October 31, 2011
— Ace Some people are citing this as proof this is a Nothing To See Here, Folks, Move On situation.
After all, it was just some completely-innocent gesture:
Van Susteren asked what Cain did that led to the accusation. There were reportedly more than one accusations in the complaint, but Cain said he recalled just one incident. "She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying -- and I was standing close to her -- and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, 'My wife comes up to my chin.'" At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. "And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable," Cain said, "something that was in the sexual harassment charge."
Bear in mind, though, that's Cain's narration of what happened, of the nature of the complaint, and further, only his narration of one of several incidents.
Although I do generally think "where there's smoke there's fire," that's only a rule of thumb, and not something I'd bet money on. It's perfectly possible he's innocent of almost everything except a misunderstanding.
On the other hand, let's not just go Reverse Clinton here and start acting as any of this is impossible, either, or that we know about things we weren't witness to.
By the Way: Cain was asked by the moderator to close the National Press Club event with a song. Cain apparently had closed some previous event with that song, and obliged the host.
As I noted in an update to the last post (see below), given that context, with Cain not deciding himself, sua sponte, it was time for a Christian hymn, it's not nearly as kooky seeming as I first thought.
Posted by: Ace at
12:30 PM
| Comments (737)
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: fluffy at October 31, 2011 12:32 PM (4pSIn)
Posted by: joncelli at October 31, 2011 12:33 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 12:34 PM (YdQQY)
I assume ALL SH charges are BS until proven true.
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 12:35 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: EROWMER at October 31, 2011 12:35 PM (/ZKDI)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 12:35 PM (fyOgS)
Sharpton and Jackson are probably lining up some womyns to inflict on Cain if he wins the nom.
Posted by: KG at October 31, 2011 12:35 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 12:35 PM (6TB1Z)
Something to do with an election, I believe.
Glad to help...
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at October 31, 2011 12:35 PM (PMGbu)
Oh - wait; Politico won't even disclose their identities due to "privacy" considerations.
Isn't that special?
Posted by: Roger at October 31, 2011 12:36 PM (tAwhy)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 12:36 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:35 PM (6TB1Z)
You call Perry untested and unvetted?? A 10 year Governor, untested and unvetted??
My brain....
Posted by: KG at October 31, 2011 12:37 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: David Frum at October 31, 2011 12:38 PM (zgHLA)
On the other hand, let's not just go Reverse Clinton here and start acting as any of this is impossible, either...
Only Rick Perry gets the benefit of the doubt, right? He can open the borders, 'Tard up the little whores in Texas and send their bastard children to school for free and we'll overlook all that because, well, because fuck you.
Cain, however, was named in a dime-a-dozen suit that settled in 5 figures and, well, we better assume he did something. Because he's not Rick Perry and fuck you.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 12:38 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: MJ at October 31, 2011 12:39 PM (BKOsZ)
What does this have to do with Barack Obama being a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure?
Something to do with an election, I believe.
Glad to help...
If you were truly happy to help, you would type "Barack Obama is stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure"
Posted by: fluffy at October 31, 2011 12:39 PM (4pSIn)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 12:40 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: joncelli at October 31, 2011 12:40 PM (RD7QR)
Until he's not in office anymore, EVERYTHING has to do with Barack Obama being a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 12:40 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 12:40 PM (ieDPL)
Bullfuckingshit.
Yes, it was settled and they wanted it to go away as quickly and as quietly as possible. But what in this description of his events even would lead to a reprimand in normal circumstances?
This does not add up.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 12:41 PM (pLTLS)
Posted by: joncelli at October 31, 2011 04:40 PM (RD7QR)
Honestly, I feel like we are gonna miss the good old days of the primaries, before the Democrats truly unloaded all the bullshit on us.
Posted by: KG at October 31, 2011 12:41 PM (LD21B)
I read without moving my lips. Thanks.
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at October 31, 2011 12:41 PM (PMGbu)
Posted by: rabidfox at October 31, 2011 12:41 PM (/jkZB)
I can't help you with your brain, but as to your comment about vetting, in the context of a national campaign, I certainly do call him unvetted. Like it or not, debates have become an integral and indispensable part of the politicking. I remember that before Perry announced, we were all told what an awesome campaigner he was. Nobody, including you, said that he couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag, and that he would look like a fool on stage with other candidates. Based on that criterion, would you say that he was vetted? I wouldn't.
Likewise, would you actually suggest that Herman Cain is tested and vetted?
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 12:42 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: KG at October 31, 2011 04:41 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: KG at October 31, 2011 12:42 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: Bill Clinton at October 31, 2011 12:43 PM (ieDPL)
If Paul Ryan or "Fatso" Christie were running for the nomination, there would be dirt dug up on them, even though Ryan is not even 40 and appears clean as the driven snow.
This is the way these things are done now. Innuendo, character assasination, etc. Both parties TRY to do it, but the Democrats have most of the major media on their side, pushing their story. It's not like any of these guys sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years of Sunday Sermons, or have a history of underhanded political moves, like getting Jack Ryan's sealed divorce decree publicized to win a US Senate race. Or politically bartered the appointment to replace Senator Obama. I mean really.
It's no wonder that Christie and Ryan DON'T want to run. As for Rove, he's had his day in the sun, and he should take his money and move on to something else.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at October 31, 2011 12:43 PM (RFeQD)
Hand to God, the line about a woman's height is a pretty standard come on that I've had used on me twice (in the context of being the perfect height for kissing). It's all about context. 1000% about context.
If she brought it up in the course of some work issue - like I can't reach the copier paper, Boss and Boss replies, gee my wife can and you're the same height as my wife - that's one thing. But it is an odd detail that he makes a point of mentioning that they were standing close to each other and that he doesn't provide the context or set up for the situation.
And, guys, wean this term from your lexicon in work situations:
"I turned it over to my general counsel and one of the ladies that worked for me, the woman in charge of human resources."
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 12:43 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Duke Lacrosse Team at October 31, 2011 12:43 PM (JYheX)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 12:43 PM (nj1bB)
I guess they prefer being lied to and rump ridden by a pack of professional politicians rather than let someone with real world and real job experience take a shot at straightening out the mess the liars and rump riders have made of this country.
Keep doing what you've been doing and keep getting what you've been getting.
Lets just elect another compassionate conservative and take the country leftard ho a little slower than the real Marxist.
Yeeehaaw!
Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at October 31, 2011 12:44 PM (vXqv3)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:42 PM (6TB1Z)
Nope, but calling a governor untested and unvetted boggles the mind. And I don't consider the debates anything more than a sideshow. His record matters far more.
Posted by: KG at October 31, 2011 12:44 PM (LD21B)
Posted by: joncelli at October 31, 2011 12:44 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 12:44 PM (ieDPL)
Posted by: palerider at October 31, 2011 12:45 PM (dkExz)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 12:45 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Herman Cain at October 31, 2011 12:46 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 12:46 PM (YdQQY)
Says who it settled in 5 figures?
The Politico story said that. I am afraid this isn't going to turn out well for Herm. The media wants him out so they can go back to their regularly scheduled Race Pimping.
Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2011 12:46 PM (MtwBb)
Winning a general election takes skill. One needs to be able to make a point, have the crowd love them and leave a few quarts of the opponent’s blood on the floor – all at the same time.
Palin had that ability. She could slide in a stiletto while making a point with a voice too high and run-on sentences, pump up the masses and with a wink and a “you betcha” sever the vein.
Newt has that ability. Like Hannibal Lector, he hands his opponent a piece of broken glass. By nailing every subject with geometric precision, Newt convinces the opponent to carve their own face off to the delight of the audience. The trouble is, like Lector, Newt creeps some people out.
Perry doesnÂ’t have it. Not only is he clumsy wielding a meat cleaver, his wild swings make the crowd hate him in the process.
Cain has been in knife fights before, but with a whole different crowd. People like him, but heÂ’s used to different rules. Herman thinks heÂ’s doing well judging from the amount of blood on the floor, but he doesnÂ’t realize that itÂ’s mostly his.
Mitt is someone you donÂ’t see coming. He has the finesse to handle the blade, but no one knows if heÂ’s really there to fight.
Posted by: jwest at October 31, 2011 12:47 PM (qeYI9)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 12:47 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 12:47 PM (Xm1aB)
No. Because Rove strikes before, during, and after the primary. He came down on O'Connell after she was THE Republican in that race. That didn't help her improve, or weaken the Democrat. It helped Karl Rove and his faction.
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 12:47 PM (3GtyG)
I guess we're supposed to call them "protoplasmic sacks" or somesuch. Who knows anymore?
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at October 31, 2011 12:47 PM (PMGbu)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 12:47 PM (JYheX)
I would avoid it.
Ladies and gentlemen... fine.
But in his statement he refers to General Counsel (genderless - my bet would be a man) and then instead of Director of Human Resources or our HR Department "one of the ladies," then self-corrects to woman in human resources. So, yeah, bad habit.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 12:48 PM (5H6zj)
I believe you. The problem is that you are not the typical voter, as proven by your presence here. The typical voter doesn't follow things closely, and so only sees someone who doesn't appear to be very bright or in command of the facts. It may not be fair, but that doesn't change his political viability.
Nope, but calling a governor untested and unvetted boggles the mind.
Charlie Crist and Mark Sanford: QED
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 12:48 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: mongo78 at October 31, 2011 12:48 PM (2b46R)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 12:49 PM (JYheX)
Therefore, Herman Cain must be personally destroyed from within by the kind of smear campaign that would have us screaming bloody murder under ordinary circumstances, such as Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
See how this works?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 12:49 PM (Xnw5y)
Posted by: FraudStreamMedia at October 31, 2011 12:49 PM (I9fXA)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 12:50 PM (UlUS4)
Given Perry's poll numbers, who's really the Palinistas in this scenario?
Posted by: Ian S. at October 31, 2011 12:50 PM (tqwMN)
Posted by: joncelli at October 31, 2011 12:50 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 12:50 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 12:51 PM (JYheX)
Wait - ace jumped on a conservative with the same kinds of criticisms that the Left would throw?
When did this start?
Posted by: blaster at October 31, 2011 12:51 PM (7vSU0)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 12:51 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 12:51 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: LGoPs at October 31, 2011 12:52 PM (lHn6+)
Ensure they're Muslim and I'll make that happen!
Posted by: Herb Cain at October 31, 2011 12:52 PM (pLTLS)
Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at October 31, 2011 12:52 PM (tazG1)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 31, 2011 12:53 PM (vzFJV)
How? In light of how the race turned out, Rove probably just wanted to reinforce the lesson about the foolishness of running political dilettantes, and make sure that he got the credit for being the sensei. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 12:53 PM (6TB1Z)
So starting in 2013, in the White House there will be a RINO R-of-convenience-who-stands-for-nothing, the Senate will switch to R and its majority leader will be a different querulous old turkey-neck (it's his turn), and the House will continue to have an R majority which will be ram-rodded by a weeping orange boner who 'understands the frustration' of the indolent communists at OWS.
Have I got it right -- are these the players waiting to manage our decline? Or will there be a coup inside the GOP?
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at October 31, 2011 12:53 PM (w41GQ)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 12:53 PM (UlUS4)
Interesting that Obama has never had sexual allegations made against him.
Bottom Bitches don't file complaints.
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 12:53 PM (5eVSI)
Posted by: joncelli at October 31, 2011 12:53 PM (RD7QR)
All your screaming at me is childish.
Are you serious? This is maybe the second time I have mentioned this and the other time was weeks ago. That is not a lot of screaming.
And yes, Rick Perry is Gay was covered here. Something that outlandish and unsubstantiated can't hurt your candidate, so why not cover it? Hell, you should do a post on Perry being a space alien, that's being even-handed, isn't it?
Screw it, far be it from me to fuck with the narrative. Go, Cowboy!
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 12:55 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 12:55 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 12:55 PM (UlUS4)
So, if Herman is toast, who does this help? Perry of course, assuming that Cain and Perry are sharing the anti-Romney vote.
Posted by: Jimbo at October 31, 2011 12:55 PM (O3R/2)
http://tinyurl.com/66ho7lu
parody of John Lennon.
Posted by: Wolfman Jack at October 31, 2011 12:56 PM (m8ARs)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 12:56 PM (TMB3S)
My wife calls me 'studmuffin'...she even had it embroidered on my Santa hat.
I'd hit her with an harassment charge, but...
On second thought.
Posted by: Minuteman (aka trainer) until Juggy is Gone at October 31, 2011 12:56 PM (Rojyk)
Interesting that Obama has never had sexual allegations made against him.
Bottom Bitches Murdered former gay lovers don't file complaints.
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 04:53 PM (5eVSI)
They were dropping like flies in '08.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at October 31, 2011 12:56 PM (w41GQ)
Not for the primary. The timing is fine for the primary if the goal is to elect the unassailable Romney. That's not an accusation about who leaked this story, it's just an acknowledgment of the situation.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 12:56 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: William Jefferson at October 31, 2011 12:57 PM (rj5Ii)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 12:57 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: USA at October 31, 2011 12:57 PM (6Cjut)
Indeed it is. If the White House was sitting on this info, it would have made a hell of a lot more sense for them to wait to spring it until Cain either got the nomination or secured a place on the ticket (a much more likely scenario).
Kinda makes you wonder.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 12:57 PM (Xnw5y)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 12:57 PM (8O4/a)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 12:57 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 12:57 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work ready to drink perry flavor aid at October 31, 2011 12:58 PM (s+J9D)
Posted by: Herman Cain at October 31, 2011 12:58 PM (Sh42X)
Posted by: USA at October 31, 2011 12:59 PM (6Cjut)
Fixed that for ya.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 12:59 PM (Xnw5y)
and then what? The story rolls on and on and on...mission accomplished!!! Another Conservative bites the dust and a BLACK one at that...Hello Mitt sorry u lost to a SCOAMF
Posted by: NfromNC at October 31, 2011 12:59 PM (MbeEN)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 04:50 PM (UlUS4)
His campaign for Governor was the typical racist spewing crap. But, after being elected he went hard to the left AND he embraced blacks fully as governor. He effectively ended racial segregation in GA government that he had any control over.
His record on racial stuff in GA is actually commendable.
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 12:59 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 12:59 PM (UlUS4)
BTW why isn't his wife campaigning for him?
Oh right it's because she provides calm and tranquility.
Again, you set a standard for his behavior that he fails to meet.
But really, what is bothersome is joining with the Left in their tropes. Conservative women? Crazy and stupid. Conservative blacks? Sex crazed and stupid.
Posted by: blaster at October 31, 2011 12:59 PM (7vSU0)
Posted by: joncelli at October 31, 2011 12:59 PM (RD7QR)
----
Yeah, pretending he's open borders is really helping me take you seriously.
Honestly, I don't think this helps Perry as much as it helps Romney.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 01:00 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:00 PM (UlUS4)
"@62: "I think the PC term is cupcakes."
Just don't confuse them with Kuntz from accounting."
That reminds me of Steve Martin in the mid-80's with "What. I. Believe."
"I believe that it's not right to call a woman's breasts 'juggs', 'boobs', 'hooters' or 'winnebagos'.
You should only refer to them as 'Golden Bozos'".
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at October 31, 2011 01:00 PM (PMGbu)
Posted by: Chris at October 31, 2011 01:00 PM (3GtyG)
Posted by: Archie at October 31, 2011 01:00 PM (Xm1aB)
So ... you don't believe that the party should fall in line behind the nominee, then?
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at October 31, 2011 01:01 PM (bjRNS)
Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at October 31, 2011 01:01 PM (qndXR)
I choose the StayPuft marshmallow man.
Posted by: Ray at October 31, 2011 01:01 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:01 PM (UlUS4)
Wow, a hand to the chin to show relative height? That's sexual harassment if I heard of it. How sexist and, um, heightist of him. The nerve...
It's a good thing none of the Three Stooges are still alive, with all that waving of the hands in front of the faces and all. They'd be in court too much to ever film anything.
We've progressed so much as a nation.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at October 31, 2011 01:02 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Dr Spank at October 31, 2011 01:02 PM (Sh42X)
Posted by: Ian S. at October 31, 2011 01:02 PM (tqwMN)
How does it help Romney for the guy who's keeping Perry at bay for him (to the extent Perry isn't keeping himself at bay) to take a potentially huge hit?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 01:02 PM (Xnw5y)
Posted by: Old Texas Chick at October 31, 2011 01:02 PM (lLXZV)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 31, 2011 01:03 PM (0yt4x)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:03 PM (nj1bB)
Huntsman is the designated GOP crash dummy, you're getting him whether you like him or not
Posted by: Axelrod and Pouffle at October 31, 2011 01:03 PM (Y+DPZ)
That's reasonable
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 01:03 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 01:03 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: USA at October 31, 2011 01:03 PM (6Cjut)
Earlier today he knew nothing about any settlement.
Now...
Cain also offered new information about the settlement of the case. Politico, which broke the sexual harassment allegation story, said that the woman received a money settlement "in the five-figure range." When van Susteren asked about that, Cain said, "My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlementÂ…I don't remember a numberÂ…But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement." When van Susteren asked how much money was involved, Cain said. "Maybe three months' salary. I don't remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn't pay all of the money they demanded."
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 01:04 PM (plesI)
Posted by: Rick Perry at October 31, 2011 01:04 PM (7cXE7)
Posted by: A Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure at October 31, 2011 01:04 PM (zaVyn)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 01:04 PM (fyOgS)
Just got back. I guess Ace is going to give credence to every rumor the MFM floats about any of our candidates. You know, that old dem meme, "the seriousness of the charge.....". It's going to be a long year.
Posted by: Soona - Mayan liaison at October 31, 2011 01:04 PM (coN0Z)
Posted by: andycanuck at October 31, 2011 01:05 PM (OKhgI)
As a general rule, I do. That's why I have already committed to vote for whomever the nominee is (possible excepting Ron Paul, who is just crazy). But there are limits. When the nominee is so clearly flawed that they simply have no chance of winning, and by running they diminish the credibility of the party, then I won't support them. Think David Duke or Alvin Greene. COD fell in that category.
Posted by: Ray at October 31, 2011 01:05 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Count de Monet at October 31, 2011 01:05 PM (4q5tP)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:06 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 01:06 PM (d6QMz)
Posted by: James at October 31, 2011 01:06 PM (Y5Ri0)
@136: "I choose the StayPuft marshmallow man."
Typical reichwing knucklehead - always nominating a fat old white guy.
Posted by: 99% Mainstream Guy at October 31, 2011 01:06 PM (xy9wk)
On the other hand, let's not just go Reverse Clinton here and start acting as any of this is impossible, either, or that we know about things we weren't witness to.
*****
Pretty much agreed. Although I'd add the caveat that, since Cain is one of ours (right winger), I'm leaving it to the left to do the heavy lifting in this case. They make a charge? It's up to them to prove it, not me. But I will work to defend him, up until the evidence gathered against him is strong enough, and the charge is serious enough, to make him unsupportable.
Posted by: ed at October 31, 2011 01:07 PM (Y2WVW)
Betcha didn't see that one coming, did you.
Posted by: 20 NYT Reporters at October 31, 2011 01:07 PM (Xnw5y)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:07 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Ran at October 31, 2011 01:07 PM (xSeWe)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work ready to drink perry flavor aid at October 31, 2011 01:07 PM (s+J9D)
Have I got it right -- are these the players waiting to manage our decline? Or will there be a coup inside the GOP?
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at October 31, 2011 04:53 PMWe'll have four extra years of Osama Obama to deal with while trying to rebuild what's left of the Repub party. If anyone cares to.
Ace will be busy telling everyone Mutt Romney should have won.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 01:07 PM (YjjrR)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 01:07 PM (ieDPL)
Posted by: Iblis at October 31, 2011 01:08 PM (f3hP+)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at work ready to drink perry flavor aid at October 31, 2011 01:08 PM (s+J9D)
If the White House was sitting on this info, it would have made a hell of a lot more sense for them to wait to spring it until Cain either got the nomination or secured a place on the ticket (a much more likely scenario).
Kinda makes you wonder.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States
Cui bono
If this was an Obama action, then yes, it seems early.
If it was a Romney or other Republican action, Iowa is just two months away. Time to break Cain's momentum.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 31, 2011 01:09 PM (oBrVT)
Posted by: Cain Lover at October 31, 2011 01:09 PM (dBxzn)
So you would prefer to let them linger until the MFM can use them against the candidate during the general?
Posted by: Ray at October 31, 2011 01:09 PM (6TB1Z)
How does it help Romney for the guy who's keeping Perry at bay for him (to the extent Perry isn't keeping himself at bay) to take a potentially huge hit?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 05:02 PM (Xnw5y)
You mean how could it help Romney by the way that this could potentially knock Cain out of the 20%+ polling range, so that Romney would end up being the only guy with support at that level? Hell even if Cain loses 10 points from this its unlikely for Perry to pick up all of those supporters to put him back up to a respectable level.
Yeah it really wouldn't help Romney at all to make this a Mitt Romney and everybody else instead of Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and everybody else like it is now.
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 01:09 PM (GULKT)
------
Because it's on the same day that Perry was drunk or on drugs story was spun out.
Because people are test-driving the non-Romney candidates and they're getting sick of it soon and going to just pick a candidate that they think is electable and all of the non-Romneys have been disqualified.
Because for some people this accusation against Cain is a badge of friggin' honor so they'll stick with him until he drops out and endorses Romney, but for the cooler heads prevail type it will be a sign that he is not electable.
Because Perry has already been sexualized via whisper campaigns so people will suspect he's capable of this, as has Newt (deservedly so in his case), so only the ball-less automaton Romney remains as the boss who would never pinch a bottom or take a drink.
Which reminds me, I applaud heartily Huntsman's use of the term "lubricated" to describe Romney's weathervane behavior. Masterful to inject a little bit of implied intoxication into that characterization of Mitt and something only a fellow Mormon could do. *golf clap* The guy's a prick, but he does have his moments.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 01:09 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:09 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: RonJon at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (UqKQV)
Posted by: K Rove at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (gvW6C)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 05:00 PM (UlUS4)
Now that is a different story all together.
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Rick Perry at October 31, 2011 05:04 PM (7cXE7)
No, you idiot! He painted that on a rock at MY house just to screw things up for me! I mean, at my huntin' camp! I mean.... oh gimme a sec; I've had a few this afternoon.
Posted by: Rick Perry at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (Xnw5y)
Meanwhile, a white dude is trying to explain why blackface is offensive in the USA even though it has not connotations in Canada (where Torres grew up).
Taranto is exactly right on issues like this: No one under the age of 40 (maybe even older) should even know WTF blackface is, but the usual racialist troublemakers keep on reminding us and nothing can ever be innocent harmless fun. I still remember a classmate in fifth grade putting smudgy makeup on his face because we had to dress up as the subject of book reports about biographies, and he did Willie Mays. Nothing racist, just acknowledging that Mays is black but he was white.
Good grief.
Posted by: logprof at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (QaKuj)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 04:43 PM (nj1bB)
Actually I use big boy words but I type so damn slow it sounds more like a leaf blower
Posted by: ontherocks at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:10 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: willow at October 31, 2011 01:11 PM (h+qn8)
"She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying -- and I was standing close to her -- and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, 'My wife comes up to my chin.'"
-------------
Trust me -- the "chin" was the one under his second head.
Posted by: Anita Hill at October 31, 2011 01:12 PM (7+pP9)
In 2008 there were rumors that Obama sat in a church with a hate-spewing racist pastor for 20 years, travelled to Pakistan at a time when it was illegal, associated himself with communists and domestic terrorists, had a history of disappearing whenever difficult decisions had to made, and never ran anything but his mouth.
But there was just no proof. No stories in the newpaper, nothing.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at October 31, 2011 01:12 PM (w41GQ)
The Powers That Be determine the likely cost of litigation, successful or not.
They then see what the potential plaintiff will settle for.
If the second number is smaller than the first, guess what? They settle. It's all about the numbers. No principle but what earns interest.
Now I have no idea if the charges are legit or not, but just playing the numbers? I'm not thinking it likely. Because guess what, most of these charges are shakedowns, pure and simple.
Not saying I know. Just that, well, it isn't likely.
Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez! at October 31, 2011 01:12 PM (GBXon)
You guys runnin' a right-wing Journolist here? I haven't seen so much synchronized outraged outrage -- unfounded, to boot -- since the Birfers floated the idea that the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure was born in Kenya.
Sorry, Ace, but my respect for you has gone way down since you got on the Perry-and-Cain-Must-be-Destroyed kick. I hope you cool off a bit and pay more attention to the real enemies of what you believe in.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 01:12 PM (YjjrR)
Posted by: K Rove at October 31, 2011 01:12 PM (gvW6C)
Have I got it right -- are these the players waiting to manage our decline? Or will there be a coup inside the GOP?
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at October 31, 2011 04:53 PM (w41GQ)
Sadly looks like you may be right as the compassionate conservatives and RINO herd is all in for tea Party hides.
Gotta have games as usual else the Roves and Bushies won't have a spot for Jeb the numero uno son some day.
Seen any Impeachment papers yet from the RINo herd in the House? Didn't we win something there, cutting the budget, stopping spending ? Boner indeed.
Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at October 31, 2011 01:12 PM (vXqv3)
Posted by: USA at October 31, 2011 01:14 PM (6Cjut)
But this nonsense that we're all supposed to line up and *swear upon a Bible to facts we did not witness* is insane.
For what possible purpose? If enough of us sign up to swear to these facts -- "This is all a smear" -- does this mean it becomes a smear?
No and no.
We say Cain has responded, (and what those responses are if we can remember them) and say until we have better evidence that the incidents were a lot more then I'm moving on.
Personally I'm thrilled the reporters are drilling for oil on this one. I want to know the truth before January when we have to make a real call.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 01:14 PM (0q2P7)
First, Herman says today that he "doesn't know anything about a settlement".
Then, he does an interview with Greta and describes the event that he was accused later of as sexual harrassment?
Ehboy. .....That's not clearing it up. That's injecting confusion into it.
This whole thing just really really sucks.
But it is illustrating the basic difference in a Corporate Background versus a background in Elected Office. .....Corporate lawyers always want to settle a 'nuisance suit' rather than fight it out and prove it wrong. ....Whereas a political counsel would advise to do the opposite.
It will come down to whether people are willing to buy the reasoning behind paying off these two women whom Cain is saying "made unfounded accusations".
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 01:14 PM (XkwIi)
Look Ace has stated over and over that the media has been looking into this for awhile.
I am more troubled by the fact that he said he knew of no settlement and now he is saying he did.
I think he is lying. It's never the crime....it's ALWAYS the coverup.
Posted by: TypicalWhitey at October 31, 2011 01:14 PM (xeVap)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 05:10 PM
Name names, Ace. Otherwise, it's bullshit.
Cain deserves the right to know who his accusers are. In fact, those of us who want to assess Cain as a candidate and as a man deserve the same.
If these "chatterers" are real, let 'em stand up for what they claim.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 01:14 PM (YjjrR)
Posted by: Dr Spank at October 31, 2011 01:15 PM (Sh42X)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 01:15 PM (8O4/a)
Posted by: BONER! at October 31, 2011 01:15 PM (R3k3C)
Those who hate any hint of religiosity in the public sphere are always the first to point to original sin. I'm white. I'm guilty.
Posted by: Ray at October 31, 2011 01:15 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: zombie Howard Cosell at October 31, 2011 01:15 PM (yd08d)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2011 01:16 PM (niZvt)
Why exactly?
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 01:16 PM (plesI)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 01:16 PM (fyOgS)
You on the other hand are becoming twice as quirky as I once thought. So I guess it's a wash.
Posted by: mama winger at October 31, 2011 01:16 PM (R9bQ9)
Why hello dere!
Posted by: Amos and Andy at October 31, 2011 01:16 PM (R3k3C)
Posted by: Paul at October 31, 2011 01:16 PM (DsHk0)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 01:16 PM (ieDPL)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 01:17 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:17 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 01:17 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2011 01:17 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: USA at October 31, 2011 01:17 PM (6Cjut)
You keep assuming that someone "had to plant this."
Fucking people have been chattering about it.
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 05:10 PM (nj1bB)
Oh fucking great. Ace has become a member of "the chattering class".It's only a matter of time before he can report daily upon the salinity of David Frum's testicles.
Posted by: Anita Hill at October 31, 2011 01:17 PM (7+pP9)
Why do I have the feeling we're about to hear "Herman Cain" and "joke" and "deez nuts" as more comes out about this?
Posted by: soothsayer at October 31, 2011 01:18 PM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Soona - Mayan liaison at October 31, 2011 01:19 PM (coN0Z)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 01:19 PM (ieDPL)
He settled with two of them. Are you saying he didn't know who the women were?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 01:19 PM (8O4/a)
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 01:19 PM (d6QMz)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 01:20 PM (fyOgS)
Yes.
...or he thinks he can explain it away.
And yes.
It is patently obvious from Cain's story that there was more to it - some sort of context that led to this being a near-lawsuit. He doesn't provide why she's in the office (he implies he barely knew her - so apparently they didn't work together, she just had an office on his floor) or say why they were standing close to each other or explain why he was comparing her to his wife. A lot of people do not know where the lines of behavior are at work and a lot of CEOs, in particular, do not pay attention to HR rules. It's not the same as even a VP or something. These folks, men and women in my experience, do what they want with personnel issues and other folks clean up after them.
Cain probably doesn't think he did anything wrong, but it sounds like he did have a behavior problem at work.
This is the guy who said he would never appoint a Muslim, for pity's sake. I have no difficulty believing he doesn't have any judgment on these sorts of issues.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 01:20 PM (5H6zj)
It's all a conspiracy. A deeeeeeeep, dark conspiracy. Boooooooooooo.
Ehboy. .....That's not clearing it up. That's injecting confusion into it.
Confusion don't enter into it. Look, if you're innocent, your story makes sense and doesn't change. I reject the MFM storyline until such time as the accusee can't answer the charges coherently. Cain fails.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 01:20 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: FraudStreamMedia at October 31, 2011 01:20 PM (I9fXA)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:20 PM (nj1bB)
Name names, Ace. Otherwise, it's bullshit.
Cain deserves the right to know who his accusers are. In fact, those of us who want to assess Cain as a candidate and as a man deserve the same.
If these "chatterers" are real, let 'em stand up for what they claim.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 05:14 PM (YjjrR)
Yeah ace tell everyone who you've been talking to so they are outed and potentially lose their jobs and get yourself branded so that no one ever talks to you again. Sounds awesome!
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 01:20 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 01:21 PM (ieDPL)
Posted by: MJ at October 31, 2011 01:21 PM (BKOsZ)
Posted by: Spiked at October 31, 2011 01:22 PM (dagTu)
This is another point or ten in favor of the "Cain is-- or at least was-- running to sell books and boost his profile and speaking fees but not to actually, you know, win" hypothesis.
Last I heard, he's still makng paid speeches...
Posted by: Lance McCormick at October 31, 2011 01:22 PM (zgHLA)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 31, 2011 01:22 PM (IqM9e)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:22 PM (nj1bB)
Name an issue, name the MSM spin and the fact that totally refutes the spin and then tell me which wins...the spin every damn time because our guys can't explain their ways out of a wet paper bag. Want one: "the rich don't pay their fair share"how's the fact working for you there???
Posted by: NfromNC at October 31, 2011 01:23 PM (MbeEN)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 01:23 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: USA at October 31, 2011 01:23 PM (6Cjut)
"I turned it over to my general counsel and one of the ladies that worked for me, the woman in charge of human resources."
_________
I try, but my wife hits me whenever I say "wench".
Posted by: Anachronda at October 31, 2011 01:24 PM (IrbU4)
What "spun out"? I just watched VIDEO of Perry acting as though he were drunk.
Because people are test-driving the non-Romney candidates and they're getting sick of it soon and going to just pick a candidate that they think is electable and all of the non-Romneys have been disqualified.
If all the non-Romneys have been disqualified, why would Romney need to put out a hit against Cain?
Because for some people this accusation against Cain is a badge of friggin' honor so they'll stick with him until he drops out and endorses Romney, but for the cooler heads prevail type it will be a sign that he is not electable.
Again, why does that translate into his supporters flocking to Romney?
Because Perry has already been sexualized via whisper campaigns so people will suspect he's capable of this, as has Newt (deservedly so in his case), so only the ball-less automaton Romney remains as the boss who would never pinch a bottom or take a drink.
Ah, so it's a grand conspiracy on the part of Romney to make all the other candidates look like perverts. Okay.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 01:24 PM (1linH)
Posted by: David Brooks at October 31, 2011 01:24 PM (I9fXA)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 01:24 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius Errant Member of the Chattering Classes at October 31, 2011 01:24 PM (ieDPL)
@237: "Really...........so, its o.k. to go from "I don't know anything about it" to "well, here are the details"."
Sooooo....he can't talk to his attorneys, get a recap on the events, and then make a statement?
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at October 31, 2011 01:25 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: David Frum at October 31, 2011 01:25 PM (zgHLA)
Posted by: USA at October 31, 2011 01:25 PM (6Cjut)
Posted by: Herman Cain at October 31, 2011 01:25 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 01:26 PM (fyOgS)
Perry's made many appearances in the past week, but this one was chosen as the one to be highlighted by MSNBC this morning with a heavily edited video and commentary/speculation about him being drunk and/or on drugs. I'm not sure I've seen a video of any of Romney's appearances.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 01:26 PM (5H6zj)
"Obama and Larry Sinclair had a steamy love affair"
Obama! You long legged mackdaddy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSyGsdKS8j4
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 01:26 PM (I9fXA)
Well, I got new gutters on my house, and they shouldn't clog up with leaves, so I won't have to climb a ladder anymore. How's that?
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 01:26 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Tami at October 31, 2011 01:26 PM (X6akg)
"...... and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin ........"
Are you kidding me? We are supposed to believe that is all it was? My BSmeter is going off big time.
Advice to Dear Herman from this former supporter, quit digging, you are embarrassing yourself. No one with any common sense is going to believe this. The more you talk, the less you remain credible.
Posted by: Heather at October 31, 2011 01:27 PM (9+TLu)
A lot of people hear a lot of shit, but it doesn't make it fact or anything more than gossip. Shit I heard Jonathan Martin makes the rounds of the Union Station Men's bathrooms, but because I heard it in advance doesn't mean anything.
Posted by: PeeWee Herman at October 31, 2011 01:27 PM (Y5Ri0)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 01:27 PM (Xm1aB)
I wonder how many people who would like us not to support Cain because of the sexual harrassment charge not only supportd, but voted for, Bill Clinton?
Actually, even if Can is guilty, and it came down to a choice between him and "Il Dufe," I would rather have someone guilty of sexual harrassment, but would mostly leave me alone and hold down the legalized looting, in the White House over the Red Diaper Baby or some other statist swine.
Posted by: Bilwick at October 31, 2011 01:27 PM (KZcFn)
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 01:27 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius Errant Member of the Chattering Classes at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (ieDPL)
I specifically made a point of not accusing Romney or any one of the candidates of putting this out.
If you can't even bother to keep that straight, what is the point?
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (dBxzn)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (nj1bB)
Well, appearances by a sober candidate can be pretty dull.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (1linH)
You don't know much about sexual harassment cases, do you.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at October 31, 2011 01:29 PM (3vSLn)
Hand to God, the line about a woman's height is a pretty standard come on that I've had used on me twice (in the context of being the perfect height for kissing). It's all about context. 1000% about context.
At my last mandatory brainwashing sensitivty training, we were told to never comment on a woman's appearance. I guess height counts.
My former boss who was my boss up until he was arrested just over a year ago pleaded guilty last week regarding incidents of physical sexual harassment. He was the elected DA. He will be sentenced next motnh in a deal that could get him twelve years. He was always more than fair to me. I had absolutley no idea. There were at least three victims.
Posted by: WalrusRex at October 31, 2011 01:29 PM (jUZRg)
"Another fucking retard who thinks the Weatherman controls the weather."
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 05:17 PM (nj1bB) <<
That bit about him lying about his wife not appearing with him, and his wife really not appearing because she believes he's dirty, was that also in your Top Secret Background Brief, Mr. VIP Political Operative? Or did you just make that up and then blame the climate for the bad atmosphere?
The yelling at you to clean up your act has been about YOU, not making it all go away for Cain. But it's clear you're not just careless, you really belong in the gutter.
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 01:29 PM (3GtyG)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:29 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 04:40 PM (8y9MW)
======
fuck the corporate media.
Posted by: jc at October 31, 2011 01:30 PM (i8c5b)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:30 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:31 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 01:31 PM (fyOgS)
@260: "This has already been a really shitty Monday and I have 3 hours on the road with my wife ahead of me.
Ugh.
Anybody got anything good?"
I have a shovel, grass seed, and some quicklime that you can have. Meet me at Exit 16B. Bring $200, and I can get a hooker who will testify that you spent all day with her.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at October 31, 2011 01:32 PM (xy9wk)
Ah, but of course not. And I've pointedly done the same. After all, there are no accusations about who leaked this story, just acknowledgments of the situation. Right?
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 01:32 PM (1linH)
There's no place like home. There's no place like home. Clack. Clack.
Posted by: Dorothy at October 31, 2011 01:32 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 31, 2011 01:32 PM (XE2Oo)
Posted by: Anita Hill's Pubic Hair at October 31, 2011 01:33 PM (znT2j)
>>Well, appearances by a sober candidate can be pretty dull.
That's Romney's problem, being drunk is not an excuse.
Posted by: Dr Spank at October 31, 2011 01:33 PM (Sh42X)
I gleefully applaud Huntsman for taking a cheap shot at Romney, particularly if the use of word "lubricated" was intended as I think it may be been. Yes. I fully admit it. Huntsman is the only Republican who could make that dig. It was a thing of beauty.
I voted for Romney last time.
I defended him into the primary season this time.
I now loathe the man.
That's on him and on his supporters who do a really poor job advancing the case for Mitt's candidacy based on his achievements and policies as opposed to against everyone else.
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 01:33 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:33 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 01:33 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Tami at October 31, 2011 05:26 PM (X6akg)
It could be that but he didn't say that this morning.
If he had said, "There was an incident. I did nothing wrong but I'm legally unable to say anything more" that would be ok.
If you are legally prohibited from saying something, that doesn't give you license to lie.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 01:34 PM (plesI)
Good grief, I have had men flirt/joke with me at every job I ever had and never sued one of them, these women need to put on the big girl pants, or stay home and bake cookies..
Lightweights.
Posted by: lous a girl at October 31, 2011 01:34 PM (R21xD)
Circular firing squads are not meeting the published standards around here. You are to stand exactly 2.73 ft to the left of the person on your right. Everyone is to fire on the count of 3, not before the count.
Come on people, let's get this right.
Posted by: jc at October 31, 2011 01:34 PM (i8c5b)
No doubt, but I have real difficulty imagining a credible accusation that Mitt Romney is a playa. The accuser will just look like an idiot. Now, blood libels..........
Posted by: Dorothy at October 31, 2011 01:34 PM (6TB1Z)
Now...
Cain also offered new information about the settlement of the case. Politico, which broke the sexual harassment allegation story, said that the woman received a money settlement "in the five-figure range." When van Susteren asked about that, Cain said, "My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlementÂ…I don't remember a numberÂ…But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement." When van Susteren asked how much money was involved, Cain said. "Maybe three months' salary. I don't remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn't pay all of the money they demanded."
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 05:04 PM (plesI)
Totally plausible story. Happened to me when I was laid off by a major national trade association when I was 7 1/2 months pregnant. I made some noise and threatened to sue them for sex discrimination (every person laid off my my group was a woman, and a highly paid one at that) and they gave me an extra 6 months' salary. It was definitely a "five-figure settlement."
Posted by: rockmom at October 31, 2011 01:34 PM (A0UFZ)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:34 PM (UlUS4)
...my respect for you has gone way down since you got on the Perry-and-Cain-Must-be-Destroyed kick.
McScribbler, one of us needs his head examined.
I got called a "little bitch", though and you only got "fucking retard".
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 01:34 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: jeanne! at October 31, 2011 01:35 PM (GdalM)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at October 31, 2011 01:35 PM (p7SSh)
So you prefer that we give credence to unnamed "plugged in" people, who can say any friggin' thing they want to say without being held accountable?
If Ace is using this "sources" shit to pile more dung on Cain's head, the spreaders-of-rumors need to be outed.
I guess taking responsibility is an outdated concept....
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 01:36 PM (YjjrR)
What ought to make America “uncomfortable” is that it’s broke and it’s heading for collapse. But, judging from the preoccupations of our media, very few Americans are discomforted by that. On the other hand, even if we were solvent, I very much doubt that a society made up of social arbiters with Brokaw and Schieffer’s tender sensitivities and with millions of its citizens ever more ready to be discomforted by an ever wider of ever more inappropriate if entirely non-sexual gestures would be likely to survive. Or even remain capable of basic social interaction.
LetÂ’s hear what these gestures were. Then we can mandate sensitivity training to eliminate them. Which will stimulate the vital sensitivity-training sector of the economy.
Posted by: logprof at October 31, 2011 01:36 PM (QaKuj)
Wiki has the updated schedule
Everything in front of Mar 1 is proportional delegate.
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 01:36 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:36 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Bill Clinton at October 31, 2011 01:36 PM (JYheX)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius Errant Member of the Chattering Classes at October 31, 2011 01:36 PM (ieDPL)
You talking about God watching over us all, except the heathen libs?
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 01:36 PM (dBxzn)
Posted by: Monica at October 31, 2011 01:37 PM (4136b)
@298: "I would embarass the party less and I guarantee someone would find pictures of me at an LSU tailgate "hanging brains" while "raising the roof.""
Yeah, but you're white, not some uppity buck.
Posted by: The MSM at October 31, 2011 01:37 PM (xy9wk)
I'm not saying it's not plausible. What I'm saying is it's 180 degrees from what he said 5 hours before. He's got to square those two statements.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 01:37 PM (plesI)
if 'someguy' was here he'd be telling us to quit punching down.
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 01:37 PM (5eVSI)
He settled with two of them. Are you saying he didn't know who the women were?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 05:19 PM (8O4/a)
Yep -- because counsel at the Restaurant Assoc. settled with them decades ago. It's probably coming back to him as vague memories as he tracks down the accusations.Thanks for playing, sacklapper.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at October 31, 2011 01:38 PM (7+pP9)
Translated, this means those most routinely involved in these actions are denied employment. And you wonder why certain categories have higher unemployment rates?
Posted by: Doctor Fish at October 31, 2011 05:28 PM (Lt/Za)
Like I said in a previous thread, I was brought up on SH charges a few years ago. The only thing that I could make out of it was that I disagreed with a woman and then gave her an angry look.
I have no idea what happened to the case, as no one has informed me of it's dispensation. I've also kept my mouth shut about it too. I understand Cain's silence on this issue.
Posted by: Soona - Mayan liaison at October 31, 2011 01:38 PM (coN0Z)
Oh, dear God, give it a rest. Or go occupy.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 01:39 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 01:39 PM (TMB3S)
I got called a "little bitch", though and you only got "fucking retard".
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 05:34 PMEasier than actually responding, isn't it?
I'm sure I'll climb the ladder if I continue to ask for Cain's -- and Perry's -- attackers to actually stand up like men and put their names to the accusations.
Nice to have a higher bar to look up at, spongeworthy!
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 01:39 PM (YjjrR)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:39 PM (UlUS4)
Sure.
He panicked a bit, didn't know how to react, and became defensive. Then, when cooler heads prevailed he explained the situation (which sounds perfectly plausible), and is hoping to move on.
This doesn't reflect badly on his attitudes toward women; it reflects badly on his ability to remain calm, analyze a novel situation, and NOT SAY STUPID SHIT!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at October 31, 2011 01:39 PM (3vSLn)
You do know that Politico went to the campaign for comment TEN DAYS ago, right?
Let's not pretend the first Cain heard of this was late last night or early this morning. He's had more than a week to jog his memory or get any records he needs.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 01:40 PM (plesI)
True, and exactly why it doesn't matter about the accusation, it matters how you answer it. Cain answers poorly.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 01:40 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius Errant Member of the Chattering Classes at October 31, 2011 01:40 PM (ieDPL)
Sure thing Redneck. I guess we should believe that Cain doesn't remember the names of two women who accused him of sexual harrassment. Maybe you can explain his five hour flip flop he pulled off today.
Have fun boning the family cow in whatever backwoods hell hole you dwell in.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 01:41 PM (8O4/a)
311 You must be THIS tall to bake pizza.
Or....You must be THIS tall to get on this ride.
Which is, um.....an old joke that I have heard guys make to women.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 01:41 PM (XkwIi)
Two problems with Herman Cain and the sexual harassment issue. Yesterday he said he couldn't comment as if he didn't know what they were talking about. The reporter gave him one of the names right there and instead of denial, said wouldn't comment and then smartly asked him if he'd ever been accused of sexual harassment. He and his campaign most certainly did know about this for some tome too, as they have been notified many times throughout the past 10 days and refused to address it. Now, today he "remembers"? He remembered only one woman.
He went to a friendly venue to give his side unchallenged. He could have avoided this whole thing if he had responded to the questions prior to the story coming out.
Before you mention the non-disclosure agreement, as an excuse why he didn't comment yesterday, it was on the women not Cain. But let's say it was on Cain too just to be safe as we don't really know. So, if he didn't answer the questions yesterday because of it, then why did he respond today? You can't have it both ways.
And to say the only incident that he remembers is that he just touched his chin adn said the woman was the same height as his wife wouldn't justify a settlement, let alone a five-figure one. She'd be laughed out of court.
Rush talked about it today giving only some of the accusations, he conveniently forgot the biggest one where the woman says Cain asked her up to his suite.
The second problem I find with it: There is no way the President of the National Restaurant Association didn't know about the settlement, not just one but multiple settlements. This defies logic and truth. Mr. Cain, although the accusedm was the President. He was on Fox today and said he wasn't aware of a settlement.
The other thing that concerns me is when he said on Fox that you'll probably hear of other women and accusations but don't believe them. Why would you say that?
Oh Oh, just found the lie, actually two. Cain later today told Greta he knew about the settlement and recalls the 2nd woman.
Oops, found another lie too. Cain said the National Restaurant AssociationÂ’s general counsel and the Human Resources Department conducted an investigation into allegations about his conduct in the late-90s and found it to be baseless. But the head of the Human Resources Dept says there was no investigation and didn't even know about any allegations against Cain.
When she was called after he repeated this at his National Press Club speech, she replied "He did not say that." When the quote was recited for her, she hung up.
Also I listened to the Politico reporter today on radio and there is more coming.
The allegations may indeed be false, but the cover-up and lies are what's doing Cain in. He just today got caught in 3 lies. Now, he's going to tout out his wife? Please don't make a wife have to listen to and defend this.
Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2011 01:42 PM (gqG91)
He panicked about something he knew about 10 days ago?
That's worrying.
Of course, I don't believe that's what happened. He thought he'd brazen it out and then like every other fuck up he's had, he starts changing his story. Based on past behavior, I'm guessing this isn't the last version of the story we hear.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 01:42 PM (plesI)
ace at October 31, 2011 05:09 PM (nj1bB)
*****
No problem. And by the way, I'm not yelling at you over this. Cover the story. It is out there.
Posted by: ed at October 31, 2011 01:42 PM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at October 31, 2011 01:42 PM (p7SSh)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 05:36 PM
There is only one rule, Ace: If someone accuses another of a criminal or socially unacceptable act, said person needs to stand behind what they claim and put their name to it. Better still if they can offer proof.
Don't get all butthurt about that. You'd want the same if someone was accusing you.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 01:42 PM (YjjrR)
And we all wonder why you presume nuttiness and wrong every time Cain comes up.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 31, 2011 01:43 PM (r4wIV)
I have decided that the GOP is in no way going to do anything to pull the country out of its present downward spiral (completely unserious about that, and prefer navel gazing and choosing who will be the class popular kid to lead the dodgeball team)...praying for divine intervention is perhaps a more sure route...
Congratulations, I'll say it again: in an election that was theirs to lose, where it seemed almost impossible for the GOP/conservatives to screw up, you did not disappoint. In fact, the Republicans went above and beyond the call of duty this time; a tip of my hat, this has to be one of the finest examples of dedication I've ever seen.
Posted by: you know at October 31, 2011 01:43 PM (yN6cl)
A relative of mine was accused of racial harrassment and reprimanded for turning the phrase "older than a coon's age".
People are nucking futz.
Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at October 31, 2011 01:43 PM (4136b)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:44 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Marco Rubio's Trashcan at October 31, 2011 01:44 PM (5eVSI)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:44 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: norrin radd at October 31, 2011 01:44 PM (HprDl)
Sounds as if you are sexually harassing Ace.
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 01:44 PM (dBxzn)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 01:44 PM (8O4/a)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 01:45 PM (ieDPL)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 01:45 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Grey Fox at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (MSCON)
Zip. Zero. Nada.
I had a kid fly out on his third deployment last night. He has a Son of a Bitch for a CIC who would sell out the troops for a deep fried Twinkie on a Stick. All I care about is getting that commie son of a bitch out of office. All. I. Care. About.
For the love of all that is good and holy would you please stop killing all our candidates on the basis of rumors and speculation.
I'm sorry. I am just exhausted by all the stupid.
Posted by: mama winger at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (R9bQ9)
At this point I am at "Plausible," wouldn't be surprised either way the story goes. I think in a few days we will know a lot more. What if Politico is trying a Breitbart and leaking some info waiting for the denials and then dropping the rest in a few days. I still don't think Cain is ready for primetime, but like I explained earlier I see no point in rushing him out of the race. Let him rise or fall in his own time no need to rush him out.
Considering the private ceasefire Cain and Romney have had this entire time and even recently as being neck and neck in the polls, I highly doubt Romneys people leaked this story. After reading 1000's of comments it does seem the Perry peeps are the most excited for this to KO Cain. They probably are right this is probably his best and last chance to stage a comeback. Now, if the herd starts abandoning Cain and heads to Gingrinch instead of Perry....
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (I9fXA)
Posted by: Rick Perry at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (1linH)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (nj1bB)
February, 2000. I was accused (by her shop steward and business agent) of grabbing the breast of an employee. Of course it was crap, just so they could have something opposite my firing her for failing to work as instructed.
I have no fucking idea what her name was. Not a clue.
But according to you I am lying.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (3vSLn)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (IqM9e)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (ieDPL)
It's the lies that will catch him.
Cain not only knew about the settlement, he knew how much she asked for and the amount "WE ended up settling for". He told Greta this today after lying that he didn't even know there was a settlement this morning. He also "recalled" the 2nd woman after denying it this morning.
Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2011 01:47 PM (gqG91)
You want to know why I think this should go away? Because it settled out of court for 5 figures. As others have said, and I know this to be true, that's not what good SH cases settle for.
So even if all of this is true, and there was a SH case against Cain, it was far, far more likely to have been a nuisance suit. What's more, the defendant in a settled nuisance suit is supposed to get one thing assured him in return for passing the opportunity to clear his name, and that is a bulletproof confidentiality clause. Once these are violated, no one will ever settle these suits. And it isn't anything like fair to the accused.
No, it won't go away and I'm not saying our Host shouldn't cover it. But to do so without recognizing the really awful state of SH law as practiced is tellingly one-sided.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 01:48 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at October 31, 2011 01:48 PM (ieDPL)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:48 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:49 PM (UlUS4)
Oddly enough, *I do not.*
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 05:44 PM
In that case, you are making assumptions, Ace. Guesses. Projections. You may even be wishcasting, I don't know.
But whatever it is, a little less of that and a little more reasoned judgment -- based on you saying you *do not* have the records would be better.
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 01:49 PM (YjjrR)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 01:49 PM (TMB3S)
If actual facts come about, fine, but I am not throwing the guy overboard before then based on rumours. We just recently had a story of how the ny times works by James O'Keefe. Why should Cain have to prove innocence, screw that. Before you answer because the media will make him, I still say screw that.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 01:49 PM (JYheX)
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 01:49 PM (I9fXA)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:49 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:50 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 31, 2011 01:50 PM (vzFJV)
That "sure," was not snark. I am agreeing with you.
I realize that it happens so rarely around here that you don't recognize when one of the commenters actually supports your position.
DrewM, do I really have to put a smiley face emoticon at the end of this?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at October 31, 2011 01:50 PM (3vSLn)
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 05:42 PM (dBxzn)
Cain will be fine. He'll be made or broken on policy, not rumors of SH. Many Americans, including myself, are getting really tired of the MFM's tricks of personal destruction. And this is all it is, because the left doesn't have anything Americans want.
Posted by: Soona - Mayan liaison at October 31, 2011 01:50 PM (coN0Z)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:50 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: mama winger at October 31, 2011 01:51 PM (R9bQ9)
But let's just keep pretending these are some phantoms dreamed up entirely by Politico. Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 05:48 PM
Assumptions.
If you feel the need to destroy Cain's public career, I still believe names and details must be printed.
It's shitty and un-American to throw anyone to the wolves based on innuendo, hearsay and "undisclosed sources."
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 01:51 PM (YjjrR)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:52 PM (UlUS4)
Caine should tell the Rest. Assoc to dig up the legal files with the names of his accusers. Let the media dissect their stories. Cain needs to get the truth out and be done with it.
Posted by: snowcrash at October 31, 2011 01:52 PM (w3YD7)
I think Ace is ready to convert, like the little green football guy. Reality has finally reared its ugly head.
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 01:53 PM (dBxzn)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 01:53 PM (nj1bB)
Zip. Zero. Nada.
I had a kid fly out on his third deployment last night. He has a Son of a Bitch for a CIC who would sell out the troops for a deep fried Twinkie on a Stick. All I care about is getting that commie son of a bitch out of office. All. I. Care. About.
For the love of all that is good and holy would you please stop killing all our candidates on the basis of rumors and speculation.
I'm sorry. I am just exhausted by all the stupid.
Posted by: mama winger at October 31, 2011 05:47 PM (R9bQ9)
THREAD WINNER
But the muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound in the world. And he's the only thing between you and the pitchforks.
Mutherfuckers.
Posted by: Truman North swoops in, calls "thread winner," and leaves to take his kids trick or treating at October 31, 2011 01:53 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 01:53 PM (JYheX)
Shouldn't you go back about how you want to put all Mormons into death camps or something? That's more your bailiwick, really.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 01:54 PM (hIWe1)
So you prefer that we give credence to unnamed "plugged in" people, who can say any friggin' thing they want to say without being held accountable?
If Ace is using this "sources" shit to pile more dung on Cain's head, the spreaders-of-rumors need to be outed.
I guess taking responsibility is an outdated concept....
Posted by: MrScribbler at October 31, 2011 05:36 PM (YjjrR)
Uh why? Its not like ace wrote a post on this 30 days ago when he first heard about this? Were you demanding Ace tell you who told him Perry would be entering the presidential race before it was announce? Afterall they were unnamed "plugged in" people as well. How is it piling on more by ace saying "yeah I've heard about this a few weeks ago." Because he indicates there might be more?
As for the spreaders-of-rumors, I believe their website is politico.com
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 01:54 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 31, 2011 01:54 PM (vzFJV)
Posted by: Spike at October 31, 2011 01:55 PM (g/arr)
Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 01:55 PM (YdQQY)
Remember to use your power wisely and only for good.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at October 31, 2011 01:55 PM (3vSLn)
Yeah, not like's major national news or anything. In case you hadn't noticed, Herman Cain is currently the GOP frontrunner. This is a big fucking deal, not a conspiracy against your personal political predilections.
Jesus catfucking Christ.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 01:55 PM (hIWe1)
You know, mama winger, when you sit at the keyboard like that your genitals are at the same height as my face and that makes me very uncomfortable.
Why are you crawling about on all fours in mama winger's office?
Posted by: fluffy at October 31, 2011 01:56 PM (4pSIn)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 01:56 PM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 31, 2011 01:56 PM (Yc68p)
excuse me but for the record...
US PALINISTAS DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT CAIN, PERRY, OR THAT JAGOFF ROMNEY!!!!
we are still hoping she changes her mind and runs
Posted by: navycopjoe getting ready to pawn on BF3 at October 31, 2011 01:56 PM (R7NIt)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:56 PM (UlUS4)
379....Either there will be more, or this is it.
If this is it, fine, no problem.
Ace, I think there will be more.
Why? Because corporations have small armies of corporate lawyers whose job it is to make things go away and stay out of the public eye....at that time. But would not stand up to the vetting that goes on during a presidential campaign.
Also, because there are a lot of things that happen in Business that are okay in Businness....but they are not okay in politics.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 01:57 PM (XkwIi)
Probably true to point, and ultimately it is the responsibility of HC to respond and "spin" this if spinning can be done. We'll likely know within a week what the accusations were.
Hey dude maybe if you just HOPE REALLY HARD this will go away!!!
I'm just hoping really hard that Romney doesn't get the nom, and this isn't helping. If this does turn out to be a real skeleton in the closet, maybe I can convince some folks Perry is worth another look. But there isn't enough evidence yet to toss him. But Herman, if their is something you haven't yet told us, be prepared to be hurled far.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 01:58 PM (0q2P7)
Remember to use your power wisely and only for good.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at October 31, 2011 05:55 PM (3vSLn)
Or else Dum Dum might cry.
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 01:58 PM (GULKT)
Okay. Let me go at this from another angle.
Why is it that we're considering the validity of these claims? Why are we not immediately finding these women and destroying them forever? And making sure Politico goes out of business? And the reporters who worked on this story are unable to purchase a haircut from a public hairdresser within 125 miles of Washington, DC? That's how our enemy rolls. That's what they do. That's how they hold on to their political territory. They go to FUCKING WAR on this shit.
We've stopped to put our guy on trial based on a fucking hit piece from the enemy!
Dude. That's how this war is fought. That's the fucking scorched earth we need to be laying down from moment one: kill the bunny. Don't play nice, don't play fair. Kill. The. Bunny.
Who are these women? What skeletons have they got? Who are these "journalists"? Why are they not in front of Congress right the fuck now for this fucking loose shit?
We are so fucking dead already. Either we pull our heads out of our ass and make the other rat bastards die for their country... Or else we're already fucking toast in the general.
Posted by: Truman North at October 31, 2011 01:58 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 01:59 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at October 31, 2011 01:59 PM (Yc68p)
( I never wanted Clinton impeached either. )
Posted by: jeanne! at October 31, 2011 01:59 PM (GdalM)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 01:59 PM (rJVPU)
You do know that Politico went to the campaign for comment TEN DAYS ago, right?
Let's not pretend the first Cain heard of this was late last night or early this morning. He's had more than a week to jog his memory or get any records he needs.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 05:40 PM (plesI)
I did not know that.Responding to cases where parties vowed silence and then reneged upon their vows to a major news organization is rather difficult.
Shooting from the hip in such circumstances is like letting a five year-old stretch out the fly paper (not like you or any of your city brethren like Dick Nixon could understand the analogy).
Cain did it right -- got the decades-old accusations -- reviewed them -- and properly dismissed them as sour grapes.
Live with it.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at October 31, 2011 02:00 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:35 PM (6TB1Z)
I agree - Bush did a bang-up job of shrinking the Federal Government and removing it's influence in our daily lives.
Posted by: blindside at October 31, 2011 02:00 PM (3Uns6)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 02:00 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at October 31, 2011 02:00 PM (p7SSh)
A hand to the chin today and forever after: quintessential sexual harassment.
It's macaca 2.0.
Posted by: Kensington at October 31, 2011 02:00 PM (znT2j)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 02:00 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: mpfs at October 31, 2011 02:00 PM (iYbLN)
we are still hoping she changes her mind and runs
I'd settle for a few jumping jacks in a sports bra.
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 02:01 PM (5eVSI)
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 02:01 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 02:01 PM (UlUS4)
416 oh yeah?
i wished away global warming and right now it's warm and sunny, around 85 degrees!!
you want more down-twinkles? yeah, thats what i thought
Posted by: navycopjoe getting ready to pawn on BF3 at October 31, 2011 02:01 PM (R7NIt)
Posted by: A Former Cain Girl at October 31, 2011 02:01 PM (KaAC5)
Please everyone remember, with how executive power now is, the Presidents czars and judges will matter as much or more then who gets elected. If the Romney people want to assuage the base they could start by reassuring us through on what to expect of these appointees.
Honestly Perry and Romney appointees are going to be as similar as Clintons appointees would have been to Obamas. 90%+. Most of Obamas appointees were all Clinton retreads anyway. Seriously a lot of Bush retreads are going to reappear in the next admin regardless of if its Palin-Romney. That's just the reality of DC Politics. Only so many Robert Gates, Petraus, Tenet types. Just give that a good long think and stop hyperventilating.
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 02:02 PM (I9fXA)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 02:02 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 02:02 PM (nj1bB)
This is a weak attempt at a smear, but astonishingly, once again there is more foolishness and unprofessionalism from the Cain campaign.
Still not ready for prime time.
Posted by: Arms Merchant at October 31, 2011 02:02 PM (hW3KZ)
Posted by: mpfs at October 31, 2011 02:02 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: A Former Cain Girl at October 31, 2011 06:01 PM (KaAC5)
Uh huh.
Now show us your tits, or GTFO.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 02:03 PM (1linH)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 05:59 PM (rJVPU)
I'll show you mine for free!
Posted by: Lindsey Lohan at October 31, 2011 02:03 PM (3vSLn)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 31, 2011 02:04 PM (0yt4x)
Posted by: snowcrash at October 31, 2011 02:04 PM (w3YD7)
Journalistic sources, where secret don't appear in print despite what your "you have a right to face your accuser" ideas may be. Cain has a choice, if he is pissed about the facts as reported he can sue for Libel, and if the truth isn't there then he can compel revealing the sources. That's his remedy.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 02:04 PM (0q2P7)
@381: "No white politicians have had same accusations?"
We were merely stating that you would embarass the GOP less because you are white, not an *obvious Uncle Tom token who is being supported by racists* black guy. In our unbiased eyes, however, you are both evil, corrupt, idiot counter-revolutionaries who are overdue for an appointment with Mme. Guillotine. We regret any error in comprehension on your part.
Posted by: The MSM at October 31, 2011 02:04 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: navycopjoe getting ready to pawn on BF3 at October 31, 2011 02:04 PM (R7NIt)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 02:04 PM (nj1bB)
Well, first of all we don't know what he did or didn't do. What if he did something worse than a misunderstood gesture? He may not have but we don't know, do we?
Why would we want to destroy women who may actually have been victimized?
How about we wait for some facts before we destroy people? Liberals don't do that but we're better than them. I'd like to keep it that way.
As for Politico...knock yourself out. They are scum.
And Cain isn't "our guy". He might be your guy but that's not the same. I don't want Cain to be the nominee but I want him to lose based on his failings, not a trumped up scandal (if that's what this is) but that doesn't mean we all have to run to the battlements without knowing all the facts. And given Cain's already changing stories, I'm not interested in vouching for the guy until we know the whole deal.
YMMV.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 02:05 PM (plesI)
I will CUT A MOTHERFUCKER If you start that crunchy fig bullshit.
You don't find poetry relaxing, do you?
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 02:06 PM (5eVSI)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 02:06 PM (JYheX)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 02:06 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Herman Cain for America at October 31, 2011 02:06 PM (Jl3Mu)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 02:07 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 02:08 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at October 31, 2011 06:00 PM (7+pP9)
We don't know who leaked it. It could have been the women, it could have been someone at the association who doesn't like Cain.
There's a lot we don't know so running off half cocked isn't a great plan.
Cain did it right -- got the decades-old accusations -- reviewed them -- and properly dismissed them as sour grapes.
You don't know that's what happened, do you? And again, why wait till this afternoon to review the accusations when you didn't get around to doing it in the last 10 days?
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 02:08 PM (plesI)
Posted by: mama winger at October 31, 2011 02:08 PM (R9bQ9)
I remember a time when the Left had their Chief Executive fellated in the Oval Office by an intern. Good times... Good times...
Posted by: Brock O'Bama at October 31, 2011 02:08 PM (n1JN0)
exactly, he should definitely do exactly that,
Any lawyers still here? Wouldn't Cain be held in contempt for opening a sealed file?
Just because one party seemingly violates the confidentiality clause does not enable the other to do so.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 02:08 PM (puy4B)
Ace and Allah are in a feeding frenzy, to them this is just another opportunity to take out someone they personally don't want to get the nomination, more than happy to play along with the progressive chorus.... truth be damned.
Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2011 02:08 PM (Y7jCH)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 02:09 PM (rJVPU)
Posted by: mpfs at October 31, 2011 06:02 PM (iYbLN)
And from my own experience and observation, they still are.
Posted by: Soona - Mayan liaison at October 31, 2011 02:09 PM (coN0Z)
"I turned it over to my general counsel and one of the ladies that worked for me, the woman in charge of human resources."
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 04:43 PM (5H6zj)
I agree. Most women today are NOT 'ladies'.
Posted by: blindside at October 31, 2011 02:10 PM (3Uns6)
Posted by: Brock O'Bama at October 31, 2011 02:11 PM (n1JN0)
God knows what this thread is about by this point, but consider a stupid auto accident. Other party (not my insured) sues for some not particularly serious injury. Claims department gives her $75,000 to shut up and go away. I said, what on earth are you doing? The response was, "the maximum damage award in the court she filed suit in is $75,000. If we fight it, we will have to pay some damages plus defense costs which is likely to end up being more than $75,000." So there's a five figure settlement that was completely outrageous.
An insurance company would have settled these claims as fast as they could just to make them go away cheap. Not everyone bought coverage for sexual harassment back when this happened to Mr. Cain, but it's highly likely that a board of directors would think in this case just like an insurance company since any uninsured damages are going to come straight out of the organization's budget. Settle it, settle it now, make it disappear for as little as possible.
Where there's smoke, there could be fire. It could be a 100,000 acre forest fire or it could be a Bic lighter.
Posted by: Tonestaple at October 31, 2011 02:11 PM (V+wqJ)
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 02:12 PM (5eVSI)
I've seen lots of confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements and I've never seen one that prohibits any mention that a settlement occurred. Often the parties are given some superficial spiel they can say about the litigation being resolved "to the mutual consent of the parties" or blather like that.
Anyway, the fact of a dismissal of a lawsuit is of public record, and a dismissal strongly implies that a settlement was reached.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at October 31, 2011 02:13 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: robtr at October 31, 2011 02:13 PM (MtwBb)
...if he is pissed about the facts as reported he can sue for Libel, and if the truth isn't there then he can compel revealing the sources. That's his remedy.
I'm pretty sure he can go back to the judge who signed off on this settlement and have his accusers held in contempt for violating the confidintiality clause, or at least try.
I have actually forgotten how this works. It has been a long time since I was accused of SH.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 02:13 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: sifty at October 31, 2011 02:13 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Barbarian at October 31, 2011 02:13 PM (EL+OC)
He's an unprepared amateur who acts like he can't be bothered with the troublesome tasks of getting prepared, even after he gets a good chunk of support. QED Not being ready to respond to allegations of harassment. C'mon that's politikin 101.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 02:13 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Brock O'Bama at October 31, 2011 06:11 PM (n1JN0)
Gaffe prone. Doesn't agree with 9-9-9 plan. I don't think he really cares for Cain not knowing some of even the most basic things presidential candidates are asked. So he doesn't consider him to be a serious candidate.
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 02:14 PM (GULKT)
My experience with sexual harassment claims is in my capacity as a mid-level sales manager for a large medical device manufacturer.
Let me tell you in no uncertain terms that guilt or innocence in these matters has no bearing on what action the corporation ultimately decides to take. The guiding principle in those decisions is very simple: what a jury might conceivably make of the claim.
Have no illusions either about the presumption of sanity among jurors. Without exception, damage control attorneys in these situations assume an irrational jury, likely to take sympathy on a pathetic crying woman over a big impersonal corporation. "That company has PLENTY of money" will probably be the jury's point of view, regardless of the merits of the complaint. Make no mistake: most companies pay very close attention to decisions such as was made in the OJ Simpson murder trial.
While I have not myself been accused, I have been involved in the investigation of several of my direct reports. In all cases, the claims were patently obvious extortion attempts (made by non-performing sales people), and in every case my company chose to pay them to go away.
Posted by: Wodeshed at October 31, 2011 02:14 PM (LEcV+)
Well haven't the "unnamed" sources breeched that-*if* it was part of the settlement?
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 06:09 PM (rJVPU)
It's sort of like national security classified information. Even if you read about it in the newspaper, it doesn't give you permission to discuss it with the general public.
Posted by: Soona - Mayan liaison at October 31, 2011 02:14 PM (coN0Z)
Just because one party seemingly violates the confidentiality clause does not enable the other to do so.
It would depend on what was set forth in the settlement document. ....I am not aware of any 'one size fits all' type of law pertaining to confidentiality. It is whatever is agreed upon and put in the closing documents.
I am not a lawyer though. But I have read a lot of contracts with differently worded clauses in them covering confidentiality.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 02:14 PM (XkwIi)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 02:15 PM (UlUS4)
Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 06:12 PM (5eVSI)
What's up Jerry Lewis?
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 02:15 PM (GULKT)
I seriously hope this is parody. Because if you actually think this is what we should be doing, irrespective of the truth of these claims then -- no kidding -- your political obsessions have authentically turned you into an amoral monster.
And no, that's not too harsh, because you specifically said you didn't care whether the allegations were true or not -- even if they were, we should still find these women and "destroy them forever." For what reason? For getting sexually harassed by Herman Cain a decade ago and then being unfortunate enough to get caught in the crossfire when someone else (not them, remember) brings it up during a Presidential campaign much later?
Seriously: tell me you were kidding, otherwise what kind of asshole are you?
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 02:16 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: USA at October 31, 2011 02:16 PM (6Cjut)
The company that actually got sued will settle it for you, no choice.
Posted by: Jerry Lewis at October 31, 2011 02:17 PM (JYheX)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 02:17 PM (UlUS4)
Ace and Allah are in a feeding frenzy, to them this is just another opportunity to take out someone they personally don't want to get the nomination, more than happy to play along with the progressive chorus.... truth be damned.
Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2011 06:08 PM (Y7jCH)
You got dat right.Posted by: Ed Anger's Cat at October 31, 2011 02:18 PM (7+pP9)
I'm pretty sure he can go back to the judge who signed off on this settlement and have his accusers held in contempt for violating the confidintiality clause, or at least try.
I have actually forgotten how this works. It has been a long time since I was accused of SH.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 06:13 PM (puy4B)
Wouldn't you need evidence that it was one or both of the women that leaked this story? What if it was someone else that was involved and really doesn't like Cain? You would need to get Politico to reveal their sources to the judge before you could go after them? I mean wouldn't it be really shitty to release these women's names and then have it revealed that niether were the source?
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 02:19 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Mike Devx at October 31, 2011 02:19 PM (n3Eag)
Did Cain's camp know about this story 10 days ago?
If so, why were they not prepped to go on offense and explain this immediately?
Why is Cain changing his story within the scope of hours? He didn't know about any settlement this morning, then told Greta that he knew how much the accusers were asking for and how much they settled for?
He may be completely innocent, but he's sure not helping himself any. Shouldn't he have learned to keep flammables away from pizza ovens?
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 02:19 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 31, 2011 02:21 PM (UlUS4)
A court docket isn't sealed. Individual documents can be sealed if the judge approves but the court records are generally supposed to be available to the public. The idea is that there can be no Star Chambers-type proceedings and that kind of shit.
On talking about the settlement, there is no contempt exposure unless a stipulated injunction was entered as part of the settlement. Which, I've never seen in my experience. (I think there would be serious Prior Restraint issues when you're enjoining someone from talking about a certain topic.)
A breach of the confidentiality provision would be a mere breach of contract.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at October 31, 2011 02:21 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2011 02:21 PM (niZvt)
What's up Jerry Lewis?
Not me...I just call them cuz.
Posted by: Jerry Lee Lewis at October 31, 2011 06:17 PM (5eVSI)
Jerry Lewis. Not Jerry Lee Lewis. You know, the guy that always does the Labor Day Telethon and is considered a comic genius in France.
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 02:22 PM (GULKT)
Great. "Doesn't recall?"
Erm...is it so hard to say "HELL NO"?
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 02:23 PM (hIWe1)
and then being unfortunate enough to get caught in the crossfire when someone else (not them, remember) brings it up during a Presidential campaign much later.
How do you know they didn't come forward? Do you know this?
If they did, they can be held in contempt, I'm almost certain. If not, then they can certaily be sued for breach.
Sure, if someone dug up the file and sought them out, then they didn't come forward. But they cannot discuss the claims or terms of the settlement (unless the Association had some shit attorneys.)
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 02:23 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 02:23 PM (hIWe1)
@460: "I remember a time when the Left had their Chief Executive fellated in the Oval Office by an intern. "
Fuck you, pal. I was an Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement, not an intern!
Posted by: Kal Penn at October 31, 2011 02:23 PM (xy9wk)
YMMV.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 06:05 PM (plesI)
I call bullshit.Posted by: Ed Anger's Cat at October 31, 2011 02:24 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 02:24 PM (fyOgS)
I really have no idea whether he was guilty or not. I just know that in this day and age, a harassment claim is like a claim of molestation; it's a cloud that will follow you forever, regardless of your guilt or innocence.
I also believe that while there are many legitimate claims of harassment, there are probably many more invented ones made by cynical hypersensitive women who know how to work the system.
Posted by: Wodeshed at October 31, 2011 02:24 PM (LEcV+)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 02:25 PM (fyOgS)
"I remember a time when the Left had their Chief Executive fellated in the Oval Office by an intern. "
I'm not a fucking intern!
...and I pitch. I don't catch.
Posted by: Reggie Love at October 31, 2011 02:25 PM (5eVSI)
490...Wouldn't you need evidence that it was one or both of the women that leaked this story? What if it was someone else that was involved and really doesn't like Cain? You would need to get Politico to reveal their sources to the judge before you could go after them? I mean wouldn't it be really shitty to release these women's names and then have it revealed that niether were the source?
Buzzion,
Yeah, and we don't know yet if the "two women" were party to the same case, as in, were both there at the time of the alleged 'harrassment'....or if they were separate cases.
We don't know a lot of details yet.
But if they are not a part of the same case.....then, that would suggest that whoever leaked this had inside information about the legal files of the National Restaurant Assn. Which could be an SEIU source, since they hate Cain.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 02:26 PM (XkwIi)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 02:26 PM (nj1bB)
Was I wrong?
#askpolitico
Posted by: sifty at October 31, 2011 02:26 PM (4CSeG)
Remember that part where Herman Cain said he was unaware of a settlement? As many of you are no doubt now aware:
“I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.” -- Herman Cain
... so that part is no longer operative.
Herman Cain, the (initially, until he got more information at the age of 70 during the middle of an election campaign) pro-choice, anti-US-Constitution candidate that you can trust.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 02:27 PM (YiE0S)
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV) 1 shall have no other gods before Me. 2 do not worship false idols
3 shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5 “Honor your father and your mother 6 “You shall not murder. 7 “You shall not commit adultery. 8 “You shall not steal. 9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's _____
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 02:28 PM (I9fXA)
Oh really?
Wikipedia: He also played wide receiver for the Duke football team on a football scholarship,
Posted by: Wodeshed at October 31, 2011 02:28 PM (LEcV+)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2011 02:29 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: Soona - Mayan liaison at October 31, 2011 02:29 PM (coN0Z)
471, robtr, the "accused" most likely has no say in the matter. The employer, being the deep pocket, is who is actually sued. The individual is just a bystander at worse, at best a witness. The employer or the employer's insurance company is the one who makes all the decisions. The accused person has no say at all.
I was sexually harrassed by a co-worker back before it was trendy, before the Clarence Thomas hearings. I went to my boss and he went to the head of the office. The head of the office had a little chat with the harasser who never bothered me again. This is how it should work if it is a real complaint. We don't know exactly what the chain of events was at the National Restaurant Assn but if the supposed victims went straight to an attorney, that tells me that they are damned liars who were in it for money. If they went through appropriate channels first, there might be something that happened. Whether or not it was sexual harassment, we'll probably never know.
Posted by: Tonestaple at October 31, 2011 02:29 PM (V+wqJ)
Posted by: Wodeshed at October 31, 2011 06:28 PM (LEcV+)
Oh, I'm a force to contend with in the slot and in the showers.
Posted by: Reggie Love at October 31, 2011 02:30 PM (5eVSI)
You don't know that's what happened, do you? And again, why wait till this afternoon to review the accusations when you didn't get around to doing it in the last 10 days?
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 06:08 PM (plesI)
You don't, either.Lawyering takes time. Even dunces like you should understand that.
Posted by: Ed Anger's Cat at October 31, 2011 02:30 PM (7+pP9)
If this story does turn out to be false then the left really isn't doing well with this list.
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV) 1 shall have no other gods before Me. 2 do not worship false idols
3 shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5 “Honor your father and your mother 6 “You shall not murder. 7 “You shall not commit adultery. 8 “You shall not steal. 9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's _____
Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 06:28 PM (I9fXA)
See, you are such a nut.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 02:33 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 02:33 PM (plesI)
@515: "Oh really?
Wikipedia: He also played wide receiver for the Duke football team on a football scholarship"
That would tend to at least confirm that he couldn't catch; Duke being a national football powerhouse and all....
Posted by: Everyone in the State of North Carolina at October 31, 2011 02:33 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 02:34 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Brock O'bama at October 31, 2011 02:34 PM (3ob7O)
Here's what I do know....Cain told two mutually exclusive stories about this within about 5 hours.
That doesn't actually scream credibility.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 02:35 PM (plesI)
Ace,
Like you I am not in favor of nominating Cain to the top of the Republican ticket for president. Unlike you, that does not wholly bias me against Cain.
You're warning us not to do a "Reverse Clinton"?? Excuse me, Ace, but in candidate Clinton's case there several women coming forward and giving multiple interviews (you know, where their claims can be scrutinized by questioners) regarding Clinton's sexual misconduct. You might call those women witnesses. In the case of Cain, all we have are vague reports of vague claims written down somewhere nearly two decades ago that the public has yet been given to read. There are good reasons why judges will almost never admit written statements like construction estimates into evidence in a court of law. - Because those statements are hearsay, and there is no way for a lawyer to cross examine a piece of paper. In this situation, we don't even have a piece of paper to read that accuses Cain. Think about that.
There's no "Reverse Clinton" going on here, Ace. Because there are as yet no witnesses coming forward making public accusations against Cain. (Unlike in candidate Clinton's case.)
You slammed Cain with heavy innuendo, and you should not have.
You finally said that maybe Cain is only guilty of a misunderstanding. Let me give you a new angle to consider, Ace. Maybe the women who (supposedly) cashed in on their allegations decades ago were just in it for the money. Ever think of that. What kind of misunderstanding would Cain be guilty of then, Ace?
Check your bias, dude. Really.
Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 02:35 PM (SV650)
Posted by: Herman Cain's Crocs at October 31, 2011 02:35 PM (5eVSI)
Posted by: Barbarian at October 31, 2011 02:36 PM (EL+OC)
Right now, I'd vote for Newt as a protest vote.
There's a lot I like about him but he's not temperamentally suited to be President.
Essentially, I'm not supporting anyone.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 02:37 PM (plesI)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 02:38 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Brock O'bama at October 31, 2011 06:34 PM (3ob7O)
Even though I'll probably vote for Perry in the primary, I do find Cain quite refreshing. It's early yet. I may change my mind.
Posted by: Soona - Mayan liaison at October 31, 2011 02:38 PM (coN0Z)
My bitch about this is that too many people are writing about this as though it were fact. What's wrong with waiting until some actual "facts" emerge.
We know these as facts. Cain denied he knew the company settled. Then the following day said he remembered his General Counsel settled it for less than "all of the money they demanded".
My bitch about this is the same one that caused Ace to scratch his eyeballs out that a candidate whose initial impulses are pro-choice, pro-right-of-return, anti-freedom of religion, and anti-no-religious-test for office (in other words, anti-US Constitution), who hardly espouses any recognizably conservative positions, is annointed the "conservative"candidate ... because he flashes a nice smile or something.
It had nothing to do with rational inputs.
And you, sir, are IGNORING the new rational inputs in front of you, as are his defenders.
If he said a rude thing or made a rude gesture in front of a woman at some point in his life, I don't think that disqualifies him as POTUS. But he lied to us about his knowledge of it, and he seems neither all that conservative nor prepared.
Charisma, sure, but no way he's ready to either win the general election NOR lead the country.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 02:38 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 02:39 PM (d6QMz)
Hey, just a thought for a halloween costume. Go as the Obama MSM and just wear clothes that have "look over there" written on them hundreds of times. Perfect.
Posted by: lous a girl at October 31, 2011 02:39 PM (R21xD)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 06:36 PM (8O4/a)
Haha. You make big funny right there. We steal now.
Posted by: China at October 31, 2011 02:39 PM (EL+OC)
>>>There's a lot I like about him but he's not temperamentally suited to be President.
>>>Essentially, I'm not supporting anyone.
SOON.
Posted by: The Mitt Romney Borg Cube Ominously Hovering Over This Blog at October 31, 2011 02:40 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 02:40 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 06:37 PM (plesI)
Is there a number where I can send you my complimentary informational DVD, So You Can't Decide On A GOP Nominee?
Posted by: Huntsman at October 31, 2011 02:41 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 02:44 PM (nj1bB)
Thanks. So, a candidate with a conservative platform and a pro-business attitude must be excluded from consideration because he makes mistakes in basic political message control. Mind you... He's not a career politician so some of these things should be expected.
Posted by: Brock O'bama at October 31, 2011 06:34 PM (3ob7O)
Ok, well see since he is running for office he has become a politician. And if he were not polished that would be one thing, but he comes off as not prepared. I mean even if you're running for dog catcher you should know about the basics. Its really isn't a confidence builder to hear a guy give an answer to something that has been part of the presidential race for over 40 years, and then have him clarify, and then clarify some more. And then 3 days later "after having researched more this is now my final opinion."
Why should I have confidence in someone like that?
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 02:44 PM (GULKT)
>>>But you know what? You want to, go for it, champ.
Let the behavior of the Daily Kos Kidz during Weinergate be a lesson to people. Remember all the BRILLIANT conspiracy theories they came up with about hacked yFrog accounts, image manipulation, etc. etc. to explain how Weiner was obviously the victim of a Breitbart hoax? Go back and check out some of those threads -- they're INCREDIBLE in the mass delirium of people who simply would go to any length to be convinced that the blazingly obvious was somehow false.
Let's not be those people.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 02:44 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Brock O'bama at October 31, 2011 02:45 PM (3ob7O)
Is there a number where I can send you my complimentary informational DVD, So You Can't Decide On A GOP Nominee?
Posted by: Huntsman at October 31, 2011 06:41 PM (QKKT0)
Fuck you. I saw him first. I'm offering him a free night with a hooker at the Best Western in Borger, TX. Top that!
Posted by: Ron Paul at October 31, 2011 02:45 PM (coN0Z)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 02:45 PM (TMB3S)
I have been, as far as I'm concerned, accused of sexual harrasment by the most trumped up, utterly stupid charges, at least once. I'm down with the idea that some women are really oversensitive (to something that had not a damn thing to do with her, as it happens) or to even a normal expression of interest, and a willingness to drop it quickly if unrequited.
Some women are brainwashed by feminism to an extreme degree, and even pre-feminism, it's not like some women weren't shitty liars. It happens. No offense to women here intended.
So the accusations in a career as long and as high-profile as his don't make me lose much sleep; unless there are specifics, corrobation, and some serious misbehavior, as opposed to whatever some chicky-poo didn't like or even thought she could make a buck off of.
BUT.
There's the matter of Cain pretending he didn't know about a settlement when he did. It was stupid of him to think he could maintain that line and dishonest of him to try.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 02:46 PM (YiE0S)
Ah, so Obama then.
And you guys call us Romney supporters nuts.
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 06:45 PM (TMB3S)
Wait Obama is running in the Republican Primary? I thought Romney was the only Democrat that got in.
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 02:47 PM (GULKT)
I know you don't read the site, but you don't even read your own posts?
Because the impression you've given, right there on the front page of your own website there, is that you're aware, and have long been aware—you're not telling us, just letting us know you're the kind of person who has Deep Inside Shit—of, oh, thousands or so survivors of Cain's penis-y predations.
You can read it at ace.mu.nu. Front page. Today.
Posted by: oblig. at October 31, 2011 02:49 PM (cePv8)
A vote for Newt in the GOP primary is a vote for Obama?
How exactly does that one work?
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 02:51 PM (plesI)
Most sensible thing you've said recently.
GD, Ace sounds depressed
We either nominate the unprepared, or a known squish and panderer. If you are upbeat can you give me the name of your doctor? I want whatever antidepressant you're taking.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 02:51 PM (0q2P7)
Please respect my fucking decision to sit this one the fuck out.
Okay, ket's say you have decided to "sit this one the fuck out" then. So explain this statement:
It's perfectly possible he's innocent of almost everything except a misunderstanding.
It's also perfectly possible--actually it is far more than just "likely"--he settled a nuisance suit for what amounts to severance pay. That is by far the most likely scenario. So where is that in your post?
I don't expect you to know all there is to know about SH law, but I do expect any right-leaning blogger to be suspect of civil suits that just happen to emerge during a campaign.
My entire bitch is that you didn't approach this with the same level of doubt you would have afforded your preferred candidate, that numbskull from Texas any of us would have given the BOTD.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 02:56 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: Brock O'bama at October 31, 2011 02:57 PM (3ob7O)
Posted by: Fritz at October 31, 2011 02:57 PM (FabC8)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2011 02:58 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 02:58 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 02:59 PM (TMB3S)
Was I wrong? "
I say you are a pervert and God will soon punish you.
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 03:00 PM (dBxzn)
Nah, gotta call bullshit on this one. A protest vote in the primary election is harmless. Doing that in the general election is a problem, but nobody should feel compelled to vote in a primary for anyone except who they support the most.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 03:02 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Medicare Part D at October 31, 2011 03:02 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:03 PM (nj1bB)
Your extremely cool demeanor on the issue convinces me you've heard even more I haven't on the subject and are still holding back some. Maybe I'm paranoid.
Posted by: Medicare Part D at October 31, 2011 03:04 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 03:05 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:07 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 06:59 PM (TMB3S)
You're damn right I'm angry there isn't a better candidate. We have an historic opportunity to make some big inroads against 80 years of leftward drift and these are our choice?
I can't believe there are people who aren't angry.
If I have to vote for another turd in the general, I'm going to vote my conscience in the primary. Maybe it'll help was away the stink later.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 03:08 PM (plesI)
500 Cain now saying on PBS that he "doesn't recall" whether he asked a woman to come back to his hotel room with him, as per one of the apparent allegations.
Great. "Doesn't recall?"
If this is true, it's game over man, game over.
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 03:09 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 03:10 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2011 03:11 PM (niZvt)
What should I do to spin that? Just say they're lying whores?
There are women who perceive harrassment where none, by a reasonable definition, exists.
Let me just give you an example. I asked a woman out at work one time, was accused of sexual harrassment by her, had to go speak to HR, etc. All because I asked if she'd like to get together some time, she said no, and I dropped it. In a workplace with like 1000 employees. I was not her supervisor.
It all came to nothing, but the accusation was made, on paper, contemporaneously.
Posted by: Ron Paul at October 31, 2011 03:11 PM (YiE0S)
You know what? I say this as a guy who has supported this blog since practically Day Fucking One. If you actually believe that pointing out that Herman Cain may be the victim of nuisance suits is "siily shit spin", you're the one who's slipped a cog.
You're either belligerently ignorant to SH law, completely and shamelessly in the bag for another candidate or flat barmy. If there's another possibility I'd love to hear it.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 03:12 PM (puy4B)
Hey; I put away my heresy stake and torches after the singing thread. There is no good in burying the truth of this now and staking our credibility on it, only to have to fess to it in the general when 16 regiments of reporters are assigned to defend Obama. I just want all the facts as quickly as possible.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 03:12 PM (0q2P7)
If the sexual harassment allegations against former pizza mogul Herman Cain turn out to be credible — or simply refuse to fade away — polling suggests that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney stands the most to gain
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 03:13 PM (5H6zj)
We can always pressure them once they get into office to do what we want.
No No No, Jack, you frikkin' dolt! The plan is to make the guy get elected without any of our support so he owes us nothing!
Geez, Dude. Get with the program here.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 03:13 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 03:14 PM (dBxzn)
Ace, I agree with you often, and I'm actually believe Herman Cain didn't come clean on whether he knew there was a settlement, plus he's an unfit candidate, plus he reduced the quality of Godfather's pizza, but ...
You're either belligerently ignorant to SH law, completely and shamelessly in the bag for another candidate or flat barmy
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 07:12 PM (puy4B)
I have to agree with that, unless you know A LOT more than you're saying. Sexual harrassment allegations are made for trivial as well as serious reasons, and sometimes because the women in question are essentially lying whores out for a buck or revenge.
That doesn't mean he didn't do something wrong, but ... if you think sexual harrassment allegations aren't frequently baseless, put down that crack pipe.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 03:16 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 03:18 PM (JfvbF)
You Romney supporters are really overestimating how awesome your guy is.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 03:18 PM (plesI)
Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 03:18 PM (rJVPU)
Thanks, and yes I douche thrice daily.
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 03:19 PM (dBxzn)
Cain and his campaign has known about this for TEN days.
Two problems with Herman Cain and the sexual harassment issue. Yesterday he said he couldn't comment as if he didn't know what they were talking about. The reporter gave him one of the names right there and instead of denial, said wouldn't comment and then smartly asked him if he'd ever been accused of sexual harassment. He and his campaign most certainly did know about this for some time too, as they have been notified many times throughout the past 10 days and refused to address it. Now, today he "remembers"? He remembered only one woman.
He went to a friendly venue to give his side unchallenged. He could have avoided this whole thing if he had responded to the questions prior to the story coming out.
Before you mention the non-disclosure agreement, as an excuse why he didn't comment yesterday, it was on the women not Cain. But let's say it was on Cain too just to be safe as we don't really know. So, if he didn't answer the questions yesterday because of it, then why did he respond today? You can't have it both ways. Also, he knew about it for TEN days. Ten days is a lot of time to clear things up or find information.
And to say the only incident that he remembers is that he just touched his chin and said the woman was the same height as his wife wouldn't justify a settlement.
Rush talked about it today giving only some of the accusations, he conveniently forgot the biggest one where the woman says Cain asked her up to his suite.
The second problem I find with it: There is no way the President of the National Restaurant Association didn't know about the settlement, not just one but multiple settlements. This defies logic and truth. Mr. Cain, although the accused, was the President. He was on Fox today and said he wasn't aware of a settlement.
And why did he make the comment that we probably would hear about more women and more accusations. Why even say that? That just serves to put more doubt out there about how many others and doubt in that he's telling the truth.
Oh Oh, just found the lie, actually two. Cain later today told Greta he knew about the settlement and recalls the 2nd woman. Cain not only knew about the settlement, he knew how much she asked for and the amount "WE ended up settling for". He told Greta this today after lying that he didn't even know there was a settlement this morning. He also "recalled" the 2nd woman after denying it this morning.
Oops, found another lie too. Cain said the National Restaurant AssociationÂ’s general counsel and the Human Resources Department conducted an investigation into allegations about his conduct in the late-90s and found it to be baseless. But the head of the Human Resources Dept says there was no investigation and didn't even know about any allegations against Cain.
When she was called after he repeated this at his National Press Club speech, she replied "He did not say that." When the quote was recited for her, she hung up.
Also I listened to the Politico reporter today on radio and there is more coming.
The allegations may indeed be false, but the cover-up and lies are what's doing Cain in. He just today got caught in 3 lies. Now, he's going to tout out his wife? Please don't make a wife have to listen to and defend this.
It's the lies that will catch him.
Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2011 03:20 PM (gqG91)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:20 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 03:20 PM (fyOgS)
No it wasn't okay, but we hold Republicans to a higher standard then Democrats expect of their people. If a dog licks his genitals in front of company, nobody gets upset. If I do it, well, let's just say my wife can overreact at times.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 03:21 PM (6TB1Z)
That doesn't mean he didn't do something wrong, but ... if you think sexual harrassment allegations aren't frequently baseless, put down that crack pipe.
See, it is too late. He's backed himself into a corner. To admit that Yes, perhaps it would have been fair to note that these sort of claims are often filed as a means of extracting severance pay, well, let's just say that ship has sailed. To back off now would mean eating all that "pissy" and "little bitches" stuff.
Not gonna happen.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 03:22 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 03:22 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:22 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:24 PM (nj1bB)
You Romney supporters are really overestimating how awesome your guy is.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 07:18 PM (plesI)
How can they? They act like he's perfect. How can you overestimate perfection?
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 03:24 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 03:24 PM (3GtyG)
Oh come on, JackStraw. I'm with you on supporting the GOP nominee in the general, and I sort of agree that it's bad to support a weak candidate during the primary, since victory = defeat.
Be that as it may, this is silly:
For a commenter, maybe. For one of the leading bloggers on a conservative site, no.
The fact of putting your thoughts into writing and publishing them in a country established on this practice is not some kind of super-duper-responsibility demanding absolute, down-the-line, lock-step thinking and political strategy during primary elections.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 03:24 PM (YiE0S)
Ace is getting ready to make a big announcement.
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 03:24 PM (dBxzn)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:25 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 07:21 PM (6TB1Z)
But we arent the media blaring it on 30 stations five thousand times a day..
They hold we the reublicans to a higher standard, and let dems slide on everything, dont forget that..
Posted by: lous a girl at October 31, 2011 03:25 PM (R21xD)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:26 PM (nj1bB)
Simple competence at refuting the charges would be welcome.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 03:26 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Rick Perry's Rock at October 31, 2011 03:27 PM (kBxk7)
Depends. Do you plan to have drums?
Posted by: The Group Mind Collectivist Committee at October 31, 2011 03:28 PM (QKKT0)
Not forgotten. It should be part of the DNA of any GOP candidate by now that they will have to deal with this. When it isn't, they don't have a chance.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 03:28 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Rick Perry's Rock at October 31, 2011 03:28 PM (kBxk7)
>>>Goddamn it to hell I am sick of this BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE, SAY WHAT I WOULD SAY bullshit.
You know, it's a good thing that Ace is writing these sorts of comments, because lord knows I could never get away with it.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 03:29 PM (hIWe1)
Yes, I agree, Ron Paul sucks as he wants to cut the military and the war on drugs, anathema to any delusional conservative.
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 03:29 PM (dBxzn)
Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2011 07:20 PM (gqG91)
Tricia, your comment nailed it. Everyone should read it and think about it. Your position is my position entirely, just more thoroughly researched.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 03:30 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:30 PM (nj1bB)
I have to say that? I have to write the obvious statement, "IT is possible these suits are not based in fact"?
Goddamnit, Mr. Psychotic Break, yes, you do have to say it. Y'know why?
Because IT (no, I will not stoop to ALL CAPS) is the most likely scenario. No other reason.
Jesus, I would not vote for Cain no matter what. I know he'll damage the brand. I don't just worry about it. I'm certain.
But this is almost by definition an attack from the Left using the Left's stupid rules. Rules they make for us but not for themselves.
I'll say it, no problem. Cain is not the guy. He's doesn't have the chops and if there were any proof needed, look how he fumbled the ball here. But out criticism needs to come from conservative thought, from our principles, not the same bullshit they pulled on Clarence Thomas. Frankly, I am appalled you would buy into this without noting, "Hey, this could very well be the same kind of Leftist bullshit that's been killing business for years."
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 03:31 PM (puy4B)
They could give a shit if I'm actually persuaded. the only important thing is that I sing the loyalty song.
Don't take it personal. It's political paranoia I think. That you might have a serious iron in the fire for the primary and take advantage of a situation like this. A lot of speculation about who is behind the push on this. I know you like to make fun of the 'question the timing' crowd. But, allegations true or false, there is something to be suspected in these situations, it's not called an October surprise for nothing. And someone will benefit from this. Right now, to the Cain emotional supporters, enemies lurk behind every tree.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 03:32 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:32 PM (nj1bB)
I'll take "what are phrases I wish never to hear again" for $400, Alex.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 03:32 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 03:32 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:22 PM (TMB3S)
You overestimate how much of a carrot that is.
If this blog and my ability to post here were as influential as you think, wouldn't I, you know, openly support Perry?
It might make sense to be a closet supporter so I could knife others if Perry (my supposed guy) were the front runner. The problem with that theory is Perry is somewhere around 6%, which is down from around 30% at one point. He doesn't need closet supporters or other candidates to fall, he needs to convince people, myself included, that he's a reasonable option.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 03:33 PM (plesI)
What does "welcoming" have to do with it? It is what it is. It is either true or not.
You must be an X-Palinista, because the hardest core there were big on the "You have to BELIEVE!" sort of thing, too. That people had to just BELIEVE hard enough and it would will it into being. "
Its a comin, I can feel it. I knew he wasn't really that dumb... Couple more drinks ace, get it out, come out of the closet, the truth will set you free.
Posted by: Palin Lover at October 31, 2011 03:33 PM (dBxzn)
7. Romney sucks
8. Romney sucks
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 31, 2011 07:31 PM (OWjjx)
Also, Romney sucks.
Posted by: The Guy Who Thinks Romney Sucks But Doesn't Read The Comments Carefully at October 31, 2011 03:34 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:32 PM (hIWe1)
Agreed. Tricia nailed the facts as they stand right now. I think that's the starting position for any further discussion on this.
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 03:34 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:34 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 03:35 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 03:35 PM (3GtyG)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 03:35 PM (PYxvn)
Is there any fucking allowance for free thought permitted in THIS GODDAMNED INCREASINGLY LEFTIST/CONFORMIST CULT ANYMORE?
Goddamn it to hell I am sick of this BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE, SAY WHAT I WOULD SAY bullshit.
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 07:20 PM (nj1bB)
I'm on your side with that -- entirely so. But with the caveat, from personal experience and observation, that there are a lot of false sexual harrassment accusations. Lots of true ones too, I'm sure. But lots of false ones, intentionally or otherwise, and you're the one who's thinking irrationally if you don't think so.
People make up whole fake rape accusations, like Duke, and sexual harrassment is so much more nuanced and subject to perception and personal belief systems. Even without malice, people sometimes make false allegations, and then there's complete misunderstandings -- not really a factor in false rape accusations, of which there are also many. Women are capable of real malice.
Now IF you have reasons to believe these accusations, which were settled for small sums apparently, are particularly egregious, or that others were, you could share.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 03:35 PM (YiE0S)
But you seem to be missing the point that, as far as Ace is concerned, it doesn't seem to be the most likely scenario at all. It in fact provides a certain amount of confirmation to rumors he'd been hearing about for months now. And Cain's handling of it so far (see Tricia's #589 detailing several flat-out lies Cain told just today about this) has done exactly nothing to increase our confidence in that regard.
Now maybe you think it's the most likely scenario. But he doesn't, and he's given his reasons for that. Can you gainsay him at this point?
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 03:36 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:36 PM (nj1bB)
Anyone ever hear the expression "agree to disagree"?
That is the funniest thing I have heard here. Okay, Ace, you are "pissy " and a "little bitch".
Okay, now it is okay to disagree. I just had some stuff I had to, you know, get off my chest. We're even. no hard feelings an' shit.
We'll just agree to disagree, now that disagreeing is allowed.
An' shit.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 03:39 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: toby928© at October 31, 2011 03:40 PM (GTbGH)
Indeed, Sir, but timing is everything, isn't it?
Posted by: jem at October 31, 2011 03:41 PM (spEu4)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 03:41 PM (PYxvn)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:42 PM (nj1bB)
Who says those were just rumors? They were almost certainly true. And Bush neatly and cleverly defused them by saying, in response to the allegations, "when I was young and foolish I was young and foolish." In the post-Clinton "I didn't inhale" era, that sort of tacit admission was more than adequate.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 03:43 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:46 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: toby928© at October 31, 2011 03:47 PM (GTbGH)
Tell you what buddy, why don't you take me up on my much suggested offer to wait to see what the week holds, huh?
Okay, let me get this straight. I am to read this and gather that perhaps you have additional information--not ready to go yet--that would lead you to believe Herman Cain may have a history of this?
(Actually, this would fit. The guy had no intention of actually Running For President, so he may be another ass-grabber and had figured he'd never get far enough for it to matter.)
Is there something in the original post (I am too tired and tipsy to re-read) that alludes to this and thus removes from you the conservative responsibility to say, "Hey, this may be the same kind of bullshit a lot of innocent guys got pegged with back then."?
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 03:48 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 03:49 PM (PYxvn)
Tricia, your comment nailed it. Everyone should read it and think about it. Your position is my position entirely, just more thoroughly researched.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 07:30 PM (YiE0S)
Thank you, Random.
Guess what else Cain said today? Sheesh.
A couple hours ago, Cain told PBS that he "doesn't recall" whether he asked a woman to come back to his hotel room with him, as per one of the apparent allegations.
"Doesn't recall?"
Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2011 03:49 PM (gqG91)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 31, 2011 03:49 PM (r4wIV)
cnredd
Political Wrinkles
http://politicalwrinkles.com
Posted by: cnredd at October 31, 2011 03:49 PM (XdXvF)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:49 PM (nj1bB)
A couple hours ago, Cain told PBS that he "doesn't recall" whether he asked a woman to come back to his hotel room with him, as per one of the apparent allegations.
"Doesn't recall?"
I was drunk at the time!
Posted by: herm cain at October 31, 2011 03:50 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 03:50 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 03:50 PM (A/jkv)
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:43 PM (hIWe1)
Yeah, maybe Cain should take the same approach to the sexual harassment, hell clinton raped a women, and clearly sexually harassed a wh intern. Did not harm him in the least.
He is now an elder statesmen according to the media, so why does anyone care about this sexual harassment, oh yea, this guy is a conservative..
Posted by: lous a girl at October 31, 2011 03:50 PM (R21xD)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:50 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 03:51 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 03:51 PM (PYxvn)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 03:52 PM (A/jkv)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:53 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: toby928© at October 31, 2011 03:55 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 03:56 PM (A/jkv)
You can defend Cain all you like. That's fine. I'm not knocking down people's efforts to defend him.
Oh for fuck's sake. Is this some kind of a joke? Are you even drunker than me?
I'm not even defending him--I'm criticizing your own disregard for the abuses in current SH law. Christ, you absolve yourself by saying, "Should I even have to say that?"
I guess you know more is coming and you find it credible. Fair enough--I probably will also at that point. But if you're not even looking at it with a conservative and skeptical eye, than what good are you?
Besides eye candy, of course.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 03:56 PM (puy4B)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said President Barack Obama will “continue” to act “administratively” without congressional authorization to “benefit the American people” as part of the White House’s "We Can't Wait" campaign.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 03:56 PM (d6QMz)
Posted by: Anthony Wiener at October 31, 2011 03:56 PM (niZvt)
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Most conservative blogs are loath to put up anything to critical of Perry. Hell, Redstate is totally in the tank for Perry and helped him with his campaign rollout.
But that's their right. Your right is to open a conservative, but anti-Perry, blog. You know this.
They ban people for criticizing him.
Dude, they banned me after threatening to ban any Ron Paul supporters. I detest Paul, despite being a libertarian, so I made a joke at Paul's expense ... and I was banned ... because the Red State moderators were too stupid to follow along that I agreed with them. So ... I wrote to them and they replied, understood that I agreed with them about Paul and was making a joke ditching him, but couldn't be bothered to unban me.
Because they are unprincipled asshats. Hell, it's the blog co-founded by that plagiarist guy, Ben Domenech (whom Ace disappointingly had writing here recently).
I dislike Red State. I'm so/so on Perry. But people can vote for whomever the fuck they want in the primary. Like it or not, you can't will intelligence and insight into people's minds, you can only talk to them. It's an imperfect strategy, but the only one we got.
And blogging is allowed -- commenters aren't some lower form of life permitted therefore to have greater freedom.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 03:56 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 03:56 PM (nj1bB)
Guess what else Cain said today? Sheesh.
A couple hours ago, Cain told PBS that he "doesn't recall" whether he asked a woman to come back to his hotel room with him, as per one of the apparent allegations.
"Doesn't recall?"
Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2011 07:49 PM (gqG91)
"Doesn't recall" is just a shifty, slimmy, legalistic term for otherwise taking the 5th. What kind of genius says this and expects people to give him the benefit of a doubt? And if this is the best response he can come up with after 10 days of prep, then he's guilty as sin.
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 03:57 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 03:58 PM (fyOgS)
Posted by: toby928© at October 31, 2011 04:00 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 04:01 PM (A/jkv)
Look, that's just nonsense. I'm the guy here railing that false accusations of sexual harrassment are common, but the fact his company settled two cases isn't "no evidence whatsoever".
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:03 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 04:03 PM (PYxvn)
Oh GD, I just hit the magic number, that should be a sign...
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 04:04 PM (A/jkv)
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 04:05 PM (plesI)
Do you not get this? You can "I think Cain is innocent, SH suits are bullshit" all you like.
Not only did I not say Cain is innocent, I don't think anybody else did either. I said I don't think you were fair to him in your original post because you never pointed out how shoddy a lot of these suits are.
Now watch, you'll post a picture of a tweeted brown unit that will prove to be Herman Cain's and say, "See, I told you."
Which would actually be pretty funny, but it wouldn't mean that a lot of SH suits aren't bullshit. Those of us lacking your access to brown weiner pics and such who suspect these claims have reason to.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 04:05 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at October 31, 2011 04:06 PM (GTbGH)
A couple hours ago, Cain told PBS that he "doesn't recall" whether he asked a woman to come back to his hotel room with him, as per one of the apparent allegations.
"Doesn't recall?"
Hmm.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at October 31, 2011 04:08 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2011 07:49 PM (gqG91)
Gee, Trish, I'm not even sure I recall every woman I slept with, much less propositioned. (But I would remember any monetary settlements for sexual harrassment made on my behalf for organizations of which I was their CEO; pretty sure I'd recall that.)
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:09 PM (YiE0S)
Gee, Trish, I'm not even sure I recall every woman I slept with, much less propositioned. (But I would remember any monetary settlements for sexual harrassment made on my behalf for organizations of which I was their CEO; pretty sure I'd recall that.)
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 08:09 PM (YiE0S)
Unless they're too numerous to remember as well...
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 04:10 PM (GULKT)
That sure was my take on it. How hard would it be to say HELL NO? I would damn sure remember if there had been a time where I was stepping out on my wife or not.
This seems like it's really being underplayed, actually. I consider that response to be perilously close to an admission of guilt.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 04:11 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at October 31, 2011 04:13 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 04:13 PM (JfvbF)
A couple hours ago, Cain told PBS that he "doesn't recall" whether he asked a woman to come back to his hotel room with him, as per one of the apparent allegations.
"Doesn't recall?"I predict that Cain does the full "Jimmy Swaggart" fairly soon, but he won't blubber. No, he'll just drop out and tell you all to go to hell and mind your own business.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:14 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 04:15 PM (PYxvn)
Perilously close, my eye. He might as well show videos of his pickup attempt.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:16 PM (6TB1Z)
"doesn't recall" whether or not he asked a woman, not his wife, up to his hotel room is shorthand for, "shit, this is going to come out really soon, isn't it?"
Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 08:05 PM (plesI)
Oh, yeah, good point. In that circumstance, I'd probably remember. With my lifestyle? More of a blur really.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:16 PM (YiE0S)
I have trademarked the phrase "Five Hour Flip Flop".
Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 06:36 PM (8O4/a)
You've also trademarked the phrase"I proudly toss salads for rednecks".Posted by: Ed Anger's Cat at October 31, 2011 04:17 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 04:18 PM (3GtyG)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 08:15 PM (PYxvn)
I hope you're right. So who's going to Fl to drag Rubio and West into this kicking and screaming?
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 04:19 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 04:19 PM (TMB3S)
Unless they're too numerous to remember as well...
Posted by: buzzion at October 31, 2011 08:10 PM (GULKT)
lol Well spotted. Especially if the rumors ace has been hearing pan out.
Note the word "if", people.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:20 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 04:23 PM (A/jkv)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 04:24 PM (PYxvn)
Posted by: the toaster and the bath tub at October 31, 2011 04:24 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 08:18 PM (3GtyG)
A name doesn't matter here in relation to the question. He was asked whether he ever invited a woman, who is not his wife, to his hotel room. He gave the stock guilty as charged answer. He didn't even attempt to try to requalify the question in any way.
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 04:25 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 04:26 PM (3GtyG)
Why are people even worrying about what any of the GOP contenders have said/done?
Seriously. Clinton took ALL this OFF the TABLE.
IT'S JUST SEX, remember?
Non Issue !! Carry on.
Posted by: TXMarko at October 31, 2011 04:27 PM (SqGU5)
http://tinyurl.com/6ast27d
I made it as far as By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at October 31, 2011 08:21 PM (GTbGH)
Same here, yeah.
JackStraw, you restate the unassailable "facts" against Perry so I don't have to vomit while reading ti?
It's just like if Crystal Mangum wrote guides to ladylike decorum and being truthful. They may be the best written guides in the world, but I'm not buying it, no matter what they say.
OK, I actually could admit which arguments are true or false. I strive toward objectivity. But why the hell do I want to read these facts from a source that makes me want to scratch my eyeballs out? Surely there's some better source, if only yourself.
And if only leftists will cover this because conservatives aren't objective enough, why don't you and other conservatives who dislike Perry for corruption and NOT being conservative, write a blog on the topic?
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:28 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 08:24 PM (PYxvn)
I like your attitude. Thnx. And since you are in FL, could you go pull a Cousin Eddie Christmas kidnapping on West and Rubio. I'm sure that the moron hoard could somehow "pursuade" them to step up for their country. :-)
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 04:29 PM (JfvbF)
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:31 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 04:31 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 04:31 PM (a31uV)
Well, link those. I feel dirty just for having read the byline.
Posted by: toby928© at October 31, 2011 04:33 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: the gas pipe at October 31, 2011 04:33 PM (GTbGH)
By 2011 standards, that would be a "lie" that would allow for reasonable speculation as to all the other lies I was telling about my secret harem. And it would be my job to prove it wasn't true. Without one actual person standing up to say, I was there, I was in his hotel room and it happened.
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 08:26 PM (3GtyG)
Would it have been difficult for Cain to have qualified an answer in the way you just explained? You did a pretty good job with only a couple of sentences. That's the problem here. Cain didn't even attempt to qualify an answer, nor did he attempt to limit the scope of the question. That says a lot.
Posted by: Havedash at October 31, 2011 04:34 PM (JfvbF)
You can have as comprehensive an article about Perry's flaws at your new JackStraw wordpress blog up by tomorrow nightfall, then link that. Surely you have to see the flaw in trying to pursuade politically impassioned GOP supporters to Rolling Stone as your primary persuasion technique?
?
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:37 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:37 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Brian at October 31, 2011 04:37 PM (s5MwP)
How many of those women sued you for sexual harassment? You're reaching.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:38 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 04:38 PM (a31uV)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 04:38 PM (PYxvn)
And how much do you hear about either one now? They were either ridiculous or things that many viewed as a badge of honor. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks of stepping out on your wife as a badge of honor. Well, anyone who doesn't have a D after his name, anyway.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:41 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 04:42 PM (3GtyG)
I don't recall and I'm not aware are not denials. They are weasel words.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:43 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 04:44 PM (TMB3S)
Still waiting for the meat of it. Not saying it isn't there, just saying this is the best source you got?
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:45 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 04:45 PM (PYxvn)
Bite your tongue, the Monicka BJ scandal was worth every bit of the 100 million spent, even if Bin Laden got away because of it, as Allah planned all along to bankrupt the west through him and 9/11.
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 04:46 PM (a31uV)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 08:18 PM (3GtyG)
Actually you're mistaken in part. No, I don' t know the name of the woman, as none of us do. Except I do know it is the 2nd woman in the allegation and it IS in the original story.. So I DID read it.
And I never said she was harassed in a hotel room. Please read my post again.
It's not a throw out there question like have you ever invited A woman to your room? It was specific and in reference to the 2nd woman in the article. At the time, he was being asked about the 2nd woman.
"Cain said he couldnÂ’t recall whether he had invited one of the women up to his hotel room."
If he didn't invite the woman to his room, say so. "Don't recall" is a cover your ass answer in case it comes out that you did.
Example: If I was married and I asked my husband if you've ever invited that woman up to your hotel room. And his answer was " I don't recall." You guess where it goes from there.
Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2011 04:47 PM (gqG91)
JackStraw, having not yet returned to the article, why do you think I have a problem with someone raising millions and million of dollars or "liberal campaign finance laws"?
I'm in favor of Amendment 1 of the Consitution.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:48 PM (YiE0S)
We agree. My point was simply that we have to expect it, and if one isn't able to answer the accusation convincingly, which an innocent person can usually do, one probably shouldn't be in politics. It isn't fair that the press is so biased, but it is a fact of life.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:49 PM (6TB1Z)
The key quote? From Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics on Twitter, saying exactly what Ace has been saying throughout the entire day: "The Cain story is almost certainly from an R campaign. The fact it is being dropped in Oct. suggests there is worse to come."
This is going to get worse, folks.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 04:50 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 04:51 PM (3GtyG)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 04:51 PM (TMB3S)
Yes, Cain is gone and Ace is switching sides. Sad day for little scared conservative girls. :-)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 04:52 PM (a31uV)
In a courtroom, of course not. But political Darwinism says you can either handle a situation like this, or you find a different game. Cain very clearly can't handle it. Again, not fair, but politics ain't beanbag.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 04:53 PM (6TB1Z)
Shut the fuck up.
Go the fuck away.
Drop the fuck dead.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 04:54 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 04:54 PM (TMB3S)
This is going to get worse, folks.
Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:50 PM (hIWe1)
A Christian minister being hypocritical about sex and actually acting like a male who -- gasp -- wants sex with women; pursues it; and even acquires power, position, and prestige to get it.
If that turns out to be true, ask me just how surprised I am. And ask me how surprised I am that his faith-based supporters first, second, and third impulses are to defend, defend, defend! ... rather than look at the facts, think reasonably, and gather some data.
But I like to think and find out what's true, so I'm pretty sure that makes me an elitist.
And a RINO. It's the supporting of the Constitution, individual liberties, etc., that does it.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:56 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 04:57 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Typical Duplicious DemocRAT at October 31, 2011 04:57 PM (2jMZp)
You like the Wall Street Journal or is that a lefty site too?
I don't mind getting information from lefties; he's just particularly distasteful. I will read the article in its entirety, but I'm passing myself, because the author is an ass to read.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 04:58 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: Ronnie RayCon at October 31, 2011 04:58 PM (a31uV)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at October 31, 2011 05:04 PM (GE1+K)
Posted by: Ron Paul for President at October 31, 2011 05:06 PM (a31uV)
>> Or you can just read this report from the Texans for Public Justice, a good government group.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... you mean that little group of grumpy hippies in Austin? This "good government group?"
News alert: Contributions went to the RGA, not to Perry/RGA.
There's like, 30+ other R governors.
Be sure to check out TPJ's funding list.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2011 05:07 PM (PjVdx)
Posted by: No Regrets ePub at October 31, 2011 05:07 PM (KCI/1)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 05:07 PM (3GtyG)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at October 31, 2011 05:10 PM (PYxvn)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 05:12 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at October 31, 2011 05:12 PM (GE1+K)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 05:19 PM (TMB3S)
Might have something to do with him being the governor of the largest Republican-lead state.
Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 05:19 PM (YiE0S)
It is our nature to be defensive when our candidate is attacked, to deride sources and such (Taibbi is ripe for this, no doubt. Truly filth.)
But I think you'd be surprised to find that many of us who do not profess wild hate for Romney are holding back our disdain due to the shortage of alternatives. Perry is not anywhere near the guy he is touted here and he is a weaker candidate than Romney in the general.
'S all I'm sayin'.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2011 05:20 PM (puy4B)
We've reached a point of diminishing returns, but I'll restate my case one more time and then I'm done. It isn't the story or the accusation, it's his inability to convincingly deny it. The stories of McCain's affair and Bush the first's affair both died, because there wasn't any there there, and both of those politicians were able to make that plain. The equivocations and weasel words coming from Cain are the exact opposite. I didn't buy it from Billy Jeff, and I don't buy it here.
And a RINO. It's the supporting of the Constitution, individual liberties, etc., that does it.
Whoah there, big fella. We, the charter members of the stinking RINO faction, will decide who is, and who isn't a RINO around these parts.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 05:20 PM (6TB1Z)
He knows fighting Allah is expensive and maybe we should regroup.
Posted by: Ron Paul for President at October 31, 2011 05:21 PM (a31uV)
>> Even the Tea Party called him out for it.
They're pretty bitchy here, yeah. Loved their nutjob truther candidate though.
>> you know that Perry has been running a scam with his campaign financing
Actually I do not know that. Did Ronnie Earle file charges?
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2011 05:22 PM (PjVdx)
Many of us who support him feel the same way for the same reasons.
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 05:23 PM (6TB1Z)
Incidentally, having had first hand knowledge of the "slush-fund", since we got some of it for building/facility expansion, there were specific goals tied to jobs, (not McDonald's jobs). We didn't meet them and returned the cash.
Put me down in favor of actively encouraging job growth here. A legitimate function of state government.
And suing the EPA to keep them from driving energy prices higher. I like that one too. I don't "hate" Mitt, I'm on record saying I'll vote for him in the general.
But he didn't do that. Or Loser Pays tort reform.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2011 05:28 PM (PjVdx)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at October 31, 2011 05:38 PM (GE1+K)
Yes, God and Allah should quit promoting kids we can't afford. Or are you talking about after the apocalypse?
Posted by: Ron Paul for President at October 31, 2011 05:40 PM (N7FAT)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 05:40 PM (TMB3S)
So, assuming your idea is correct; Are you insinuating there is a "there there" regarding the Palin "Wombgate" Scandal that the Press loves to keeps fresh?
Posted by: TXMarko at October 31, 2011 05:43 PM (HR/c4)
Not at all. This falls into the ridiculous category-it doesn't even warrant dismissal. However, if Palin had said "well, I don't remember where Trig came from, I'll get back to you", what would you think?
Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 05:47 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at October 31, 2011 05:48 PM (GE1+K)
We will survive without the electrical grid.
Posted by: Ron Paul for President at October 31, 2011 05:51 PM (N7FAT)
Posted by: The Next Always epub at October 31, 2011 05:52 PM (bYYfj)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 31, 2011 05:53 PM (IqM9e)
So you are saying we shouldn't allow religious nut nations like Iran to have nukes?
Posted by: Ron Paul for President at October 31, 2011 05:55 PM (N7FAT)
No argument from me on wind energy. It's a stupid rathole, it doesn't work, I oppose it. The overall program has yielded positive results, investments were made in lots of sectors, not just crappy wind farms, so I'm not seeing the net negative from the cherry-picking. Jobs up in a down economy and while were were absorbing 1000 new citizens a day.
I wish Romney felt the same way about ethanol but he doesn't. That's a fact too.
Also I know you're not attacking me. Doesn't need to be said, I get that.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at October 31, 2011 06:08 PM (PjVdx)
Posted by: Mac OS X Lion ePub at October 31, 2011 06:13 PM (ZCpyR)
With Romney I get about 50% conservatism (giving him the national security issue and taxes maybe). With Perry I get about 80% conservatism. Romney is not a conservative and everyone knows it! Let 's not fight against reality here. We can simply look at the records of Romney and Perry. Rush has personal knowledge of both Romney and Perry. He has no doubt that Perry is a conservative and Romney is not. Just another data point for comparison. He liked both of them personally.
Posted by: LAI at October 31, 2011 06:59 PM (nLTW4)
Posted by: LAI at October 31, 2011 07:01 PM (nLTW4)
I don't share Rush 's optimism about the direction of the country. I do hope that I am wrong. It is depressing just to look at the presidential candidates since 1988. The dem put up socialists like Clintons (they are smarter than Obama though), Algore, Kerry, and Obama. The Rep put up squishy moderates like Bush 1, Dole, and Bush 2 who was probably the best in the lot. Now we are talking about another minimalist moderate who needs to check his homework when it comes to conservatism.
Posted by: LAI at October 31, 2011 07:09 PM (nLTW4)
Posted by: cackfinger at October 31, 2011 07:21 PM (a9mQu)
From what I've seen, about a third of all sexual harassment charges are true, a third are ambiguous events given the worst interpretation, and another third are completely bogus.
I suppose I wouldn't believe that Cain could be subject to a grievance for a harmless gesture if it had not happenned to me. The fact is that no matter how bad a woman behaves toward you, if it goes to management, the man loses. The woman can always claim some crazy shit like you've been stalking her. You are guilty by assertion. I know because it happenned to me.
Sexual harassment programs are rigged against men. In my current company, there are six harassment complaints made against men for every one made against a woman. My bet is that every organization in America has a female to male complaint ratio between five and ten to one.
It would be interesting to discover what the ratio of complaints were at Cain's organization. That would tell the story of how hostile the workplace was for men.
About one out of twenty women at work is a bitch on wheels. They know that they can fabricate anything out of thin air and HR will make it stick.
Posted by: Tantor at October 31, 2011 07:37 PM (Hotj8)
Posted by: The Meaning of Marriage ePub at October 31, 2011 07:50 PM (2rmis)
It doesn't matter what you think of the author of that piece. It's factually accurate. You think this wouldn't come out if Perry is the nominee? Really?
Perry is not the great True Conservative hope. His record shows him to be anything but.
Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 08:19 PM (TMB3S)
JackStraw--that article is full of shit. Top to bottom. Let me tell you, I've been to Andrews, have you? I doubt the author was either.
Let's take this: " I'm barreling down a stretch of State Highway 176 in the deadest, hottest part of the Texas desert, a few miles shy of the New Mexico border and about an hour west of the rusted oil wells and Friday night lights of Odessa-Permian." 1) Andrews is northwest of Midland/Odessa; 2) Andrews is, as the crow files, 31+ miles from the NM border; 3) The area around El Paso is drier and hotter and deader.
Then: "given how dangerously close it lies to the Ogalalla aquifer" 1) Andrews is, if at all, on the very-most Southern tip; 2) The recharge zone for the Ogalalla is not in Texas, very little surface water from TX makes it to the Ogalalla as there is a thick layer of caliche between it an the aquifer; 3)All those oil fields out there around Andrews, you think they are above or below the Ogalalla?
And: "But it's hard not to look beyond the dump to nearby Eunice, New Mexico,
visible just a few miles away, and wonder about the wisdom of taking a
private company's word that there is no contaminated water running
underground to the nearby town." 1) Eunice is about 5.5 miles from the TX/NM border; 2) Anyone who thinks there is a possibility of the nuclear waste contemplated to be stored there "leaking" is a total fucking liar, and I'm being nice about that--It is, all of it, low level waste, contaminated clothes, tools, equipment that have to be discarded after exposure to ANY radiation. It's not glowing goo and it's not in old, used oil drums; 3) They've been storing waste their since 1999--kinda fucking blows up the whole "crony capitalist Perry" meme, doesn't it? 4) You know what else is 5 miles east of Eunice, right on the NM/TX border, between Eunice and this "dangerous" waste site? A uranium enrichment and processing plant, called UNERCO, USA. Odd the author left that out of his "factually accurate" smear job story, right? 5) You know what else? International Isotopes wants to build a uranium processing plant in the area too. Huh, having the only low-level storage, processing and treatment plant in the region doesn't seem so stupid now, does it? Why'd the author leave all that out, isn't that a bit relevant?
I could go on, there is a shit load more half-truths, smears, distortions and outright lies in the story. But when the source is all Democrats and their operatives, people Perry cut off from the gravy train and Debra "9/11 was an inside job" Medina, I think I've spent enough time. But you keep fapping that chicken if you want to.
Posted by: Jimmuy at November 01, 2011 07:33 AM (hROVJ)
Posted by: The Political Realist at November 01, 2011 08:01 AM (NZqxU)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4413 seconds, 865 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Dave at October 31, 2011 12:32 PM (Xm1aB)