of car dealerships than leading the free world. His success in the jobs he has held in the private sector will NOT translate into someone who understands let alone is capable of implementing the key structural changes that America needs. This idea that "Gee, Herman made money for Pillsbury, so he can make America prosperous again" is bordering on retarded. The kind of mind that Romney has demonstrated with Bain (and the olympics) comes closer to the type of intellect required. However, Romney is lacking in so many ways (like being coreless), that his intellect wouldn't serve us well.
Of the candidates, I believe Gingrich has the best combination of abilities and vision. Far from perfect, but at least the man has CURRENT ideas, realizes what the challenges are, can articulate them, and has extensive government experience. I honestly believe he'd make a fine president.
When I read the blogs and articles/comments on the net, it depresses me. Very few are focused on the core issues. So much nonsense. People just can't seem to help themselves. There is just so much discussion about unimportant things, yet the very few, precious, important subjects - nobody addresses. Knock her all you want, but at least Sarah Palin has written and spoken about the core issues. And Newt is the only one in the "debates" (as if) who stands up for conservatism and the principles of liberty/individualism. I don't care about his wife, cheating, cancer, etc. Haven't we had enough of that People magazine garbage?
There is no perfect candidate. Not even close. I just want what's best for America (not necessarily myself). Liberalism/socialism is the problem. We need to attack it. Hard.
Posted by: mike bell at November 03, 2011 03:16 PM (Kz6PE)
Cain - unknown, inexperienced ; "outsider", black.
Paul - radical ideas on domestic (e.g. End the Fed - which I support but could be too much for most voters). Scary on foreign policy.
Gingrich - some baggage, not very likeable, extremely knowledgeable and articulate.
Perry - Texan (Bush factor), sleaze factor, sounds dumb.
So it basically boils down to ...Cain or Newt as the anti-Romney.
I think Newt is about to start a serious climb in the polls.
Posted by: mike bell at November 03, 2011 03:27 PM (Kz6PE)
Posted by: Android eBook Download at November 03, 2011 04:23 PM (O7tie)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 03, 2011 04:23 PM (3GtyG)
Posted by: Download audiobook unabridged at November 03, 2011 04:42 PM (O7tie)
Posted by: Download eBook for Tablets at November 03, 2011 05:01 PM (EHpNf)
Posted by: The Garner Files ePub at November 03, 2011 06:37 PM (SfO00)
Posted by: Angela at November 04, 2011 05:29 AM (ZWRkT)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2582 seconds, 673 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 03, 2011 10:39 AM (HvPlb)