October 31, 2011
— Ace Says he was accused, but falsely so; claims turned out to be "totally baseless."
Says he doesn't know about a settlement, but seems to allow the Restaurant Association might have settled (without his knowledge? apparently that's what he's saying).
Here's a big question: "Are we going to hear about other allegations in the future?"
He says, "Absolutely not." But immediately says: "If more allegations come, people will [sic] simply make them up."
I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more.
I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here.
"When will see more of your wife?" He says it was a "conscious decision" to not have his family campaign for him. In particular, his wife "represents that calm and tranquility I like to see when I get home."
Posted by: Ace at
07:23 AM
| Comments (387)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 07:26 AM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 07:27 AM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: Herman Cain - Ladies Man at October 31, 2011 07:27 AM (pLTLS)
-Stop Panicking, I find it rather unlikely he will make it all the way through the nomination process and win. He doesn't have money, organization, is extremely gaffe prone, and as we are finding out has not even had anyone poked his history yet.
-Cain being in the race at least lessens the disillusionment conservatives have with the Republican establishment (if Romney does end up winning). The quicker you try and sweep Cain under the rug the more they feel ignored and voiceless. Cain running may be messy but smothering conservatives last hope and pushing a Rino candidate is a crisis. (especially so soon after McCain disaster)
-Bush was a social conservative only, a neo-conservative on military and a huge free trader but totally not a fiscal conservative. So the Rino and Conservative base plausibly blame each other for his apostasies and failures. Cain might win the nomination and lose the general. So did McCain but conservatives still showed up to vote for him. The establishment risks permanently fracturing the relationship by refusing to even think of returning the support. People outside the big money Coasts and beltway know that's how a healthy relationship works. Sometimes you take one for the team... because sometimes the team takes one for you.
-Note to everyone if you don't show up two elections in a row you are no longer considered a voice in the Party.
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 07:28 AM (I9fXA)
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 07:29 AM (I9fXA)
Posted by: tsj017 at October 31, 2011 07:29 AM (4YUWF)
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 07:30 AM (5eVSI)
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of Curious at October 31, 2011 07:31 AM (yAor6)
C'mon. Second look at me, now?
Posted by: Newt Gingrich at October 31, 2011 07:32 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 31, 2011 07:32 AM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at October 31, 2011 07:32 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Insomniac at October 31, 2011 07:33 AM (DrWcr)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 07:34 AM (aDFMZ)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:34 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Concerned Conservative on the Fence at October 31, 2011 07:34 AM (/E3ql)
What's the point of our story?
There is no point. It's just a handful of shit we threw against the wall.
Posted by: Poshitico at October 31, 2011 07:34 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Dr Spank at October 31, 2011 07:34 AM (Sh42X)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 07:35 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Newt Gingrich at October 31, 2011 07:35 AM (usXZy)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 11:34 AM (aDFMZ)
That isn't how it works in the corporate world though. My wife's co-worker went through this, when a subordinate accused him of racism (unfounded). He never learned what the settlement was.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 07:36 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:36 AM (rJVPU)
He probably told them that their outfits made their ass look big.
Posted by: jwb7605 at October 31, 2011 07:36 AM (Qxe/p)
I am on the Newt Train. Bandwagon. Horse. ok, we're walking uphill in a snowstorm. Nevertheless, I can't stand the never ending MFM sect of the democratic party. And the PC bull that goes on, anyone can be offended by anything, so what? Anyone can be accused or sued for nothing? F them.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 07:36 AM (JYheX)
Of course we will. What surprised me was idiot on Fox admitted they "broke" the Bush DUI story in the "waning days" of the Bush-Gore campaign.
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 07:36 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:37 AM (rJVPU)
I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more.
I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here.
Ace, I understand that this is a story that has to be discussed, but I don't think mentioning things you've heard but that aren't publishable is beneficial in any way. All it does is add grist to the rumor mill.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 07:37 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:37 AM (k1rwm)
Herman Cain. Wrong for Women. Wrong for America
Posted by: Paid for by Romney for President at October 31, 2011 07:37 AM (40Wzt)
He was CEO.
Yeah, I'm not buying it.
I believe he thinks he did not sexually harass them. You know what? That's not unusual. The whole point is that a lot of bosses think they can get away with shit that is against HR policy.
I think that Cain must have done something sufficiently improper or sloppy in how he treated these employees that it merited action by the organization to protect itself. That fits with my observation of his shoot from the hip style.
For some of you, that's no biggy. For me, I don't like this aspect of his style/personality and I definitely don't want it in a POTUS, nor do I like the glib way he tried to dismiss the story yesterday.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 07:38 AM (5H6zj)
Was he the CEO?
That's where this breaks down for me, he was the CEO of the Association, and yet is claiming they did something like make two sexual harassment settlements without his knowledge? At the very least, if a check was cut, he should know. Which means, in this specific case, lack of evidence really would be evidence of lack. That is: if he doesn't know about a check that big being cut, a check that big should not have been cut.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 07:38 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 31, 2011 07:38 AM (6IV8T)
Eh. She's pleasant looking, but nothing special.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at October 31, 2011 07:39 AM (3vSLn)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:37 AM (rJVPU)
All he knew is that it wasn't an issue anymore. The woman in question didn't lose her job either. The issue was handled completely by the legal department for his company. So whether she dropped/settled he doesn't even know.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 07:39 AM (FkKjr)
1. WTF? There is no way he can be head of the resturaunt association and not know they settled two lawsuits during his time there. He wasn't served and named as co-defendant? If he can, how did he run the place? Was he really in charge of anything?
2. This is a real problem for Cain more than most becuase he is running mostly on who he is. I agree wtih Ace, I cannot recall one overtly conservative statement made by Cain.
3. Romney has good oppo research, and will stick a knife in with a smile on his face. Ruthlessness can be a virtue if we learned anything from McCain's honorable loser campaign.
Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 07:39 AM (NCw5u)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 07:39 AM (JYheX)
He was counting on Cain to be his flak-catcher/stalking horse all the way to the Iowa primaries, suffocating the rest of the field before imploding under the weight of his own inherent impossibility. If he begins to collapse now, that lets someone else back in the door who can become the more plausible "not Romney" candidate -- most like Perry.
>>>I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more.
As Allahpundit would say: "Oh my."
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:39 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Palerider at October 31, 2011 07:40 AM (ITaIZ)
As a defendant you have a right to fight the charges-and wouldn't be up to the defendant to essentially wave that right and settle?
wth?
That goes under the assumption that the grievance was directed at HC, not at the NRA. It's much easier, in the end, to go for "hostile work environment" against a large entity than which will pay money to make things go away, than against an individual who might actually fight the thing to court.
Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at October 31, 2011 07:40 AM (BvTwT)
Posted by: concerned christian sock puppet at October 31, 2011 07:40 AM (xovnt)
Posted by: LtT26 at October 31, 2011 07:40 AM (5gsHx)
Posted by: Truman North at October 31, 2011 07:40 AM (G5JPI)
If he begins to collapse now, that lets someone else back in the door who can become the more plausible "not Romney" candidate -- most like Perry.
Romney will have the debates to help w/ that possible Perry comeback
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:41 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 07:41 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at October 31, 2011 07:41 AM (psns8)
Would you like it better if he was our nominee and the MFM did it?
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 07:41 AM (aDFMZ)
Not a very good answer from Herman. ....Damn.
I mean....that's the thing, he was the CEO at the time, right? You can't say "I knew nothing" if you're the CEO. You just can't.
Like I said in the other thread....Cain probably just told some joke, or made a joking remark. And these women decided to cash in on it.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 07:41 AM (XkwIi)
He was CEO of the Natl Restaurant Association.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 07:41 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 11:38 AM (8y9MW)
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure how legal departments procure funds for settlements.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (FkKjr)
__________
Apparently rights weren't the only thing he was waving.
Posted by: Anachronda at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (IrbU4)
If Cain and Romney aren't 1-2 in either order in Iowa based on their current standing, they have both screwed up. If Perry invents a top 2 finish in Iowa, he will win the nomination.
According to the Cain and Romney fans, Perry is dead. So if the top 2 can't close the deal, oh well, new race for all.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (40Wzt)
It is, but it is not common for the CEO to be unaware of how that played out- at least in general terms. What he said was that he's unaware of if the Association made a settlement. That might fly if he was some middle-manager, or even some Jr. VP somewhere. It doesn't work for the CEO.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (8y9MW)
settlement doesn't equal guilty.
Often times its less costly to give the person money rather than pay lawyers in a protracted trial.
That said, if this is the first of many charges, I'm guessing he won't last much longer.
It seems that Cainiacs can overlook quite a bit, but a long record of sexual harrassment isn't one of them.
Maybe this is why Karl Rove and others have been comepletely dismissive of the Cain campaign. This might have been common knowledge and they simply didn't want to be the first people to drop the info.
Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (TMB3S)
Is there something wrong about liking the ladies now???
This is such bullshit. If he attacked a woman.. or even attempted rape.. well, that would be one thing.. But being "sexually suggestive"? WTF?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 07:43 AM (f9c2L)
For some of you, that's no biggy. For me, I don't like this aspect of his style/personality and I definitely don't want it in a POTUS, nor do I like the glib way he tried to dismiss the story yesterday.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 11:38 AM
I'm right there with ya, sweetie!
Posted by: Barry Obama at October 31, 2011 07:43 AM (fecOD)
That's why part of me wonders if this was leaked by Perry. If I were Romney I'd rather leak this shortly before a critical primary in order to (a) drive down Cain's numbers and (b) keep those voters from fleeing to another candidate. Leaking now gives them time to find someone else.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at October 31, 2011 07:43 AM (JxMoP)
A statement made in closing that impugns Cain's character even further with no evidence.... How very Kos-like.
Posted by: Jazz at October 31, 2011 07:43 AM (syGwn)
_________
I hear Cain is long and numerous like a horse.
Posted by: Anachronda at October 31, 2011 07:43 AM (IrbU4)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 11:41 AM (aDFMZ)
The MFM is doing it. Politico ain't exactly the National Review.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 07:44 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:44 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:44 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 07:44 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 07:44 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 11:44 AM (k1rwm)
seriously things were better when you were gone, go back to occupy wallstreet
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:45 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: The MBM at October 31, 2011 07:45 AM (Y+DPZ)
IÂ’ve been looking everywhere for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing.Thx
Discount Smears Cheap Dirty Tricks Rumors wholesale
Posted by: Joe Merkin at October 31, 2011 07:45 AM (sqkOB)
Why would they, when they could drop the bomb on him after the nomination and throw the election? Nope, this isn't them, for once.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 07:46 AM (aDFMZ)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:46 AM (k1rwm)
settlement doesn't equal guilty.
One settlement, no. 2, 3, 4, 5? At some point it starts to look that way.
Besides that, after being asked about it his respone was something like "what if you were accused of sexual harrassment" That is kind of an elementary school answer that didn't really work then.
Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 07:46 AM (NCw5u)
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:46 AM (yAor6)
The people who are now muttering about how Romney must be responsible are missing several obvious things in front of their faces: first these allegations were so well-known "off the record" that EVEN ACE KNEW MONTHS AGO before they broke. What does that tell you? Was Romney seriously shopping oppo research on a candidate polling at 4% months ago? Of course not. Secondly, if this came from a GOP candidate then Romney is the least likely source, because he had every reason to want to keep Cain propped up as his "rival" all the way to the end, as opposed to some more credible candidate. He has the most to lose of anyone in the race by a Cain collapse right now, as opposed to during/after the voting. This opens the door for Perry, or maybe Santorum or Bachmann.
If you must look to possible sources of these allegations (and we discussed this in the ONT thread last night, where we concluded that it honestly wouldn't have had to come from anyone in the race), then those three campaign teams are by far the most likely answer. They have motive and something to gain, unlike Romney.
But yes, I know, Romney is a supervillain, and does stuff like this just because he loves being a bastard, even when it directly harms his own interests. He's just so evil like that.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:46 AM (hIWe1)
I think, in the long run, all this story will do is convince people who weren't sure if they were going to vote for Cain that they won't vote for him. Or that they will. People who were already leaning toward voting for Cain will see these allegations as a mere media smear campaign ala Clarence Thomas. People who were already leaning away from Cain will see this as yet more proof that he's not President material.
In other words, I don't see this being a huge hit piece. Unless someone comes forward, out of the "anonymous" veil, and details some of the specifics of what happened, then it will fade. People will remain uneasy -- I don't like it, and I'm largely a Cain fan -- but until I have something more than a settlement and some unsubstantiated allegations, I'm not going to damn his hide. Not when I know how vicious, malignant, and undiscerning the media are when it comes to defaming anyone who dares to identify themself as a Republican, conservative, and/or a Tea Party supporter.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 07:46 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: doug at October 31, 2011 07:47 AM (gUGI6)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 11:46 AM (aDFMZ)
Um, Politico printed the article. So obviously they want to do it now.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 07:47 AM (FkKjr)
>>He was counting on Cain to be his flak-catcher/stalking horse all the way to the Iowa primaries, suffocating the rest of the field before imploding under the weight of his own inherent impossibility. If he begins to collapse now, that lets someone else back in the door who can become the more plausible "not Romney" candidate -- most like Perry.
No way. This is Romney all the way. He's going for broke. He thinks he can win Iowa and have this thing wrapped up in the first two weeks.
If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire then he'll probably sale to victory in Florida and Nevada as well.
I think Romney is switching strategies. Originally he wanted a three man race where Perry and ???(Cain, Bachmann, etc) siphoned votes off each other. Similar to what Romney and Huckabee did in 2008.
Now I think Romney sees an opening to win this quickly and be done with it.
This was definitely leaked by Romney
Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2011 07:47 AM (wuv1c)
This didn't come up during his Senate campaign, did it?
Posted by: dick cheese at October 31, 2011 07:47 AM (IfkGz)
Posted by: fused at October 31, 2011 07:47 AM (P34gz)
Since the SEIU heavily populates the Restaurant Industry as a whole......I don't think that we should rule out the possibility that some SEIU lawyer knew about this and was the one who leaked this.
The Left would love to see Herman Cain go down in flames over something like this. It's a two-fer. ....They can sit back and declare that Republicans are 'racist' for either....a) standing by Cain and defending him through this....or b) throwing him under the bus for this.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (XkwIi)
I agree. Unless there's more. We'll see if what ace has heard has panned out. These things usually turn into a floodgate.
Ex. A -- Weiner.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (jx2j9)
The problem here isn't his guilt or innocence (which is where Cain is messing this up) its in his BS story that he's unaware of what happened.
As the CEO it simply seems incongruous (or even dishonest) to say that he would not know if the Association did something regarding the accusations: especially if he also says that the claims "turned out to be baseless." That would mean there was some kind of investigation. As CEO, he would have been kept informed of what was going on- even if he, personally, had to be 'hands off' regarding the handling. He still would have been kept in the loop.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (8y9MW)
I wouldn't say a lot of bosses "think" they can get away with this shit in corporate America. I have seen an executive vice-president get fired for inappropriate comments. In any large company that has a "legal" department and an HR group you can bet that people have been educated to death on this issue. Mostly to provide legal defense in case of a stupid suit.
That is the "real" purpose of stupid "diversity" programs and classes.
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Jazz
........
and you deserved that, Ace.
Everyone likes to have some insider info that they love to tease people with.. but you should be more careful with this kinda crap.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (f9c2L)
It ain't Perry for sure. Perry already embarrassed a Rove backed candidate in KBH last time around. Rove hates the Tea Party.
Wonder if he's been chillin in Mass. lately?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (40Wzt)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (nj1bB)
Corporate Counsels often, even on the executive level, make setttlements without the knowledge of the accused. Especially since in the 90s every pyscho, Hillary-empowered, abortion-loving, not so bright, "administrative assistant" saw a way out of her crap job.
#justsaying
Posted by: Nora at October 31, 2011 07:49 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:49 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Michele Bachmann at October 31, 2011 07:49 AM (Sh42X)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 07:49 AM (nj1bB)
The problem with that is all those are "proportional" primaries and will settle nothing delegate-wise.
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 07:50 AM (YdQQY)
Um, remember how CBS ran stories on Bush's NG service before fully vetting them, because they were afraid they would lose them to the NYT?
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 07:50 AM (aDFMZ)
Posted by: jeremiadbullfrog at October 31, 2011 07:50 AM (Y5I9o)
When you are that high in the hierarchy- the attorneys have a fundamental duty to keep you informed.
And to send a letter for Cain's records.
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:44 AM (rJVPU)
And any Plaintiff's attorney worth his contingent fee will add the CEO as a co-defendant. More pockets, more money. There's no reason not to.
Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 07:50 AM (NCw5u)
-MWR
Thread Winner
Posted by: Truman North at October 31, 2011 07:50 AM (G5JPI)
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 07:50 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 07:51 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 07:51 AM (gvW6C)
Word on the street is that he just cut a hole into a pizza box before delivering it to co-workers if you get my drift.
Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2011 07:52 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 11:48 AM (f9c2L)
That hurts Chi-Town Jerry more than it hurts you Ace...now fix yourself up and go make him a pot pie.
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 07:52 AM (5eVSI)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 07:52 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Eric Holder at October 31, 2011 07:52 AM (VndSC)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 07:52 AM (3GtyG)
And you wonder why, after a fantastic 1946 election season, the Republicans shit the bed in 1948 and gave it all back.
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 31, 2011 07:52 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 07:52 AM (0q2P7)
A settlement means nothing, but the press will make it seem like an admission of guilt. For many years, I had to approve settlements of this kind of claim (no, not against myself). When you are faced with complaints where the plaintiff is either financed by the government or by some contingency fee lawyer, you very quickly decide that paying 5K or 10K to get rid of the silliness is a whole lot better than spending 50K or 100K to defend. It is a form of extortion.
Posted by: JeffM at October 31, 2011 07:53 AM (zD0RO)
No one swore me to secrecy or anything. (Although I didn't peddle it around or mention it to anyone.)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 11:51 AM (nj1bB)
That makes sense cause the cain spokesperson in the geraldo "interview" alluded to the european media passing on this so that sort of alludes to the fact that someone was "shopping" the story.
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:53 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 07:53 AM (gvW6C)
Bill Clinton is plausibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick. No Big Deal.
Ted Kennedy got drunk and killed his secretary. No big deal.
Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd sexually assaulted a DC waitress. No Big Deal.
The Obama White House is documented by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist of being a hostile work environment for women. No Big Deal.
John Edwards knocks up a "campaign aide" and the media cover it up for almost two years.
Al Gore sexually harasses a massage therapist. Once again, no big deal.
I guess sexual harassment is only a problem when a black conservative is accused of it anonymously.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at October 31, 2011 07:53 AM (PLvLS)
The Left would love to see Herman Cain go down in flames over something like this. It's a two-fer. ....They can sit back and declare that Republicans are 'racist' for either....a) standing by Cain and defending him through this....or b) throwing him under the bus for this.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter..............
Cain was instrumental in keeping minimum wage low in the nineties.. yeah.. he's got lots of enemies in the unions.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 07:53 AM (f9c2L)
I'm going with Perry. One of his guys was apparently bragging on twitter they had some oppo on Cain that would take him out.
I didn't get a chance to follow up on this. I think the tweet was from RS McCain
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 07:54 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Dr Spank at October 31, 2011 07:54 AM (Sh42X)
It ain't Perry for sure. Perry already embarrassed a Rove backed candidate in KBH last time around. Rove hates the Tea Party.
Wonder if he's been chillin in Mass. lately?
It's not Mitt, he thinks Mormons are quacks.
Really, I've heard him say it.
Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at October 31, 2011 07:54 AM (vSiVD)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:54 AM (rJVPU)
Who made up that rule? As far as my experience goes, the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Churches of Christ) is about the most conservative/fundamentalist denomination in existence, and it's sort of a joke that one of the requirements for being a youth minister is using chewing tobacco.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 07:55 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: WalrusRex at October 31, 2011 07:55 AM (Hx5uv)
I was actually of the opinion all this was BS, but after hearing what he said about it, now I'm not so sure. That stuff Cain spouted sounded an awful lot like, "well, yeah, they accused me of it, but they couldn't prove a damn thing," which is not at all the same thing as "I never, ever did anything inappropriate." (shrug)
I wasn't going to vote for him anyway (not since Racist Rock made his campaign debut), so it's not like this cost him my vote.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 31, 2011 07:55 AM (haFNK)
Follow the Dem model and go after the bitches. White males with actual testicles will empathize--we're fucking tired of this menstrual horseshit. Go direct to the peeps.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at October 31, 2011 07:55 AM (1cUr7)
I guess sexual harassment is only a problem when a black conservative is accused of it anonymously.
To be fair, I raped a lot of women.
Posted by: Bill Clinton at October 31, 2011 07:55 AM (5eVSI)
McCain went from being totally in the tank for Palin to being totally in the tank for Cain when Sarah crapped on him by not running. Not saying he's full of feces, but I have always regarded RS McCain of running with the wind in search of donations to keep his site running.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:56 AM (40Wzt)
Ace,
Look at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, they have a story that a fake company owned by his manager and co manager funneled large amounts of money and in kind support to Cain's campaign in direct violation of the law
Cain said he was totally unaware of it - again not knowing as a CEO your main source of funding?
He's done
Posted by: EricPWJohnson at October 31, 2011 07:56 AM (NJbN7)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 07:56 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Herman Cain at October 31, 2011 07:56 AM (usXZy)
Romny would have waited til just before a primary, as someone mentioned above.
Libtard opposition like unions would have held on to this as long as they could, just in case Cain got the nomination. It would make a perfect "October surprise".
The only one it helps right now is Perry. But, until there is some proof of that, we really shouldn't cast aspersions on anyone!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 07:56 AM (f9c2L)
During the Clarence Thomas problem, I happened to be talking to a very liberal woman, who was also a rape survivor. She was pretty certain Thomas had done it, which was, as she put it, "He talked dirty at the office. Big deal."
Used to be in the insurance business and the employee practices liability companies would say that you need this because any negative personnel action regarding a woman will bring a sexual harassment lawsuit. Count on it. Might have been exaggerating for sales purposes, but the likelihood can't be dismissed. So, as I think I heard Ann Coulter saying, this either is or was--not sure if she had details or was speculating--a more or less innocent comment that, with sufficient determination, could be taken the wrong way. We're not talking about groping. Unless we are, in which case, this is very different. Sort of like Katherine Willey, when it really didn't matter, iirc.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 31, 2011 07:57 AM (k7pZj)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:57 AM (rJVPU)
Real sexual harassment is of course disgusting. But the libs have done for SH what they have done for racism. They have assured it means nothing anymore. These accusations mean nothing for me, but probably do to the uninformed. Every hetero man and probably homo man has said something at sometime to fit the new lib definition.
Its not like Cain is the Duke lacrosse team....oh wait...
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 07:57 AM (JYheX)
Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 07:57 AM (gvW6C)
I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more. I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here. -- Ace
Unnamed source(s) couldn't be Carl Cameron?
Posted by: Dollar Value at October 31, 2011 07:57 AM (lpWVn)
So one scenario is that the women filed complaints (Cain admits this), they were investigated through channels, they were presented with their options by the company (which, in my experience, does its best to represent the situation in a way that discourages the woman from pursuing the allegations further), and also told that if they chose to leave the firm, they'd receive a severance. That severance might not be legally tied up to the case and be a "settlement" per se. So in the women might tell reporters they received a settlement, but that was not technically true.
The other possibility is there was a settlement, but the process was mishandled and somehow Cain, the CEO of the Association and presumably also an ex-officio (at least) member of their Board, was not made aware of it. That does not bode well for how the organization he headed was run.
The third possibility is that Cain was informed, including being told he could not disclose (hence his vagueness now), and he's being deceptive (lying) about not knowing there was a settlement.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (5H6zj)
>>>No one swore me to secrecy or anything. (Although I didn't peddle it around or mention it to anyone.)
Exactly. This is why Ben's fervid conviction that "of course it was Romney it had to be Romney god I hate Romney so fucking much he's such a weasel" is...pretty comical. It's sort of like the old saying about cockroaches: if you see one in your kitchen, that means there are probably a hundred more in there, out of sight. Similarly, if ACE of all people heard about this months ago, then there really is absolutely no possible way the MSM hadn't heard about it either. Ace isn't exactly Lee Atwater in terms of deep-cover political insiders, now is he.
Again: this could have come from anyone, could have been the MSM doing their own work Rubio-style, could have been some Dem oppo, who knows. But leaping to the assumption that Romney was the guy responsible is merely a reflection of your own reflexive "I hate Romney and ascribe all evils to him, much like Satan of whom I heard he and his ilk think is the brother of Jesus" mentality. His team is, if anything, the LEAST likely source of this given how much they have to lose by Cain collapsing in early November as opposed to, say, January.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (hIWe1)
Along with 6000 other things they notify a CEO of. And this one was a "Don't worry about it, it's handled" item.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: EricPWJohnson at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (NJbN7)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (3GtyG)
I have no idea - haven't looked into it.
Just putting it out there as it was another possibility floating around the interwebz.
Because I'm a paid shill for Perry. Yeah that makes a whole helluvalotta sense.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (pLTLS)
At the end of the process Corporate Counsels would notify you.
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:54 AM (rJVPU)
Yeah, at least in my company, I make recommendations to the CFO and board, but I can't approve anything like that. Maybe its different, a company to company policy, but I don't see a settlement at least not discussed before the board.
Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (NCw5u)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:54 AM (rJVPU) "
Not very often. Once it's in the corporate counsel office than it's in the corporate office and the discretion of the the corporate counsel.
do you know how many bogus suits / complaints like this are filed and the targets never even know what is going on because the suits turn out to be nothing but time wasters for the falsely accused and the complainer cashing a pick six?
Posted by: Nora at October 31, 2011 07:58 AM (VxqUc)
Bill Clinton is plausibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick. No Big Deal.
Ted Kennedy got drunk and killed his secretary. No big deal.
Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd sexually assaulted a DC waitress. No Big Deal.
The Obama White House is documented by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist of being a hostile work environment for women. No Big Deal.
John Edwards knocks up a "campaign aide" and the media cover it up for almost two years.
Al Gore sexually harasses a massage therapist. Once again, no big deal.
I guess sexual harassment is only a problem when a black conservative is accused of it anonymously.
No, that's not true. It's a big deal when white conservatives are accused as well. They hate all conservatives regardless of color.
Posted by: WalrusRex at October 31, 2011 07:59 AM (Hx5uv)
This should be a two-man race between Romney &.....
Gingrich
I'm sick of hearing about Newt's personal dalliances in the past. I'm sick of hearing about some stupid inconsequential commerical he made several years ago. I'm sick of hearing about a single verbal gaffe about right-wing social engineering. DAMN are we picky. Because of all that nonsense we casually discard the fact that this brilliant man has for over thirty years worked his ass off to be one of the most well studied (if not THE most) proactive advocates of conservatism alive.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 07:59 AM (b68Df)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:54 AM (rJVPU)
But, see, we're assuming Cain read all the correspondence he received. I hate to say it, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't, and his administrative assistants just filed the letter away in the appropriate drawer when it came in. If that's the case I'd actually see that as a bigger knock against him than an otherwise unsubstantiated harassment claim (or two, or five, or ten), since I want to know my President is actually going to READ things that come across his desk and not just robo-sign his name on the line like the current SCOAMF.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 08:00 AM (4df7R)
119 ....Regarding blaming it on Perry or Romney...
I heard about this a month ago or more. Why is it hard to believe that the media could just have heard, too?
Ace, do we know yet what these two women did at the National Restaurant Assn?....As in, what were their jobs?
If they were members of the SEIU, then chances are they had SEIU lawyers handling their claims.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 08:00 AM (XkwIi)
McCain went from being totally in the tank for Palin to being totally in the tank for Cain when Sarah crapped on him by not running.
he's secretly Mark Levin
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:00 AM (3XDPM)
At the end of the process Corporate Counsels would notify you.
Not necessarily as to the precise details of what happened. It is not unheard of for there to be very bland "This matter has been concluded" letters sent to the person accused without any hint as to how the matter was concluded. I saw someone on twitter making comments that a NDA wouldn't stop the association from confirming/denying payments and I actually laughed out loud. I think every one of the NDAs I've seen has clauses that include confirmation/denial of payment as a default term under the NDA.
Posted by: alexthechick at October 31, 2011 08:00 AM (VtjlW)
UNLESS there are additional unsourced rumors of "many more".
That turns it into real investigative reporting.
Posted by: jwb7605 at October 31, 2011 08:01 AM (Qxe/p)
Lucky you. I do this and take grief from borderline socialists (Mittens Fans) for free.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:01 AM (40Wzt)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 11:43 AM (f9c2L)
or even had consentual sex. but a suggestive sexual act? sigh
Posted by: willow at October 31, 2011 08:02 AM (h+qn8)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:57 AM (rJVPU)
No fucking way that he does not know that there was a settlement. He might not have known prior to the settlement agreement but he knew soon afterward.
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at October 31, 2011 08:02 AM (mFxQX)
And I see the whole discussion of "who this benefits" as being absolutely stupid (FTR- I don't see any Republican candidate doing this, though someone lower-level in a campaign may have. "Won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest?")
That's the only way the MFM get's their "two-fer." If we just accept this as a scandal with which (rightly or wrongly) Cain has to deal, then they're stuck with a mediocre smear-job that's being made worse by Cain's seeming obfuscation.
If we engage in "who does this benefit?" Then they get the added bonus of us tearing each other up over something that would have come out eventually anyway- either now or in the general- or wouldn't have mattered one way or the other (if he never made it to the general).
It does make some sense for Perry's campaign to have leaked this- but it does for Romney's, too (if they see Perry as fatally wounded, and don't want to take the chance that Cain will over-perform, for instance). Mostly it makes sense for Politico, however- they get to smear on Conservative candidate, and (by extension) the other front-runners as well (because who wouldn't be disgusted if they found out their candidate had deliberately shopped around this kind of smear-job?)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 08:02 AM (8y9MW)
Maybe Cain said something maybe he didn't. I don't give a shit. What I give a shit about is the fucking MBM acting as an extension of the Obama campaign.
Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 08:02 AM (mka2b)
Posted by: jeremiadbullfrog at October 31, 2011 08:02 AM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: A Liberal AoS Reader, Really! at October 31, 2011 08:03 AM (qMf43)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:03 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 08:03 AM (Qjh0I)
Heaven knows we don't need more fodder to rip each other to shreds. We do it on a daily basis anyway.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 08:03 AM (4df7R)
I describe it as "glib" when a candidate for POTUS who when directly asked about these allegations avoided a direct answer and instead asked "Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?" and then (paraphrase) 'you can't prove it' in the hopes that the story would go away... only to find out the next day that he was aware there were allegations serious enough to warrant investigation.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 08:03 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Jon Alter at October 31, 2011 08:04 AM (mka2b)
He basically endorsed man made global warming with Nancy Pelosi, who was at that time third in line for the Presidency.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:04 AM (40Wzt)
There is very little "SUBSTANCE" to the story so it
1. Accusations were made.
2. They were never proven.
3. A settlement (Not by HC) was made.
Knowing what little can make the above happen makes it a big meh until I have more details.
Who does the story benefit most, I agree with JeffB (Oh my God I need to flay my tongue with fire for saying that) if it was Romney it would have been January, so Perry seems the obvious choice.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 08:05 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Barbarian at October 31, 2011 08:05 AM (EL+OC)
You fool -- Mitt pays *us* ridiculous crazy blog money. I've been able to quit my job and live off the money I make pushing Romney in the comments of this one blog alone.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:05 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 08:05 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Bret Baier at October 31, 2011 08:05 AM (VxqUc)
134......Cain was instrumental in keeping minimum wage low in the nineties.. yeah.. he's got lots of enemies in the unions.
Chi-town....yeah, it makes sense that Cain would be for doing that. Minimum wage is a job-killer in the restaurant industry. ....Which is why I suspect that the SEIU could be the source of this story coming out.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 08:05 AM (XkwIi)
Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 31, 2011 08:05 AM (coN0Z)
Posted by: chas at October 31, 2011 08:05 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: victim#1 at October 31, 2011 08:06 AM (SH3gZ)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 08:06 AM (b68Df)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:06 AM (rJVPU)
When Cain was hired to oversee Godfather's Pizza, he cut their franchises in half in order for the company to profit. I'm not criticizing that decision here, only pointing out that Cain's decisions would turn losers against him.
Posted by: Dollar Value at October 31, 2011 08:06 AM (lpWVn)
It might be good to remember that this is not Cain's only stumble. He has made many on Foreign Policy Issues and National Security. The point is not wether he is a nice guy, but wether he is electable.
^^ This.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 31, 2011 08:06 AM (sbV1u)
hmmm, why does that story sound so familiar?
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 08:07 AM (k1rwm)
Romney trails Cain nationally. Cain has all the momentum at the moment. Another debate approaches where this issue can be used against Cain by Romney and Crazy Eye. Also, the timing of this with the campaign fund story that is breaking today can really keep Cain off his game plan, assuming he has one.
Cain could be facing a couple of hits right before a debate. It sets it up Corleone style.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:07 AM (40Wzt)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 08:07 AM (3GtyG)
"I think the tweet was from RS McCain"
McCain went from being totally in the tank for Palin to being totally in the tank for Cain when Sarah crapped on him by not running. Not saying he's full of feces, but I have always regarded RS McCain of running with the wind in search of donations to keep his site running.
In fairness to RMS, he stated in his post that the tweet from the AZ Perry staffer didn't necessarily mean that the Perry people leaked it but that they did know about the story. Ace says he had heard about it months ago so clearly others have as well.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at October 31, 2011 08:07 AM (JxMoP)
I am completely tired of letting the MFM pick our candidate. If we let this crap fester, and we have seen nothing yet (wait til next year), no matter who you support is going to lose, so you might want to start questioning the fucking media.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 08:07 AM (JYheX)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at October 31, 2011 08:07 AM (A1uUz)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 08:07 AM (pLTLS)
When he was a youth in the segregated South, Herman Cain had to ride in the BACK of the bus.
As a Presidential candidate, Herman Cain OWNS the bus, and has his smiling picture on the side of it.
Today, Herman Cain got thrown UNDER the bus.
Posted by: proudvastrightwingconspirator at October 31, 2011 08:07 AM (OwYZX)
but a suggestive sexual act? sigh
Herman Cain offered to buy me a Corndog....
he said it would be free if I would...
let him...
watch me, while...
I...
was eating it.
Posted by: Michele Bachmann at October 31, 2011 08:08 AM (5eVSI)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:08 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 08:08 AM (mka2b)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 08:08 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 08:08 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: IreneKurtzIrene at October 31, 2011 08:08 AM (JNqU9)
Posted by: sTevo at October 31, 2011 08:08 AM (q1Tbv)
How soon we forget.
Back in November 2008 a lot of people here were saying how we'd be better off if Hillary Clinton won instead of Obama.
Pinin' for Hillary. Those were the days.
Today we're already rejecting all of the potential Republican nominees.
Posted by: Soothsayer at October 31, 2011 08:09 AM (sqkOB)
Here is the "gotcha" - Cain's campaign can NOT deny that POLITICO reported what it reported. You can't go "well there aren't two women who said this thing to POLITICO." It happened. And you probably can't say with any certitude (thanks Anthony!) that there weren't women offended by Cain over something in the past. He's a blunt speaking fellow, and there are plenty of people in the world who just live to be offended. He could have said something like "hey you should be bringing me a sammich" - that would fit into what has been reported.
Hanging something out there with no details is how the game is played - let's see what he will admit to, right? He must have something in his closet. So let's pretend we know what it is.
There is NO implication here that he was "hitting" any of this. Just some vague thing about he said some stuff, and made some gestures that people did not like. Okay.
The beauty of a hit like this is that no matter what some number of people are going to believe it is true whether it is true or not. Heard a lady on the radio saying she thought it was a matter of basic integrity and judgement, how could he run for President with something like this hanging in his background. I get the feeling she won't be convinced even if there is audio tape of David Plouffe instructing the women on what to say.
And Republicans circle the firing squad not the wagons. Because there is the whole "well, what if this is true" aspect - they will bear the burden of having defended a guy who is, well, worst case here - boorish. Dems don't have to worry about it. Who paid for defending Clinton and Edwards and Kennedy and Weiner and Wu?
No one, that's who.
Posted by: blaster at October 31, 2011 08:09 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Slappy Fetchit, Steppin's Peanut Headed Little Brother at October 31, 2011 08:10 AM (jucos)
against Cain by Romney and Crazy Eye
watch for Bachmann to act like she was personally harassed by Cain and Perry in the next debate and come to Romney's defense when he's under the spotlight
as I've stated before, she's sold her soul to Mittens
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:10 AM (3XDPM)
I didn't read it that way at all. I read it as "They've screwed up the handling of this so far (and they have- AG), so you should be aware that more of this might be coming."
It's just a statement- if anything, saying that Cain's campaign needs to be more plausible in their handling of any future occurrences- or needs to say "No, it didn't happen, period." But claiming the Association of which he was the CEO made (potentially) two settlements with people who claimed he had sexually harassed them doesn't pass the smell test.
It is not unheard of for there to be very bland "This matter has been concluded" letters sent to the person accused without any hint as to how the matter was concluded.
"The person accused," true. "The CEO," not so true. He would have been responsible to the Board of Directors and the President of the Association- so he would have needed to know what was going on.
I just don't buy the idea that he wouldn't have know about settlements- which is what he said. He didn't say that he didn't know how big they were, or what the terms were. He said he was unaware that any had been made.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 08:10 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Anita Hill at October 31, 2011 08:10 AM (JKX4x)
Most of the time-as the defendant-you are part of the settlement process-aren't you?
As a defendant you have a right to fight the charges-and wouldn't be up to the defendant to essentially wave that right and settle?------ I was the defendand in a lawsuit against myself and my insurance company. I wanted to fight the lawsuit, insurance company didn't. Was never even informed after the settlement. When I called later to check on the status, was told by my lawyer that it was cheaper to settle for 25k than to take it to trial. Basicly the lady scammed my insurance out of 25k for a minor fender bender that happened years before, and was filed the last week of the statute of limitations.
Posted by: Jimmah at October 31, 2011 08:10 AM (vj51i)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 08:11 AM (k1rwm)
I genuinely laughed. Well-played.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:11 AM (hIWe1)
Yes, but he would have to know that there was a non-disclosure clause in his role as CEO, if nothing else.
So I think there is a chance that two women complained, went through channels, were encouraged to leave the company, and given severance packages... but that those severance packages were not formally part of a settlement per se. However, they could still have been required to sign letters when they left the company indicating that they would not discuss the terms of their separation. That would be the scenario under which Cain would be least likely to be aware of a 'settlement.'
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 08:11 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: IreneKurtzIrene at October 31, 2011 12:08 PM (JNqU9)
LMAO
she's a Romney supporter so who knows...
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:11 AM (3XDPM)
I said the same thing the night of the great Vaccine Hit Job. Straw and Polynikes called me crazy.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:12 AM (40Wzt)
188 " some stupid inconsequential commerical"
He basically endorsed man made global warming with Nancy Pelosi, who was at that time third in line for the Presidency.
He called for investigation and conscientious as I recall. Global warming is not as black or white issue as a lot of people consider it to be. It is possible to acknowledge that man has made some (perhaps infinitesimal) contribution to climate change without being an Al Gore hysteric.
Newt's commercial was no big deal as far as I'm concerned. He has had to sporadically do certain things to try to counteract the image of him as a mean right wing radical that Dems and the media have virtually set in stone.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 08:12 AM (b68Df)
Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 31, 2011 08:12 AM (coN0Z)
Fine, if it's Romney or Perry or the Wildeyed Scrunt or the Sanctimonious Senator who got this story traction, then I've had it with the GOP. Let the SCOAMF and his vile beast of a wife accomplish his Marxist dream.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at October 31, 2011 08:12 AM (1cUr7)
I don't think Romney would accept it even if she gave it to him for free. Seriously, could those two have LESS in common, both as candidates and as personalities?
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:12 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Jackie Chiles at October 31, 2011 08:13 AM (5eVSI)
HC wasn't the "client" he was CEO of the client, and this legal action probably got rolled up with dozens of others that the legal department took care of during the same period and was likely just a line item that likely wasn't wasn't even big enough to notice.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 08:13 AM (0q2P7)
Wonder if that mighty Republican majority in the House ever going to get around to narrowing the legal definition of sexual harassment to something clear, definitive and serious that we can all agree on, or if it's just going to sit there and let that whole nebulous "hostile work environment" standard continue forever.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 31, 2011 08:13 AM (oBrVT)
I don't care who you are, but that there is some funny shit. Legal code of ethics. Damn.
Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 08:13 AM (mka2b)
I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here.
Posted by: Ace at 11:23 AM Sounds about as concrete as Bullshitico's info.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik at October 31, 2011 08:13 AM (fYOZx)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 12:12 PM (40Wzt)
dont worry the Romneybots call even the undecideds who have defended their mancrush sometimes crazy so you're not the only one
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:13 AM (3XDPM)
This.
Posted by: jwb7605 at October 31, 2011 08:14 AM (Qxe/p)
THAT is the most likely scenario against Cain. The charges were not that he touched ladies or made inappropriate requests of them. They simply decided they were offended because they felt uncomfortable.
Not even funny, that bloggers who are sexually offensive cast the first/second...stone without producing their own sources.
Democrats and Obama in particular smear Republicans with charges of immorality. And kneejerk media responses are in order, Republicans apologetically kicking Cain in the ass in order to themselves appear above board. Pathetic pawns are not credible, no matter how self important they think themselves.
Posted by: Dollar Value at October 31, 2011 08:14 AM (lpWVn)
Its amazing (we not really) how a republicans alledged dalliances and shady aquaintences from decades ago matters so much to the mainstream media.
I find it magically deliscious.
Posted by: Bill Ayers at October 31, 2011 08:14 AM (8ieXv)
I just heard the news about Herman Cain.
I think I'm going to need another 'treatment session' with Isaac...
or maybe just a quick trip down to the OccupyWallstreet rally?
Posted by: Mac McClelland at October 31, 2011 08:14 AM (5eVSI)
Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 08:14 AM (i6RpT)
Lots of people think MMGW is bullshit. It matters to them. Many of them vote GOP.
Ask Newt if he thinks that commercial helped or hurt him.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:14 AM (40Wzt)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at October 31, 2011 08:15 AM (9eDbm)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 12:12 PM (hIWe1)
I dont think he sees her as a VP choice but he's def. using her to help spliut the anti-Romney vote, the fact she's falling for it shows me more evidence that she is in fact a flake
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:15 AM (3XDPM)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 12:12 PM (hIWe1)
I dont think he sees her as a VP choice but he's def. using her to help split the anti-Romney vote, the fact she's falling for it shows me more evidence that she is in fact a flake
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:15 AM (3XDPM)
"Physical gestures that were not overtly sexual still made the women who experienced them uncomfortable and regarded as improper in a professional situation."
Licked lips?
Rush reading this now.
Like hit job Wash Po doing on Rubio.
Posted by: dagny at October 31, 2011 08:15 AM (7enUC)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 08:15 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:16 AM (3XDPM)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 08:17 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: phonixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 08:18 AM (SH3gZ)
We're like the Borg -- we will not stop until you have all been successfully assimilated.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:18 AM (hIWe1)
Me grow up? F* amateur! If they had something on Cain they would want him to get nominated so they could use it then. A sexual harassment charge as an October surprise? Obama is too good at campaigning to be wasting bullets trying to wipe out Republican candidates prior to the primary and allowing Republicans to coalesce and unify early. Wise up.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 08:18 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: phonixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 08:18 AM (SH3gZ)
IÂ’m fairly sure that Steve Schmidt and Nichole Wallace didnÂ’t leak this.
However, those that did come from the same strain of worthless pieces of shit that they are.
Posted by: jwest at October 31, 2011 08:19 AM (qeYI9)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 08:19 AM (k1rwm)
Did I miss this speech? What was newsworthy about it? Link? Analysis?
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:19 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 31, 2011 08:20 AM (IqM9e)
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 31, 2011 12:16 PM (OWjjx)
i'd be kicked out after a day if I was a co-blogger when folks saw how i'd piss everyone off, i'd also have to be more careful w/ my grammar, spelling, and editing on here more like I am when i'm writing a manuscript.
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:20 AM (3XDPM)
Why did you return? Things were going so well.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:20 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 08:20 AM (SH3gZ)
And Romney benefitted. Cain takes the lead nationally and this story breaks about Cain.
Romney wins in both instances. Strange how things just magically happen for Mittens, isn't it?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:20 AM (40Wzt)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at October 31, 2011 08:22 AM (A1uUz)
Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 08:22 AM (SH3gZ)
Man the MFM are on fire today, they must of had a big orginizational meeting this weekend.
Another hit job on "conservative corporate interests"
Posted by: dananjcon at October 31, 2011 08:23 AM (8ieXv)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 12:19 PM (hIWe1)
it was pretty bad, Perry is right. He's a doer not a talker. It works in statewide races but national races not so much.
Posted by: phonixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 12:18 PM (SH3gZ)
+1 lol
Posted by: dagny at October 31, 2011 12:16 PM (7enUC)
we see the blackmailing, porn-linking princess who demands apologies is here
PS - and another reason I should be co-blogger - I'd give heart attacks to some of my biggest enemies on here
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:23 AM (3XDPM)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 08:23 AM (TMB3S)
My lord, I just Googled it.
My god.
No wonder there was a news blackout about it on Ace of Spades HQ. It's...unbelievable. Perry is behaving...dear lord, the only word I can think of to describe it is "fruity." "Loopy" would work too.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:23 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: J. Carville at October 31, 2011 08:23 AM (jucos)
It doesn't matter whether it's negative or positive.....
It matters that everyone is talking about herman cain today.
wonder what it is that the MSM doesn't want to talk about?
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 08:24 AM (k1rwm)
264 >>>Not everything bad that happens to your candidate is Romney's fault. Romney had no part in Perry's speech in NH last Friday. Perry did that to himself with no help from anyone.
Did I miss this speech? What was newsworthy about it? Link? Analysis?
----------
It's posted on Fox Nation, JeffB.
Perry was verry animated and goofy at a few moments during a speech at a fundraiser. ....Looked to me like he'd taken too many pain killers for his back or something.
I've been surprised that more hasn't been made of it.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 08:24 AM (XkwIi)
Chris Wallace on Fox News asks this question yesterday.
Why isn't the frontrunner from hell Mitt Romney on the Sunday talk shows Straw and Reggie? You both asked me that about Perry. Perry was there Sunday, where was Romney? Talking to Politico maybe?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:24 AM (40Wzt)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 12:20 PM (hIWe1)
+1, let's just ignore her. it's more fun having a flame war then dealing w/ "it"
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:25 AM (3XDPM)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at October 31, 2011 08:25 AM (A1uUz)
Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 31, 2011 08:26 AM (coN0Z)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:26 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Sesual Choklit at October 31, 2011 08:27 AM (idLY2)
Why isn't the frontrunner from hell Mitt Romney on the Sunday talk shows Straw and Reggie? You both asked me that about Perry. Perry was there Sunday, where was Romney? Talking to Politico maybe?
I have no idea. Romney should be on Meet The Press and other Sunday shows. I suppose because he's close to Cain for frontrunner status, he might be playing it safe for now. That's not a satisfactory answer for me however, as I expect him to submit to that kind of scrutiny. I think you'll see him on those programs fairly soon.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 08:28 AM (b68Df)
I didn't want to report this at the time because Sarah Palin is stupid.
Posted by: Ace's journalism class valedictorian at October 31, 2011 08:29 AM (NXBtA)
Excerpt (partial transcript at the link):
I love a good snarky rejoinder in political commentary as much as, if not more so, than most people. I engage in it all the time myself. But even I was set back on my heels this morning while watching Morning Joe on MSNBC. They started off by playing a rather choppily edited clip of presidential candidate Rick Perry speaking in New Hampshire. IÂ’ll be the first to admit, it was a different look at Perry than we normally see. He was cracking jokes, doing imitations of the other candidates and having a bunch of laughs. (As was the audience.) But thatÂ’s when things took a turn for the bizarre.
Joe, Willie Geist and Mika were joined by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin, as well as a remote appearance by Robert Costa of National Review. Seemingly out of nowhere, Halperin brought up the issue that Perry “suffers from back pain” which immediately resulted in the crew breaking out in a series of jokes about people who dabble in pain medication mixed with alcohol. It’s frequently a running joke on the show that Mika has had some experience with taking vodka and painkillers, so they asked her to list some of her favorites. They continued to imply – without directly stating it – that this was what was going on with Rick Perry.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 08:30 AM (5H6zj)
I have unimportant things to do, so I'm leaving on that high note.
Posted by: jwb7605 at October 31, 2011 08:30 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 12:15 PM (k1rwm)
Sweetheart...anyone ever tell you that you sound/write like a spammer?
epub books, is that you??
Posted by: dananjcon at October 31, 2011 08:30 AM (8ieXv)
. Hey!!! Stop that now!!
I am so down-twinkling the hell out of you right now
Don't make him get off his beaded seat-cover!
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 08:31 AM (5eVSI)
Posted by: Galos Gann at October 31, 2011 08:31 AM (T3KlW)
It's not very hard to figure out the reason why: he's the frontrunner. He has absolutely no reason to go and do earned media; he doesn't need to 'get his name out there' in the way he did back in 2007/2008, and at this point he only has something to lose from being grilled by Chris Wallace. He would be stupid to go on one of those shows -- it would be campaign malpractice.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:31 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 08:31 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 08:32 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Cricket at October 31, 2011 08:32 AM (DrC22)
There was no lawsuit, it was an internal claim. So, anyone talking about Cain being served with process or having to be notified of the settlement are incorrect.
A person accused of sexual harrasment or any other violation of law or policy is asked for information by the appropriate person at the corporation.. There is no further role.
Think about it. If the accused controls the response, he will look out for his interest, not the company's interest.
Once a claim is made against a CEO, either the next most senior official or the General Counsel or the Board of Directors takes over the corporate response, depending on what the charge is. Cain would be asked for information, that is all.
I do not know the exact procedure at the NRA. The lower official(s) may have certain authority to settle or they may need Board approval.
The CEO is not going to have approval of the settlement. He might be advised of a settlement, he might not, it depends on the company.
Posted by: Bob from Ohio at October 31, 2011 08:33 AM (ROFkf)
Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 11:39 AM (NCw5u)
Did I stutter?!!11!
Posted by: Sesual Choklit at October 31, 2011 12:27 PM (idLY2)
Meh, I pretty sure we dispenced of that notion last week.
Posted by: dananjcon at October 31, 2011 08:33 AM (8ieXv)
Dude, I literally didn't know about it until 10 minutes ago, and I watched the thing cold, without any prompting. It's goofy as shit, and people clowning on it is a natural response. Don't be so defensive. If Romney gave a speech as silly-sounding as this I would totally be joining in on the fun.
C'mon, Y-not: at 2:15 even you have to admit that shit is hilariously weird. Actually, in a weird way it makes me like Perry more. If indeed he was hopped up on too many back pain meds, then maybe that's the version of Perry I'd want to hang out with. I like loopy.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:35 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 08:36 AM (SH3gZ)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 08:36 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 08:36 AM (SH3gZ)
On the other hand Cain strikes me as the kind of guy with a few wild hairs in his past. Palin was the safer choice for the Tea Partiers. The press hounded her for a couple of years and never found anything. They will have a field day with fresh meat.
Posted by: Voluble at October 31, 2011 08:37 AM (JKX4x)
That hypocrisy thing ringing any bells with you?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:37 AM (40Wzt)
Loopy isn't going to get him through a campaign cycle.
I think I underestimated the severity of his back surgery issue.
I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the pain killer stuff. We don't know he's on them - but we can assume he is. That gives me pause.
He's in a bad place with this. He can admit that he's on them and try to brush it aside as it being only a temporary issue. This would explain a lot of thing in terms of how he's run so far. But OTOH, he's just admitting that he's on drugs that can be mind altering. That ain't good.
I feel for him on this point.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 08:38 AM (pLTLS)
I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here."
Ace, you're being as awful and horrible as the MSM on this, instead of finding the truth all you are doing is repeating the accusation.
it's moments like this that i wonder who is on which side.
Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2011 08:39 AM (jdOk/)
>>>That hypocrisy thing ringing any bells with you?
It's what frontrunners have been doing since the beginning of time (or TV talk shows, at least.) The point is that Perry has something to prove: he's an unknown quantity, and people are questioning his ability to handle the glare of the national spotlight. Romney, for better or worse (I mean, obviously 'worse' to you, since you don't like him at all), doesn't have that threshold issue to deal with anymore: he's been through this rodeo once before and is the frontrunner who, if nothing else, has reassured primary voters that he's one smooth mofo when it comes to debating and talking about his record.
That's the difference. "Hypocrisy" has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:40 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 08:40 AM (TMB3S)
President Barack Obama will sign an executive order Monday aimed at easing shortages of prescription drugs, according to a White House official.
I guess for the last 3 years he didn't care about shortages.
Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 08:41 AM (mka2b)
“It's not very hard to figure out the reason why: he's the frontrunner. He has absolutely no reason to go and do earned media; he doesn't need to 'get his name out there' in the way he did back in 2007/2008, and at this point he only has something to lose from being grilled by Chris Wallace. He would be stupid to go on one of those shows -- it would be campaign malpractice. “
Jeff B., didnÂ’t you explain to us previously that politicians who didn't appear on the talk show circuit were too stupid to field questions from people other than their friends?
Posted by: jwest at October 31, 2011 08:41 AM (qeYI9)
Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 12:36 PM (SH3gZ)
LMAO, oh man Jeff she got you good!
ooo they are twittering that Kim filed for divorce from Chris, it's been just 72 days. I mean did they even get the show out about the wedding?
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 12:36 PM (k1rwm)
curious ladies and gentlemen!, everybody applaud the woman who will save us as she is emailed by her so called supporters to keep the fight on, yes folks this is our savior in 2012 w/ her infinte inteligence/sarc
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:42 AM (3XDPM)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:42 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 08:43 AM (gvW6C)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:43 AM (rJVPU)
A settlement means nothing, but the press will make it seem like an admission of guilt. For many years, I had to approve settlements of this kind of claim (no, not against myself). When you are faced with complaints where the plaintiff is either financed by the government or by some contingency fee lawyer, you very quickly decide that paying 5K or 10K to get rid of the silliness is a whole lot better than spending 50K or 100K to defend. It is a form of extortion.
Posted by: JeffM at October 31, 2011 11:53 AM (zD0RO)
Dude, the entire legal profession is a form of extortion.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 31, 2011 08:44 AM (T0NGe)
I feel for him on this point.
me too, he was so good on paper. I have no regrets for supporting him when I did at all, but I dont see him being the nom. I also dont enjoy watching this whole dancing on his grave by Romneybots even though they're guy is facing stiff competition from a Pizza CEO.
Jeff B., didnÂ’t you explain to us previously that politicians who didn't appear on the talk show circuit were too stupid to field questions from people other than their friends?
im sure Jeff was refering to Palin not talking to the MSM and just running to conservatives and FOX News.
Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 08:45 AM (3XDPM)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 08:45 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 31, 2011 08:46 AM (6IV8T)
See my 12:40 post for an answer to this. Palin, like Perry, has "something to prove" to voters. (Not to you, I'm sure, but you and all those who think like you aren't sufficient to deliver either a primary victory or obviously a general election one either.) Whatever else you may think about Romney, he's passed the "fluent on the issues, good debater, articulate" test with flying colors, which is main reason he's the frontrunner: he's the only plausible candidate who can do this, whereas Cain and Perry have raised massive doubts on that score.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:48 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: you know at October 31, 2011 08:49 AM (yN6cl)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 08:49 AM (TMB3S)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at October 31, 2011 08:50 AM (deaac)
I don't like "grave-dancing" (or 'end-zone celebrations' as I prefer to call them) either. That's not what I'm doing here. I really don't have any animus towards Perry at all -- certainly nothing like the way I feel towards Michele Bachmann, who I genuinely hate -- and I feel for him if his back pain is really playing a major role in his campaign right now. That might be one of the really interesting post-mortem stories we'll learn about when all is said and done: looking back, it really would seem to explain a lot of his missteps.
I also don't think he's dead yet.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:51 AM (hIWe1)
“im sure Jeff was refering to Palin not talking to the MSM and just running to conservatives and FOX News.”
Oh, if it was only Palin then it wasnÂ’t important.
Posted by: jwest at October 31, 2011 08:51 AM (qeYI9)
Thought Romney was the front runner. And by fluent on the issues do ya'll mean he can take multiple positions on the same issues depending on the polling results?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:53 AM (8O4/a)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:53 AM (rJVPU)
Fucking pathetic. The horse you backed was lame before he entered the starting gate. Shooting from the grandstands at the other horses won't change the fact that you backed a loser.
Posted by: Oggc at October 31, 2011 08:53 AM (yMeZt)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:54 AM (rJVPU)
a) Obama / DNC / MSM
Conclusion -- Cain is the candidate that they fear
Action that should be taken -- Romney needs to drop out since he is the one that Obama / DNC / MSM wants to run against
OR
b) Oba-romney created & 'leaked' the story
Conclusion -- Cain is the candidate that they fear
Action that should be taken -- Romney needs to drop out since he is scum.
Its time for Romney to stop dividing the party
Posted by: Mark E at October 31, 2011 08:57 AM (w5RwR)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 08:59 AM (TMB3S)
No, it is the so-called "Romneybots" who are refuting the people muttering dark accusations at Romney by pointing out that, logically speaking, he has the least to gain and the most to lose of any candidate from Cain collapsing in the polls. And that therefore it makes absolutely no sense to accuse him of being behind this 'hit' unless you just think he's so goshdarned evil that he even does self-destructive things that hurt his campaign for the sheer pleasure of being evil, because hey "scorpion and the frog," people.
The corollary to this argument is that, if you must insist that this story was pushed out there by an opposing GOP campaign, it makes far more sense to look at the ones which actually have a real motive: on that analysis Perry's team is a far more likely candidate as the source. But of course that's rank speculation, and ignores the fact that this story quite possibly (probably, even) didn't come from ANYONE in the GOP. It might have been angry SEIU lawyers. Or the MSM digging on their own. Or who knows.
That is all.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:59 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 09:03 AM (rJVPU)
323....I also don't think he's dead yet.
Yeah. This is not fatal. .....It's embarassing, but not fatal.
If anything, it shows how Perry is when he is slightly impaired. ....He gets loopy and goofy and cute.....not one of those mean-drunk sorts.
He didn't waiver from any of his stances on the issues either. He just articulated them in a more animated, goofy way.
It was apparently about a one-hour speech. .....Huffpo, or someone, picked out the goofy parts and ran them all together in an 8-minute video.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 09:04 AM (XkwIi)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 09:06 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 31, 2011 09:06 AM (IqM9e)
me too, he was so good on paper. I have no regrets for supporting him when I did at all, but I dont see him being the nom. I also dont enjoy watching this whole dancing on his grave by Romneybots even though they're guy is facing stiff competition from a Pizza CEO.
Take a brief look at Redstate.com for example and see how Romney supporters are treated. I think avowed communists would receive a warmer reception over there.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 09:08 AM (b68Df)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 09:09 AM (Qjh0I)
They get treated that way here, too. The only difference is that here they're allowed to fight back without being hit by a banhammer. Also, the general level of intelligence here has got to be at least two standard deviations higher than at Red State: most people here are capable of at least processing an argument from the opposing side.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 09:10 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 11:50 AM (aDFMZ)
I'm sure Politico was worried about being scooped by National Review. If the press really wanted to keep their powder dry on this, they would have.
We know that Politico ran the story. That Republicans were involved is pure speculation on your part, and ultimately secondary to the fact that a left-wing media outlet ran with the story.It isn't like politico doesn't kneecap conservative candidates during primaries. Remember the 'Fire in the Belly' story?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 09:10 AM (FkKjr)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 09:10 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 09:11 AM (hIWe1)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 09:12 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: twoslaps at October 31, 2011 09:13 AM (yBkGb)
Lifted from Instapundit:
"Meanwhile, a question: Would Jonathan Martin, Maggie Haberman, Anna Palmer and Kenneth Vogel have put their names on a similar piece, with no named sources, aimed at Barack Obama? Would Politico have run it?"
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 31, 2011 09:14 AM (O7ksG)
"You don't believe Cain had the right to be represented? "
There wasn't a lawsuit nor an EEOC complaint. It was a claim made to the HR department. The company lawyer would take care of it on behalf of the company.
If the claims were found valid, then discipline action would be taken aginst Cain. That is when he would probably get a lawyer
"And at the end of the process-Herman Cain would not be notified that the issue is dead, gone-settled? "
Some sort of general notification, perhaps. It depends on the company . It would likely be "We investigated the claim. The matter is now closed."
The accused is kept in the dark so no retaliation is attempted against the accuser.
Posted by: Bob from Ohio at October 31, 2011 09:15 AM (ROFkf)
Shit. What is this....."take out Cain week"?
I don't hate Cain....I think he's great.
I don't hate Romney either.
I just want to beat the bastard Marxist in Chief....and send all his minions scurring back to whatever hole they were in.
So my analysis of each candidate has been....'What will they be hit with in the general election?' ...Both Cain and Romney will be vilified for being 'evil rich' and 'evil corporate scum', unfortunately.
Which is why I have been supporting Perry. The things that we are hitting him with are not really anything that teamObama could hit him with.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 09:15 AM (XkwIi)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 09:16 AM (rJVPU)
They get treated that way here, too. The only difference is that here they're allowed to fight back without being hit by a banhammer. Also, the general level of intelligence here has got to be at least two standard deviations higher than at Red State: most people here are capable of at least processing an argument from the opposing side.
Jeff, I know all about the banhammer. There is one particular wretch over there (streiff I believe he is called) who threatens to ban people who completely refrain from using personal insults, ad hominems, or profanity. I've seen some very comprehensive and intelligent arguments for Romney published over there that showed exhaustive research and not a hint of personal animosity, yet the author still gets threatened with a ban. The site is a farce.
AOSHQ, yeah it's not particularly fond of Romney, but you can have your say and you won't be thrown off the site.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 09:16 AM (b68Df)
Excerpt (partial transcript at the link): [...]
I have not watched the 25min cut in one sitting but he was certainly capable of being serious. From what I have seen of him previously, it seems more likely that his goofiness was caused by tiredness, painkillers, or both, but I cannot definitively prove that.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 09:16 AM (d6QMz)
The next reporter who asks Cain about this should get the following response:
"I am a man. A real man. Real men like to fuck women. Watch out. I might fuck you!" And then roll out a variation of the old classic: "Fuck you? Next question."
It isn't like he's really going to win the presidency. He might as well go down in flames as A Legendary Cocksman.
Posted by: Sharkman at October 31, 2011 09:17 AM (wMsKw)
Posted by: cvb at October 31, 2011 09:18 AM (HRFxR)
What took you so long?
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 12:45 PM (pLTLS)
Long thread... Had to read until I found the best setup for a zinger.
Posted by: AmishDude at October 31, 2011 09:18 AM (T0NGe)
Lifted from Instapundit:
"Meanwhile, a question: Would Jonathan Martin, Maggie Haberman, Anna Palmer and Kenneth Vogel have put their names on a similar piece, with no named sources, aimed at Barack Obama? Would Politico have run it?"
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 31, 2011 01:14 PM (O7ksG)
Did anyone else have the experience that I did? That the story was so convoluted with all of the anonymous sources that you couldn't figure out who was whom?
Posted by: AmishDude at October 31, 2011 09:19 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 09:20 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 09:22 AM (k1rwm)
349.....I have not watched the 25min cut in one sitting but he was certainly capable of being serious. From what I have seen of him previously, it seems more likely that his goofiness was caused by tiredness, painkillers, or both, but I cannot definitively prove that.
I'm thinking painkillers, Miss'80s.
Because backpain is a way of life for me, from an old injury. ....One pill is often not enough, and two pills is too many. I recognize that loopiness that Perry was exhibiting. ....I can go days, weeks, months without needing anything. But sometimes just a sudden movement in the wrong way can result in needing to take them for a while.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 09:22 AM (XkwIi)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 31, 2011 09:24 AM (r4wIV)
What I find was strange is that the quotes from former colleagues (last page) indicate Cain was not a man given to such behavior, yet we have these allegations and an unsteady response by his campaign. It feels like something is missing.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 09:28 AM (d6QMz)
Sorry, this seems to be Mitt trying to keep Cain from running away with the nomination. Derailing him now with a debate 10 days away sets up a beat down for Herman on national tv.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 09:28 AM (8O4/a)
Posted by: twoslaps at October 31, 2011 09:29 AM (yBkGb)
Again, if you read the politico story, there is no explicitly defined substantive connection b/t the womens' departure from NRA, and the sexual harassment allegations. There is a very heavy implication that the "paid settlement to leave the company" was somehow linked to the alleged sexual harassment, based on proximity in the article. BUT, there is nothing stated in the article that is inconsistent with disgruntled laid off female employees who were asked to sign the standard NDAs and provided standard severance package. Severance, by the way, is a form of "paid settlement to leave the company". And NDAs are very common when an employee is laid off. If they are the type of people to violate the NDAs they signed, is it that surprising that they would fabricate sexual harassment charges AFTER they were notified that their employment was terminated?
BTW, these women might have sued for wrongful discharge if their termination was related to their reporting of sexual harassment, and yet they were still terminated. It's very rare for a company to risk dismissing an employee who has reported harassment, for fear of running afoul of non-retaliation policies/laws.
I was laid off once and got 8 weeks severance, and I was only there for two years. I was asked to sign an NDA and the amount I recieved was in the five figures. My boss once made a gesture that made me uncomfortable. So...I could plausibly make the same claim that is being made in the politico article that conflates that I was once uncomfortable with my being laid off. But, that wouldn't forward anyone's political cause.
Posted by: mjhlaw at October 31, 2011 09:29 AM (YQ4mh)
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 09:31 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 09:34 AM (rJVPU)
"The numbers show an even race for the Republican presidential nomination in Texas. Mr. Cain is probably at a high point because the survey was in the field just after the last GOP debate, where Cain continued to garner favorable reviews," Shaw said.
"For Gov. Perry, the news is mixed. The current numbers represent a substantial improvement over his showing in our last poll. On the other hand, he is not dominating here they way one might have expected. For Gov. Romney, this is yet more evidence that the more conservative elements of the GOP are skeptical of his candidacy," Shaw said."
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 09:35 AM (8O4/a)
Because backpain is a way of life for me, from an old injury. ....One pill is often not enough, and two pills is too many. I recognize that loopiness that Perry was exhibiting. ....I can go days, weeks, months without needing anything. But sometimes just a sudden movement in the wrong way can result in needing to take them for a while.
A friend hurt her back and neck in a car accident and she was the same way. I know that back surgery takes months of recovery and Perry has frequently looked like he is in a state of discomfort. He always looks most uncomfortable during debates, which makes sense due to the amount of standing.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 09:37 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 09:38 AM (rJVPU)
Posted by: twoslaps at October 31, 2011 09:39 AM (yBkGb)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at October 31, 2011 09:40 AM (lNGfM)
Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 09:47 AM (gvW6C)
Unless there is more there there, this is just so much bullshit.
Posted by: God's Balls at October 31, 2011 09:50 AM (JXxHH)
OUCH!
Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (vXqv3
Yeah, I saw that. Somewhere, Big Sis Incompetano is clearing her throat...
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2011 09:51 AM (Iaxlk)
Former staffers call sexual harassment allegations unbelievable.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 09:51 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 09:52 AM (rJVPU)
Sorry, this has Perry's fingerprints all over it. A major reason he's almost last place is that most of his support went to Cain. Cain is leading or tied in most of the early primary states. Any prayer Perry has of getting back into contender status rests on Cain's support somehow collapsing, and enough of it going back to Perry so as to give him a strong second- or third-place finish in Iowa, which would change the entire game for him.
Romney knows Cain never had the money or organization to be a threat to him. He needs Cain to block Perry, much the same way McCain needed Huckabee to block Romney in '08 (which succeeded). It does him no good for Cain to take any damage from this.
Perry has the most to immediately gain by Cain's implosion, the two are none too fond of each other by this point, and it just so happens that Perry added a fresh bunch of hatchet men to his campaign last week.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 09:58 AM (Xnw5y)
I'm having a hard time buying the "I didn't know about any settlements" issue. It would be incredibly difficult, maybe not impossible, to create a binding settlement where the person whose issues are at action was unaware of the settlement agreements. He almost would have to give up some rights as part of a settlement agreement, and he couldn't do so if he was not a party
Furthermore, if he was the CEO at the time, that makes the story that much less credible. If they have the documents with his signature on them, he's toast. If not, I still have problems with the story, but there seems to be enough blind faith in the guy that he will probably survive.
I am sure if you want more facts about what actually transpired, Herman Cain can direct you to his website.
Posted by: boone at October 31, 2011 10:05 AM (Jl3Mu)
Cain leads Perry by one point in a recent poll. By one point in .....
TEXAS
I have no evidence that any candidate had anything to do with the Cain story, so it's only proper to presume them all innocent. But I think it's obvious which candidate would have the most to gain by doing so.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 10:07 AM (b68Df)
Posted by: Larry Sinclair at October 31, 2011 10:07 AM (X4NNS)
360, 376
So your answer to (formerly) unsubstantiated rumors against Cain is to lauch unsubstantiated rumors against another candidate?
Kettlemingle.com for all of you pots out there in search of a soulmate.
Posted by: boone at October 31, 2011 10:09 AM (Jl3Mu)
Posted by: Jenn Rubin at October 31, 2011 10:10 AM (X4NNS)
Mitt Romney. Cain is beating him nationally.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 10:10 AM (8O4/a)
Posted by: Herman Cain, CEO at October 31, 2011 10:18 AM (BNlV7)
"to investigate the claim don't they have to ask Herman Cain for his side of the story"
I would think yes, unless it was determined from other souces that the charges did not amount to anything. For instance, the accuser says "Amy witnessed this" and Amy denies it happens. Even then, to investigate means invesigate, not fluff it off, that is a potential claim aginst the company in and of itself.
They might not tell the accused who was making the claim so as to avoid possible retailation claims but they would almost certainly ask him something.
Posted by: Bob from Ohio at October 31, 2011 10:33 AM (ROFkf)
Posted by: Breaker19 at October 31, 2011 10:41 AM (yRoVn)
Posted by: sexypig at October 31, 2011 10:45 AM (UspyQ)
It's pretty simple, morons. This is how an empty suit wins the presidency. He destroys his opponents and remains the eternal populist. He hammers a narrative about how he's going to be the opposite of whatever attack du jour he's gotten traction with against his opponent. In the '04 Senate race for Illinois, Obama did it to Jack Ryan who withdrew and Allan Keyes stepped in for an awful very last-minute campaign which Obama easily won. The point is, you have to be able to either hit back harder then you were initially clubbed or you have to have an impeccable record that cannot be clubbed. Cain fits into neither category. In fact, nobody does. So...either our Republican candidate is going to have to be a master of redistributing beatings or he's going to let four more years of Manchurianism dominate Pennsylvania Ave.
Posted by: A Chicagoan who knows at October 31, 2011 11:08 AM (BNlV7)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 12:21 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: Insomniac at October 31, 2011 11:33 AM (DrWcr)
---
23 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 11:35 AM (8y9MW)
----
389 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 04:21 PM (fyOgS)
-----
fuck the corporate media
fuck the corporate media
fuck the corporate media
Posted by: jc at October 31, 2011 01:20 PM (i8c5b)
Posted by: No Regrets ePub at October 31, 2011 05:02 PM (KCI/1)
Posted by: The Next Always iBooks at October 31, 2011 05:45 PM (bYYfj)
Posted by: The Fleet Street Murders AudioBook at October 31, 2011 06:03 PM (ZCpyR)
Posted by: The Meaning of Marriage ePub at October 31, 2011 07:46 PM (2rmis)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.9547 seconds, 515 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Ducatisti at October 31, 2011 07:25 AM (KYE7u)