November 08, 2011
— Ace If you hate this story, at least this is a round-up -- everything out there so far today in one post.
First of all, in last night's midnight post, I posted a link to Bill Kurtis suggesting the "roles might be reversed here" (i.e., suggesting Bialek might have been the aggressor) and someone emailing MacsMind to claim Bialek accused her previous boss of sexual harassment, too.
Those tips seem to be incorrect, in as much as they're not part of today's document dump on Bialek. However, I think I can see where both stories ended up.
I cannot be certain of this, but I'm thinking that MacsMind's mysterious emailer is probably the "friend" of Bialek trash-talking her to the NY Post.
Friend of Bialek Claims She's a "Gold Digger" Just Doing This "For the Money." "Friend"? I think that further reportage will tend to show this is not a "friend."
Meanwhile, a friend of Ms Bialek, from Chicago, told the New York Post: 'She has a very infectious personality. ItÂ’s easy to see how she won [Cain] over. But the reality of her situation is -- sheÂ’s a complete gold digger. ItÂ’s all about the money.'Adding that she was from a middle-income family but lives in a posh house while running from bill collectors, the source said: 'Most of her jobs ended in termination. ItÂ’s always the employerÂ’s fault, not hers.
'This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.'
That comes from right-ish leaning Andrea Peyser at the NYPost, as long as we're noting media bias.
Also, so long as we're keeping track of things, Bialek's accuser is in fact unnamed -- anonymous. Vague charges. Won't put a name behind the non-specific allegations.
I do not believe Peyser's source is a "friend" of Bialek's. Seems to be an initial gambit of dishonesty. I don't know "friends" who run their "friends" down by alleging (anonymously) that they are low, base characters.
People do that -- but they're not friends. And people are often right in peddling such charges -- but they're not friends. Calling this person a "friend" just seems dishonest to me.
Peyser claims this:
Fourteen years after the incident, an untraumatized Bialek said she approached Cain at a Tea Party conference last month in Chicago -- and was smitten again.
Keep that in mind -- Peyser seems to think that when Bialek met Cain at TeaCon, she was "smitten" by him.
Where did she get that idea?
This is where I think Kurtis' story went, the idea that Bialek was "smitten" by Cain. The Sun Times makes it sound like a witness is saying that Bialek "hugged" Cain at that Tea Con meeting -- relying on the statement of Amy Jacobsen.
◆The encounter: “It looked sort of flirtatious,” said Jacobson. “I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”◆The introduction: “It all began when I took a convention break and joined my pals at the hotel bar. Sharon was drinking Mimosas with them. She said she was a Republican, a Tea Party member, had once dated [White Sox sports announcerÂ’ Steve Stone] and had worked at WGN radio.”
However, in her interview with Beck, this witness says she doesn't know what Bialek was saying-- but seems to be supporting Bialek's story of the TeaCon meeting, in as much as Bialek was 1, determined to confront him, and 2, confronted him (whispering in his ear, with multiple people around) for two to three minutes with an "intensity" that was notable, and then 3, stormed off.
But when it comes to judging Cain and Bialek’s the body motion, Jacobson described their encounter as ‘intense’, that you could ‘cut it with a knife’, saying that she knew not to interrupt them. Jacobson had wanted to get a photo with Cain and said she was bum-rushed by Bialek who beat her to Cain and then had his ear for 2-3 minutes. She said it was clear Bialek had something she wanted to tell Cain and “by God she was going to tell him what she came there to tell him”. When asked about her characterization that it was ‘flirtatious’, she said she meant that Bialek was in Cain’s personal space, very close to his ear. Again, she affirmed she had no idea what they were actually talking about, only that Cain was saying “uh huh” several times throughout their brief encounter.
So I think that this witness is being mischaracterized. I think some people want to pull out "She hugged him, she's a stalker!," which I remember hearing about Monica Lewinsky, too. But a witness who is actually confirming part of Bialek's story is being distorted into claiming it was some kind of huggy/sweet-talk situation, when in fact what seems to have happened is that she bum-rushed people to get to Cain, and then buttonholed him -- a clinch, not a hug -- and then accused him into his ear, which is consistent with what Bialek said happened.
Now, this witness, if she really did see Bialek "hugging" Cain in a friendly manner as the spin would have it, would be expected to think Bialek is lying, right? In that case, she would have seen something plainly inconsistent with her story.
But in fact she says she believes Bialek.
Cain has issued a statement previewing his press conference (scheduled for 5 pm).
The statement does not deny any particular of Bialek's story. As I keep asking-- Did he upgrade her room, or not? The fact that he won't specifically say "I never upgraded a room" indicates to me that he did, and doesn't want to be caught saying something that could be disproved later. So he keeps the denials very general (something, again, I've seen before).
And then he points out she changes jobs a lot and has declared bankruptcy twice, which is also the sort of thing I've seen before.
As Ms. Sharon Bialek has placed herself in the public spotlight through making patently false allegations against Herman Cain, it is only fair to compare her track record alongside Mr. CainÂ’s.In stark contrast to Mr. CainÂ’s four decades spent climbing the corporate ladder rising to the level of CEO at multiple successful business enterprises, Ms. Bialek has taken a far different path.
The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances – which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred.
In the courts, Ms. Bialek has had a lengthy record in the Cook County Court system over various civil lawsuits. The following cases on file in Cook County are:
· 2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management
· 2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
· 2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
· 2005-M1-111072 Defendant in lawsuit against Mr. Mark Beatovic.
· 2007-M1-189176 Defendant in lawsuit against Midland Funding.
· 2009-M1-158826 Defendant in lawsuit against Illinois Lending.
Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV). Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011
In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001. The respective case numbers according to the PACER system are 1:01-bk-22664 and 1:91-bk-23273.
Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years. Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011
Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago.
Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?
The questions should be – who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions?
As for "who is financing her legal team," I think we'll soon find the answer to that, and it will be the obvious answer. Attention-seeking lawyers often take on high-profile cases for free, typically, because the media exposure is worth more than any payment you might receive. It's a loss leader.
Another accuser is faceless and nameless no more, as The Daily reports what I assume everyone already knew-- the identity of one of the accusers, the one represented by Joel "Prime Time" Bennett. Note: I did not know her name. When I say "I assume everyone knew" I mean the reporters working the story. I did not have this personal information. I can see where it might seem like I'm suggesting I knew this. I specifically clarify that I did not.
She herself is not quoted (she has said she doesn't want to comment on the story), but she's not poor and did not go bankrupt, for what it's worth.
She works, though, for Obama's Treasury Department.
But, in terms of "political motivation" -- she's one of the two who filed a complaint against Cain in the 90s. I'm not sure what "political motivation" you would think she had at that time. Cain was not a candidate for President, and I'm not sure how much rightwing politics would come up in the ordinary course of the business day.
She is “an extraordinarily good person,” said Jennie Williams, a friend and Atlanta equestrian. “She is very reliable and has lots of integrity. I don’t know what happened. I don’t want to know. Enough is enough. She is quality.”
Note to Andrea Peyser: "Friends" tend to say things like that, not call their "friends" "gold diggers" who just want to "live off the system."
A former colleague at the National Restaurant Association who asked not to be identified said of Kraushaar, “The woman is a consummate professional. What I saw was an extremely talented woman. A professional, knowledgeable woman and nothing more.”...
Kraushaar family members who spoke to The Daily said the only lies were coming from Cain.
“His denial of the whole thing, and his making light of it, seems to me to be more damaging to his character than the initial allegations,” said Karen Kraushaar’s sister-in-law, who asked not to be named. “If he would have just come out and said, ‘This is what happened,’ it would have been so much better for everybody.”
...
Ned Kraushaar said his sister-in-law remained stoic.
“She doesn’t like all the attention,” he said. “She will make sure that the record is straight.”
I don't consider the character witness and friends and family to be of high evidentiary value-- again, that's what friends and family tend to say. (Similarly, I don't give enemy testimony, as Peyser plainly had, much value for negative stuff.)
I note though that the sister says that this accuser "will make sure that the record is straight."
Bill Bennet kinda doubts this is a high-tech lynching.
Four women are not an insignificant number. One or two anonymous charges, perhaps. Three anonymous charges (where, as I understand the story, Cain knows of at least two of the women) plus one woman who went very public and opened herself up to all manner of investigation are a lot. It is no longer insignificant. Neither is it insignificant that the Cain campaign discounted the charges in the initial stories, saying they were based on anonymous sources, only to make a mockery by blaming other campaigns with less substantiation than the original stories.If Herman Cain wants to be taken seriously as a public advocate for anything, never mind running for the chief executive and commander in chief of the most powerful and important and blessed country in the world, he needs to give a full press conference dedicated exclusively to this issue and these allegations.
I have watched long enough and held my tongue long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, but can no longer say this is a witch hunt, “a lynching” to use his word, or any other euphemism. There are allegations out there that matter and they have stacked up. For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn’t matter makes us the hypocrites as well.
Some people have suggested, in the comments, "Well so what? They did it for Clinton, so they should have a taste of their own medicine."
I agree that if you're keeping track of hypocrisy, our side is owed a lot of wiggle room here. If you claim "Well they do it all the time!," I agree. If you say, "By rights, we are entitled to do a little of it, just to keep it close to even on the hypocrisy/inconsistency front!," I agree.
Here's my problem with that, though. While partisans keep score like this, and decide (in this case, correctly) that due to the egregious behavior of the other side, we're due a little latitude in our own behavior, independents who are not super-dedicated news-hawks and daily-battle partisans do not keep score like this.
You're not going to be able to convince them that a little sleazy hypocrisy is our right because the liberals have indulged in so damned much of it.
They're just going to see it as sleazy hypocrisy, period, and that will reduce credibility on other, more important issues accordingly.
I don't know how you realistically peddle this idea that we can be a little sleazy in our inconsistency and giving passes to "our team" because, Remember Clinton thirteen years ago?! That kind of three-bumper bank shot seems to rely on a much more serious engagement with politics and partisan score-keeping than independents actually have.
Finally, there's this kinda-sorta "fifth accuser," which I mentioned in comments, but not in a post. This is not a very serious allegation. But...
A former employee of the United States Agency for International Development says Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain asked her to help arrange a dinner date for him with a female audience member following a speech he delivered nine years ago.Donna Donella, 40, of Arlington, said the USAID paid Cain to deliver a speech to businessmen and women in Egypt in 2002, during which an Egyptian businesswoman in her 30s asked Cain a question.
"And after the seminar was over," Donella told The Washington Examiner, "Cain came over to me and a colleague and said, 'Could you put me in touch with that lovely young lady who asked the question, so I can give her a more thorough answer over dinner?'"
Donella, who no longer works for USAID, said they were suspicious of Cain's motives and declined to set up the date. Cain responded, "Then you and I can have dinner." That's when two female colleagues intervened and suggested they all go to dinner together, Donella said.
Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, though he did order two $400 bottles of wine and stuck the women with the bill, she said.
This is not an accusation of sexual harassment. And it's not necessarily even Cain asking for a "date." (A date would be consensual, but... eyebrow-raising, of course.) That's this woman's belief -- based on vibes she got from Cain, not from anything Cain actually said. Further, she voted for Obama.
However, assuming the basic facts are accurate -- are married men typically permitted to ask younger, "lovely" female fans to private dinners in order, supposedly, to discuss their answers more expansively?
Doesn't marriage normally mean your days of private dinners with younger, "lovely" female fans is sort of over? (Well, it's usually not over, actually, but it's supposed to be over.)
This seems odd to me. And the context of the other allegations makes it seem suspicious.
This gets to my basic reason for my suspicions, which is the same reason I was pretty sure Anthony Weiner was guilty, guilty, guilty, despite his claim that he was #Hacked!
Men and women are rather different. We don't, actually, have very much at all in common, as anyone who's ever had a relationship knows. Try to agree on something to watch on television. It can't hardly be done.
So why would a man seek out the company of a stranger he doesn't know and, owing to age difference, probably has nothing to talk to her about?
Well, with Bill Clinton, we were told the reason he was on the phone so much with Monica Lewinsky was that he was "ministering" to a troubled young woman.
But that's the point, the list of genuine perfectly-innocent reasons for such meetings is rather short.
Most of the time, it's not really perfectly innocent.
So did Cain just want to expand upon his answer with this younger, "lovely" woman?
I suppose that's... possible.
Some commenters are basically shifting the argument and basically saying, "Look, maybe he's a horn-dog, but he's no harasser."
Two problems with that:
1. A horn-dog is very hard to defend in an election as well. Why are we betting our future, our nation, on our ability to spin a horn-dog?
2. If he's a horn-dog, that almost certainly means that all the allegations against him are at least largely true. Maybe it wasn't harassment; maybe it was women taking undue offense to a clumsy attempt to flirt (or ask out on a private dinners to provide more expansive answers).
But then that's a big pile of stuff we have to spin.
I've made no bones -- I think Cain is a godawful candidate, woefully uninformed, and, when confused, showing a tendency to offer up liberal, not conservative, guestimates as to the right answer. Abortion is a family choice. Sure, I'd make a deal to trade all the terrorists in Gitmo for a single Al Qaeda hostage. (Hey, Al Qaeda, if Cain gets elected, you know what you have to do.)
For some reason, some people are determined that this is the godawful candidate we have to go the mattresses for.
Why? We have ten other godawful candidates. What's so special about this godawful candidate?
The Real Axelrod Connection: An incorrect story buzzed around yesterday that Bialek's attorney in a suit was David Axelrod. That was wrong. That David Axelrod was a different David Axelrod (and he represented the bank suing her; he did not represent her).
So that's knocked down.
However, now there is an actual connection. She lives in the same building (in Chicago, I gather) as the actual David Axelrod.
Interesting.
Oh, and Dan Riehl has an interesting hit piece on Cain taken, ultimately, from the NYTimes.
And is it any wonder that Herman Cain has shed a lot of high-level campaign staff members, both within his national organization and in crucial early states like Iowa and New Hampshire? Most of these former staff members have signed nondisclosure agreements, and others would speak to me only off the record. None of them recall their former boss as a sexual harasser. But they do speak of a man so egotistical that careful self-policing would never really enter into the realm of consideration.They also speak — bitterly — of a candidate with zero interest in policy. They speak of events canceled at the last minute to accommodate any available television interview. They speak of unrelenting self-absorption, even by the standards of a politician.
Posted by: Ace at
09:34 AM
| Comments (365)
Post contains 3274 words, total size 21 kb.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at November 08, 2011 09:39 AM (AF1jB)
I think if ace compiles all his Cain posts (including this "roundup") into one document, he'll be good for that 50K word novel competition thingie.
You owe me a Coke and a new monitor.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 08, 2011 09:40 AM (JxMoP)
Why? We have ten other godawful candidates. What's so special about this godawful candidate?
Because Ann Coulter said that our blacks are better than their blacks. AM I RITE?Posted by: The Peasants at November 08, 2011 09:41 AM (IADp6)
Amy Fuckin' Bishop?
Loose shit, man. Loose shit.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at November 08, 2011 09:42 AM (IoUF1)
''This is not an accusation of sexual harassment."
Really! Do Tell! Then why the phuck have you been slobbering over this story the last several days like Barney Frank at a pickle factory?
Posted by: ole' scratch at November 08, 2011 09:43 AM (+56Bh)
Posted by: Latest Herman Cain Bombshell at November 08, 2011 09:43 AM (2QDaE)
Bailek made some moves to seduce Cain, which may have been successful - including an upgraded room. Bailek got a little something out of it, but not what she wanted. I too, agree that if Cain did not upgrade the room that would be the first thing he denies emphatically. The fact that he is silent means he did upgrade her room. And what purpose is there to upgrading her room?
Bailek now sees an opportunity to cash in on her time with Cain and is hoping for some kind of money deal out of all this - either money for a book, for an interview, whatever.
I doubt Bailek was sexually harassed. But - if my conjecture is correct - Cain spent some personal consensual alone time with her, which makes denying any of the particulars of her story impossible b/c they are all true except for the harassing part (i.e., he upgraded her room, they had dinner/drinks, etc).
Posted by: Monkeytoe at November 08, 2011 09:45 AM (sOx93)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 09:45 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 08, 2011 09:45 AM (21lBC)
Instead of responding to the accusation, Cain is putting her dirty laundry out in public? That is so 90's.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 08, 2011 09:46 AM (fCkqS)
For some reason, some people are determined that this is the godawful candidate we have to go the mattresses for.
Why? We have ten other godawful candidates. What's so special about this godawful candidate?
Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, it's because we getting fucking tired of our guys being eviscerated by the media and people like Allred with specious and vile accusations. And maybe, just maybe, we're just a little trired of people on our side joining in on the fun, based on nothing more than weak rumors.This is not about how badly Cain is responding. (yeah, I get it, he's a bumbling fool who should not be elected President. Gotcha.) But they did this to Palin and they are now doing it to Cain and it's getting really, really old.
The worst part of this whole thing is it no longer matters if he is innocent or guilty. The accusation is enough to taint him from this point forward. He is now going to be unable to run for any office ever again.
And yet another good person is destroyed.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 08, 2011 09:46 AM (3Okgs)
If we are not going to engage them with the same degree of vigor that they use when one of theirs is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, then we will surely lose the fight. I speculate that the Dems know that we won't do that, and so they are pretty confident that they know our playbook and can count on us to do a portion of their killing for them.
By the way, we should have been far more protective of our other previous candidates that we allowed and abetted the destruction of.
Posted by: tubal at November 08, 2011 09:46 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 09:47 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: wooga at November 08, 2011 09:48 AM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Dave at November 08, 2011 09:48 AM (Xm1aB)
ace is right on this. Why expend this much energy defending someone in a PRIMARY?
We still have time to find a non-Newt, non-Mitt SOMEWHERE.
Not much time, but some.
Posted by: imp hates Gingrich, Mitt, and the rest of the eleven dwarves at November 08, 2011 09:49 AM (UaxA0)
Yes, well, Dan Riehl's grasping for straws with respect to Herman Cain. His newest tack is that Cain, in his mind, is an alcoholic, and we should be concerned about this.
But with regard to the content of the piece, I'm pretty sure that every single one of our candidates could be labeled as a narcissist to some degree or another.
Posted by: Lou at November 08, 2011 09:49 AM (xp1pq)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 09:50 AM (nj1bB)
@ 20
Spoken For Truth!
Why does the left get a veto on any person from the right with the gall to run for President? And why do some jackwagons on the right gleefully join in the reindeer games?
Posted by: ole' scratch at November 08, 2011 09:50 AM (+56Bh)
Excuse me, not defending Cain, but calling her accusations "patently false" consitutes a specific denial, doesn't it?
Posted by: Dave at November 08, 2011 01:48 PM (Xm1aB)
Only if you pronounce "patent" with a long, Southern drawl. Like "Payton Manning".
Posted by: wooga at November 08, 2011 09:50 AM (vjyZP)
Cain is a Republican and a Conservative.
Posted by: tubal at November 08, 2011 01:46 PM (BoE3Z)
True Conservative Herman Cain: gun-control is a states-right.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 08, 2011 09:50 AM (P/F96)
Is it possible that Bialek's encounter with Cain was a botched attempt at blackmail?
Is Obama a closeted gay? (see: Hillbuzz)
And what about Scarecrow's brain?
What do you say we just go to the Powerball people, have them pick out nine numbers with that creepy music they play during that little drawing presentation TV show they have, keep doing it until you hit one that repesents a real honest-to-Orly Tatz Natural Born American's Social Security number, and Bob's your uncle there's your next President.
Life's too short for this shit.
Posted by: filbert at November 08, 2011 09:50 AM (smvTK)
Yes. Exactly! I've been waiting for this explanation for awhile now. The most I get out of people is "because he seems like a genuinely good guy". Um, okay. And what about this exactly is Presidential?
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 09:51 AM (is/J6)
Posted by: Dave at November 08, 2011 01:48 PM (Xm1aB)
That's a pretty broad statement. Is he saying he didn't meet her for drinks and he didn't have dinner with her and he didn't upgrade her hotel room? That seems to be what he is saying.
Posted by: robtr at November 08, 2011 09:51 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: sceptical at November 08, 2011 09:52 AM (yfHp7)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 09:53 AM (nj1bB)
>>>Bailek made some moves to seduce Cain,
So now we go from Cain "loser horndog who can't get laid despite his best efforts" to Cain "Smooth mack daddy who must fend off golddiggers smitten by his silky charms". Riiiiight.
Posted by: wooga at November 08, 2011 09:53 AM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Mr Pink at November 08, 2011 09:53 AM (s8LxL)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at November 08, 2011 09:54 AM (9IFxO)
The worst part of this whole thing is it no longer matters if he is innocent or guilty. The accusation is enough to taint him from this point forward. He is now going to be unable to run for any office ever again.
And yet another good person is destroyed.
Another possible outcome is the chilling effect that this will have on potential candidates in the future. How many good people are going to think about running for office and then say, "Nah, screw that," because of what's happening now. The issue is not whether he did it or not, it's that's he's been convicted by the press with no freakin' evidence and some of the worst treatment is coming from people who are ostensibly on his side.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 08, 2011 09:54 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 09:54 AM (nj1bB)
If I had not already pretty much given up on Cain before the accusations turned up, I would be more bothered than I am. His answers to predictable questions of the day were not ready.
However: The fishy way the accusations have been unveiled is an issue, one that is not settled yet. The thing is, we've seen them go after people who are innocent of wrongdoing in the same way they are going after Cain. Joe the Plumber, for example.
Did he do these thngs, did he not do these things, how did he handle the accusations, did he deal with it like somebody who is presidential material -- yeah, it all matters. But-- the accusations against Cain are generic and portable -- the infuriating thing is, their ultimate effectiveness is not a strong function of whether Cain actually did what he's accused of.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 08, 2011 09:54 AM (w41GQ)
Posted by: madamex at November 08, 2011 09:55 AM (5+Fw+)
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 09:55 AM (CE2wR)
What really happened, and which you'll only see reported here in this comment posting, is that this Cain dude is so all-encompassingly evil, that he actually murdered Bialek, dismembered her, ate her liver, wore her vagina on his head like a beret for seven days, and then, because he is so completely nefarious in addition to originally being from Jamaica, sewed her all back together and raised her from the dead with his Jamaican voodoo magic.
The worst thing about it was that he made pizza sauce out of her blood, made a pizza (meat-lover's special, natch) and served it to her after he brought her back to life.
Wow, this Cain guy is a horrible man. We'd better make sure we don't have any of that black magic (see what I did there) in the White House!
Posted by: Sharkman at November 08, 2011 09:55 AM (wMsKw)
Posted by: Latest Herman Cain Bombshell at November 08, 2011 09:55 AM (2QDaE)
I like Cain, but this man cannot be President. It would be like having Kermit the Frog up there, and while even a muppet would be better than Obama, I don't want us getting a President who could be such a royal fuckup that we wind up getting Hillary in 2016. Assuming he even wins.
How he's handling this scandal is indicative that he lacks the skillset and savvy needed to handle a hostile media, a hostile Congress (even if we win the senate) and a hostile public that still cannot come to grips with the reality that SS and Medicare will bankrupt and be the end of us all. Assuming Iran doesn't nuke us first.
Posted by: Zooey Deschanel's Adorable Cuteness Supports Rick Perry's Ruger for President at November 08, 2011 09:55 AM (TCyyS)
@ 29
And the women who claim Cain harassed them?
Yeah, what did they say, Ace? Post a quote please.
Posted by: ole' scratch at November 08, 2011 09:55 AM (+56Bh)
Posted by: Dave at November 08, 2011 09:55 AM (Xm1aB)
@15 "I doubt Bailek was sexually harassed"
I agree. If a man was pushing my head towards his crotch against my will, the first words out of my mouth would not be 'what are you doing, I have a boyfriend'.*
There was just something very 'off' about the way she recounted her tale during her press conference.
*they might be along the lines of 'mofo, unless you want to be p***ing out of a stump for the rest of your life, you best get your hands off me.'
Posted by: MDH3 at November 08, 2011 09:56 AM (CZcCo)
Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 08, 2011 09:56 AM (7EV/g)
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 01:55 PM (CE2wR)
Why is garbage like "Entertainment Tonight" still on TV?
Posted by: filbert at November 08, 2011 09:56 AM (smvTK)
Posted by: tubal at November 08, 2011 09:57 AM (BoE3Z)
For guilt-or-innocence I agree with you. If he's not guilty he should be defended. But, if he's not guilty, WHY IS HE ACTING GUILTY?
Excuse me, not defending Cain, but calling her accusations "patently false" consitutes a specific denial, doesn't it?
No. And here's why:
"Mr. Cain. Are you saying that she did not visit you in Washington DC on or around [Date]?"
"Well, no. She may have come to see me then, I don't really remember that, but every other particular of her story is false."
See "patently false" is, itself, hyperbolic enough that he can walk it back without looking (yet more) the fool. He can say that this thing and that other thing were correct, but that "the substance" of the allegation was false. In fact, this is an "equivocal" no. An "unequivocal" no would be: "Mrs. Bialek did not receive a room upgrade at hotel X from me. At no time did I act in any inappropriate manner."
It's a minor thing, I'll grant, but it's there. And, in light of the way he's handled the rest of this, I think those of us who aren't sold on Herman Cain are allowed to require the unequivocal response before we agree to defend him.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 09:57 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 09:57 AM (nj1bB)
Ah Jesus. This again?
I think many of us here have made it clear that we have no special love for Cain, but many of us are FULL UP with your gleeful take down of one on our side.
I suppose you think it will give Perry another chance to get back in if Cain goes down, but you are wrong. If we continue to help to crucify our own, Perry won't last long either. Hell, I heard a rumor that you had gay sex with him last week.
I have stated here that I will under no circumstances vote for Romney because I don't like him. I have not spent over ONE WEEK trying to destroy him just because I have bee in my bonnett about it.
While you are obsessively focusing on this, the left is out there doing REAL damage. And it is being ignored.
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 08, 2011 09:57 AM (AxbvX)
Posted by: Michael Buffer at November 08, 2011 09:58 AM (JYheX)
Posted by: BruinEric at November 08, 2011 09:58 AM (KCzlc)
Posted by: Jean at November 08, 2011 09:59 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 09:59 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:00 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Mr Pink at November 08, 2011 10:00 AM (s8LxL)
Posted by: Dave at November 08, 2011 10:00 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Navycopjoe
Blogger Ninjas. They are frikkin' dangerous.
And what do we really "know" at this point? Herman Cain is not quite the person that we want to think he is, based on his "TV" personality. Holy shit, it's like all those years watching Simon Cowell were for nothing.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at November 08, 2011 10:00 AM (RFeQD)
Not saying things happened, or things didn't happen. But I know enough about how the Media works to know that nothing they do is accidental (unless it helps a Dem and hurts a Rep).
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 08, 2011 10:00 AM (i0App)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 10:00 AM (is/J6)
Dude, I had a room upgrade in Vegas just last year.
There is no way that I could prove or disprove it.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 08, 2011 10:01 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at November 08, 2011 10:01 AM (h6mPj)
I also know that Herman Cain left the NRA shortly thereafter.
Why?
Hmmm. No one has really asked that yet.
It sucked, that's why. I was bored outta my mind.
Posted by: Herman Cain at November 08, 2011 10:01 AM (w41GQ)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:01 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: observer at November 08, 2011 10:01 AM (XjePY)
Posted by: LASue at November 08, 2011 10:02 AM (hrr4h)
Still don't see what the big deal is about upgrading a room -- a kind word and a smile to a hotel clerk will get it done if they're not full, yet ace seems to think it's a smoking gun.
Posted by: millco88 at November 08, 2011 10:02 AM (I78pD)
Posted by: Trish at November 08, 2011 10:02 AM (yqhkv)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:02 AM (nj1bB)
Why?
Hmmm. No one has really asked that yet.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 01:59 PM (nj1bB)
I asked the other day, but it might have been taken as rhetorical
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 08, 2011 10:02 AM (fCkqS)
@ 49
Priceless.
And I wonder how many hours it took Ace to write this, because it's like he's writing specifically to have the comment thread not degenerate into a 700 comment argument between the it's-not-a-big-deal-you-worthless-RINO and the next-big-thing-time crowd.
Posted by: Austin in TX at November 08, 2011 10:02 AM (ImDT2)
Just as a FYI, Mr. Cain appears to have issued a blanket denial of everything if the AP account of his interview is to be believed:
"There is not an ounce of truth to all these allegations" and the graphic account from Sharon Bialek is "totally fabricated," the Georgia businessman told late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.
LINK: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111108/D9QSH8SO0.html
I presume "not an ounce of truth" means that even the little stuff that irritates me like inviting a girl to his apartment, going out on dinners alone with women while married and an executive, etc. are all untrue. That would be very good news indeed for all who support Mr. Cain.
Posted by: BruinEric at November 08, 2011 10:03 AM (KCzlc)
Posted by: Jeff at November 08, 2011 10:03 AM (xJSSF)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 01:50 PM (nj1bB)
All I ever wanted from them is specific charges. I don't want to know who they are, I want to know what they alleged he did.
And they steadfastly refuse to tell us.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 08, 2011 10:03 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 08, 2011 10:03 AM (h6mPj)
Herman Cain doesn't know his place. The assholes at MSNBC are at it again.
squibbet and transcript courtesy of realclearpolitics.com:
Toure says it will be interesting to see how Republicans, who aren't backing away from Cain despite numerous allegations of sexual harassment, react to this latest charge coming from a Â… white woman. Once again calling Cain the Republicans' "new black friend," Toure explains how "black sexuality" or, rather, "predatory black sexuality" scares white America, or something. Transcript:
Martin Bashir, host: "Toure, you were just nodding your head agreeing with Karen? What, on the ethnicity of the accuser?"
Toure: "Yes, absolutely. Charles Blow was talking about this the other day. What sort of comb, he says, does these women use? We're going to see how open the GOP is to this black -- their 'new black friend' when they find out he is harassing blonde women as opposed to black women. That sort of thing of black sexuality -- predatory black sexuality. Very frightening in this country, still. Very threatening. So we'll see how that plays out. "
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 08, 2011 10:03 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 02:00 PM (is/J6)
Not off-topic. Not off-topic at all.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 08, 2011 10:03 AM (T0NGe)
So, if it turns out that any part of it is true, will you completely disbelieve his denial?
If you take it as a specific denial of everything, then you have to believe she wasn't even in DC at that time. That she was never even in the hotel. Realize that. If he says that the accusation (blanket) is "patently false" then every particular she gave must be false.
Otherwise, it's an equivocal statement out from under which he can later attempt to wiggle.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 10:03 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:04 AM (nj1bB)
There is no way that I could prove or disprove it.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 08, 2011 02:01 PM (T0NGe)
Your bill will show the room number, and the room number will tell you what size room you had.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 08, 2011 10:04 AM (fCkqS)
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 08, 2011 10:05 AM (2YIVk)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:05 AM (nj1bB)
Agreed.
Posted by: Heorot at November 08, 2011 10:05 AM (Nq/UF)
I thought it was beforehand. I thought the charges were brought after he'd left.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 08, 2011 10:06 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Wall-E at November 08, 2011 10:06 AM (48wze)
Posted by: Bob Saget vs Matt Damon (no matter who wins, we lose) at November 08, 2011 10:06 AM (SDkq3)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:06 AM (nj1bB)
So you're believing everying in her account and hinging a lot of that on the room upgrade?? Seriously??
A question I have is why someone who's fired from an organization would go to the CEO of that organization for "help" in the future. Not saying Cain's above board on this whole episode, but let's not act like the accuser's tale is completely rational either.
Posted by: millco88 at November 08, 2011 10:07 AM (I78pD)
Your bill will show the room number, and the room number will tell you what size room you had.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 08, 2011 02:04 PM (fCkqS)
Nope. Didn't.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 08, 2011 10:07 AM (T0NGe)
You mean he wasn't doing that in the original. Man, that's so what I thought was going on.
Dude, I had a room upgrade in Vegas just last year.
There is no way that I could prove or disprove it.
The hotel could.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 10:07 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Mr Pink at November 08, 2011 10:08 AM (s8LxL)
Great! He's learned from last week when he said "oh I thought the "settlement" was an "agreement" and that's why when I initially said I had no knowledge of a settlement, I really really meant that!"
How Clintonesque of him.
For him being touted as the anti-politician politician he sure does seem to find a lot of technical and legal wiggleroom as he changes his story refreshes his memory of the events.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 10:08 AM (is/J6)
The encounter: “It looked sort of flirtatious,” said Jacobson. “I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”
In light of the crotch-grabbing charge, maybe she was just trying to let Herman know she found his wedding ring in her vajajay?
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 08, 2011 10:08 AM (Iaxlk)
Noone said to let him get the nomination then wory about his downside. I'm saying that the left/media will destroy him prior to primary voting if it is to be done. They will leave NO stone unturned to defeat him.
They don't need help from so-called conservative bloggers.
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 08, 2011 10:08 AM (AxbvX)
Posted by: The Outlaw in the Heavenly Hall at November 08, 2011 10:08 AM (On/5C)
Let's see:
Bialek's story is already falling apart.
Kraushaar is a left-wing political hack who has ideological reasons not to like Cain, and is therefore less than credible.
Another accuser had the chance to break confidentialty scot-free, and then suddenly chose not to.
This story is a joke. Can we go back to talking about a real issue, now, like tax plans or something?
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 08, 2011 10:08 AM (+inic)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:09 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: LASue at November 08, 2011 10:09 AM (hrr4h)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at November 08, 2011 10:09 AM (SB0V2)
Since we have "serious charges" that we're chasing around, maybe some looking into Bialek's claim of Tea Party membership would be in order.
Posted by: tubal at November 08, 2011 10:09 AM (BoE3Z)
Nope. Didn't.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 08, 2011 02:07 PM (T0NGe)
That's odd. I've got over ten years of my expense reports , and every hotel bill has a room number on it.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 08, 2011 10:11 AM (fCkqS)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:11 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Lady in Black at November 08, 2011 10:11 AM (ycuSb)
Who gives a shit?
Where would we be without ace defending our honor and the rectitude of the nation and it's chicks? You're so full of shit.
He's my third choice but damn if I don't bump him up to second just for kicks.
Posted by: runninrebel at November 08, 2011 10:11 AM (i3PJU)
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 10:11 AM (CE2wR)
Posted by: Chairman Mao at November 08, 2011 10:11 AM (tBMfq)
Posted by: Oh good at November 08, 2011 10:12 AM (q/891)
"Nope. Didn't.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 08, 2011 02:07 PM (T0NGe)"
Usually my bill does indicate the room number. Obviously the room number corresponds to a room, so that shows the room size.
It depends, though. I don't know. I assume there is some record out there, though. These days, that kind of stuff is on a computer.
Posted by: Dustin at November 08, 2011 10:12 AM (rQ/Ue)
She lost about 15% believability with that statement, putting doubt about the allegations back into the reasonable territory.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 08, 2011 10:12 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 08, 2011 10:12 AM (h6mPj)
Posted by: t-bird at November 08, 2011 10:12 AM (FcR7P)
Quite a roundup. Musta used up near all the electrons in the internet.
Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, though he did order two $400 bottles of wine and stuck the women with the bill, she said.
That cuts it with me. Sticking the women with the bill is a bridge too far. I'm done with Cain. Fucking cheapskate masher.
Posted by: maddogg at November 08, 2011 10:12 AM (OlN4e)
At least one of them was pre-departure.
A question I have is why someone who's fired from an organization would go to the CEO of that organization for "help" in the future.
That does bother me, too. And I'll say (again) that the accusations seem "off" to me. But what seems more "off" is the way in which Cain has failed to handle this. As Ace has been saying: if none of it is true, issue specific denials (especially about this one, where the public does know specifics) and then require proof. "No, I didn't upgrade her room. If I did, prove it. No, I did not attempt to sexually assault her." His "not an ounce of truth" and "patently false" statements either mean every word she said was a lie (her even being in DC in the hotel in question would fail this test), or that he's not actually denying anything specific, but only the "substance" of the charge.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 10:12 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: earlbutts at November 08, 2011 10:12 AM (G6kli)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 08, 201
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
Posted by: Tami at November 08, 2011 10:13 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: izoneguy at November 08, 2011 10:13 AM (i6Neb)
Posted by: F. Lee at November 08, 2011 10:13 AM (I/MzF)
This story is a joke. Can we go back to talking about a real issue, now, like tax plans or something?
Agreed. I started cooling on him a while back, probably about the time that he started attempting to talk about foreign policy. I think his gaffe on right of return and then how he walked that back was a problem for me. But I think what really did it was the racist rock; since then I haven't really been too keen on him at all.But I still think that this current stuff is BS.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 08, 2011 10:13 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: Shocking Cain News at November 08, 2011 10:14 AM (CE2wR)
But why would she think she had an "in" with the CEO of the org. that fired her previously. If I were a CEO, and someone came to me looking for some favours and I found out that she'd been fired from the group I run, I would probably give her the boot. And I would expect that to happen, were I in the opposite role. I agree with the original questioner - her story doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 08, 2011 10:14 AM (+inic)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 08, 2011 10:14 AM (o/UM0)
By the way, hereÂ’s a funny one. The other day I said something about an electric fence to fry Mexicans trying to cross our boarders and that liberal media didnÂ’t know I was joking. I wasnÂ’t joking I really want that fence that I was joking about. Oh and IÂ’m 100% against abortion but the government shouldnÂ’t get involved because thatÂ’s your right except it isnÂ’t your right so do what you want as long as you donÂ’t bother me with these questions because IÂ’m getting all dizzy and my sheÂ’s pretty so ask her if she wants a job under my desk but donÂ’t even think IÂ’m harassing anyone. And donÂ’t send me any bills over 3 pages unless of course it exceeds 3 pages and then itÂ’s okay as long as itÂ’s less than 3 pages or more than 3 pages or uh, next question please. What do you mean by asking me what I meant? IÂ’m Herman Cain so donÂ’t even go there cause youÂ’re just being racist and all of my missteps that I didnÂ’t make is all PerryÂ’s fault.
Posted by: andy42302 at November 08, 2011 10:14 AM (DD8Gy)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 08, 2011 10:15 AM (2QDaE)
An organization that fired her?? Do you really think the CEO of said organization can "help" you?? Really?? It's not like she got caught in some scandal and had to be the fall woman.
I'm sure we'll find out the details of her employment situation if this drags out, but you're acting like her motives were pure in this respect. Sorry, I'm not buying.
Doesn't mean Cain's story is 100% correct, but neither is hers. As usual, the "truth" will be somewhere in between.
Posted by: millco88 at November 08, 2011 10:15 AM (I78pD)
Posted by: Cricket at November 08, 2011 10:15 AM (DrC22)
This line in the post made me think of that:
>>I'm not sure what "political motivation" you would think she had at that time<<
Nevertheless, the weight from the number of accusations will crush Cain's campaign normally, so we will see.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 08, 2011 10:15 AM (JYheX)
Posted by: Jeff at November 08, 2011 10:15 AM (xJSSF)
http://tinyurl.com/6vyxvk7
This is someone's idea of a reporter to listen to? I am quite sympathetic to Cain, but this story is bringing ALL kinds of people out of the woodwork. Don't trust anything on the surface.
Posted by: Chester White at November 08, 2011 10:16 AM (Rz4g0)
I think if ace compiles all his Cain posts (including this "roundup") into one document, he'll be good for that 50K word novel competition thingie it would still be half the length of one of his movie reviews.
FIFM
Posted by: RushBabe at November 08, 2011 10:16 AM (tQHzJ)
The first time I heard of this kind of attack being used in politics was in the 60's, and I heard it in a story about Lyndon Johnson's run for senate in the 40's.
The story then was the following:
Lyndon was in a tight race for Senate, and was behind. He went to his campaign manager and told him to start a rumor campaign suggesting that his opponent, a pig farmer, liked to enjoy the favors of one of his barnyard sows. "Christ, Lyndon!", exclaimed his manager, "we can't call the guy a pig-f**ker!" "Of course not", Lyndon replied, "we'll just make him deny it".
Nothing has changed. Charges are made and it's up to the candidate to ~disprove~ them.
I'm a little disappointed in Ace, but hey, "It's Washington, Jake. Forget about it".
Posted by: Lokki at November 08, 2011 10:17 AM (a5F9g)
Posted by: Z Ryan at November 08, 2011 10:18 AM (tsC/8)
If all this pans out to be true, Herb Cain is the worst philanderer in history.
If this is true, Herman Cain can't get laid with a pocketfull of fities in a whorehouse.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 08, 2011 10:19 AM (sqkOB)
No. Exactly the opposite, in fact. He's supposed to state, unequivocally, that it can't be done because it didn't happen, and then challenge her to prove him wrong. Unless, of course, it did happen.
So many here seem to be saying that those of us who look at this like "where smoke, probably fire" are claiming that Cain is "guilty until proven innocent." And, frankly, in politics that is a true statement. At least for Republicans. However, the way you attempt to "prove a negative" (politically speaking) is explain that no evidence exists because nothing happened- and then challenge your opponent to prove you wrong.
Because, here's the thing, even if she then comes back and says, "Oh, it was 1997, I don't have records going back to then" or "Oh, that was so long ago, no one will have those records," or whatever, Cain can say, "Well, then it's awful convenient that you just happen to have an accusation from a time where there would be no evidence one way or the other, and the only thing left is 'he said/she said.'"
But that would require a specific: "No, I didn't do it. Prove otherwise."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 10:19 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 10:19 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Countrysquire at November 08, 2011 10:20 AM (1hLHC)
Good luck with that.
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 02:11 PM (nj1bB)
Sadly I've come to the conclusion that sizable proportion of conservatives (20%, maybe 30%+) just want to be fed rah-rah morality-tale propaganda where Conservatives are always the virtuous innocent victims beset by perfidious, constantly-lying Liberals. The actual facts - not so important.
Luckily there are plenty of blogs and talk show hosts who cater to this.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 08, 2011 10:20 AM (3CH8y)
http://tinyurl.com/6n4zj8
Posted by: The Robot Devil at November 08, 2011 10:20 AM (136wp)
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at November 08, 2011 10:21 AM (+3fAP)
You think it's specious because he's our guy.
No, I think it's specious for a couple of reasons.
For starters, she asked to be let out her NDA so she could tell her story and once the NRA said "okay," she changed her mind and decided she didn't want to tell her story anymore. I call that questionable behavior.
In addition, I was accused of sexual harassment at a job I had back in 1999. I still do not know what I supposedly did and to whom to this day, because instead of putting up with that shit (and I already hated the job anyway) I quit.
But I will guarantee you that I was totally and completely innocent. The only thing I can imagine that might have caused that accusation was that I was making a comment to a guy on the other side of my cube wall about a body suit designed for gaming that I read about on a website. I said to him "porn industry gets a hold of that technology and this whole country is gonna be nothing but a bunch of pasty white fat guys never leaving their basement."
But I learned that there is basically no defense against an accusation of sexual harassment. None. I demanded to know who had made t he charge and what had I supposedly done and was never told. But I was suddenly being told, in a very serious demeanor, how seriously they take these things and how I was now on probation. That's when I told them to take their job and shove it and walked out.
So anyone who questions Cain's honesty or innocence simply because two women filed harassment claims needs to understand just how simple that process is and that the accused basically has no chance from that point forward.
Which is why most lawyers recommend settling in exchange for NDAs. Not because they doubt the innocence of the client, but because they know that there is no positive outcome for the accused and the payoff is the least worst option available.
So do I give Cain the benefit of the doubt here? Hells yeah.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 08, 2011 10:21 AM (3Okgs)
Good Sir, with all respect due: you show your lack of knowledge when it comes to the female of our species: "FEMALIS GREENWITHENVICUS CATICUS" (Typical American Female). This Ace, is EXACTLY the type of thing one would expect a female 'friend' to say anonymously about her 'friend'. It's a common trait displayed and observed by men of all walks of life who have had any experience with females and have seen them interact.
Posted by: mrclark -> NOT John Holmes at November 08, 2011 10:21 AM (kzZMU)
Posted by: Jeff at November 08, 2011 10:21 AM (xJSSF)
Posted by: surprised at November 08, 2011 10:22 AM (k1rwm)
off stinky sock
It doesn't matter who the candidate is Obozo and the MFM will use a scorched earth policy. That is what is driving Cains poll numbers to date. It seems 8 years of Bush bashing has got people willing to ignore the stories whether true of not.
Posted by: sonnyspats at November 08, 2011 10:23 AM (I/MzF)
Cain needs to pick a sympatheic show and go on it witth his wife like Bubba in 1992 on 60 Minutes.
Deny everything. Perhps some crying.
(Mrs. Cain mumbling something about a vast left wing conspiracy is optional.)
Posted by: Bob from Ohio at November 08, 2011 10:23 AM (ROFkf)
You've convinced everybody you're going to convince. You can stop chasing off through the weeds trying to capture the hold outs.
Posted by: Heorot at November 08, 2011 10:23 AM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: runninrebel at November 08, 2011 10:23 AM (i3PJU)
Megyn Kelly had a blonde woman on her show a little while ago.....who was talking about an encounter she witnessed between Cain and this Bialek woman, just a few weeks ago. It was at a tea party event.
Did anyone else see that?
She described the encounter as being "non-confrontational" and "cordial".....and that Cain and Bialek spoke in whispers for a while, then Cain walked off and went up on stage to speak.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 08, 2011 10:23 AM (ZQK1u)
So this really isn't a sex scandal, is it?
It's more like a Tryin-to-hook-up-and-gettin-rejected-a-lot scandal.
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 08, 2011 10:23 AM (sqkOB)
She lives in David Axelrod's building.
That's all I need to know.
That's not even "guilt by association." That's "guilt by association with someone who's guilty by association."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 10:24 AM (8y9MW)
She get a hotelroom, asks cain to meet her at the bar? Then they go out to an Italian restaurant, and then Cain ask her what she is doing here??
Ok If I were Cain in this situation, I'd take the hint that she was a little loose and was the kind to do anything for a job. She was trying to seduce him. Thats obvious. I don't buy her story in the car. Seems outrageous and hyperbolic. I bet Cain told her no thanks, or he figured out she was psycho, and he left. She, being a little unhinged, has been stewing about this for 14 years.. (btw, her lengthy court history and employment history suggests someone who isn't a stable person) With the long memory of a slight, and bringing it up like it happened yesterday, I'm guessing bi-polar, and she saw an opportunity to turn the tables on Cain. She whitened her teeth, did the whole hair/wig/extensions/whatever thing costing a shitload and got Allred? She mentions her 'boyfriend' 40 times in 5 minutes. Red Flag. She knows it looks bad, and makes up some 'boyfriend'. Bizarre. Allreds a hack who got Whitmans dumb maid to claim she was treated like an animal.... for $24 an hour. riiight.
Posted by: Sally Herfenirbler at November 08, 2011 10:24 AM (bcmD0)
Posted by: surprised at November 08, 2011 10:25 AM (k1rwm)
Well supposedly his statement about these allegations hasn't been made yet. I assume he is gathering relevant facts.
At this point, 15 years later, if she embellishes 1 fact, I will assume the unverifiable portions of her story are embellished as well. If she falsifies one fact, I will assume the the unverifiable portions of her story are falsified as well. She shot her credibility away by hiring Allred, and making the obviously fatuous statement with Piers Morgan.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 08, 2011 10:25 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 08, 2011 10:25 AM (h6mPj)
Hillary or Obama?
Bill or Cain or Romney?
Ol' Bill's out there pushing for three-term limits again.
Posted by: What Now?! at November 08, 2011 10:25 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Tami at November 08, 2011 10:25 AM (X6akg)
158 Help us, Obi-Wan-Christie, you're our only hope...
Please. Lets keep that fat bastard RINO where he belongs, and it ain't in the GOP.
Posted by: maddogg at November 08, 2011 10:25 AM (OlN4e)
That's not even "guilt by association." That's "guilt by association with someone who's guilty by association."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 02:24 PM (8y9MW)
I think legally, that's 'Guilt by Homeowners' Association'.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 08, 2011 10:25 AM (fCkqS)
Posted by: ed at November 08, 2011 10:26 AM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 08, 2011 10:26 AM (UlUS4)
Posted by: RushBabe at November 08, 2011 10:26 AM (tQHzJ)
I've had frenemies, although I've never been a frenemy. I am always astounded when I discover the truth.
Just why?
Posted by: What Now?! at November 08, 2011 10:26 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Johhny Cochran's Ghost at November 08, 2011 10:27 AM (kzZMU)
I can accept that: then we would have a proven reason to distrust her- not just poor judgment of representation, or mangled third hand reports of a conversation.
And I will say- if this is false, it is not "just politics" it is a horrible affront to an honorable man. But I must say, I would expect an honorable man to have confronted this differently.
Maybe that expectation is unjustified, maybe it's not "fair," but it's my expectation nonetheless.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 10:28 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: deadrody at November 08, 2011 10:28 AM (l9UkQ)
Posted by: Ramses II at November 08, 2011 10:29 AM (R3k3C)
Posted by: zanne at November 08, 2011 10:29 AM (Ot6xc)
ps...axelrod
Posted by: Canedrone at November 08, 2011 10:29 AM (is/J6)
Posted by: Jehu at November 08, 2011 10:29 AM (/rpUg)
Yeah, but all Homeowners' Associations are guilty. I freaking hate HOAs with a passion that nears AmishDude's hatred of lawyers.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 08, 2011 10:29 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Jean at November 08, 2011 10:29 AM (WkuV6)
Since the press conference hasn't happened yet, this is speculation, right now. If this is what they say, this is a VERY big problem.
Honest people do make general denials and dance around, unless they've just been accused of something at the time the question is asked. He's had more than 24 hours to come up with a response - how hard is 'the truth' to come up with.
General denials and carefully worded statements are what people who are guilty of something usually do when they've had time to consider how they can spin or cover it. See Holder, Eric.
Posted by: blindside at November 08, 2011 10:30 AM (x7g7t)
Next up on Ace's of Omaha. Jim will get out of the Jeep and poke the Hippys of OWS.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 08, 2011 10:30 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Chester White at November 08, 2011 02:16 PM (Rz4g0)
--Cocktease. I thought there would be a bikini shot with that story.
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 10:30 AM (CE2wR)
Cain needs to pick a sympatheic show and go on it witth his wife like Bubba in 1992 on 60 Minutes.
Deny everything. Perhps some crying.
Might I suggest a forum?
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 10:30 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 08, 2011 10:30 AM (GTbGH)
Listen up, punks, Herman Cain is the only true conservative in this contest and if he's not the nominee then not only will I vote for Obama, like I did in '08, I'll never again vote for any Republican in any contest at any level of any goverment. Harumph!
Cain's true conservative bon voyages can't be doubted. If you're doubting Cain than you're obviously retarded from Gardasil.
While that Mexican loving twerp Perry has been so-called "governing" the left-wing State of Taxes Dr. Cain has been busy writing his memoirs and holding his book tour.
Also, punks, we need a true anti-establishment candidate, not some D.C. retread. Cain is anti-establishment. We know this from his track record. When Dr. Cain ran that restaurant trade group lobbying Congress for laws and regulations that would benefit the restaurant industy that was anti-establishment. When he ran for U.S. Senate and went nowhere in the primary that was anti-establishment. Now that he's running for the presidency he's doing so on an anti-establishment platform. What could be more anti-establishment than a national sales tax, combined with a national business VAT tax, combined with a personal income tax??
Cain-Gingrich-Gingrich-Cain, '12. Nut up or shut up!
Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at November 08, 2011 10:30 AM (f8XyF)
There's a line in the old Dan Jenkins novel Semi-Tough, where one of the good-old-boy football players tells one of his black teammates something along the lines that American society is better now that a black man can get in a restaurant, but we won't truly live in a land of equality until a black man can get thrown out of a restaurant without people crying racism. (Jenkins used much saltier language, to be sure.)
We all wanted to like Cain. There's something about a black Republican that draws our loyalty -- perhaps because black men have to risk so much opprobrium from the black community to be conservative. We feel like we owe it to them. But the truth is that Cain isn't a very good candidate, and if we weren't grading him on an affirmative-action curve, he'd be recognized as the shallowest candidate on the stage. And now maybe it also turns out that he's not a very nice man. One allegation from a long time ago: maybe it's a hit job. (That's why I'm confident saying Anita Hill was a hit job; there weren't any other allegations against Clarence Thomas.) But four or five allegations, and contemporaneous documentation of actual claims? That's too much smoke; there must be fire.
Time to throw Hermann out of the restaurant.
Posted by: The Regular Guy at November 08, 2011 10:30 AM (qHCyt)
This concerns me greatly.
As it does me...He like the others is a poor candidate... I bet being notably so lousy concerns a lot of people in a lot of places.
GDammit! I'm being attacked by tinfoil!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 08, 2011 10:31 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 08, 2011 10:31 AM (UlUS4)
Posted by: clayton endicott at November 08, 2011 10:31 AM (JU0xh)
Posted by: Comanche Voter at November 08, 2011 10:31 AM (3ESDJ)
I'd like to hear more titillating details of the alleged groping.
How far up her leg did he get? Did he touch her underwear? If she was not wearing underwear, did he make it to the bush?
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 08, 2011 10:32 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: JoeS at November 08, 2011 10:32 AM (2rpjM)
Posted by: surprised at November 08, 2011 10:32 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 08, 2011 10:33 AM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Jeff at November 08, 2011 10:33 AM (xJSSF)
You see? This is what I've been sayin'. If he was that kind of guy there would be an accusation that he literally whipped his dick out at some point. You called him that because that's what guys like that do.
Posted by: runninrebel at November 08, 2011 10:33 AM (i3PJU)
The next? Smells like an auto accident or such.
The last two are most likely debt collectors. That Midland company, if they are the one I'm thinking of, are bottom feeders who sue all the time on time-barred debt.
But maybe I'm wrong. You can learn more about candidate Cain and his serious campaign to win the GOP nomination at his townhall in Alabama (3/13/12 primary). That's how serious he is--he doesn't even need to campaign in the early states, he's going for the knock-out blow in states with primary dates AFTER Super Tuesday.
Posted by: Jimmuy at November 08, 2011 10:33 AM (hROVJ)
He is a man who is running for POTUS and had no plan for dealing with these allegations. Further, he never told his wife about them.
He is either a liar or a fool.
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 10:34 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 08, 2011 10:34 AM (yAor6)
Yawn. I've seen this show before. Time to come up with some new material.
Posted by: Heorot at November 08, 2011 10:34 AM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: ace at November 08, 2011 02:19
Not trapped and not believing spin mode. Still waiting for some evidence? You seem to be eagerly enlisting in the takedown of a Republican candidate. That is what seems to be happening to me.
Sadly I've come to the conclusion that sizable proportion of conservatives (20%, maybe 30%+) just want to be fed rah-rah morality-tale propaganda where Conservatives are always the virtuous innocent victims beset by perfidious, always-lying Liberals. The actual facts - not so important.
Luckily there are plenty of blogs and talk show hosts who cater to this.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 08, 2011 02:20 PM
Not looking for rah-rah morality tale propaganda. What happened to giving the benefit of the doubt to people on our side? Or is Cain not on your side? Is there any evidence you have that makes you doubt that Obama would throw out as many accussers as it took to get the job done, even if none of them produced a single document that demonstrated their veracity? They know that Thomas survived one accusser, so now they bring out a bevy. They refuse to produce documents because when they tried to produce documents before, they were shown to be forgeries. (See Bush).
At what point will you recognize that they are immoral liars who will stop at nothing to win? Therefore, let them produce even the slightest scintilla of evidence before claiming a Republican Candidate is guilty as alleged.
Posted by: NewEnglandDevil at November 08, 2011 10:34 AM (73P68)
It's really quite vile - read at your own risk.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 10:35 AM (is/J6)
Ace, I love that your staunchest political allies these days are, respectively, Democrats who work for the Obama administration and bankrupt deadbeats who retain the services of Gloria Allred to launch crusades against Republican presidential candidates. Let's see, we have a woman who doesn't want to recount the events that led to her severance, give us any specifics, or give us a single solitary charge against Herman Cain.
According to her lawyer, this Obama employee "see(s) no value in revisiting this matter now, nor in discussing this matter further, publicly or privately. In fact, it would be extremely painful to do so." And yet, curiously enough, this woman for whom it would be so extremely painful to pursue the matter any further has no problem sending said lawyer out to do non-event press conferences and making herself the subject of articles like this, which do nothing to advance a single fact or charge against Herman Cain but which keep alive the "harasser" narrative against him, without having to substantiate it. How about that.
You still have jack shit, Ace.
No, that's not quite right. You do have a sympathetic puff piece of a news story that pounds home the point of what a good and reliable person this poor aggrieved woman without a single concrete fact is, topped by a photo of her smiling and posing next to a fucking horse.
Who could disbelieve this charming little embodiment of Americana?
B E L I E V E, A C E.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 08, 2011 10:35 AM (2QDaE)
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at November 08, 2011 10:35 AM (mAm+G)
Posted by: ed at November 08, 2011 10:35 AM (Y2WVW)
Maybe that expectation is unjustified, maybe it's not "fair," but it's my expectation nonetheless.
The way you expect a boxer to handle a punch in round 1 is different than round 15. I can't fault him too much, after being beat up for a solid week. I'm going to cut him some slack on what I think the "best response" would be.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 08, 2011 10:36 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Village Idiot at November 08, 2011 10:36 AM (utXSy)
Posted by: tubal at November 08, 2011 10:36 AM (BoE3Z)
I think Cain is going for the What?! defense. http://tinyurl.com/64kn4t5
This is the MFM with our heads till blogs came along. Now we document daily goings on and follow the trail. No more down the memory hole!
Posted by: sonnyspats at November 08, 2011 10:36 AM (I/MzF)
Posted by: alexthedude at November 08, 2011 10:36 AM (SvEXB)
Yeah, what happened to that?
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2011 10:36 AM (0nqdj)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 08, 2011 10:37 AM (o/UM0)
Posted by: Jeff at November 08, 2011 10:38 AM (xJSSF)
Posted by: ed at November 08, 2011 10:38 AM (Y2WVW)
Nothing more conservative than a national sales tax, am I right?
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2011 10:38 AM (0nqdj)
Ace, come back to the Light.....and by "Light" I meant the "Dark."
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at November 08, 2011 10:39 AM (HqpV0)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 08, 2011 02:35 PM (2QDaE)
I gotta say i'm with War on this one, you've been consistent and good at your observations of the story War though I would add that I myself doubt how innocent Cain is, however I'm troubled by it and hope it is a bunch of bs (and I have yet to see definitive evidence of either guilt or innocence). However, it seems to me ace is happy this is happening to Cain and rooting it on. After all he's gone all in it seems.
There's so many other things that should disqualify Cain...
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 08, 2011 10:39 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2011 10:39 AM (0nqdj)
Posted by: Cricket
Sometimes to quit smoking cigarettes you have to start smoking meth.
Posted by: Z Ryan at November 08, 2011 10:39 AM (tsC/8)
Posted by: Jeff at November 08, 2011 10:40 AM (xJSSF)
Oh, but of course! I'll bet she's even a Tea Party Republican who listens to Rush every day and comes from a long line of committed conservatives who just want to stand on principle.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 08, 2011 10:41 AM (2QDaE)
Isn't it gross-receipt taxes? Which would be bad. Or am I confused.
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 08, 2011 10:41 AM (GTbGH)
It's really quite vile - read at your own risk.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 02:35 PM (is/J6)
--I'm going to keep my knowledge of the charges third-hand. 
Sandusky will not last long in prison, maybe even with solitary.
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 10:41 AM (CE2wR)
Sometimes to quit smoking cigarettes you have to start smoking meth.
And when you give up meth, it's back to glue....
Posted by: The Robot Devil at November 08, 2011 10:41 AM (136wp)
I'm not a Cain fan - I don't see his lack of holding elected office as a positive; I don't like his 9-9-9 plan or national sales tax; I think heis foreign policy positions lack much of a coherent plan; and I just don't feel like he's seasoned enough to be a good president.
That being said, I'm coming around more to the feeling that there's really not anything to these specific accusations. I assume that any asshat who willingly associates with Gloria Alred is a lying, gold-digging, militant feminist, contemptible piece of shit, and nothing that happens is going to change my mind on that score. I'd be slightly more open to believing the two women who actually filed sexual harrasement claims. Although, without hearing the specifics of what they allege happened, I tend to view sexual harrasment accusations very skeptically as well.
Where I'm at now, I don't really believe Herman Cain did anything particularly egregious, or even morally wrong - certainly nothing that would disqualify him for running for President. The bigger story to me is Cain's thorough mishandling of his response to this whole situation. Since he has no political record to look at, all I can measure him against is what he says his positions are, and how he handles himself in the campaign. Needless to say, he is not impressing me with his firm control of the situation here.
To me, the worst part is that all the average uninformed, non-political person out there hears is, "Herman Cain. Sexual harassment. 4th woman!" And I feel the MFM really is going to do a good job of destroying Cain (with no legitimate accusations), much like they did to Palin.
I'm not sure if I have a point, but all the dems and the MFM should go DiaF.
Posted by: OSUsux at November 08, 2011 10:41 AM (DFXmi)
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 08, 2011 10:42 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Minuteman at November 08, 2011 10:42 AM (C3AGc)
Posted by: boone at November 08, 2011 10:42 AM (btqlL)
Also, I thought the "apartment" building address looked familiar, so I did a quick web search. I was right. It's Lake Point Tower, a 70-story skyscraper right on the water next to Navy Pier. Not just a little building where everyone knows everybody else. A company I used to work for had a condo there, and I stayed there a lot on business, sometimes for a month at a time. Never had anyone in the building even say "hello" to me, although I did get along pretty well with the parking valets...
Posted by: TH at November 08, 2011 10:42 AM (j4syI)
Cain's own bumblefucking around on the stories disqualifies Cain.
He's his own worst enemy. Not bloggers that point out how shitty of a candidate he is.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 10:42 AM (is/J6)
re: Penn State and Sandusky
Nothing surprises me anymore but this story has me very discombobulated.
I find myself asking how? what? why? Huh? Wait. What?
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 08, 2011 10:43 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: gold digging loser at November 08, 2011 10:43 AM (nBE5A)
Try this: http://tinyurl.com/6rznuvp
Bikini shot of reporter covering a missing woman story, going to the home of the husband, the guy the police called their only "person of interest," in a bikini. Does that sound like a sensible reporter?
Posted by: Chester White at November 08, 2011 10:43 AM (Rz4g0)
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 02:40 PM (piMMO)
"suprised", "caniac", and "cain supporter" have been her recent faves
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 08, 2011 10:44 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Jehu at November 08, 2011 10:45 AM (/rpUg)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 08, 2011 10:45 AM (21lBC)
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2011 02:39 PM (0nqdj)
--True, but I'll continue to separate what is legitimate grounds for not supporting his primary campaign (the rock comment did it once and for all for me) from serious legal issues based so far on ether.
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 10:45 AM (CE2wR)
Posted by: surprised at November 08, 2011 10:45 AM (k1rwm)
I wonder if I will be able to find a thread to talk about that.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 08, 2011 10:45 AM (0q2P7)
they booked a room that i'd asked for a computer service and they put me on a floor where you couldn't get reception, moved to a nicer room a few floors up (nice view etc)for my trouble and loss of time that night.
second time, was an issue with the wall heat they couldn't adjust heat they sent a repair man on the first day, didn't fix it, then i was moved to another room on the 3rd day, actually nicer and at no extra cost.
(don't know if the room number was on bill ,i assume so ,as depending on the attributes of a room you are charged accordingly.)
not saying this means anything .
just that it happens.
however , at this point i am suspicious of Cain, so many allegations. but i'd still like an email or something with a penis pic
Posted by: willow at November 08, 2011 10:45 AM (h+qn8)
He's his own worst enemy. Not bloggers that point out how shitty of a candidate he is.
I agree and I can agree while not liking that I think certain people are rooting for him to be guilty. Im not a Cain guy and I hope he's not the nom but Im not gonna just act like i'm not seeing what i'm seeing
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 08, 2011 10:46 AM (yAor6)
Stormed off? Was that before or after this pic was taken?
http://tinyurl.com/7z3ay6j
Posted by: Tami at November 08, 2011 10:46 AM (X6akg)
This is what happened in 2008 and it's what's happening now. We got McCain then and now we'll get Romney.
And the best case scenario of a Romney/Obama match up it an Obama win that speeds up events without tainting the appeal of freedom and liberty.
Posted by: runninrebel at November 08, 2011 10:46 AM (i3PJU)
Agreed. There is a hierarchy even in prison and child rapists/predators are amongst the vilest of the vile.
Damn everyone in PSU's athletics apartment that knew about this and gave Jerry Sandusky a pass.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 08, 2011 10:47 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 02:40 PM (piMMO)
"suprised", "caniac", and "cain supporter" have been her recent faves
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 08, 2011 02:44 PM (yAor6)
--She invariably uses the k1rwn hash.
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 10:47 AM (CE2wR)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 10:47 AM (tazG1)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 08, 2011 02:45 PM (21lBC)
+1, ditto, it's my point exactly
Posted by: RINO VP AuthorLMendez, AKA YRM, Troll, Who Supports Banning Curious at November 08, 2011 10:47 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Soothsayer at November 08, 2011 02:34 PM (sqkOB)
Mr. RB watches the reruns every morning before work. There's a guy in his van pool who's just as well versed in all things Bundy as my mister. The van-pool guy holds a local bar title as king of trivia.
Posted by: RushBabe at November 08, 2011 10:48 AM (tQHzJ)
I like a lot of things about Herman Cain. But even before these stories broke, there was a certain "creep factor" about him. The way he refers to himself in the third person. And "Let Herman be Herman". Groan. I've heard him make a number of off-colored (inappropriate) jokes (some sexual) that raised the "creepy flag". Those who say this is somewhat Clintonesque are right. He reminds me of a mix of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. He is part carnival barker, part self-promoter, narcissistic. Nothing terribly wrong with that, but it's a certain type of character/personality profile that also is self-delusional (i.e. never accepts the truth about himself).
I repeat: It's so obvious to anyone that is objective that Cain is lying. I have no idea what Cain did, how often, to what extent, etc. How could I or anyone else know (unless you were there)? We'll never know the absolute truth. But it's easy to tell when someone is lying.
While I find Allred despicable, and Bialek does seem like a white trash "golddigger", that doesn't make her story necessarily untrue. I think her version of the story has flaws in it - but there are still some facts that can't be explained away. For example, the room upgrade. For example, Cain meeting with this woman for drinks and dinner. In this case and MANY others we see a pattern that keeps repeating. Namely, that Cain is constantly looking for action. He puts himself in these situations, he makes overtures, and his wife is conveniently never around in those situations. I think this "story" is about a guy who is a serial cheater rather than a "sexual harasser". Herman loves hot women. Hey - so do I! But I don't have to lie about it because I'm not married. How many examples do his supporters need to believe what their eyes tell them? Cain is a player. I don't blame him. I don't even know if that's reason to rule him out as a potential POTUS. Some excellent leaders have serious character flaws. We aren't the ones married to these cheating men - so should we care? Debatable.
The sister of one of the accusers is absolutely right:
“His denial of the whole thing, and his making light of it, seems to me to be more damaging to his character than the initial allegations,” said Karen Kraushaar’s sister-in-law, who asked not to be named. “If he would have just come out and said, ‘This is what happened,’ it would have been so much better for everybody.”
The reason is because Cain knows the more he says, the greater the odds of him getting caught in how lies. And to you supporters of Cain: DENYING something is nowhere near the same thing as "coming clean" or being forthcoming with facts, which Cain has not been. He can say "I have never sexually offended any woman". Fine. But that in no way explains what happened in these multiple instances.
When this story first broke, I was looking to see what Cain would say and how he would handle it. It was total fail. Nothing Cain has said or done since has changed my mind. I can understand why Cain won't admit to himself that he is what he is. That's typical. Afterall, he probably does love his wife, and does not want to pay the price for admitting the truth. But his supporters? Yeesh. Wake up! Love is truly blind, but you aren't supposed to fall in love with candidates (look how well that worked with Obama).
Those who are being measured in their responses, and not knee-jerkingly defending or accusing Cain, deserve a lot of respect.
Posted by: mike bell at November 08, 2011 10:48 AM (Kz6PE)
this is getting practically scholastic in its obtuseness....bottom line cain is a deeply flawed candidate--superficial,uninformed and as narcissicistically egotististic as obrother in da white house--you wanna feel good about voting for a black guy--usa been there done that--you know deep down if cain was a white guy with all these defienciencies--true conservatives would have equated him with rex the wonder horse and moved on from his side show act--in the words of the stuttering german when ask if he was for hermann--nein nein nein! ps ace could you make the next post on this topic a multiple choice instead of a blue book this shiznit is like recitating justifications by hadiths on the profit herman's sex life
Posted by: HULUGU at November 08, 2011 10:49 AM (nIXr0)
Well those people are far outnumbered by the people that go immediately to the "you hate Cain" card. If you're vocal about your belief he's the worst possible candidate, for too many, that translates to "hatred" of Cain.
And that's just bizarre.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 10:49 AM (is/J6)
Iran Worked to ‘Miniaturize’ Weapon Design
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 08, 2011 10:50 AM (9hSKh)
I don't see this at all. I really don't.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 10:50 AM (is/J6)
Criminy, give it a rest already, willya? It was one comment, made in a debate, a format at which Perry does not excel, and immediately afterward he said that he expressed himself poorly. He should have just said "the Feds won't control the border and the legislature voted for it because once they're here we might as well make them productive members of society." A position with which I do not disagree. But you anti-Perry folks keep bringing it up as if he still says it every day, and twice before breakfast.
Posted by: TH at November 08, 2011 10:51 AM (j4syI)
Posted by: boone
And when the personal destruction comes out on the nominee, there won't be enough evidence.
Posted by: Z Ryan at November 08, 2011 10:51 AM (tsC/8)
--True, but I'll continue to separate what is legitimate grounds for not supporting his primary campaign (the rock comment did it once and for all for me) from serious legal issues based so far on ether.
+1
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 08, 2011 10:51 AM (YmPwQ)
Hey, that's hurtful, man. What I'd ever do to you? C'mon, man!
Posted by: Jack Sh!t at November 08, 2011 10:51 AM (136wp)
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 08, 2011 10:52 AM (AxbvX)
It amazes me that so many Republicans seem to think Cain is not married. Any kind of behavior along the lines suggested is inappropriate for a married man. Meeting a woman for drinks is not even on the list of approved married activities.
I am further amazed that so many Republicans seem to forget Cain is a minister of his faith. None of the actions that he is associated with conform with the actions of a man of God. Certainly shoving your hand up a woman's dress, and fondling her, most especially against her will, is not considered the normal practice for the ministers of any Christian churches I know of. The word hypocrite seems under used in the case of Herman Cain.
I am amazed that Republicans are excusing Cain at all and not demanding he answer the allegations with some specifics.
What happened to the party that stood for basic Judeo/Christian values?
Posted by: Sheldon at November 08, 2011 10:52 AM (hgrmi)
Posted by: runninrebel at November 08, 2011 10:53 AM (i3PJU)
Posted by: surprised at November 08, 2011 10:54 AM (k1rwm)
perry whom I'm trying to support, also went and pointed the finger at romney.
both were stupid acts.
Posted by: willow at November 08, 2011 10:54 AM (h+qn8)
both were stupid acts.
Agreed.
Posted by: Slublog at November 08, 2011 10:56 AM (0nqdj)
What happened to the party that stood for basic Judeo/Christian values?
Posted by: Sheldon at November 08, 2011 02:52 PM (hgrmi)
aka(conservative woman)
i know, right?!
i dunno shameful isn't it, guess nothing to do but vote for integrity also known as the Dem party.
Posted by: willow at November 08, 2011 10:56 AM (h+qn8)
http://tinyurl.com/7z3ay6j
Not a terribly clear photo, but Cain looks a bit more tense than dose anyone else in the photo.
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 10:56 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: knuckle dusters for ten year olds HR 420-V at November 08, 2011 10:56 AM (nBE5A)
Amy Jacobson is kinda Hawt, so I can't really blame him...
Posted by: Luke Duke at November 08, 2011 10:56 AM (xvu+K)
It's that it seems to a lot of us that he is gleefully rooting for Cain's *destruction*.
I'm not sure if he is gleefully rooting for Cain's personal destruction as much as his candidacy's destruction. But I am very annoyed at the "anyone who disagrees with me is crazy" bullshit.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 08, 2011 10:57 AM (YmPwQ)
Yeah, defeating Obama is definitely coming in a distant second to defeating Cain.
Posted by: Heorot at November 08, 2011 10:57 AM (Nq/UF)
See what?
He's a very, very detailed oriented, nuanced blogger. And his posting on Cain is consistent with how he writes.
He's discussing details that some just want to gloss over apparently. And that makes him 'gleeful over a candidate's destruction'? It's not 'ace colored glasses'- I'm just not buying that argument.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 10:58 AM (iWb1o)
Posted by: Zombie Johnnie Cockhran at November 08, 2011 10:59 AM (i3PJU)
Just talking about all this is a win for Obama, the media, and the DemonRats!
Why do we fall for these traps everytime?
Posted by: KeepingMyEyeonTheBall at November 08, 2011 11:00 AM (JMsOK)
But I am very annoyed at the "anyone who disagrees with me is crazy" bullshit.
Tell me about it.
Posted by: S. Palin at November 08, 2011 11:02 AM (tQHzJ)
Posted by: surprised at November 08, 2011 11:02 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Zombie Johnnie Cockhran at November 08, 2011 11:04 AM (i3PJU)
Don't want to "gloss over" anything, just pointing out that there ARE OTHER THINGS GOING ON in the world.
Hell, if I'm supposed to swallow that I have to vote for Romney or all the ills in the world are my fault, shouldn't someone at least try to CONVINCE me about his positives? This is a waste of time and a witch hunt.
Ace accuses Cain supporters (which, again, I am not) of having "cult of personality". Seems some posters have such a cult for the head Ewok himself.
Don't you DARE question Ace! He's just fab!
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 08, 2011 11:05 AM (AxbvX)
He's discussing details that some just want to gloss over apparently. And that makes him 'gleeful over a candidate's destruction'? It's not 'ace colored glasses'- I'm just not buying that argument.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 02:58 PM (iWb1o)
I concur. I think Ace has been a little to ready to draw a firm conclusion from the limited evidence, but he has actually been pretty fair about making his case, much more so than most of his critics. He also has had a bit more information than the rest of us for some time prior to the allegations becoming public, which should be factored into any assessment of he he has been covering this.
Posted by: Grey Fox at November 08, 2011 11:06 AM (MSCON)
God forbid a man start a humble little opinion blog and build it into one of the most successful conservative blogs based upon nothing more than his own hard work and sense of humor. And THEN...to have the nerve to continue to post his opinion, for free, to that very website, and invite others to agree or disagree with him. How DARE HE solicit feedback regarding the design of that blog and request that the participants remain somewhat civil in their interactions.
He's got a lot of fucking nerve.
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 11:07 AM (piMMO)
Ace, Gabe,
Feel free to address my argument!
Bill Cosby, definitely NOT a conservative Republican, publicly stated his disgust with seeing subliterate, violent black teens standing in the street, screaming and cursing and dropping the "N" word every five seconds.
Bill Cosby publicly stated that he would like to see young black people pull up their pants, learn to speak proper English, stop screaming and cursing, get jobs, take education seriously, and try taking the necessary steps to preserve their dignity.
Suddenly, Bill Cosby was besieged by multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, accusations which had mysteriously gone entirely unrreported prior to his criticism of the deplorable state of black pop culture....
Curious, isn't it?
Once Cosby stopped speaking out, the charges disappeared.
But, hey, we all know that George Bush is Hitler and that Sarah Palin is the Devil, so let's just continue trashing our own.
Ace, you're acting as the MFM's handmaiden.
This site used to make me laugh. Now ya'll make me wanna puke.
Posted by: Sam Adams at November 08, 2011 11:09 AM (k1wVn)
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 08, 2011 11:09 AM (AxbvX)
Posted by: Zombie Johnnie Cockhran at November 08, 2011 03:04 PM (i3PJU)
Zombie Johnny Cochran references are almost as universal as is South Park in its application to nearly any circumstance.
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 11:09 AM (piMMO)
See what?
He's a very, very detailed oriented, nuanced blogger. And his posting on Cain is consistent with how he writes.
He's discussing details that some just want to gloss over apparently. And that makes him 'gleeful over a candidate's destruction'? It's not 'ace colored glasses'- I'm just not buying that argument.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at November 08, 2011 02:58 PM (iWb1o)
--Teacher's pet.
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 11:09 AM (CE2wR)
Is it possible Bialek went to the Tea Party to give Cain a heads ups as to what was coming ... hoping she'd get a huge wad of dough to keep quiet??
Posted by: darwin at November 08, 2011 11:09 AM (U8j99)
Posted by: Bill Cosby at November 08, 2011 11:11 AM (/K3BV)
1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 02:47 PM (tazG1)
im just astonished to see a cainiac spout that!! you guys have spent the last 8-9 days justifying slandering anonymous women because "clinton did it". oh the irony!!
Posted by: chas at November 08, 2011 11:11 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: Republican Primary Voters at November 08, 2011 11:13 AM (8kq7+)
These women are full of shit.
When you make $35k a year, a years salary sounds like a hell of a lot of money.
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 11:14 AM (piMMO)
Do we really need these media organizations if all they do is hold up a camera and microphone (and give us their opinions)?
More facts, please. This is not "who killed JFK?". The facts should be relatively easy to discover. Do some work, you lazy bums. Interview people. Dig through the data. Stop fueling the spectacle and gawking.
It's all tabloid journalism now. This is a serious loss for society.
Posted by: mike bell at November 08, 2011 11:15 AM (Kz6PE)
If you find the "All-Meat Combo" to be offensive, or the tagline "A Pizza You Can't Refuse", please call 1-800-HERR-ASS to claim your damages.
Posted by: Queen Of Torts Needs A New Gulfstream at November 08, 2011 11:16 AM (nBE5A)
Do we really need these media organizations if all they do is hold up a camera and microphone (and give us their opinions)?
More facts, please. This is not "who killed JFK?". The facts should be relatively easy to discover. Do some work, you lazy bums. Interview people. Dig through the data. Stop fueling the spectacle and gawking.
It's all tabloid journalism now. This is a serious loss for society.
Posted by: mike bell at November 08, 2011 03:15 PM (Kz6PE)
--Levin said it best when he compared it to a fishing expedition by police: pretend to a witness/suspect that you know more than you do to elicit answers/evidence from them. Make vague hints and see if that causes the suspect to blurt out something useful. I strongly sense that from the MBM here.
Posted by: logprof at November 08, 2011 11:18 AM (CE2wR)
I'm with you Ace. Aside from the fact that he appears to have not thought about foreign policy issues or other issues close to the hearts of many conservatives*, it is never good to have a candidate with this much drama (same problem with Palin). At this point the evidence against Cain is weak**. But, there is a theme developing here of a married man seeking the attention/contact of women other than his wife. It is something we have all seen too many times before, most often to no good end. The good news is that these types of things tend to come to a head quickly - so we will see soon. Thankfully it is happening in the primary.
*As you say - his instinct on issues of (belated) first impression appears to be liberal. How would he deal with these issues in the general or in office when he no longer has to answer in a manner that satisfies conservatives? How will he "grow" in office?
**Bialek appears to be an opportunistic weasel - see Allred, the two settled "harassment" claims may be the natural consequence of being a man in charge of many female subordinates in the modern workplace, rather than being sexually abusive.Posted by: Brian at November 08, 2011 11:20 AM (Hd5n8)
He's got a lot of fucking nerve."
Very well said.
Posted by: mike bell at November 08, 2011 11:21 AM (Kz6PE)
But . . . there are some of us who do enjoy talking to the opposite gender, even members of the opposite gender who are quite a bit older or younger. Dinner is a nice way to do this. I'm female & have had quite a few friends in my life who were male. The only guys who consistently got really weirded out at the suggestion of grabbing a couple of beers and/or having dinner together as a nice time & place to shoot the breeze were guys in my own age group (born mid 70s, currently in late 30s). I've had lots of nice dinners & dinner conversations with boys who were 10-15 years younger than me (that was obviously dinner only, no alcohol) and men who were 10-15 years older than me. It probably helped that in the case of the kids, I like video games, martial arts & heavy metal music so there was a quite a bit to talk about, and the older gentlemen were often co-workers or worked in the same field as I did so there was quite a bit to talk about there.
Now, if the person being asked to arrange the dinner between Cain and the younger woman got a weird vibe from Cain, that can be worrisome. And the number of people coming forward with accusations is also worrisome. Cain's poor handling of the accusations is definitely worrisome.
But to flat out say that if two people of opposite gender & significant age difference are having dinner together, then it must be for hanky panky because there's no other reason for them to associate with each other -- that part I do strongly disagree with.
Posted by: C at November 08, 2011 11:22 AM (E29pD)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 11:23 AM (tazG1)
He's a very, very detailed oriented, nuanced blogger. And his posting on Cain is consistent with how he writes.
He's discussing details that some just want to gloss over apparently. And that makes him 'gleeful over a candidate's destruction'? It's not 'ace colored glasses'- I'm just not buying that argument.
You may be correct about this particular post. Some of the older posts (especially the comments) show a distinct lack of "nuance".
I'm not a Cain guy at all, I'm not being "tricked" into voting for him, am not part of his "personality cult", etc. I don't want to gloss anything over. If there is any truth to the accusations, Cain is toast. But, please, don't self-righteously call me insane, or a bot, or whatever simply for poinitng out that the MSM has a LONG, VERIFIED HISTORY of hit jobs just like this. Let the damn story play out.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 08, 2011 11:25 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at November 08, 2011 11:25 AM (o/UM0)
1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 03:23 PM (tazG1)
its obvious you are a cainiac, all you can do is spew insults. its what yall been doing all along, calling women you dont even know crackheads all the while herman is lying from day one but none of y'all care. your pathetic, and you justify it because "the left does it" or "the media always lies" why dont you expect better from a candidate than what cain is offering? a policy idiot who's first instinct when bad news comes out is to lie??
Posted by: chas at November 08, 2011 11:27 AM (TKF1Y)
1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 03:23 PM (tazG1)
oh, and there are no "arguments" coming from you, but if you can your welcome to explain why cain is your guy and why in spite of all the miscues anyone should consider voting for him. i'd love to hear it.
Posted by: chas at November 08, 2011 11:28 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 11:31 AM (tazG1)
I get that this is Ace's blog and he can do whatever he wants. But is it too much to ask that he extend his readers the same courtesy he demands for himself?
I have only recently begun posting but have been lurking since about six months before Obama got elected.
Can't tell you how many times I've seen Ace get "bad nasty" on anyone who disagrees with him. Now, he rarely calls anyone specific out but he does often belittle, besmirch, and crucify anyone who dares to disagree with him.
And the sycophants who think he is always right, no matter what an ass he is being, truly make me want to toss cookies. Talk about cult of personality.
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 08, 2011 11:32 AM (AxbvX)
If you think he doesn't defend the right of his commenters to argue with him, then you haven't been reading closely enough. He has always been very clear about the invitation to do so.
Posted by: The Gals from The View at November 08, 2011 11:37 AM (piMMO)
327 "C at" Are you married?
I'm not a woman - but I am married to one for 20 years. It is a good and happy marriage.
I don't think there are any happily married women (who are honest with themselves) that would be pleased or even comfortable with their husband having dinner with a woman "friend". And, I do not think that any happily married man (who is honest with himself) would think otherwise.
Absent extraordinary circumstances - it should not happen.
Posted by: Brian at November 08, 2011 11:39 AM (Hd5n8)
I didn't say he doesn't allow disagreement. I said he "does often belittle, besmirch, and crucify anyone who dares to disagree with him".
Just don't think that is a terribly effective way to bring me around to your point of view.
Posted by: FederalismIsThePoint at November 08, 2011 11:39 AM (AxbvX)
1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 03:31 PM (tazG1)
typical well reasoned response from a cainiac. keep up the good work!
Posted by: chas at November 08, 2011 11:40 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: long toss at November 08, 2011 11:42 AM (J6a22)
Posted by: The terrorist Hobbit formerly known as Donna at November 08, 2011 11:42 AM (5Wl/f)
Posted by: surprised at November 08, 2011 11:43 AM (k1rwm)
Sad.
Funny that Ace doesn't believe a female 'friend' would behave just as he, a sailing-over-the-shark-at-the-moment-conservative-blogger is behaving. Don't look now, but is that a frenemy in the mirror?
I don't think that retrospect will be kind to him on this subject, even if he is correct in his olympically high-jumped conclusions, pole vaulting on friends, so to speak, rarely ends well.
And I am sad to say it.
Posted by: Carmelita at November 08, 2011 11:43 AM (Y/2U4)
Beck's side kick was saying this morning that he thought New was this election's John McCain and he didn't mean it in a flattering way. Funny that's how I see Romney and Perry.
Although it is hard to extinguish Newt's foray on the couch wish nanny p singing the praises of the climate debacle.
Posted by: surprised at November 08, 2011 11:45 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 11:45 AM (tazG1)
There will be Hell to pay.
Posted by: Fred Gutenberg at November 08, 2011 11:46 AM (HBqDo)
1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 03:45 PM (tazG1)
does it bother you that much?? if you suppor the man you should own it. gonna give any reasons why you are voting for him? or are you not voting for him but just defending him out of principle against the MSM?
Posted by: chas at November 08, 2011 11:47 AM (TKF1Y)
You're not going to be able to convince them that a little sleazy hypocrisy is our right because the liberals have indulged in so damned much of it.
They're just going to see it as sleazy hypocrisy, period, and that will reduce credibility on other, more important issues accordingly.
It isn't just independents, though. It's also lifelong conservatives like me. It does damage our side's cr's edibility. For example, remember Pamela Gellar's "stealth jihadi" nonsense about Rick Perry and how she said this place was like a frat house? I discount most of what she says - including some of the more important issues! - because of her craziness on that issue. Insanity on this issue isn't making me want to listen to a whole lot of anything from some of Cain's defenders in conservative media, or Cain himself. Partisans with blinders on might think this should be about giving the bottom-feeding libs a taste of their own medicine, but honest people do not.
And this isn't about "we're better than that," so save it, haters. It's about the fact that our side shouldn't have to do that shit because our side should be right on the merits of the argument. Our side is about merit, not keeping count of who has or does whatever. That's why we are conservatives. Or at least that's why I am. But if conservatism is now just about conservative speeches and populism, it isn't the conservative movement I've known.
Posted by: Beth at November 08, 2011 11:48 AM (kBxk7)
Here's the deal, just hire a liberal lawyer and tell her and the Presstitutes I sexually harassed you giving a few minor details.
Then in the ensuing feeding frenzy by the Presstittues and politicians, document every instance of bribery, coercion and offers of fame and fortune.
After a few days of this announce that you will slowly but surely reveal the sources of the offers and payoffs to a made up story. Do this and I guarantee you fame and fortune beyond your wildest dreams.
Posted by: Your friend Herm at November 08, 2011 11:48 AM (vXqv3)
Posted by: Rich at November 08, 2011 11:51 AM (SfHov)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 11:56 AM (tazG1)
Re: "vile accusations"
If you think Cain has been accused of something "vile", then you believe the content of the allegations is of a serious nature. Then whether they're true or not becomes an issue.
These are allegations by 4-5 women Cain actually knew. They are independent of each other as far as we know. There have been specific, verifiable elements of at least one of these accusations, specifically whether Cain (or whomever's budget he was actually using, which I find an interesting question) upgraded a young woman to a palatial hotel suite ... something which, speaking personally, I'd be more inclined to do for a girl if I intended to join her in it, one way or another. There have been two settlements made by a company Cain led, each granting this accuser one year's salary.
So the legitimate question here is; if, as you concede, the accusations are "vile"; then are they true or false?
Posted by: Random at November 08, 2011 11:57 AM (YiE0S)
Do you have reason to believe that she's a Tea Partier other than she went to a rally to confront Cain? Allred was asked this repeatedly; she reiterated her client is a registered Republican, but did not claim her client as a Tea Partier.
I'm not saying that's bad in any way. Being a registered Republican works for me. Just keeping it accurate.
Posted by: Random at November 08, 2011 12:08 PM (YiE0S)
1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 03:56 PM (tazG1)
so your back to grade school rantings? i thought maybe you had something offer outside of your gutter talk. your a boring little troll who offers nothing, whether by choice or not doesnt matter. go away little troll
Posted by: chas at November 08, 2011 12:09 PM (TKF1Y)
Random at November 08, 2011 04:08 PM (YiE0S)
is attendance at a certain number of rallies a requirement to be a tea partier? i thought being a grassroots movement all that was required was to believe in this ideals and philosphy.
Posted by: chas at November 08, 2011 12:11 PM (TKF1Y)
@342 Agreed. Its more than sad, its pathetic.
Posted by: Lurker at November 08, 2011 12:15 PM (OzZMX)
Posted by: Vera Baker at November 08, 2011 12:19 PM (zPAwP)
This sort of thing can absolutely happen.
Hell, I was fired by a small tech company business owner once, along with my direct manager who was a personal friend of the owner. Then before walking out the door, I showed him the work on various sales projects I was working on and where different prospects were at different stages in the pipeline, and also the marketing collateral I had created and written on my own to stage my own sales push, having received little usable help from my supervisor, the owner's friend.
Next week, the owner was trying to rehire me and invited to coffee to discuss a new offer he had in mind after I declined his offer on the phone.
And you know what the kicker is? Bastard didn't even have the common courtesy to give me a reacharound for showing up!
Anyhow, a person can get fired from a position for any number of reasons, including shakeups at the company that didn't have a lot to do with the individual. Or an individual can be fired, and then the company can realize, "Oh, that employee is actually missed." Or a person can do a substandard job in one area, and the company can perceive that person as being well suited for a totally different role that may have opened up. Or charitable impulses could rule the day, and a boss might just want to help a substandard but decent-charactered employee out, by giving them some career tips and pointers, and perhaps a heads up to something at a different company or what have you. Or they might want to get their cocks wet.
All of these sorts of things happen.
Posted by: Random at November 08, 2011 12:20 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 12:24 PM (tazG1)
Fair enough, however, Bialek's lawyer was asked if her client was a Tea Party Republican and made no such claim, merely stating her client is a registered Republican. If Bialek claims to be a Tea Partier, I'm willing to credit that, but has she even said that much?
Posted by: Random at November 08, 2011 12:24 PM (YiE0S)
"Sharon Bialek is not the media and is a Tea Party Republican"
Wheres here ID for the tea party? Oh thats right there is none.I guess she can just claim that she is and make it so.And from what I've heard Chicago has no party ID,so its kind of hard to be registered as a republican there.
And next time you do a story on Cain really try and make it interesting... Why you could write that Sharons child was fathered by Cain in a sexually explicit phone call to her and that he practices withcraft, voodoo, animal sacrifice and cannibalism on his tour bus.You can also say that its quite possible he's an illegal alien from another planet and that his bus is actually a spaceship with facilities for kidnapping our earth females so he can take them to his homebase in the FED.Or maybe even that he is SATAN! Remember 999 upside down is the number of the BEAST!!! OMG it all fits now!!!Hurry write another Cain story before the uproar dies down!!
<SARC off>
Posted by: Lurker at November 08, 2011 12:33 PM (OzZMX)
Posted by: Deanna at November 08, 2011 12:35 PM (pihpW)
Posted by: Deanna at November 08, 2011 12:38 PM (pihpW)
In addition, I was accused of sexual harassment at a job I had back in 1999. I still do not know what I supposedly did and to whom to this day, because instead of putting up with that shit (and I already hated the job anyway) I quit. *** But I will guarantee you that I was totally and completely innocent. *** But I learned that there is basically no defense against an accusation of sexual harassment. None. I demanded to know who had made t he charge and what had I supposedly done and was never told.
Two guys I've worked with for years had a similar experience. They were accused of non specific (hostile work environment) actions by two women who were smart people and good lawyers, but who were very sheltered and emotionally immature. Once one woman complained, the other followed suit and they both left soon, presumably with a severance. We never learned the details of the accusations, but think one had to do with one guy's habit of standing too close when he talked. So I don't credit the 2 workplace accusations against Cain as being anything sinister, nor do I think the women who made them are necessarily liars or psycho. Since Cain has been married for 40+ years and has worked in high profile jobs throughout, 3 accusations (2 with no specifics) don't establish any pattern of chasing women. (And the argument that if a married man has dinner with a woman who is not his wife, he must be looking for a hook up, is ridiculous.)
Posted by: LAsue at November 08, 2011 12:40 PM (pWeX5)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 08, 2011 04:24 PM (tazG1)
Sorry, but I can't let stupid shit like that go unanswered, and I don't even know chas. Coming from someone who posts "u mad, bro?" I think the chances are good that he or she is a "genuine commenter here," and maybe you are the troll. If you think that anyone who disagrees with you or "Cainiacs" is a Kos escapee, it must be difficult being surrounded by so many "Kos escapees" all the time.
Posted by: Beth at November 08, 2011 12:47 PM (kBxk7)
Posted by: Random at November 08, 2011 04:24 PM \
So if she isn't a Tea Patier why was she at Tea Con? Hmmm...I think I'll put on my Ace hat...is it because she knew Cain would be there? LOL I love this stuff.
Posted by: Deanna at November 08, 2011 12:49 PM (pihpW)
Is she a political employee or a regular ol' civil servant? Because unless she's a political employee, it's not really fair to imply that she's an Obozo goon. I worked as a civil servant at the Pentagon when Slick Willie was President after I got out of the military, but I hated Clinton in and out of the military.
Posted by: Beth at November 08, 2011 12:53 PM (kBxk7)
Posted by: Beth at November 08, 2011 12:57 PM (kBxk7)
Posted by: Randall Hoven at November 08, 2011 01:00 PM (YSKMW)
Posted by: steevy at November 08, 2011 02:03 PM (7WJOC)
You don't know very many actual real life women, do you?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 08, 2011 02:21 PM (r4wIV)
Re: "vile accusations"
If you think Cain has been accused of something "vile", then you believe the content of the allegations is of a serious nature.
errmm.... no. Nice try though. I think I made my point quite clearly, but feel free to completely misunderstand it if you wish.
Posted by: wiserbud at November 08, 2011 04:27 PM (LmP4O)
Posted by: Capitol Punishment ePub at November 08, 2011 04:49 PM (YFCSN)
Posted by: Back to Work epub at November 08, 2011 05:06 PM (vD1Mq)
Posted by: The Big Payback AudioBook at November 08, 2011 05:26 PM (vD1Mq)
avi to flash swf to avi converter flv to dvd converter
swf video converter video to flash converter flash video creator
Posted by: doumaduo at November 08, 2011 08:18 PM (TcuEL)
We are mainly engaged in production and development all kinds of air filters,oil filters,fuel filters for constrcuctionmamchinery,heavyvehicle,agricultural machinery,truck,car,ship and engineering machine etc.
Posted by: christine at November 09, 2011 09:02 PM (Dy/KL)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.422 seconds, 493 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 08, 2011 09:37 AM (21lBC)