« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Cain Accuser “Speaks”

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  November 4th, 2011 at 05:16 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The attorney for the woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment in 1999 has spoken. Well, not really. As predicted, she sent her attorney out to the media – she continues to refuse to disclose her identity, answer questions, or provide any details whatsoever about the alleged incident. Her attorney’s statement is perhaps the most vacuous statement I have ever seen an attorney make, and that is truly saying something indeed.

Contrary to the assertions of my esteemed colleague streiff, this has nothing to do with blaming messengers or victims. This has everything to do with the fact that it is impossible to evaluate the credibility of an anonymous accusation that contains absolutely no factual details. And the assertion that this woman is somehow not anonymous because someone knows who she is distorts the meaning of the word “anonymous” beyond recognition. Woodward and Bernstein knew who Deep Throat was – that doesn’t mean he wasn’t anonymous to the public, which is the only kind of anonymity that matters in this case.

If this woman really suffered sexual harassment at the hands of Herman Cain then he deserves to take a lot of lumps – perhaps even the destruction of his entire political career, depending on the circumstances. But there is no way to judge whether that is the case- none whatsoever. The accuser’s lawyer said repeatedly in his statement that the accuser does not wish to relive the incident – however, literally the only point served by his null set statement is ensuring that the story lived on in the news cycle.

I share in the belief that Cain should not be the GOP frontrunner. I find his 9-9-9 plan to be at best a fairytale solution that will never pass Congress and at worst a massive tax hike on a significant number of Americans. His handling of the press (including this situations and others) indicates that he is not capable of taking on Barack Obama and winning. I have serious questions about whether his experience has prepared him adequately for the job of actually being President. However, it sets a dangerous precedent for Cain to be knocked off his pedestal in this way.

I am the farthest thing in the world from Herman Cain’s Lanny Davis. The specifics of Paula Jones’ (note, someone whose name and identity we knew from the beginning) allegations were that on a specific date, Clinton used the AHP as escorts while he took her up to a hotel room, dropped trau, and invited her to perform a very specific act. These facts were checkable and verifiable to see if they at the very least passed the smell test (by, for instance, verifying that Clinton was at least at the given hotel on the given date). Further, the fact of Jones identity allowed people to know whether her testimony should be disregarded like Anita Hill’s – who had, for starters, followed the allegedly predatory Clarence Thomas around from job to job for years.

I have no idea why it is even a mildly controversial position to state that before a serious accusation is given credence against a Republican by fellow Republicans, we ought to know either the identity of the person making the accusation or enough specifics to a) verify them against known facts and b) evaluate their seriousness so that we can know what should happen if they are true. In this case, we have neither. Maybe the allegations are true, maybe they are not. I hope we can get to the bottom of them. But anyone who claims to be able to know on the basis of the facts presented has had their judgment clouded by something other than the facts.

 

One last remark – it has been claimed that settlements of $30K or $45K lend merit to the accusers’ claims. Just for reference for those fortunate enough to have consumed legal services, if you as an organization contacted a nice Atlanta firm to defend you in a civil harassment lawsuit, they would almost certainly demand a $25K retainer and explain to you that the retainer would likely be gone before they were done answering the initial round of discovery. $30K is the textbook definition of a “nuisance settlement” and the fact that the woman accepted so little is in fact indicative to me that her case wasn’t an exceptionally strong one. If the NRA had settled for $200K I would be impressed and if it had been $500K I would be fairly sure Cain was in serious trouble here.

The bottom line here is that you can count me out of the gleeful campaign to cooperate with the media to personally destroy a Republican before literally any facts of note are in.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tailfins1959

    To the other GOP candidates: You’re next! Google “Santorum” if you want an example!

    • gator_hoo

      Which is ridiculous on its face.

      • tailfins1959

        All I’m saying is that attacks are promoted like a game of “Whack-A-Mole”. I’m sure there are others that the media hasn’t pushed up yet on other candidates. Republicans should never put down the mallet so to speak.

        • gmscan

          Anyone can “accuse” anyone else of anything– doesn’t mean a damned thing. and all I have heard was that Cain made someone “feel uncomfortable.” We live in a nation of childish whiners.

          • don12345

            Romney has just released his bold and smart plan to make us solvent with 500 billion in cuts by 2016. He?s showing that he?s willing to put his reelection on the line to get the job done. If he can?t do it by 2016, you?ll know, unlike Obama who always says you have to wait until after his reelection to know if it will work. Obama and his team couldn?t even cut 1 dollar in spending, and Romney has a plan that could garner the support needed for 500 billion in major cuts. His most ambitious move is to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and their killing baby cohorts.

            If this isn?t a sign that he?s going to give the Tea Party everything they want, I don?t know what it. Romney even turned the Ryan plan into a plan that will work to reign in government spending and make health care affordable for all. We?re tired of funding other people?s expenses and this is a major step forward.

            Romney is the only one bold enough and innovative enough to offer real specifics in cutting government. I know. I was surprised too.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …and it doesn’t appear bold/smart; he ignores medicare/social-security!

          • don12345

            Romney doesn’t ignore medicare and social security.

            He takes the Ryan plan on Medicare and adds changes making it market driven and viable. Ryan was ecstatic and visibly happy when he saw Romney’s plan, because he knew now Ryan’s plan could get passed.

            Romney also already addressed how to fix social security.

          • edintexas

            If Ryan was ecstatic, and visibly happy, then there should be video of him saying how ecstatic he is/was, and showing him visibly happy. At the least, there should be reported quotes of Ryan’s commenting on how much he appreciates the Romney plan.

            I, for one, would appreciate links to these videos and/or reported quotes of ecstasy.

          • sethellis

            Are we talking about THIS WSJ piece?

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203804204577018092798952590.html

            If so then you must have severe reading comprehension problems. The first sentence in the article says “Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney waded into the sensitive issue of Medicare”.

            What Mitt did here was create a conservative plan that is still palatable to the general public. It includes everything we like about the Ryan plan, but keeps the old programs around as an option for those that still want to use it. It’s a win win in my view.

          • iidvbii

            Sounds like a spin spin to me but then its Romney so naturally I am suspicious. Will take sometime and read it though. I would assume that since he has to have been working on this the last 5 years he has been running for president it has to be good. I would hate to think he just whipped up a quick me too piece to prove he is concerned about reform.

          • snappy101

            Well, that’s today. What he’ll say and do tomorrow is anyone’s guess. That’s Romney’s problem, isn’t it? Say what you have to say to get elected. Say something else, a few months or years later. I have absolutely no idea what Romney stands for. Who is the real Mitt Romney? He flip flops more than a flounder on a fishing dock. If I were him, I’d spend more time promoting my record than flip flopping on my positions.

            You know, maybe he could talk about how many jobs he created with Romneycare.

          • josephine

            What I see in Romney, not even getting to his issues, is a man who lives his life to please those around him, A man who is so silently apologetic for his being that he must run around making sure he is pleasing everyone.
            I think he is probably a wonderful husband and father, without a mean bone in his body.
            I also think he is a stammering push over who will be intimidated by every opponent and poll out there.
            He has no personal philosophy about the issues. He changes in the wind. He is our John Carey, except that he is truly a good soul.
            I am for our nominee being all about BOLD, SREADFAST IN HIS BELIEFS, ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION,
            ROMNEY IS A WOOSH. THIS IS NOT AN AFTERNOON AT THE CLUB WITH FRIENDS. OUR FREEDOM IS DEFINITELY UP FOR GRABS>

        • josephine

          Someone-we don’t know who-she may have made the whole thing up-she’s an ivy league elitist with no sense of humor who may have always been offended in the 90′s-who may be being pushed and shoved by wanna be atty and leftist statist media-was given a “go away” award to leave matter be-was probably located by an opponent’s “wanna be” star campaign worker and compromised-being forced into a corner—
          If I were the woman, I’d sue the Politico and everybody else involved.
          If Cain happened to have “not overtly sexually harassed this person” I am sure he has seen his mistake and repented. The good news is that he has captured the people of America with his honest denial and his love for America. The press just doesn’t know how to deal with truth and courage.
          I say we get onto more things.

    • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

      Pull in your horns, Eric. Politico, you and all the rest of the main stream media are accusing Herman Cain of guilt while NOTHING from the accusers or anyone else has come forward with anything resembling one fact!

      In any event, “We the People” do NOT give any credence to anything the media prints or writes!

      • josephine

        To Jason, they will milk this thing as long as they can. Always follow the money, no matter who is pumping the news.
        I was forced to change my station Friday.
        I am ready to knock Romney out of the race. He is a kissing cousin of the left. He will not repeal Obamacare, he is a hedge fund executive. That is not real to me. That is all about speculation.
        We are going to have to do quick and decisive cuts and reorganization. Romney is not competent in this area.

      • edintexas

        I believe Eric wrote that he did not know the truth of the allegations, but he thought Cain blew it with his responses to the allegations, particularly blaming Perry’s campaign.

    • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

      Pull in your horns, Eric. Politico, you and all the rest of the main stream media are accusing Herman Cain of guilt while NOTHING from the accusers or anyone else has come forward with anything resembling one fact!

      In any event, “We the People” do NOT give any credence to anything the media prints or writes!

    • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

      The normal reaction of the GOP to a media smear story is to run around in panic, shoot the wounded, and beg the mainstream media to be nice to us.

      Finally, we seem to have said enough, and demanded that the media show at least some standards. At the very least, we said they should treat Republicans the same way they treat Democrats when covering a story like this.

      And, that’s a good lesson for the other GOP candidates, who will also surely get their turn in the media’s crosshairs in the future. It’s more effective to fight back and stand your ground (even if poorly executed as Cain’s rebuttal was) than it is to roll over and throw yourself on the mercy of the media.

      The MSM is biased against Republicans and conservatives; everybody knows it; we don’t have to take it.

      • runner12

        included accusing a fellow GOP candidate of leaking the story. Doesn’t do much for party unity does it?

        I would have agreed with you had Cain accuse the Left of such a tactic, but to accuse one of your own? Not in good taste and very damaging to Mr. Cain.

        • levinfan90

          Its funny to hear so many Perry fans here blasting Cain for putting the blame on Perry’s campaign for leaking this garbage story, and yet I haven’t seen too many Perry fans condemning PERRY for putting the blame on Romney’s campaign for the leak. Do I KNOW as a fact that Perry dropped the dime on Cain? No. But from everything I’ve heard, from both parties, Perry is a hardball politician, and he plays dirty. That’s kind of where the term ‘Texas politics’ comes into play. Romney has done these kinds of things before, with Fred Thompson’s campaign in 2007, for example, but it isn’t his M.O. Perry, on the other hand, plays dirty consistently in races. So its not simply the possible Curt Anderson connection to Perry’s campaign that makes it reasonable for one to believe Perry is responsible for this leak; its also just how Perry runs campaigns.

          • center77

            his staff members said maybe it was him, but that’s a far cry from going on tv, the radio, and papers blaming him. They demanded an apology, even though what Politico said was true.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            it’s a FAR-FAR cry from repeating the charge after Anderson’s statement was seemingly accepted by his campaign, as Cain did on Hannity on Thursday.

            “Our Sources” were invoked; WHAT were they?

          • runner12

            But since you seem new around here, you probably did not see it. However, as I said before there is a big difference between making an off the cuff remark, such as Perry’s spokesperson did, and going on national television and claiming that the Perry campaign was the leak. Which is exactly what Cain did. Mr. Block demanded an apology and acted as if the baseless allegation he was making was true.

            Furthermore, after both Perry and Anderson very politely denied the claims, the Cain campaign claimed they were lying and doubled-down. After the initial off the cuff remark by the Perry spokesperson and the Romney denial, not another word was heard from Perry.

            Additionally, it is quite audacious of you to accuse me of hypocrisy when you repeatedly in your post a). Claimed Perry plays dirty politics with no links or facts to back it up and that “this is how he runs his campaigns” b). you continue to perpetuate the myth that Perry was the leak.

            Do you see me continuing to insinuate it was Romney? No, because I believe his denial. Pardon me if your moral outrage at the lack of “speaking out” by Perry supporters falls a little flat. Your slander against Perry in your post undermines it quite a bit.

          • greyeagle

            Actually Perry was re-organizing his campaign, when this mess with Cain happened. His team does not have an opposition research team yet, because they were not organized. Perry is a straight speaker. If he said his campaign did NOT leak anything about Cain, then that is the truth. Dirty Politics? I don’t think so. I voted for Perry in the last three elections and will again in this one. Now as far as trashing, Cain trashed Perry on national tv three times. I heard him. Perry has NOT trashed any of the other GOP candidates, except Romney and at a debate. Obama engages in dirty politics, not Rick Perry.

          • pttx333

            lie, play games or pull any of the dirty stunts that some are guilty of doing. You can take to the bank what he says. I’ve stated that over and over, yet there are obviously some who either don’t understand or don’t wish to.

            I currently live in the Houston area. In what part of Texas are you located? It is nice to “meet” you, greyeagle, and thanks so much for the post.

          • paladin1

            indeed play hardball, but as a supporter and follower of every statewide race he hass run, I can tell you that if he says he nor his campaign dimed out Cain, his word is good. Mr. Anderson appeared on Fox and emphatically denied any involvement in the issue as well. Playing hardball and playing dirty are two very differnet things in politics and Perry does not play dirty. I can tell you with confidence though, that things are really going to heat up for his opposition shortly, as the primaries and caucuses get close.

      • manvan

        When you say:

        “The normal reaction of the GOP to a media smear story is to run around in panic, shoot the wounded….The MSM is biased against Republicans and conservatives; everybody knows it; we don?t have to take it.”

        Many ON THIS SITE have done exactly as you have stated! These battles for honesty and fairness are difficult enough fighting the liberal media. It is disgraceful when it comes from such a site as RedState.

        • anitasays

          I’ve been so overwhelmed by the vitriol that has spewed from the articles written from streiff that I have basically written off Redstate, which used to be a favorite. It’s turned into a dog eat dog blog site, that has gone so far beyond vetting a candidate for president that I begin to wonder if I’m reading something from msnbc. I’m really tired of you all here, especially streiff, and hugely disappointed. Guess I’ll just stick with BigGovernment and the Blaze,

          • center77

            and you want to blame the truth teller, that’s funny, indeed. Cain knew about this, he admitted as much, but his accuse was he did not want to chase an anonymous source, so that’s sounds like there were more than what we know if he didn’t know what Politico had. just because you all want to deny facts and logic, does not mean we should. Streiff was bold when that article was written, because it only pointed out the facts others want to deny

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            don’t kill-the-messenger, and don’t kill the messenger who provides access to the messenger.

          • manvan

            You and others can only exacerbate the accusations and innuendo. To date there is NO evidence to back up the allegations. You may give your opinions, but it is ONLY (faulty) “logic” until “facts” suggest otherwise. You are willfully making yourselves the most useful tool in the liberals box. All of this to make up for the decline of your favored candidate. Herman Cain is being Alinsky’ed by his own kind.

          • jrmax13

            You know all of the negativity and finger-pointing comes from the Perry camp. Business as usual. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

          • greyeagle

            I don’t know if Cain is guilty or not. My irritation stems from the fact that the Cain campaign knew this was coming 7-10 days (their statement) prior to it coming out. The first thing out of their mouths was to blame Rick Perry without any proof whatsoever. I know what Governor Perry stands for, so this really irritated me. Voters can decide whether to vote for Cain or not. My choice is already made.

    • Warrior

      was the perfect choice.

      She resisted the Republican machine in Alaska and was visiuosly attacked.

      She ran for VP and was thoroughly vetted.

      She’s had a snoop living NEXT DOOR to her for two years with a camera anda telephoto lens. The best he could come up with was a book full of inuendo, rumors and lies for which he is now being sued.

      I realize it’s too late now, but try to pay attention anyway:

      Sarah Palin had already been vetted and was immune to the “n” word painted on a rock, sexual harrassment slur, and boogie man in the closet attacks of the left.

      They knew it. That’s why they attacked her gratuitously.

      All we can do now is hope whatever October surprise (see my diary) they use to attack/smear our ultimate candidate will not be effective with voters in Nov…

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        Some people have a hard time letting go.

        • Warrior

          a newspaper and read the latest against Cain.

          http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8684597-fourth-woman-details-sexual-harassment-allegations-against-cain

          Who do you think can survive the leftist attack machine?

          • acat

            which rules out both Palin and Cain, thus far.

            Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            She’s not running. Cain was never a serious candidate anyway. He’s the Dan Maes of the Presidential campaign.

            “Survive” depends on your perspective. If GWB can “survive” the media attacks, pretty much anyone can.

            Even if Palin did enter the race right now, I’d place her no higher on my list than Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Ron Huntsman, which is to say second tier.

          • Warrior

            now? We can always write her name in …

            Wake up bro — we’ll be lucky if Mitt can beat Obama. Did you see Palin’s speech at COPAC the other night?

            She is the energy. She is the brains. She is the chutzpah. In short:

            Palin is the Future of conservative politics!

  • Crash71234

    You got it!

    When’s your press conference, honey?

  • gator_hoo

    “Maybe the allegations are true, maybe they are not. I hope we can get to the bottom of them. But anyone who claims to be able to know on the basis of the facts presented has had their judgment clouded by something other than the fact.”

    I think this is the key takeaway. That said, in the world of politics, Cain’s inability to put the baby to bed is troubling.

    • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

      There is nothing to put to bed. There are no facts nor anyone involved coming forward with any facts. The Politico smear is nothing more than that.

      • gator_hoo

        Just saying

        • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

  • uhangtight

    Isn’t that special? Cain left the NRA in June of 1999. She the accuser filed her complaint in July of 1999. The confidentiality agreement was finalized on 9/9/199. And, yes, Cain was not around to sign it…

    How convenient isn’t it, to file a complaint against someone that isn’t around to Defend themselves? Really easy to get your demands met as the organization will not want to bother defending someone that is no longer on the payroll. Only defense is the organization’s reputation and that can be bought off.

    How about Cain’s reputation? Sullied for good now…

    • 1bunny

      but I think she filed her claim in March of 1999 and it was settled after Cain had left the NRA.

      • uhangtight

        Read Hot Air>

        http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/04/lawyer-for-cains-accuser-on-second-thought-shed-rather-not-relive-this-publicly/
        and..
        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318500-503544/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/accusers-lawyer-says/

      • paulplantowin

        not sure – but I think – please find out facts prior to posting. This sort of comment exacerbates these things.
        Thx

      • paulplantowin

        not sure – but I think – please find out facts prior to posting. This sort of comment exacerbates these things.
        Thx

    • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

      Herman Cain had nothing to do with the severence pay the woman recieved nor was her required to sign anything! All of this kind of crap is handled by the NRA attorneys as ALL of these type oc complaints are handled.

      • Vegas_Rick

        You know this how?

        • Leon H. Wolf

          He left the NRA in July 1999 and the settlement was reached in Sept. 1999

          • retire05

            that the woman’s complaint was filed the same month Cain left the NRA giving “personal reasons” as his cause of leaving before his contract was up?

            Yeah, right!

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            I’m sure we can find someone around here with a bag of feathers and a rail.

          • retire05

            would you cut a Democrat who was accused of the same things Cain has been as much slack as you seem to want to cut Cain?

            If we, as conservatives, rally the wagons around our own when there is a scandal, declaring without any proof that the woman must be lying and the Republican is being persecuted, how are we any different than the Democrats?

            None of us know the truth, and that is the truth.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            None of us know the truth, and that is the truth.

            You are absolutely correct: we do not yet know the truth. That is why I am willing to give Herman the benefit of the doubt. The innuendo in your posts leaves little doubt that you are convinced Cain is guilty.

            If we, as conservatives, rally the wagons around our own when there is a scandal, declaring without any proof that the woman must be lying and the Republican is being persecuted, how are we any different than the Democrats?

            Link me to my post where I claimed that the accuser(s) were lying. If you haven’t noticed, I am also giving the accuser(s) the benefit of the doubt. The only accusation I have made is that Cain and his staff have not handled this situation well. I doubt if I will get many arguments about that.

            would you cut a Democrat who was accused of the same things Cain has been as much slack as you seem to want to cut Cain?

            Yes, I would–and did–when Bill Clinton was accused. I can’t prove it, since I was not blogging on Redstate at the time (no one was, since Redstate did not yet exist), so I guess you’ll have to give me the benefit of the doubt and believe me. Or maybe you can save some of the tar and feathers for me as well.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Are causing all the heat at this point. I’ve felt it too.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            As I have posted a few times, I’m still on the fence, and the only candidate I’m not particularly enamored of is Romney–but I will vote for him if he gets the party’s nomination, just not in the primary. As far as the rest, they are still in the running for my vote. As they say, I don’t have a dog in this fight yet, but I’m ready to vote for whichever dog comes out on top.

            And before anyone starts making Michael Vick jokes, I will remind you that “dog fight” is a figure of speech, and I am a contributing, card-carrying member of the ASPCA.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Seriously? I think some prey species are cute and all, but I don’t think food has rights.

            Food chains have consequences.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            I believe in the humane treatment of animals: I believe that the steer that I get my steaks from should be humanely killed before being butchered.

            I love animals, but I’m not a nut.

          • jakeofalltrades

            for their treatment of something they have every moral right to immediately kill and eat with whatever tool is at hand.

            I’m good with fines and injunctions though.

          • MikeG

            Because that’s what the ASPCA does. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with showing God’s creatures kindness and compassion, and treating the neglected and abused with love.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            are the ones located right by the Korean restaurant.

            (I know that was etho-centric bias, but give me a break, I like Kim-Chee. )

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            You’re going to smoke a turd in Pergatory for that one, kyle8.

            (h/t to Robin Williams for the modified quote.)

    • jrmax13

      Hopefully, the truth will come out soon and all will be well. I think the big money is betting on the chance that it was Perry’s bag of dirty tricks that began this with Politico.

  • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

    He says there was no harassment, she was paid because it was cheaper than going to court.

    She says it was harassment, but will not offer any details. Only a generic charge by an anonymous source.

    If this is it, then the stories dead.

    • acat

      Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

      In other words, it creates questions in the minds of supporters.

      Based on your sig, you know where this leads.

      Mew

      • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

        The originators of the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) strategy in the early 1960s.

        • acat

          you are correct, FUD was a winning strategy for IBM, and later for Microsoft.

          I don’t see how Cain wins this if it comes down to a “he said she said”. .. he’s gonna need a higher level of vindication.

          Mew

          • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

            On one side of the scale, you have:

            (1) As this story points out, the settlement amounts are in line with nusiance payouts, not with serious sexual harassment money.

            (2) Cain’s associates from the NRA at the time have come out, on the record, saying they never saw anything and that the Herman Cain they knew was not anything like a sexual harasser. If Cain was as bad as some claim, it’s unlikely his associates would be sticking their necks out for him.

            (3) Cain is on the record denying the charge.

            On the other side of the scale, you have:

            (1) There was an actual payout (although that may not be significant if it was just a nusiance payout).

            (2) A generic charge of sexual harassment with no specifics.

            (3) An anonymous source that says the charges are true.

            Yea, the charge is now out there and it will dog him (who said the old line “where do I go to get my reputation back?”), but the fact is people that lean towards Cain will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, and people that lean away from Cain probably won’t.

            He got knocked down, but he didn’t get knocked out. He’s still in the fight.

          • acat

            is because this is going to dog Cain, as you say.

            The problem isn’t retaining the supporters such as yourself.

            The problem is continuing to pick up enough new supporters, getting votes from people who like the ideas Cain has put forth, but who are now concerned – have Fears and Uncertainty and Doubt – about the man himself.

            Cain’s hill just got a lot harder to climb.

            Mew

          • timkellogg

            as I often do. But, it was going to be something, and it will probably be more “somethings” than this one, especially if Cain stays in it, and if it aint Cain, it’ll be “something” dogging somebody else.

          • bonnman

            Unless this all gets settled the media will keep digging and give anyone who makes a sexual harassment claim against him top news. He won’t win women voters with this image.

    • Scope

      just told John King that for the Iowans to just excuse these sexual harassment allegations, he is going to have to be more forthcoming with his explanations about the allegations for them to just excuse them. It is not dead, as much as you want it to be.

      • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

        Literally, what sexual allegations?

        • Scope

          charges against Cain “settled” by the NRA. That is a fact. Take your head out of the sand and at least be honest about something. Are you not able to see earth from the Cain cloud you are sitting on?

          • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

            Did Cain say to someone:

            ?Darling, do you mind doctoring my tea for me??

            By 1990′s standards, that single statement could be the basis of TWO sexual harassment charges.

            (1) Calling a woman a diminuative (darling, honey, sweetie we’re all firing offenses in the 1990′s).

            (2) Asking a woman fix his tea. Guys in the 1990′s actually got charged with sexual harassment for asking a woman to get them coffee.

            You need to take your head out of the sand. A sexual harassment charge in the 1990′s was no guarantee that the man had commited some venal crime. The standard was if the woman felt she had been harassed, then it was sexual harassment. THAT was the standard when Cain was charged, and that’s why what looks like some pretty darned silly stuff got written up in the 1990′s as sexual harassment.

            Cain has said one of the charges was he commented on a woman’s height (that she was the same height as his wife). This falls into the “silly stuff” category, imho.

            So, what does the Iowa gov. want to know about that statment? What is it he thinks needs any more explination?

            The other charge (the one from this story) was made AFTER Cain left the NRA. He wasn’t there when the charge was made, wasn’t privy to the allegations, wasn’t part of the agreement, and has zero idea what is in the agreement (because it was sealed, and he wasn’t part of of). As of this moment, he knows exactly what you and I know, it is an unspecific charge by an anonymous source.

            BTW, Cain has requested the NRA open and release the files to the public They haven’t, and now it seems the woman is refusing to release the files also.

            Beyond demanding the files be opened so everyone can see what’s in them, what else can he do at this point?

      • eabjr

        All all folks like Leon and me were saying was just wait and see and do not falsely accuse, for things are not always what they seem. Even the CBS story based on the woman?s lawyer?s testimony jibed with Cain?s initial response of not knowing about the settlement nor signing anything. It could very well be that we were witnessing a man willingly, publicly work thru events of yesteryear as awkward as it amy be?its been so long since we have seen this, that all too many assumed he was lying or hiding.
        Perhaps this is what Iowans are contemplating…they are certainly not excusing anything…

        • gator_hoo

          Don’t accuse the women of being opportunists without more facts

          Don’t accuse Cain of being guilty of the sexual harassment charges without more facts

          • davesinsanantonio

            without more facts. Especially don’t accuse him again after he denies it.

          • pttx333

            the very gall of that woman! She says Rick Perry was “brutal” to her two years ago in the Governor’s race. How dare she? She and the Bushies absolutely gutted Perry – or tried to. It didn’t fly with the voters, so she is bitter. Thank God and Greyhound she will soon be GONE!

            http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/11/kay-bailey-hutchison-says-rick-perry-was-very-brutal-to-her-two-years-ago-and-shes-not-retreating-from-her-criticism-of-him/

          • retire05

            KBH really thought she was going to take the primary against Perry. Her poll numbers were high, and stayed there for quite a while. But she was cocky, thinking that with the backing of Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, and Mama and Pappy Bush, she was a shoe in. She slammed Perry at every stump speech, but Perry played her off as nothing more than a Beltway insider who had lost touch with Texans.

            So some of us pulled her voting record on certain issues, easily done at Thomas.gov. We started getting the word out about some of her votes that were an antithesis to Texas values (like voting against the law that would make it a felony to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of an abortion). You see, KBH could not run from her voting record. She lost.

            KBH also promised she would resign her seat if she lost the primary. Then she changed her mind, saying that her fellow Senators wanted her to stay. That was not the reason. The reason was that she knew Perry would be able to appoint an interm Senator to replace her, and most people knew that would be Ted Cruz or Michael Williams. David Dewhurst had already been making sounds that he wanted KBH’s seat and would run in the primary against her. Dewhurst would just be more of the same in her seat. So KBH, after her promise to step down if she was primaried, decided to stay. Not a good move and left a bad taste in a lot of Texas mouths. The bottom line: KBH lost because she had said some things on the stump that showed she had lost touch with the voters of her state.

            Roger Williams jumped out and declared for her seat. David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz followed quickly behind, along with Michael Williams. Both Williams pulled out and declared for the primary for the new Congressional seat Texas gained due to the census. That leaves Cruz and Dewhurst. Dewhurst has tons of personal money, but Ted Cruz is now neck and neck with him because he has a Marco Rubio story.

            If you can, back Cruz. Dewhurst is not who we want, and I would be happy to go into the reasons why, if you like. I want him, and Joe Strauss, out of office totally.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            If you are a GOP senator from a conservative state you need to at least vote to the right of Lindsey Graham, When you look like a squish compared to Lindsey, that is pretty bad.

          • pttx333

            together, don’t they? I do think that Mizz Lindsey has lace on his drawers, though, so he may be the prissier (is that a word?) of the two. Oh, well, that’s just me and what I think.

            Now if we can get the lot of them out of D.C., I’ll be a happy camper!

            P.S. Read the posts between retire05 and myself above – it will enlighten you more on KBH and some others. Retire is so good with the historical doings.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            lite loafer lindsey

          • pttx333

            Good one – Mizz Lindsey is veeery light in the loafers … sure nuff is. Maybe SC will boot him out when he comes up for election again – don’t know when that will be. I hope a good conservative can beat him like a drum!

          • pttx333

            pathetic history of Kay Baby (as I call her, cuz she’s such a whiny, simpering idiot who is absolutely too big for her britches!). Never did like her, never. She is the epitome of an establishment RINO – snooty, knows-it-all, I’m-better-and-smarter-than-you moron who hasn’t a clue as to what the real world is about. Whether or not she ever did, I don’t know. And did she ever play dirty with Perry, along with those you mentioned. She wouldn’t have had the guts to pull it off if she wasn’t backed with the big $$$ and the powerhouse Bushies, Rove, et al. Well, our guy showed them a thing or two! LOL Bottom line, she’s a liar – I don’t use words like “misstated” or “misspoke” or “taken out of context.” Baloney, they all add up to “you lied.”

            I remember all too well how she was going to resign and all of that – never believed it for a minute. I’m telling you, that crowd is totally untrustworthy – the lot of them.

            Anyway, I’m already in the tank for Cruz, and Dewhurst is another KBH in a suit. No difference there. So, are you reading my mind or what? ;-) I don’t mind. Good to meet yet another person who thinks like me!

            Thanks for all of your posts – I’ve learned a lot from them!

          • retire05

            I warned you, I’m a polotical junkie.

            But KBH lost me elections ago. And Dewhurst and Srauss need to go.

          • pttx333

            have to warn me at all, though – I relish every minute of time spent on RS and conversing with (mostly) like-minded folks. You don’t often find such on the ‘net or anywhere else.

            Keep ‘em comin’, retire! Thanks again …

          • pttx333

            the very gall of that woman! She says Rick Perry was “brutal” to her two years ago in the Governor’s race. How dare she? She and the Bushies absolutely gutted Perry – or tried to. It didn’t fly with the voters, so she is bitter. Thank God and Greyhound she will soon be GONE!

            http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/11/kay-bailey-hutchison-says-rick-perry-was-very-brutal-to-her-two-years-ago-and-shes-not-retreating-from-her-criticism-of-him/

          • pttx333

            ;;

      • izoneguy


        Iowa Poll: Many think Cain?s 9-9-9 plan would help them
        (But they would be wrong)

        Many people in Iowa think their taxes will go down with 999.
        If you make between 40K & 50K your taxes will go UP.
        If you make between 500K and a Million your taxes
        will go down. I wonder how many millionaires in Iowa
        can get Herman over the hump?

        And on Herman’s accuser? The democrats are now saving
        her as insurance in case Cain does get the nomination.
        Or if Herman ever decides to run for something else.

        • gator_hoo

          You just don’t understand Cain’s “simple” plan. Have you considered going to his website?

          • izoneguy

            The Tax Policy Center estimates that the three taxes combined would be the equivalent of a 25.38 percent national sales tax. Because lower-income families spend a larger percentage of their income on tangible goods, they would be affected disproportionately.

            The bottom line: A family with an income level of $40,000 to $50,000 would pay $3,407 more a year in taxes, while families making $500,000 to $1 million a year would pay on average $80,315 less, according to the Tax Policy Center.

          • gator_hoo

            Because that’s how he’s trying to sell it.

          • gator_hoo

            Disregard.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …so that you can be invited to comment on the shifting-story that we heard from your favored-nerd, this past Monday.

  • clintonformccain

    the Republican front runner for the President of the United States was likely involved in just minor sexual harrassment and was able to pay the woman off for just a year’s salary.

    Now, if he only knew that China had the nuclear bomb, this all wouldn’t be making the party look like a laughing stock.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      We don’t “know” anything yet. But you already knew that.

      • Scope

        we don’t know anything about the second accuser. What a boatload of money she can make coming out with her story during the general if Cain becomes the nominee. If that happens an election we could and should have won will be lost.

    • bzip

      :-)

      • gator_hoo

        I’m proud of you, I think. Almost seems like a trick.

        :P

        • bzip

          Well, I got my say this morning:-). I am kind of enjoying the sit back an watch mode.

          Hopefully everyone will enjoy the evening watching/listening to the Perry interview with Erick tonight.

          Best wishes, back to the movie now :-) .

  • jstjoan

    I was a real victim or real sexual harassment years ago by a man I worked with but barely knew. He wrote anonymous letters to me saying, among other things, he’d been watching me for years and fantasized about me during sex with his wife. I was afraid of being raped and in fear for my life. It changed my life forever.

    I don’t speak of this time in my life very often because it was so painful and it changed the course of my life forever. But let me add this: Cain’s accuser s acting selfishly by not being forthcoming. The ordeal I went through was extremely difficult and personally taxing but because I, and several other female Air Traffic Controllers spoke out, the FAA changed the entire way that sexual harassment claims are dealt with and the process is much more fair, (albeit still not perfect). After our Congressional hearing they created what is called the Accountability Board to make sure that what happened to me and others like me, never happened again due to local managers ignorance on sexual harassment policy. This woman had the chance to do someone else a favor and change the system. She refused.

    http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ahr/offices/accountability_board/admin_statement/

    Unless and until any woman comes forward with substantiated charges, I refuse to believe any of these vague allegations about Herman Cain.

    The NRA says they were willing to release her from the confidentiality agreement:

    http://www.therightscoop.com/statement-from-the-national-restaurant-association/

    …yet she chose to remain anonymous. When I was sexually harassed at my work 13 years ago to the point of being in fear for my life, not only did I file numerous EEOC complaints, file state and federal lawsuits, but I also openly testified in front of Congress and named my harasser and his enablers. If she’s not willing to do the same, then her claims, in my opinion, have no merit. This is over. I continue to energetically support Herman Cain for President. His 9-9-9 plan is the tax reform we need to prosper.

    • texabama

      and you handled it in a manner that I admire, but I can understand if someone else isn’t that brave. This woman will be known nationally and will have to deal with the media for who knows how long. Can’t say I would want to take that on.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      ?so you can be invited to comment on the shifting-story that we heard this past Monday.

    • clowngirl

      And I’m impressed that you and your colleagues stood up for yourselves and got things changed for your company.

      But, with all do respect, I can’t imagine you were subjected the kind of media feeding frenzy and the same level of public scrutiny as these women would be if they came forward now. Even you, who have been through serious sexual harassment don’t believe them.

      In the case of the second woman, Herman Cain was stepping down and leaving anyway- if the problem didn’t seem pervasive – I can see how she would be satisfied with that.

  • daveoconnor

    is ZERO. An attorney speaks on behalf of a woman who doesn’t want to “relive” the past as regards her complaint. She stands by the complaint however. This is indeed slippery. Here come the hand wringers, “Oh she doesn’t want to relive it! Horrible.”
    My take is that if it really amounted to much she would want to tip the rest of us. Since she is unwilling to come forward and doesn’t want to relive the past I for one will respect her wishes. You don’t have to come forward and the rest of us won’t relive the past/ Whatever the past happened to be. There are still no facts beyond a complaint was made and the NRA and the woman acting on her attorney’s advice agreed to take monetary consideration, agreed to non-disclosure and non-disparagement. She has by the way violated the latter.Perhaps with permission of the NRA, perhaps not.

    • gator_hoo

      We don’t know that there is anything, but we don’t know that there is nothing. We don’t know at this point why the woman refused to testify. It could be because she figured she didn’t really have a case; it could be because she has seen the invectives that Cain supporters and some in the conservative media have been throwing her way without knowing more than she had settled with the NRA regarding sexual harassment from Herman Cain.

    • texabama

      My understanding is that others are coming to her to see if she is willing to come forward. She didn’t initiate this witch hunt, but will bear the consequences once people know who she is. What does she gain by coming forward?

  • BlueLandRed

    Not that I’m a lawyer but my understanding is non-disclosure agreements have some sort of penalty for breaking disclosing that which should not be disclosed.

    Should Cain continue to tap dance around the issue and let the flames continue to be fanned — what will happen is some sleazy tabloid will offer to pay the woman in question here the penalty plus a million for her exclusive story.

    Yes, it will damage her credibility – but she’ll have a million dollars. And depending on how her story survives being fact checked will determine just how damaged Cain’s campaign will be.

    Quite frankly, it’s probably the best strategy Cain has at this point.

    And next time… can we start with a better list of candidate?

    • davesinsanantonio

      Sure! Find ‘em and recruit ‘em.

      That’s now your job. Good luck!

      • nathanalbright

        …we have the crop of people we do because in politics one generally has to pay some kind of dues. People have to develop a name and reputation either in the business world, in public service, or in government. That means a decade or two of rising through the political ranks, serving in state offices before acquiring the reputation and support to win offices like US Representative or Senator or Governor. Either that or they have to pay their dues in business (like talk radio) to acquire a reputation for sound policy and a desire to serve in elected office. All of that takes time. If we want a better list of candidates we have to start a long way out and then groom them for responsibility. That’s not easy work at all.

  • runner12

    alleged victims will come forward and disclose everything. I know that it is asking a lot, but this three-ring circus will continue until it is definitively cleared up.

    We need this to end now. If Cain is the nominee, we do not need an October surprise of one of these women telling all on CNN. Anyone who supports Cain must think of this scenario. It would be disastrous. If I were a Cain supporter, I would beg these women to come forward. If Cain is truly innocent, he has nothing to fear.

    The continuous speculation is hurting the Conservative movement. It keeps the focus off the Socialist-In-Chief at the WH. He must be giddy that so little attention is being paid now to Solyndra and F & F.

    • 1bunny

      mouth out with soap for agreeing with Rove who stated in a Newsmax article that the NRA should release the records with the names redacted so we can review them. I actually was grimacing as I wrote this because Rove is icky and I don’t agree with him on majority of things but after the NRA said it would be willing to release the paperwork if Bennet’s client wanted it then why not put it out there with the caveat of protecting the names of the victims.

      • runner12

        Because I actually agree with what Rove said as well.

        • jakeofalltrades

          And then everything comes out.

        • texabama

          not the name (or names) of the women.

    • windwaker24

      Politico still has the name of the woman. If Cain is the nominee, I have a feeling they are going to drop the name around September 2012. I disagree with you though that it should be the women that need to come forward. Cain alone needs to lay it ALL out. He knows exactly what he is accused of. Just say it and stop dancing around.

      • runner12

        If Cain is released by the confidentiality agreement he would do well for himself to give details. Honestly, I just want the truth to come out either way. Whether it is Cain or the alleged victims, the details need to be known.

        Only then will this story be put to rest.

  • eabjr

    Just wanted to thank you Leon, (and streiff as well) for stating your positions w/out fear. My take is Leon was the cooler, and more objective head as the NRA offer for release was rejected reveals. And that’s all folks like us were saying…just wait and see and do not falsely accuse. Even the CBS story based on the woman’s lawyer’s testimony jibed with Cain’s initial response of not knowing about the settlement nor signing anything. It could very well be that we were witnessing a man willingly, publicly work thru events of yesteryear….its been so long since we have seen this, that all too many assumed he was lying or hiding.

  • Scope

    that no one has heard from. My biggest fear is that her story will come out in the general if Cain is the nominee.

    • congressworksforus

      This is the woman Cain has said was terminated for sub-par performance. My guess is she threw in sexual harassment for good measure.

      Which is why she’s not speaking

    • tjms

      maybe this one is a democrat and waiting till the general.

      • congressworksforus

        if she waits 10 months, her credibility is shot.

      • Scope

        or someone knowing the money value of their public statements in the general come forward now? If Cain is the nominee, there is a possible loaded weapon out there against him that could cause the Republicans to lose the nomination. I suspect that this will all go quiet now, and the Cain show will go on. Because no one will acknowledge the possible loaded weapon in the general we will have to watch Cain destroy himself with his inexperience, no campaign organization, and his flip flops. Honestly, the leftist CNN is doing us a better service pointing out Cain’s many weaknesses than the right is doing.

        • clowngirl

          The other woman may figure Cain is likely to wash out in the primary anyway- why put herself through new trauma ( and if her story is what was presented on pajamas media it sounded pretty traumatic)

          But if he is the nominee and has a chance to actually become President she may suddenly feel compelled to tell the whole story.

          That’s the way she’d spin it anyway – and who could blame her for accepting millions of dollars in compensation for the ordeal she’s bravely putting herself through.

          That’s the cynical spin- but either way you look at it, if the women are sincere and what Cain did was really bad they may have feelings come up about Cain becoming President. If either of them is an opportunist, whatever limited $ they could obtain now would be paltry compared to September or October next year.

          And one of the alleged victims has already let the world know the name of her lawyer. Even if she has no plans to talk about this now – if offered a couple of million dollars, she might find it hard to turn down.

          The honorable thing would be for them to speak now or forever hold their peace – but they say few men’s integrity can withstand the highest bidder…

          We should assume details will come out during the general election if Cain is the nominee. If Cain is not going to drop out ( which would be my preference) he should disclose everything he ethically can immediately.

    • craigbardo

      Perry supporters are so transparent

      • Scope

        Cainiac. If you don’t realize the danger, you are not very bright.

        • tyman

          if Cain is the nominee?

          The accuser is probably waiting for the right dollar figure to come forward, and when it will do the most political damage, if they’re a Democrat. After all, Cain wasn’t a public figure back then.

          I can’t believe all the people talking about what little amount the settlement was for. Maybe the accuser couldn’t afford a big legal bill, if she was making $35k a year.

          How do you actually prove that so and so propositioned you? We know that Paula Jones did because she could describe Clinton’s member.

          There are so many things that we don’t know that it’s hard to say. Somebody needs to check and see if this type of behavior was prevalent at the NRA (filing sexual harassment lawsuits, I mean). Did they just file them against Herbcain or anyone else? Why did Herman leave so soon after this was filed?

          If Cain’s supporters think he’s really a conservative, go look up who he voted for in ’92 and the primaries that his wife has voted in. To me, that’s very telling.

          He just doesn’t have the record to show that he’d govern as a conservative once elected.

      • retire05

        For us Texans who support Perry, it is a mixed bag. If Perry wins, we lose a great governor who understands that government needs to stay out of your life as much as possible. A Perry win would mean that we would get RINO David Dewhurst as governor, or in the event Dewhurst defeats Ted Cruz (which I certainly hope doesn’t happen) we would have an even bigger RINO, Joe Strauss, as governor.

        Had it not been for Dewhurst, and Strauss, Texas would have passed the “Stop TSA groping” laws as well as making sanctuary cities in Texas illegal. Dewhurst, and Strauss, both blocked those pieces of legislation.

        But Perry would also bring economic growth to the U.S. Something that no one on that debate stage can legitimately prove they have done before.

        Like I said; for Texans, is a double sided coin.

        • greyeagle

          Perry has been a great Governor. He has by fair the best energy and jobs/economics plan of any of the GOP candidates. True he is not a great debater, but he was not likely expecting a major pile on by candidates and so called moderators. He will be ready next time. I agree with you if TX loses him as Governor. I shudder to think of his replacement.

      • tjms

        I am a Perry supporter but mainly want Obama gone. I just fear that this person being a federal employee is not a friend of republicans right now and if she is a democrat would rather wait and help Obama in 12. Does that sound that ridiculous? I just think Mr. Cain needs to tell everything now and get it over with. Surely you and he would realize it won’t be looked at the same then.

        • craigbardo

          When did you stop beating your wife? Just get it out there.

          Unless you were really beating your wife, then how are you going to “get it out there?”

          This is the same tactic employed against Palin. Frivolous charges and lawsuits she had to respond to with her own money because RINOs and Democrats didn’t want her disturbing their corruption.

          Perry supporters, with a few reasonable exceptions, who are trying to convince us that their support for Perry is based on their conservatism and his, aren’t passing the smell test. They support the charges against Cain because they were made? Because of nuisance termination agreements that Cain himself wasn’t party to and therefore can’t explain. He has released the NRA to release documents that he does not himself possess and you want HIM to get it out there?

          Here’s the funny thing, if you see how the leftist media has run now hundreds of stories with nothing more than a vague recollection of an allegation provided by oppo research, with no sourcing and none of the women coming forward and one example by a Perry supporting radio host who asked a woman to “doctor his tea” then what do you expect to happen to the next non mittens and if mittens is the nominee to mittens?

          Support your guy or gal – I wanted Palin myself but now I support Cain, but it seems that especially frustrated Perry supporters are caught up in a cult of personality that justifies anything around the o je give of seeing their man win. That is not value based, principled conservatism, that’s a cult.

  • retire05

    Remember Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers and more recently, Monica Lewinsky? Do you remember how they were treated? They were called “sluts, tramps, gold diggers, opportunists” by the media. Why would we think that this woman, or any woman for that matter, would be treated any differently by not just the press, but Cain supporters, as well.

    The reverse side of the coin is the same here: those who are accused of sexual harassment, rarely speak out and speak only through their lawyers. Basically, Leon Wolf is saying “nothing to see here, move on” when there IS something to see here.

    Why doesn’t Cain, himself, request the NRA documents to be released. He knows who these women are, as much as he initially denied any knowledge of the complaints. Why doesn’t Mark Block say that Cain is asking for a release of all NRA documents to clear this up and substantiate what Cain has said? As of now, we only have Cain’s word that nothing untoward happened.

    If Cain is actually guilty of wrong doing, and I don’t know any more than Leon Wolf knows, it will eventually come out. Better to come out now, than in October, 2012 once Cain secured the nomination. David Axelrod will have no problem paying people to “leak” those documents to the public. Think Paul Ryan.

    The truth of the matter is that Cain is now damanged goods. He has admitted to the focal points of the Politico article that there were were charges against him and the women received settlements in lieu of going to court. That no one can deny. And the problem with his claim (still) that Curt Anderson leaked to Politico is that if Cain actually told Anderson in 2003 of this issue, he and Mark Block, should have had a game plan long ago in the event the events were leaked (which they were). This was NOT good campaign managing, this was a train wreck looking for a place to happen.

    I, and no one else, knows the actual truth. Only Cain, and the women, do. But Cain is NOT making wise moves by allowing his campaign to continue to accuse another candidate, or by not requesting his PAC pull an insulting ad that calls this a “high tech lyinching” playing the race card.

    This issue is going to continue to hang over Cain’s head, and even if Team Cain moves on, and manages to quiet the dialog in the next few days, it is going to come back during the general election if Cain gets the nomination. I would suspect that David Axelrod is already working on it.

    • congressworksforus

      He admitted so himself.

      Do we all now throw Him to the curb as well?

      Honestly, some people around here blow my mind sometimes.

      • acat

        In the meantime, I’ll just be expressing my concern that, while Leon is undoubtedly correct on a legal front, the political front is a bit different. Cain cannot shake this except through a vindication that, after a decade or more, is not going to be easy to obtain.

        Mew

        p.s. Don’t forget to ask Jesus for his birth certificate. I recall hearing that he wasn’t born in the U.S. of A…

      • retire05

        certainly you are not trying to make a comparison between Herman Cain and Jesus? Are you that much of a rabid Cain supporter?

        • congressworksforus

          I believe in primaries for areason…

      • gator_hoo

        Really? Really?

        If you are willing to compare anypolitician to Jesus, there is something seriously wrong with your faith, your politics, or most likely, both.

        • congressworksforus

          My point was you’re all looking for perfection when your own savior said He was impefect Himself…

          I suggest some of you on here remove your from your own rear ends and figure this all out.

          You are being tested.

          And you are failing miserably.

          • acat

            which completely avoids your assumption that all who read here claim your messiah. I decline.

            Mew

          • gator_hoo

            I am actually looking for coherence. Cain has yet to meet that standard.

      • clintonformccain

        …to an abortion question.

        • jakeofalltrades

          no digo nada mas

      • gator_hoo

        Cain did run God(the)Father’s Pizza, CWFU may be onto something.

      • jakeofalltrades

        May I please have a cite for the statement that Jesus was damaged goods in a way that is relevant to Cain’s sexual harassment charges?

      • renl57

        All the Romans did was crucify his body.

        But today’s political players could have crucified his reputation.

        • jakeofalltrades

          Unless Cain is being attacked for saving lives on a Saturday, I think you should withdraw your borderline blasphemy.

    • craigbardo

      These posts don’t need several paragraphs, just four words, “I support Rick Perry.”

      If Cain falls, the beneficiary will likely be Newt – the Perry train started off with a loud whistle a lot of steam but hasn’t moved an inch.

    • satchman3

      What would be in those documents? The matter was not resolved – it was settled which is an agreement to drop the charges without a finding.

      The documents (assuming they exist) would likely contain details of the accusations and some investigative work to determine the validity of the accusations. Maybe some legal notes about risk to the organization – who knows.

      What they probably don’t contain is the smoking gun to prove or disprove the allegations so releasing the documents doesn’t do Cain any good as it gets more accusations into the press. They also expose the NRA to possible legal action if they release personnel files.

      Releasing the documents just doesn’t make sense to any of the parties involved.

  • congressworksforus

    For some common sense.

    I disagree with a lot of what of what you write (you are a lawyer, after all) but on this one you seem to be the only level head.

    Is it that hard to wait for real evidence before convcting someone nowadays?

    • uhangtight

      But sensed this did not pass the smell test…

      Something wasn’t stickin’ to the wall as they say..

      • gator_hoo

        You are on the record against Perry and Romney, so man up and say who you are for.

  • ralphdaily

    The problem was Cain’s handling. The accusations were made in the 90′s well before Cain’s political ambitions and the recent activity was driven by political opponents (presumably). One of the women made (probably) a mistake in saying anything. The lawyer should have told her that trying to clear her name was just going to result in more attacks directed at her. She could be destroyed and has my sympathy. Just guessing, but I don’t think it was her idea to bring all this up and guess she felt she had to say something because of all the people calling her house. Apparently her name was well known to the insiders. If Cain had handled this problem a little better he wouldn’t have a problem.

  • ChicaGOP

    … the only thing people are going to remember about the scandal that never was is Cain’s reaction, and how much it resembled Martin Sheen’s duck ‘n cover act at the end of the Dead Zone.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4jng0ZBRUs

    The kid in this case, of course, is played by the Perry campaign.

    • tyman

      Good call!

  • septembergurl

    Why is it so important that the women retain anonymity? To the extent that they risk losing credibility by not speaking publicly? And even more to the point, why is the media respecting this desire for privacy? They never do that!

    It’s as if everyone involved — Cain, the women, the lawyers, the reporters, HRA, — have decided that they are not going to go further in releasing any kind of information that would make these women identifiable. Where are the college roommates, the ex boyfriend, the co-workers. Nothing.

    Leon thinks it’s because the harrassment claims are not credible or serious. But what if they are? Is there another reason why it would not be good for these women to be publicly identified? I think there is.

    If I am right then you are doing an injustice to these women.

  • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

    The women involved here were departing employees. While my experience with employment law is somewhat limited, I think without overgeneralizing that is fair to say that it is a lot easier to convince corporate management to shell out 35-45k in severance pay to a departing employee – who they would likely have given some severance to anyway – than to pay off an accuser who has no other claim on the company’s resources. I watched Cain’s interview with CNN on Tuesday morning, and that was a point he was trying to make about why he didn’t think of this as a settlement so much as a separation agreement for a departing employee that was within the range of what the company might possibly give in severance anyway.

    • clowngirl

      in at least one case.

      Is that really normal severance pay for a departing employee?

      • jakeofalltrades

        nt

    • gator_hoo

      Not that employment law is my specialty either, but if these women made accusations of sexual harassment, there is simply no way that the agreement doesn’t contain a covenant not to sue.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Are all going to agree that there is no evidence of wrongdoing at this point.

    There is also no evidence that the alleged victims are lying.

    We must know the identity of the accusers or this should go nowhere. However, Cain’s response to this was preposterous.

    He should sue this woman as an unnamed defendant through her attorney for defamation and let her defend herself in court. Then we can try the issue and get all the evidence we want into the public record.

    • jakeofalltrades

      And if she doesn’t defend the case, then it will become the law of the United States that Cain did nothing wrong once the default judgment is entered.

  • clowngirl

    It tells us a lot of information about the alleged victim:

    1. She is a married woman of 26 years. Given other mentions of her age at the time of the allegations, it sounds as though this is almost certainly her only marriage.

    2. She is close with her family.

    3. She seems to have been at the same job now for some time and says she loves her job.

    I’d say this doesn’t fit the profile of someone likely to mount a bogus make a bogus sexual harassment allegation. If you were painting the picture of such a person wouldn’t it include a couple of messy divorces, where the ex-husband was put through the ringer, or at the least a series of really bad relationships – which showed a pattern of someone with serious issues with men. Somebody who jumped from job to job — perhaps getting herself fired from time to time so she could milk the unemployment.

    This woman appears to be leading a stable, responsible, and probably upstanding life. There’s nothing to suggest she is remotely likely to have told such a damaging lie in the hopes of a getting a pay off.

    The statement also clearly states that the nature of the harassment included a “series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances” what more do you really need to know? What exact phrases were used.

    You state:

    “I have no idea why it is even a mildly controversial position to state that before a serious accusation is given credence against a Republican by fellow Republicans, we ought to know either the identity of the person making the accusation or enough specifics to a) verify them against known facts and b) evaluate their seriousness so that we can know what should happen if they are true.”

    Taking this line of though to its logical conclusion, Is it your position then, that unless these private citizens are willing to open themselves to mountains of hate mail, constant hounding by the press, and who knows what other repercussions — we should just ignore the fact these allegations were filed and tens of thousands of dollars was paid out in settlements and go on about our business?

    It doesn’t sound like either of the women who made allegations were among the sources for the original Politico story, so I don’t see why anyone thinks it’s their duty to jump into the middle of the train wreck now.

    I have trouble understanding why – in 2 lengthy articles on this woman and her lack of a statement — you’ve never acknowledged the fact that revealing her name would almost certainly cause the alleged victim a very unpleasant ordeal.

    I don’t see it as the responsibility of either of these women to sacrifice their privacy so voters can fully satisfy their curiosity about Herman Cain.

    Just as I think we can look at the facts known about the accuser and, to some extent gauge the likelihood she would tell outrageous and very damaging lies. I also think we can look at the behavior of Herman Cain and form an educated guess as to his innocent or guilt.

    We certainly cannot pronounce him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — but this isn’t a court of law. He’s not facing the loss of his freedom,, he’s seeking a position of great responsibility. And everyone whose posted that they are now less likely to support Cain or absolutely won’t support him are not saying it’s because of how badly he’s handled himself and because of his other problems as a candidate. NOT because they assume the allegations to be true.

    You stated that you don’t think Herman Cain should be the GOP frontrunner — it seems logical then that you also don’t think he should be the GOP nominee. So I find myself wondering why you think it’s so urgent to know the details of the alleged personal failings of a man you don’t think should be nominated anyway.

    • jakeofalltrades

      She’s a family woman? A woman who perhaps would do anything for family? Perhaps even… falsely accuse a presidential candidate in return for a book deal?

      This is the problem with anonymous attacks, and why they never stand up in court. Without knowing who this accuser is, we cannot evaluate her character, rendering her testimony worthless.

      • clowngirl

        You say “She’s a family woman? A woman who perhaps would do anything for family? Perhaps even…falsely accuse a presidential candidate in return for a book deal?”

        It was made clear today by a statement released by the National Restaurant Association that the woman in question did in fact file a complaint and received a settlement back in 1999 long before Herman Cain was a Presidential Candidate or anyone lacking a crystal ball could predict he would be one.

        As to her seeking a book deal. She’s indicated through her attorney that she does not want to share the details of her allegation and prefers to move on with her life. That doesn’t sound like somebody seeking a pay off.

        • jakeofalltrades

          What false fact did I state? Or are you lying about me being misinformed… it really is one or the other.

          • clowngirl

            The National Restaurant Association confirmed today, that this woman made her allegation back in July of 1999. Herman Cain was not, at that time, a Presidential Candidate.

            So she did not “accuse a Presidential Candidate” falsely or otherwise.

            Your statement makes it sound like she just suddenly made something up when Cain started running for President

          • jakeofalltrades

            retire05 already shut me down on that. It wasn’t the women who came forward… it was someone else. That means you win! :)

          • clowngirl

            n/t

      • retire05

        on this one. Everything you have proffered has been hypotheticals.

        There is a blog that I used to spend a lot of time at. But it got taken over, first by Palinistas, then by Cainiacs. And yes, I say Cainiacs because these people are radicals when it comes to Herman Cain. So I popped over there to see the comments on the lawyer’s statement. How about “wh0re, slut, tramp?” This is what this woman faces, not just on blogs where people are supporting Cain, but in the press, as well.

        Would you go public knowing what was facing you if you were a woman? Would you put your family through that? Chances are she has children. Would you want your kids to read the kind of trash about your mom that is already appearing on blogs where people are supportive of Cain?

        I don’t think so.

        • jakeofalltrades

          to show that there is more than one interpretation of the thin evidence we have. There are both anti-Cain and anti-accuser sentiments.

          It’s interesting you raise the issue that these women may not want to come forward. Well then, why did they?

          They need to choose between justice or their privacy. They can’t have both, and the half-measure of coming half-forward is moral cowardice.

          • jakeofalltrades

            replace “sentiments” with “interpretations”

          • jakeofalltrades

            merely by their actions thus far. You think their identities wouldn’t come out then?

          • retire05

            these women did NOT come forward. They were outed by who ever leaked the story to Politico. Politico then proceded to contact at least one of them.

            Get your facts straight before you show yourself to be totally uninformed.

          • jakeofalltrades

            That invalidates my point! Good job. And thanks again.

          • Scope

            I agree with jackofalltrades. Earlier in the week we heard stories that one of the accusers wanted to speak out, but needed a release from the NRA from her NDA to be able to speak out. Her lawyer kept the story going all the way through today, that he was working with the NRA to release her to speak. Late today, her lawyer comes out and says basically she didn’t bring any frivilous suit against Cain, and she stands by her allegations, but, beyond that there is nothing else that she wants to say. I don’t care if her name is/was released, I do care that the statement was so weak and ineffective, answered no ones questions, proves nothing of her innocense or Cain’s guilt that the statement was useless. Absolutely useless. The only time anyone will be able to judge the issue is if there are actual details released. If the accuser wanted to remain anonymous, and keep the past in the past, she should have kept the past in the past, and not her or her attorney should have come forward and teased the media. It was a tease for sure.

            I agree that if Cain went after the accusers, in a lawsuit of defamation against the accuser were brought forward by Cain, it would necessarily release the details of the case, and everyone would have a basis to judge the he said she said case. Cain will never, ever come forward and talk about the details, never. It is not in his best interest to do so. Unfortunately now, the story will die, until it is resurected again at a very innopportune time, like in the general if Cain is the nominee.

            There is also the second accuser that has not made a peep. Will she make her more than peeps in the general. No one knows anything about these women. Nothing. Are they democrats? Accuser number today obviously works for the government, and obviously has her government job to protect.

            Whatever it takes for the stories to come out now, in the primary to come out will be a whole lot better to deal with now, rather than to have it all come out in the general with the shoved down your throat nominee Cain.

          • congressworksforus

            Now the NRA has effetively given her the oppotunity to speak and she has declined.

            Here’s what likely happened. She was outed. Her previous lawyer smelled money, but she realized here was nothing here to camp out on and declined to speak.

            Remeber — she has NEVER spoken; only Politico and her lawyer (no doubt a scumbag Dem–contributing lawyer at that) have been heard from.

          • jakeofalltrades

            sans codus

          • retire05

            we know that the Politico piece was done on Sunday, Oct. 30th. We know that Cain had a different response to it on Monday morning than he did on Monday evening with Greta Van Sustern. We know that Cain seems to have “recalled” a hellofa lot in just a few short hours.

            We also know that this woman did not leak the story, but that someone else did, to Politico and Politico had her name and contacted her. We know that Politico gave at least one of the names of the women to the Team Cain prior to the release of the story.

            We also know that we heard NOTHING from her on Monday, Oct. 31, until Cain was on Greta saying the woman was a bad employee. Her lawyer then spoke out on Tuesday, Nov. 1st. Her lawyer then tells us she wants to speak out, but via him. She wanted to make a statement, but had to be released from the NDA in order to even comment on her own behalf, in spite of Cain slandering her.

            Now, if we were to think that the woman simply wanted her 15 minutes of fame, and the money, book deals, etc. that goes along with those 15 minutes, her lawyer would have lined up paying interviews that CNN, MSNBC, et al, would be more than happy to cough up good money in deals that were immediately sealed the minute the NRA gave her permission to speak out.

            None of this was of her doing. She did not want to be dragged into a candidates past, she was drug into it by other forces. By not going in front of the cameras herself, she protects not just herself, but her family, her employer, her neighbors and probably the children she might have. Would you be so willing to jump in front of a camera knowing you were going to wind up with press vans parked in front of your home and your neighbors, friends and family being harassed 24/7?

            And what else do we know? We know that the original Politico report was basically true and it forced Herman Cain to reveal his past. That was the original intent to begin with. Just as the rock story was designed to cast doubt on Rick Perry, the Politico story was designed to cast doubt on Cain. In that much, it probably has suceeded.

            David Axelrod is salivating at the prospect of Herman Cain being the nominee. I guar-an-damn-tee it.

          • Scope

            If the accuser wanted to remain anonymous she could have done that by remaining anonymous, just as accuser number two has done. She, and her lawyer could very easily have stayed out of the limelight. No one asked her, or her attorney to come forward with anything. To come forward that she wanted to make a statement was a tease, which evolved in a deflated balloon with her attorneys weak statement today, which accomplished nothing for either side.

            There is still another accuser no one has heard anything from, nothing. It will be a total disaster if accuser number one or two both decide to come forward in the general. I want to know the story now in the primary season. The NRA released accuser to make statements now, they would then have to release accuser number two later. I don’t want any bombshell’s in the general.

          • retire05

            who she was. Her lawyer said there were reporters at her house but she had left her home and was staying with friends. The NYSlimes seems to know who she was. And her lawyer NEVER said she was going to make a statement, personally, did he?

            But believe me, if Cain is the nominee, there ARE going to be bombshells, all lobbed by David Axelrod. The stakes are just too high for Obama.

          • Scope

            that so many already knew the identity of any accusers. If so many knew her identity, why isn’t the name out there? I know that some leftist media knows the names, and it makes me more curious why the names are not known to us, and everyone?

            I am really concerned that the names, histories, and credibility of the accusers are going to come out in the general if Cain is the nominee. Why is this so convoluted? Why is every right leaning person coming out to protect Cain?

            I’ve all but had it with this whole election season. I am at the point where I just want to walk away and bury my head in the sand. I will not allow anyone to choose the candidate, and that includes the radio hosts. My husband is already on the I am not voting thingy. Isn’t it funny that so many were incensed that the race was just because it was between Romney and Perry, and we aren’t going to take it anymore. I’m not going to have Cain shoved down my throat by the Cainiacs. That is a factual statement. I will stay home, along with mu husband.

          • Scope

            come out in support of any better Republican candidate in 08? Case closed.

          • gekster

            You are to intelligent to let that happen.
            The reason that it seams more frantic now is that you are paying closer attention.
            More is at stake now than in the past.

          • Scope

            Today, I cannot support Herman Cain in the general election. Just as he said he couldn’t support Perry if he was the nominee in the general. The Cainiacs want to put weight on the “today” and I will also put the same weight on my support on Cain as the nominee. Today, I cannot support Cain if he is the nominee in the general. As the Cainiacs never determined what it would take for Cain to support Perry, Cain now has to make some miracles for me to vote for him, and that isn’t likely. I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee though, and I can’t stand the flipper flopper.

          • gekster

            And I hope acat has those nose plugs for sale by the gross,
            if needed, :)

          • jakeofalltrades

            He is the only one who leaves the party worse off long term by being elected.

            But I only recently came to Jesus on that issue. If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

          • tngal

            look, something could still happen to Cain or Perry or another candidate for that matter. There is a lot of time left. And I’m saying that as a huge Cain supporter. But “pulling a Streiff” is not the way to go. I’m sorry you feel he’s been pushed down your throat. Ironically, I’ve felt that here at RS, Perry was being forced down mine.

            It boiled down to the same talking points.

            One side: How come you can’t see my viewpoint.
            The other : How come you can’t see mine.
            One side: But you’re on the wrong side.
            The other. Maybe, but its the side I chose.
            One side: But you have to join us over here, or everything’s lost.
            The other: Really, why don’t you join us over here? Then we’ll all be on the same side and together we can win.

            (“Pulling a Streiff” – refusing to wear noseplugs for the good of the country.)

          • retire05

            hear about other things about other candidates. But my word, how can you support a man who so handled this whole scandal so pathetically? Are you that blind to Cain’s weaknesses?

            Cain skated on this because the woman involved does not want to destroy her life by going public. That doesn’t mean that at some point, David Axelrod is not going to take Cain to the cleaners with another scandal, or more revelations about this one. Axelrod is known to play dirty, and he is not going to go light on Cain.

            Had Cain dealt with this in the right way, he would not be accusing others of leaking what was eventually going to come out from first, Perry to Rahm Emanuel. Who ever leaked this doesn’t eliminate the fact that Politico was basically correct in what they reported. Cain was simply trying to obfuscate the damage by directing the blame on someone else. That, in my estimation, was not an honorable thing to do.

            I will never vote for a dishonorable person.

          • tngal

            I don’t know who came up with the rham emmanuel. Yes cain pointed a finger at Perry, and walked back But your man Perry pointed a pretty quick finger at Romney.

            The halo over Mr. Perry’s camp isn’t quite as shiny as you think. Perhpas it best to say the communication directors this time out need a little seasoning.

            ____
            That is false, patently untrue, no one at this campaign was involved in this story,” said Perry communications director Ray Sullivan.
            Sullivan then suggested to CBS News and National Journal reporter Rebecca Kaplan that Mitt Romney’s campaign is behind the allegations.
            “I wouldn’t put it past them,” he said, stating that blog posts have noted that Cain’s successor at the Restaurant Association “is a big Romney donor.”
            _____

            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20129304-503544/perry-camp-denies-leaking-explosive-cain-story/

          • retire05

            But he damn sure is better than an egotistical novice who botched a scandal that he certainly knew was coming, sooner or later. And I have no respect for a man who accuses another candidate of being the “leaker” without proof.

            As far as Curt Anderson goes, he is not stupid. He knows that there will be other campaigns to work on in the future and he would not risk destroying his career to slam Cain.

            Your animus toward Rick Perry is just as disgusting as Cain’s. I guess you just can’t deal with the fact that Rick Perry, and all the other candidates, have something your guy doesn’t; an actual record to run on and an actual record to tell us how they would govern.

            To quote Woodrow Call: I cannot abide rude behavior in a man.

            Cain’s behavior toward Rick Perry has been rude.

          • gekster

            If anything, I heard on Hanity radio when he more than reafirmed it.
            Cain yelling about baseless claims about him,
            then making baseless claims about Perry.

          • Scope

            how to think. Streiff has the right to think and feel the way he does, as do I. Your posts have helped to solidify my thinking. I will not vote for an incompetent lying dishonest nincompoop, period. It’s too bad some of the so-called conservatives I used to listen to and admire, Rush being one, went all in for stupid, with pushing the message that our black guy is better than your black guy, I reject their new found brand of race baiting so-called conservatism.

          • clowngirl

            Her statement thanks the media for their restraint. But is really surprising that left wing media would be “restrained” during the primary when they’re likely now praying that Cain will be the nominee.

            Her lawyer said previously that media were camped out at her house and she was staying with relatives. The NY Times has printed stories from people they say knew her- so there’s probably a fair number of people who could have leaked her identity.

          • Scope

            almost did us a favor. It is a fact that there were two settlements against Cain for sexual harassment. Cain has admitted that himself. No one has heard peep from the second accuser, and it strikes me odd that the first accuser changed her mind to speak about the allegations, despite being given approval to speak by the NRA. Before the accusers attorney read the letter late yesterday afternoon, someone from the NRA made the statement that the whole story was a “hatchet job.” I suspect that the left will go quite now on the story, and that it will be like waiting for the sharks to attack when/if Cain becomes the nominee. I’ve read that not only does Politico have the accusers names, but the WaPo does also, and now the NYT.

            I would like to think that the talking heads on the right, such as Rush, are just trying to fight back against the leftist media, however, why haven’t they come to all of the candidates defense when they have been attacked, like the WaPo Perry rock story. What is really disturbing and dangerous, is that some I once had respect for are now using the race card. What happens when the leftists release the accusers names, and one or the other decides to talk, after the talking heads help him to get the nomination? They are playing a very dangerous game that may go all the way to helping Obama get re-elected.

          • Scope

            were pointed out by the Politico article. But, one of the accusers, through her attorney, did come out against the charges. He has teased the media all week that she wanted to make a statement, but was hampered by the confidentiality agreement. He comes out today and basically says my client doesn’t want to speak.

            There was absolutely nothing resolved by his statement, and still no one has any idea of what happened. We know there was a settlement, but are still left with for what. It doesn’t exonerate Cain, but the weak statement doesn’t exonerate the accuser. We are still at point zero with knowing there were settlements but no details.

            The ladies names will surely come out, at least a few news orgs. have their names, and those news orgs are all leftist. They will hold the names until the very best time to bring them out. It won’t be pretty for the Republican party. The radio talk show hosts have been playing with fire to go all out for Cain. It will bite them.

    • lightspeed

      Your speculation and inferences have no basis in fact. Until you have some facts, shut up. Seriously. You are enaging in a smear. Remember Clarence Thomas? There was a lot more “there” there. We had a specific accuser, specific allegations, In the end, most people judged Anita Hill not credble, but there were at least facts upon which to make that judgement. Why wouldn’t we give a staunch conservative with no past history of anything the benefit of the doubt? Why are you so willing to believe something ill of this man?

      • clowngirl

        We are adults and are regularly called upon to make a determination about who is lying and who is telling the truth — without the luxury of being spoon fed all the evidence.

        I have determined that Herman Cain lied about a number of things since this story broke. I don’t buy that he just remembered more as time wore on. I have formed no conclusions as to his guilt or innocence on the original allegations. I don’t particularly care if he’s guilty of harassment or not.

        Lightspeed,

        We are called upon as voters to judge whether the candidates presented to us are ready and able to be President of the United States. Cain’s handling of these allegations has settled the question for me decidedly in the negative. He’s not qualified. He hasn’t shown the kind of character — in the present — that we need in a President.

        But Cain isn’t the only one being “smeared” is he? There have been a large number of posts saying or implying that the original accusers are big fat liars.

        I don’t stomach very well — and find it offensive to suggest that unless these women are willing to sacrifice their privacy they are lying scam artists. So I think it’s appropriate to point out the blatant flaws in such a notion.

        • lightspeed

          just accusations. I judge no one based on an accusation alone and neither should you. In your previous post you tried to present the accuser(s) in a sympathetic light? Why? We still don’t know what the charges are!! Did he wink at her the wrong way, call her “Sweetie,” comment on the dress she was wearing, pinch her, grope her, threaten her job, what? And don’t trot out the story about him inviting a woman back to his apartment because there is nothing to substatiate that at this point. These women may have serious allegations against Cain, but, to this point, we don’t know what they are, unlike Anita Hill, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc. When the media unfairly smears your candidate (as they may have already done if you support Perry), will you be so quick to judge?

          • clowngirl

            I have repeatedly told you that I am not assuming Cain is guilty.

            The woman whose statement just came out said he made repeated unwelcome “advances” there are other accounts from people who apparently knew her that say Herman Cain hit on her at a party and invited her up to his room..

            that may or may not be true – I don’t know or especially care.

            It isn’t this woman’s job to fill us in in the details. It wasn’t her who sourced the story.

            It’s my impression that she was probably honest and Cain probably did something. He’s certainly acting like someone with something to hide.

            But — and this is the last time I’m repeating this. ;) I’m not assuming Cain is guilty except of lying or being slippery with regard to various aspects of this story.

            I am not basing my opinion of him on his past conduct but on his present actions.

            I defended the woman in question because I think there is no cause for accusing her of lying. She might’ve lied — but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to suggest that is particularly likely and there’s some evidence to suggest she is not lying.

            I think it’s wrong to attack a private citizen just because they’ve embarrassed a Presidential candidate. See: Joe the Plumber

    • clowngirl

      Those who have stated that they are less likely to support Cain — or absolutely won’t support Cain have said (at least in the posts I have seen ) that it’s due to his lack of qualifications and his handling of these allegations NOT because they assume the allegations to be true.

      • lightspeed

        But your initial post implied that you believe the allegations to be true, quote:
        “This woman appears to be leading a stable, responsible, and probably upstanding life. There?s nothing to suggest she is remotely likely to have told such a damaging lie in the hopes of a getting a pay off.

        The statement also clearly states that the nature of the harassment included a ?series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances? what more do you really need to know?”

        What more do we need to know? Um, the actual truth maybe, supported by some, you know, actual evidence. Is that too much to ask?

        • lightspeed

          oops

        • clowngirl

          I take issue with the fact a lot of people seem to be presuming these women guilty of lying. And with the notion that their unwillingness to sacrifice their privacy proves they are lying.

          To some extent you are correct. Somebody is lying here and I do think — having read this statement and having seen Cain’s reaction — that he’s more than likely guilty of something and the woman was telling the truth.

          But I’m not certain of that — and it’s not why I’m not supporting Cain.

          As to my comment: “what more do you need to know” I didn’t mean to imply that her word was automatically true– what I meant was I don’t understand what anyone would expect to gain by knowing all the gory details.

          I can see that I should’ve phrased it better.

          Would knowing how exactly he phrased an invite to come upstairs lead to blazing insight as to whether the incident ever happened at all?

          I don’t really understand the fixation on details. There was no concrete evidence either way — and while it might be nice to be able to see all parties involved and evaluate their credibility for ourselves– that would come at too high a cost to the alleged victims and we’ll have to be satisfied with evaluating Cain’s credibility.

          Does that clear things up?

          • clowngirl

            would knowing how he ALLEGEDLY phrased an invite…..

          • daveoconnor

            is spot on. Herman Cain is paying it.

  • lightspeed

    how many of you want to keep this rumor mill alive. As Leon so aptly described, there is nothing to this story at this point and no indication there ever will be. As it stands, it is a smear campaign along the same lines as the whsper campaign against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000. The fact that a front-pager here at RedState piled on so eagerly with NO SUBSTANTIATION OF ANY WRONGDOING is pathetic. Whether you like Cain or not, want to vote for him or not, he is a Republican, a conservative, and deseves the benefit of the doubt. If you want to elevate your candidate by tearing everyone else down, what does that really say about your guy? I am not going to blame the Perry camp for spawning this story, as Cain did, but it is truly interesting that Perry supporter here have been piling on the most. Desperate times call for desperate measures, eh guys?

    • federalfarmer1

      I’m very surprised at the failure of many supposedly conservative posters to critically examine these claims. Instead, it seems they are happy about it. Lost a lot of respect for many I used to regularly read.

    • davesinsanantonio

      based on the accusations, but because of the poor way he has been handling them. Especially when (1) he knew all along that there had been something going on when he was a NRA and just after he left it. And, (2) he was given 10 days advanced notice by Politico that they were going to release the story.
      It is akin to his weak responses so far to foreign affairs questions. He has known for a couple of years, at least, that he had an interest in running for the presidency, but has done almost nothing to prepare for foreign affairs questions. And, foreign affairs is one of the president’s constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It is almost as if he is merely playing at being a candidate, or he really has little understanding of what the office entails.
      The fact that he talks and sings well, although he has had to “walk back” many of his statements on various issues, is not enough to elect him to the highest office in the land. Any of you remember Barry Obummer’s lack of experience???

  • unitedwestand

    The woman accuser claimed that Herman made her uncomfortable because he put his hand to his chin and noted that she was that tall, the same height as his wife. Herman even confirmed that was in the womans claim.

    IF something inappropriate had actuallly happened, do you think she would have to use something so trivial and baseless in her claim????? NO, because she would have had an actual example of REAL sexual harassment, and therefore never would have used such a silly and ridiculous example of something that “made her unconfortable”.

    And all you conservatives who have thrown Herman under the bus over this, whether you support him or not, should be ashamed of yourselves because after one week of bloodhound reporters digging for more dirt, there is still NO HARD PROOF. Why don’t you go on over to the other side and be a liberal, since you’re acting like one. Republicans/Conservatives should all be outraged over the media attacks on one of our own with NO PROOF, just “anonymous witnesses” who seem to be ghosts.

    And Politico should be ashamed of themselves too for throwing integrity and honest journalism out the window so they could sucker punch a Republican.

    If you still have your head in the sand over media bias, have you heard anywhere in the news outlets about Jesse Jackson being sued for sexual harassment? NO??? Well he is but of course the media will keep that one quiet if they can: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/jesse-jackson-sexual-harassment-tommy-bennett_n_974310.html

    • arcangel

      The only person describing the innocent gesture (the hand to the chin) that I have heard is Herman Cain.

      Did I miss something? Was there an official detailing of the accusation?

    • davesinsanantonio

      sexual misbehavers to the bitter end. The Republicans tend to set higher standards for their people. As well they should, the libs’ standards being next to non-existent. If fact, for the libs the ultimate sin seems to be getting caught.

      And please get this through your head, most of us are not saying the accusations are true, we are saying that he reacted so badly to them. Especially given the ten day notice he had that the story was coming out. If he cannot do better with a ten day notice, how will he react to another sneak terrorist attack on this country or its assets? How will he react to a major national disaster? To some kind of economic melt-down? His track record so far does not bode well for the future.

  • unitedwestand

    The woman accuser claimed that Herman made her uncomfortable because he put his hand to his chin and noted that she was that tall, the same height as his wife. Herman even confirmed that was in the womans claim.

    IF something inappropriate had actuallly happened, do you think she would have to use something so trivial and baseless in her claim????? NO, because she would have had an actual example of REAL sexual harassment, and therefore never would have used such a silly and ridiculous example of something that “made her unconfortable”.

    And all you conservatives who have thrown Herman under the bus over this, whether you support him or not, should be ashamed of yourselves because after one week of bloodhound reporters digging for more dirt, there is still NO HARD PROOF. Why don’t you go on over to the other side and be a liberal, since you’re acting like one. Republicans/Conservatives should all be outraged over the media attacks on one of our own with NO PROOF, just “anonymous witnesses” who seem to be ghosts.

    And Politico should be ashamed of themselves too for throwing integrity and honest journalism out the window so they could sucker punch a Republican.

    If you still have your head in the sand over media bias, have you heard anywhere in the news outlets about Jesse Jackson being sued for sexual harassment? NO??? Well he is but of course the media will keep that one quiet if they can: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/jesse-jackson-sexual-harassment-tommy-bennett_n_974310.html

  • dirlie

    I came to this board looking for a conservative place of thoughts and interchange. What I have found is that there is a strong contingent of my way or the high way pseudo conservatives who chose Perry early on and bludgeoned anyone who dare to disagree or question their self appointed Messiah. The allegations, ALLEGATIONS, against Herman Cain are thin at best and the fact that we have so called conservatives on this board jumping in with the likes of Politico, really says more than I care to even believe. I think you should be ashamed if you are bashing Herman Cain based on these flimsy accusations. I think it says a lot when one of the moderators on this board comes on and claims there is proof of sexual misconduct when there is absolutely none whatsoever. Is this what modern Conservatism has become? An island like Lord of the Flies where the bully’s beat up anyone who just doesn’t quiet fit. I was leaning Cain and still lean that way. I bet I am like many reading on this board and others, I just have not made up my mind yet on who the best conservative hope is. But you Perry Stompers, you guys are really hurting your candidate and this incessant drum beat against Cain on really pathetic evidence is making you look foolish and at this point the very integrity of this board is in question. Is it Red State? or Perry or else State?

    • jakeofalltrades

      Give me a link to a moderator saying there was proof of sexual harassment.

      • lightspeed

        he called Cain a liar multiple times, when in fact, as CBS reported, Cain was not a signatory to the severance and may not have even known about it due to having left the organization. His entire post was full of implication if not outright definitive accusation. He engaged in a smear without having all (hardly any) of the facts. To me, his credibility is shot, and the fact that he is often featured on the front page diminishes this site.

        • jakeofalltrades

          Because if you won’t link, you need to at least quote him.

          • lightspeed

            From streiff’s front-page diary:

            “Through a period of four days Cain has engaged in evasions and outright lies over the events.” (Does streiff offer any proof of lying? CBS News says Cain may very well NOT have known about the second complaint)

            “Regardless of the actual facts in the case, Herman Cain?s total absence of honesty and integrity since Sunday should be a clue as to the character of this candidate. It also serves as a clue to the truth of the allegations.” (Streiff implies that the allegations are true because Cain has been evasive and dishonest. Even if Cain has been both, that is no proof of anything.)

            “Herman Cain?s pattern of lying about these incidents began in 2003, by his own admission, when he told his campaign manager there was one incident while he knew there were at least two settlements.” (How does Strieff know he knew? Any evidence for this claim? See above).

            “And when he is confronted, rather than candor and truthfulness he engages in attacks, lies, and evasions.”.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Nothing you quoted says anything about proof of sexual harassment.

            I’m getting tired of you.

          • lightspeed

            But he absolutely implied that the allegations are true:

            ?Regardless of the actual facts in the case, Herman Cain?s total absence of honesty and integrity since Sunday should be a clue as to the character of this candidate. It also serves as a clue to the truth of the allegations.?

            You want to harp on a technicallity, saving there was nothing said about “proof” of sexual harassment, fine, but that is the refuge of a coward. We all know what Streiff meant, you included. He doesn’t care about the facts, only that he believes Cain lied (with no proof) and as such the allegations must be true. You have nothing to add to this conversation.

            You are tired of me? Good, glad to know that you wear down so easily when someone challenges you.

          • jakeofalltrades

            “I think it says a lot when one of the moderators on this board comes on and claims there is proof of sexual misconduct when there is absolutely none whatsoever.”

            Since the only thing there’s absolutely no proof of is the allegation you made.

          • jakeofalltrades

            “Good, glad to know that you wear down so easily when someone challenges you.”

            I can only be long-suffering with one or the other; the both of them together is intolerable.

          • lightspeed

            First: I didn’t make the original statement about the moderators.

            Second: Resorting to personal attacks (“aggressive stupidity”). End of argument.

          • jakeofalltrades

            n/t

          • jakeofalltrades

            But now you also get to be a hypocrite. :)

          • Tbone

            by lying about how many there were and when and what he knew about them.

          • lightspeed

            about both accusers. Keep up with the news:

            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318500-503544/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/accusers-lawyer-says/

            You have no evidence that he lied.

          • jakeofalltrades

            streiff’s allegations of deceit. But not the entire point he’s making, which is summed up in this:

            Through a period of four days Cain has engaged in evasions and outright lies over the events.

            He certainly evaded. The answer to the question, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?” would have been, “yes,” otherwise.

          • jakeofalltrades

            It would be malpractice and probably unethical for the attorney in the settlement not to have contacted Cain.

          • Tbone

            would contact Cain for his side of the story and that Cain would not subsequently inquired as to the outcome? If so, then the lawyer is an idiot, Cain is an idiot or you are an idiot.

            PS. Change your name to lightweight.

          • jakeofalltrades

            I only spotted that issue – belatedly – because ethics was my best course in law school.

          • pttx333

            involved and certainly all of the pertinent parties to any settlement and confidentiality agreement. It is my understanding that the agreement(s) were signed the same month that Cain stepped down as CEO. And he didn’t know anything? Sure, uh huh … but does that make him guilty as charged? Maybe so, maybe no. But something is rotten in Denmark somewhere along the line, IMHO.

          • dirlie

            I am sorry if I incorrectly identified Streiff as a moderator, he certainly has dominated the conversation on Herman Cain. The insinuations are clear and he posted a post saying now we have sex in the sex scandal. We have no such thing, We have nothing. We have a pitiful accusation made by puppets behind curtains with their strings attached to Politico. But worse than that, we have Perry’s pit bulls who just can’t seem to help themselves from piling on. You know what is funny about this is that Newt has crept up. Perry is now in 4th place !!!! Don’t look now Ron Paul is gaining on you !!!!!

          • lightspeed

            So if they can destroy Cain maybe Perry can get up to 8%, lol. Perry is dull, uninspiring and going nowhere fast. And if you Perry guys think that Cain supporters will defect to Perry over this, you’re crazy. I can’t wait until Ron Paul passes Perry in the polls. Heads will explode.

          • gekster

            and his poll #s are now up to 13%, from Fox earlier today.
            So if Perry is done, why is his #s up.
            And no one is destroying Cain faster than Cain himself.
            Fail to see that and it is you in denial.

          • lightspeed

            in my opinion. Let’s see him recover from that. I appreciate your loyalty and support of Perry, I just don’t see him getting much traction. His money and organization can only do so much and he has wounded himself far more than Cain has. I could be wrong, but I just don’t see him recovering. If he does and wins the nomination, I will be there pulling the lever for him next November with no reservations. Let’s see where he is polling a month from now.

          • iidvbii

            Everyone who has piled on Perry in those debates has lost ground as a result except romney who is the establishment choice.
            Cain by comparison is a walkimg gaffe, from the right of return, executing mexicans through his failed attempts to manage a story he had a ten day heads up on the man is a nightmare. His only role in the primary seems to be gettimg romney the nomination.
            “The koch brothers are my brothers from another mother” isnt that todays quote? Yeah i can just picture good ol Herman speaking before the UN ….. Makes quite the image doesnt it????
            Cain will not be president.
            Just wait untill people finally get around to asking questions like “When you took over god fathers pizza is was ranked third nationally, on your departure it had fallen to sixth. How is that a success?”
            Remembering of course its his ability to speak and supposed business savy that his supporters argue make this rank amature exceptable to hold the most powerful office on earth after all.

          • 1bunny

            too and wonder when this will finally become common knowledge. I don’t think taking a company from third to sixth is a good businessman. Wake up America!

          • Tbone

            I am almost sure of that.

          • jakeofalltrades

            We still don’t know the identities of these accusers…

          • davesinsanantonio

            two or three months from now. Polls mean next to nothing. Especially ones run by libs, as most of them are.

            P. S. Some of those libs are Republicans. So, beware!

          • onemovoter

            I’m searching for it but can’t find it this late at night. I am wanting to see how the advertising and interviews are doing for Perry.

            I appreciate any help on that.

          • gekster

            I’ll see what I can find. Give me a few.

          • gekster

            via intensity, thanks.

            ABC/Washington Post poll 11-4

            1. Mitt Romney 24%
            2. Herman Cain 23%
            3. Rick Perry 13%
            4. Newt Gingrich 12%
            5. Ron Paul 8%
            6. Michele Bachmann 4%
            7. Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum 1%

            pdf results

            I just noticed this is a Herb diary, will stop threadjack now.

          • onemovoter

            I’ll be digging through the PDF as well.

            Now if I could just find this one poll someone posted a few days ago that was taken almost 3 weeks ago. I was reading the PDF internals and it was REALLY interesting. Maybe this poll will have the same questions.

          • snowshooze

            Yeah, poor ‘ol Cain has a hair trigger on his mouth..but it is ok, he usually has his foot jammed in it anyway.
            That is simply an observation.
            Cain is loveable enough.. but where is the beef?
            All I get so far is 999, there needs to be a plank somewhere.

    • unitedwestand

      I just finished posting my comment, then yours came up. We the Republicans should all be tearing Obama, Biden, and Reid apart on their actions and poor performance instead of having spats with each other. This is why Obama won- the Republican party can’t get it together and say “United We Stand”.

      • westcoastpatriette

        Have you ever heard of the term “vetting’?

        That is what is good about RedState–all voices, impressions, opinions, etc. are allowed to be expressed. Unless, of course, you are outside the Republican Party.

        That is what primaries are for. Debate, disagreement and arguments are good for all involved as it helps us make up our minds as we listen to the intense discussions that take place about each candidate.

        This phony desire or expectation that we all should hold hands and sing kumbaya is unrealistic and unhealthy.

        We will unite after the primary. Now is the time to vet–and vet we shall.

        Accusing RS of bias is just the outburst of those who are not always liking what they hear or read. If you don’t like it, you can always stop coming here.

        • jakeofalltrades

          sin palabras :)

        • congressworksforus

          sorry if I offend anyone.

          This isn’t vetting, it’s a Goddamned witch-hunt!

          It’s not any different to people who thought Perry himself spray-painted NIGGER (there, I said it) on a rock in somee place he used to hunt in.

          I SERIOUSLY question if some of the folks on here are’t bought-and-paid-for Obamabots.

          Good grief; you are making RON PAUL supporters look sane.

          Like I said, long day…

          • jakeofalltrades

            This is just what happens when vetting meets the internet.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Oh, I guess you’re one of the ones who can’t handle hearing things you don’t like. Poor baby.

    • mach5

      Around here remind me of Rick Santorum in the debates, the child in the room shouting “LOOK AT ME!! LOOK AT ME!!! I HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY!”

      • jakeofalltrades

        are for Perry. Anyone here still for Santorum?

  • attherubicon

    Even if the allegations against Mr. Cain are true, we as a nation decided in 1992 that they do not disqualify a person from becoming president. I’m not in agreement with that decision, but the precedent has been set. Both sides should honor it.

    • jakeofalltrades

      I’m glad to know the absolute chaos I’ve witnessed over the last week was just a hallucination.

    • davesinsanantonio

      wrong? Even if it is the popular thing?

      Is that what integrity is, following the crowd???

      Again, it is not so much the accusation, it is Cain’s lousy response to it! Especially given the ten day warning he received that it was coming out.

  • johnt

    no hanging around outside funeral palors,and hospitals, way to go Bennett. When do we officially declare all this just plain, old, smelly bull—-?
    Poor Streiff will have to find another soapbox, he may even have to support some Republican candidate to oppose Obama, life is tough.
    We might even get back to the person who’s trying tp destroy America, our president, to OWS violence breaking out, to more union thugs threatening mob action, little things like that.

    • txpat

      Will come forward with a one on one interview.
      Her attorney is most likely fielding offers right now.
      Once pandora’s box is opened more will be hopping on the Cain show me the money train.
      Just my opinion.

      • johnt

        but I would at least suggest you not hold your breath on this one.

  • westbrook348

    because I don’t care. Maybe Cain screwed up, maybe he didn’t. Most likely he didn’t. But who cares? He already lost my vote months ago. He support the TARP bailout, promoted Alan Greenspan as his favorite Fed Chairman, mocked people calling for an audit of the Fed, and missed the housing bubble completely (instead, defending the economic policies of Bush, who helped inflate the bubble then screwed us over w/ the bailouts). The guy is not a fiscal conservative, any more than Romney is. They both know the business world. So what? If they promote the same policies as previous politicians that I’ve hated, then all that business experience doesn’t do them any good. Cain could be 100% innocent of sexual irresponsibility, and it doesn’t matter to me. The guy is not going to get my vote.

    • renl57

      If we were just choosing a spokesperson for the GOP or the conservative movement, I wouldn’t care about these allegations either.

      But we need to choose a candidate who can attract Independent voters and female voters who aren’t all loyal Republicans. Otherwise he can’t win the general election.

      So it’s not just how this looks to us. It’s how this might look to the electorate generally.

      Along with Cain’s general ignorance of foreign policy, it just adds to the perception that Cain isn’t a serious candidate. And the general amateurish way he’s handled this, makes me worry about how he would handle all the other dirt that Obama would throw at him as Election Day drew nearer.

      • clintonformccain

        I joke that I would vote for Charles Manson over Barack Obama if that’s who the Republicans nominate. But, I can’t vote for Herman Cain. I can’t vote for a President who doesn’t even know that China has the bomb. Sorry.

        To me, it’s a disgrace to the Republican Party that he’s leading the polls.

        • lightspeed

          Would you vote for him? Quote:

          ?Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the fount of all wisdom. As a matter of fact they were very much afraid if that because they?d just had this experience with this far-away government that had centralized thought process and planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away from that kind of onerous crown if you will.?

          I don’t think Perry believes that the revolution was in the 16th century any more than Cain believes that China doesn’t have the bomb. People misspeak all the time. Get over it.

          • jakeofalltrades

            Facepalm! My pseudo slogan for my candidate is “I promise I’m not Bush under this latex mask”, and now, he has Bushisms.

            Great.

          • lightspeed

            http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/rick-perrys-16th-century-gaffe-the-full-quote.php?ref=fpc

          • jakeofalltrades

            In the spirit of even-handedness, I’m gonna make your link active below:

            Seriously?

            And here’s my response.

          • lightspeed

            If Perry is the nominee the media will brand him “Bush III” and this kind of stuff won’t help. Next year is going to be exceptionally ugly, no matter who we put out there.

          • westbrook348

            And polls (irrelevant as they are at this point) seem to show that he will have difficulty wooing moderates. Personally, I’d much rather have Perry than either Cain or Romney. But I know independents are extremely disinterested in electing another Bush. Even if they dislike Obama, and the economy continues to tank, they might not go for Perry. It all depends on how well he can set himself apart from the last Republican president. I actually thought Bush was a better debater than Perry’s been, too, so I’m nervous about nominating him.

          • jakeofalltrades

            And Perry has the best shot of defeating Romney, IMO.

            Remember, he’s not running against Obama. He’s running against 10% unemployment. It’s gonna be slam dunk.

            But eight years of comparisons to Bush are gonna give me migraines.

          • greyeagle

            You are correct, I think Perry can beat Romney. He has also been fighting with Obama over TX for the past three years. Everything about Perry is out there. No big surprises. The media may say he is like Bush and I liked Bush. Perry is nothing like Bush. The only similar thing is they are both from TX and wear cowboy boots. However, half the men in TX wear them too. I also think Perry can beat Obama too. Perry has a record, and Obama has a teleprompter.

          • pttx333

            x

          • timkellogg

            No matter who we put up there, even if it was to be someone not actually in the running, the “perfect” candidate, or the “Reagan”, which are two different things…next year will be very ugly and this won’t be avoided by picking the right candidate in the primary.

          • clintonformccain

            He’s been a successful governor of the 2nd largest state in the country for a decade. I think he’s qualified to be President,

            I would also vote for Mitt Romney, who I cannot stand. Even though I think he’s a phoney, I think he meets the basic qualifications to be President.

            To be perfectly honest, I’m so disgusted with both parties right now, that I don’t really much care who the Republicans nominate. They seem hellbent on turning nominations into Sharon Angle/Christine O’Donnell/Herman Cain jokes.

        • windwaker24

          I was going to write my 1st diary about my feelings towards this whole primary, but I can’t get my train of the thought together because I’m so upset and I don’t want to offend anyone since techinally I’m an outsider as in I belong to no Party. I’ve always held Republicans at a higher regard for their respect for the Constitution and their ability to keep emotion out of their decision making. This whole primary is a mess! I saw an article today that Obama’s approval rating is actually going up because of this turmoil.

          • gekster

            This stuff has been going on forever.
            And all primaries have thier messes.
            It’s the nature of the beast.
            It is just that now you are paying closer attention to it.

            And get your thoughts together and post your diary.
            If you are worried about offending people, don’t.
            No matter what you write, someone will be offended.
            Just say what you feel and what you think, and let the chips fall.
            That is what makes some writers good.
            And if someone does get offended, be glad you made them think enough to have an opinion on the matter.

          • westbrook348

            This is what I like to see at RedState. We may have disagreements, but at least we can discuss politics with respect.

            windwaker24: I too look forward to your first diary post.

          • jakeofalltrades

            j/k

          • windwaker24

            but it looks like I don’t have privileges. T-Bone wrote an excellent diary, expressing some of my exact thoughts, so I’ve calmed down a little bit, but I’m still a bit disappointed about the double standards I’ve witnessed this week on the GOP side.

          • gekster

            Wright your diary, and submit it to the contact page asking for posting privilages.
            I don’t know if that will work, but it’s worth a try.

            (and my friends use a small g) ;)

            Zelda forever. LOL

          • windwaker24

            Sorry, it’s a habit when I write a name. It’s an English major thing! Proper names get capitalized! ;)

      • congressworksforus

        All he has to do is pick the right VP.

        Hate to break it to you, but the only thing that matters is the economy and jobs.

    • congressworksforus

      Mention Paul-bots, and here they come…

      • westbrook348

        but yes I’m supporting Paul in 2012. I don’t see the appeal of Herman Cain, sorry.

        • jakeofalltrades

          For EPA Director.

  • unitedwestand

    Just asking because I used to listen to him alot on his conservative radio talk show and he always had his finger on the pulse of what was going on. He actually understood the housing bubble, explained it in a way that listeners could understand, and blamed the Democratic Congress who wouldn’t listen to Bush when he voiced conserns over Fannie & Freddie. I heard Herman thrash President Bush many times over his mistakes. Herman always kept it real and could talk and debate any subject. That’s what always impressed me and kept me listening. Not trying to insult you, just asking because I think the people who listened to Herman for years on the radio know how conservative and intelligent he is. And Herman NOT being a career politician is a big plus.

    And while I don’t believe we should all “hold hands and sing kumbaya” as westcoast mistook my post to mean, I do think that the Democrat machine is focused, loyal, and ready to tear us apart (as they did in 2008) and anyone who thinks all this division is “healthy” better get ready for 4 more years of Obama if it keeps up.

    • westbrook348

      so I can’t comment on it.

      But I have a hard time believing that he understood the housing bubble and was concerned about Fannie and Freddie when he wrote this:
      http://www.mrc.org/bmi/commentary/2005/Commentary_The_Media_Say_the_Economy_Is_Horrible_So_It_Must_Be_True.html

      He wrote “alleged housing bubble”! Did he have a change of heart soon after this? I would gladly listen to any Cain clips from his radio show that prove he foresaw the housing crisis. Of course, AFTER the collapse, all Republicans blamed the Democrats. How many Republicans blamed both parties and spoke of the dangers of government policy years in advance? Cain hearts Greenspan, and according to the article he wrote in 2005, he not only didn’t see the housing bubble, he called people ignorant for warning about it! He might as well be featured in the Peter Schiff Was Right video next to Ben Stein.

      But again, you are more than welcome to educate me on Cain’s history; I fully admit I never listened to his radio show. Obviously you can’t explain away his support for TARP… But any info you have is greatly anticipated.

  • unclefred

    We both know that real evidence may well surface and that Cain ultimately end up facing credible accusers. However, in the meantime I call upon you to acknowledge that you moved to soon.

    Conservatives claim that we are the adults in the room. As such it is incumbent on us to be circumspect in our charges and rhetoric. In theory we believe in simple concepts, like innocent until PROVEN guilty. There is a long campaign a head of us. Each of us is free to pick our candidate and work for him or her as we choose. Still at the end of this road there will be only one person who wins the nomination. At that point, no matter the nominee, we need to join as one and work to unseat Obama.

    Perhaps you may be proven correct, but at this point there is nothing credible to support your assault on Cain. With all respect I ask that you acknowledge that you were premature in your judgements, and that you refrain from such statements, about any Republican seeking the nomination, until there is credible evidence.

  • tngal

    Wow! That felt good. Ok, so whose in charge of printing up the t-shirts.

    There was no sex there.Maybe a honey. Or a sweetie.

    • jakeofalltrades

      “Free Herman Cain!!!” That’s just making chuckle. So cute.

    • onemovoter

      Will Cain issue a full throated apology to Perry and Anderson?

      Would Cain be willing to give half of the money he raised after that claim to the Perry campaign?

      That would be honorable thing to do…..

      • tngal

        hey Perry accused Romney :) So then if Cain gives money to Perry, Perry is going to have to shell out to Romney, (Btw cain has walked back on the perry thing, and last I read somewhere Perry walked back its fingerpointing of perry.)

        If there is money to be paid out it should come from Politico for taking a half baked story and creating a sh*tstorm.

        All camps and posters should be enguarde. Politico has lost all credibility and everyting they write will now have to be checked with at least one other source.

        • onemovoter

          Herman Cain on Hannity’s radio show made the direct claim again… TWICE, after Hannity asked him if he was sure.

          Sorry but when it comes strait from the candidate and it doesn’t get walked back AGAIN after that.. it stays as the accusation.

          Of what Erick Erickson found out through his contacts is that the entire board of the NRA met just before the CNN debate to talk about endorsing Cain and supporting him. The board members are split between those who support Cain and several who support and have given to Romney. To keep NRA from endorsing Cain, one of the Romney supporters shopped the story around to quite a few places including Politico. It was to get the story out and keep NRA away from Cain and help Romney.

          So actually the Perry campaign was right in saying people should look at the Romney folks and follow leads there. The Perry campaign didn’t walk back that statement either. Perry said the whole situation with Cain is not something he wanted to talk about, but about his plans.

  • lizcarter

    On Friday the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over potential improprieties involving Cain campaign funds. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that Priorities USA, a Wisconsin-based group founded by Block, provided $40,000 worth of benefits to the Cain campaign, including travel expenses and iPads. Such benefits would violate federal law governing corporate contributions to campaigns.

    How much embarrassment does the GOP have to put up with? It’s not the acquisitions that are embarrassing, it’s the lying and handling. It’s not the non-polished un-presidential likeable style, it’s the crude “electrocute ‘em” jokes. It’s not the I’m an outsider claim from a lobbyist, it’s the hypocrisy. I could go on, but hey, among supporters Cain has the 2008 “0″ Teflon shield.

    • lizcarter

      I almost forgot, Cain now claims that foreign policy is like pizza! Yep, I can see it now – war room conference table with a giant pepperoni pizza in the middle…Cain “The pepperoni’s are all the other countries, if we want to turn up the heat add a little hot sauce to the pepperoni piece. If we need to cool things off, just add cheese.”

      Oh, so Presidential. I’m so not excited about that potential.

  • uncmike

    This is the statement released by the NRA earlier today:

    “We have seen the statement Joel Bennett released earlier today on behalf of his client, a former employee of the Association. The Association consented to the release of that statement, at the request of Mr. Bennett?s client. Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett?s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association?s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett?s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association?s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett?s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett?s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision.”

    The attorney for the woman who filed the complaint against Cain in July 1999, stated that there were multiple incidents “over a period of time at least a month or two? that prompted a monetary settlement, and that the woman was married at the time (and still is today).

    Since the NRA reviewed the attorney’s statement prior to its release, it would be surprising if it disagreed with the facts in it and did not say so. The woman’s statement therefore confirmed there were multiple incidents that took place over a month or two. So the complaint was not based on a single, isolated incident.

    We also have another statement from the NRA made by Sue Hensley, senior VP of Public Affairs and Communbications for the NRA. She stated: “The incidents in question relate to personnel matters that allegedly took place nearly 15 years ago.” Actually, only about 12 years ago (1999-2011)

    According to Bennett, the woman’s lawyer, a settlement was finally signed in September 1999 by 4 people, not including Cain. Cain left the NRA job sometime in 1999.

    I did some digging on the Google news archive. An article from May 18, 1999 mentions Cain as a keynote speaker at a Chicago restaurant & hotel/motel show, so Cain was still CEO in May 1999. Then, a piece about a diversity conference in Cleveland, dated August 9, 1999, refers to Cain as the “immediate past” president of the NRA. So he had departed by August 9, 1999.

    So we have this timeline:

    1996–Cain assumes CEO job at NRA
    1999, May 18–Cain still CEO
    1999, July–woman files complaint against Cain for multiple incidents lasting a month or two. Cain reviewed the complaint, so he knew its contents.
    1999, August 9–Cain had departed his CEO job at NRA
    1999, September–NRA signs agreement with woman who filed the complaint awarding her a monetary settlement.

    It seems Cain had other issues while at the NRA. According to Bloomberg News, Cain irked some of his NRA colleagues by operating in a “free-wheeling, free-spending culture:” Former employees of the association told Bloomberg News that work-related outings frequently featured heavy drinking as lobbyists entertained board members and lawmakers. They also reported that Cain was known for lavish spending, racking up cell phone and travel bills that drew accountants’ attention and angered some board members. He won over employees by giving generous raises to many, said three people who worked for or with the group and spoke on condition of anonymity. According to Bloomberg, the group also paid for Cain to live in The Jefferson, a pricey luxury hotel near the White House, for an unspecified period of time.

    Also, it has been alleged that there was another complaint against Cain by a second woman, but she has not come forward.

    From what I have seen, Cain has been all over the board regarding the 1999 episode. At first, he appeared to deny there was anything to the Politico story and that he was not familiar with any settlement. This can’t be true since the NRA press release states that “Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint.” Clearly, Cain was well acquainted with the complaint against him even though he was not a formal party to the final settlement between the NRA and the woman who made the complaint. More recently, Cain has generally maintained that the complaints against him were baseless, arguing that he did not engage in “sexual harassment.” As others have pointed out, the term “sexual harassment” has a rather specific legal definition (Andy McCarthy on NRO has gone into this in detail in his defense of Cain). Maybe Cain is simply being Clintonesque and parsing his words here to suggest there is no there, there.

    One thing is certain, if Cain has any dirty linen in his closet, the Democrats and the Obama team will dig it out and use it when the time comes. Very likely, that would include producing one or more of the women in question. After all, breaching the contract would also lead to damages, and I’m sure there are those that would handsomely reward her for coming forward.

    Bottom line: Many here on Red State are whistling past the graveyard, and hoping another shoe does not fall.

    Read more: http://www.nrn.com/article/nra-responds-reports-allegations-cain-misconduct#ixzz1cmrnbSTN

    According to a story in Bloomberg news, “Cain irked some of his NRA colleagues by operating in a “free-wheeling, free-spending culture:” Former employees of the association told Bloomberg News that work-related outings frequently featured heavy drinking as lobbyists entertained board members and lawmakers. Cain was known for lavish spending, they said, racking up cell phone and travel bills that drew accountants’ attention and angered some board members. He won over employees by giving generous raises to many, said three people who worked for or with the group and spoke on condition of anonymity. According to Bloomberg, the group also paid for Cain to live in The Jefferson, a pricey luxury hotel near the White House, for an unspecified period of time.

    • retire05

      “According to Bloomberg, the group also paid for Cain to live in The Jefferson, a pricy luxury hotel near the White House, for an unspecified period of time.”

      Yesterday, on his radio show, Hannity asked Cain point blank if he had ever been given a “corporate” apartment. Cain quickly reponsed “No.” Then Cain went on to say that he has had apartments, but they were not corporate apartments. Is this more wordsmithing by Cain? Did Cain say “no” since the NRA gave him a place at The Jefferson, and not just some apartment in a tony section of D.C.?

      Jeeze, how many lies are people willing to tolerate from Cain?

      As I said, David Axelrod is salivating at the prospect of Herman Cain being the nominee.

      • uncmike

        Whether we like it or not, this Cain story has hijacked substantive information about the Republican primary. We’ve had several debates, and so far, most of the buzz has been about whethe ror not social security being a ponzi scheme, Gardisil, a rock with a supposed “N-word” on it, yadayadayada.

        And it looks as if Cain is happy to keep this story alive, given the clumsy handling of the whole thing.

  • someotherguy

    A couple of thoughts:

    * It’s not uncommon at all for top exec’s to be accused of sexual misconduct or intimidation. These are powerful men who got where they are by being forceful — their job is to get results, not worry about whether you’ve offended someone. Doesn’t make it right, but getting accused of wrongdoing often comes with the territory…

    * From what we know, the women involved do not appear to be gold diggers. They certainly didn’t know he was going to be running for president. Could be that he’s just a jerk to work for. He also has a wicked sense of humor that many people just don’t get. Whatever he said, I’ll bet he really did mean it as a joke — the man is not always very politically correct.

    * Could Cain have handled this any worse? He had to know it was coming. At least get your story straight. I really like Cain and was going to vote for him, but the way that he has handled this one incident makes me think he’s not up for the job.

    * Lashing out at the Perry camp was really in bad taste and makes me question his judgement. A mistake like that while president could start a war.

    * I wish we had candidate that was halfway between Cain and Romney.

  • intensity

    …will not defeat Obama.

    Romney is too liberal and too Obama-like and does not offer a true solution to the problems.

    Cain is way too inexperienced. Never held a politcal office, ever. Has 0 foriegn policy experience. Has a tax plan that would never make the pass.

    Gingrich has too much baggage to be seen as an electable candidate.

    Rick Perry is our only answer.
    Please, fellow conservatives, let’s get behind Perry and save this beautiful country, or get ready for 4 more years of marxism with Obama.

    • snowshooze

      Just wondering..

      • davesinsanantonio

        n.t.

  • kowalski

    Herman Cain cannot be the President because of Europe. Cain is not a Europeanist Socialist Intellectual (like Obama) and he’s also not a Joe Six-Pack Europeanist (like Biden). He’s an American free-enterprise person and they wouldn’t even know how to receive him. They might declare war on the United States if he was elected, because we’d stop subsidizing them.

    The dirty secret is that under a Herman Cain administration, the large amounts of funds that Europe is counting on to be transferred from the United States won’t materialize. It amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. The Eurps are broke and they need the US now more than ever to keep their social welfare states above water. Therefore Cain has to be stopped. It’s similar to the other Republican candidates but most particularly Cain.

    It’s all about Europe. All of the decisions and everything you’re seeing now are about Europe, not the United States. Europe could give two tosses about us, the only thing that has to happen is that we must keep their Socialist Union running.

    • kowalski

      In Europe!

      That is the ultimate final arbiter of the 2012 Presidential election in this country and don’t you forget it. They will spend billions of dollars to make sure they get back hundreds of billions of dollars.

      • acat

        if they don’t take *our* money, they’ll be coming for *his*!

        (sorry, just finishing the thought)

        Mew

  • popdaddy

    I hate this sexual harassment by unknown parties as much as anyone. It?s a real travesty that some bimbo can go to HR and file a complaint about innumerable, totally BS accusations. As a manager, I?ve experienced the travesty of this crap and have an understanding of Mr. Cain?s fundamental disgust that something so meaningless as this is an issue to his progress to claim the GOP nomination. and replace the worst president in the history of America.

    Unfortunately, this last week has served to establish an opening bid for these bimbos who have lawyers pushing their old cases to the left wing media. Herman Cain has beat the bimbos and trial lawyers back this time but I doubt we have heard the last of it.

    If the bimbos got paid a six month or one year salary of $25000-$50000 to leave the association, you can bet their slime ball lawyers are calculating damages plus lawyer fees for an opening bid in the general election.

    Herman Cain is going to need more money and we all are going to have to endure the Chicago/Obama Mafia team words. But they will be just words from the Obama bunch that is set on destroying America and our values.

    • nathanalbright

      First of all, calling people who (see upstream comments) are upstanding family women with good and stable jobs “bimbos” really lowers your credibility. Do you know who these people are? I don’t. I don’t know (and don’t particularly care) if these accusations are true. But why would any decent and upstanding person want to put themselves through insults and abuse simply because you’re a Cainiac and can’t face the truth?

      And who is saying that this means that we’ll have to endure this in the general election. We could be smart enough and just derail the Caintrain now and avoid all the hassles later. Just a thought.

    • radicalrighty

      I never heard that word used until the Clintons got to DC and had a paid aide (Betsy Wright) in charge of “Bimbo Eruptions.”

      In tossing ou that word to describe women you don’t know, it seems you are as slimy as Slick Willie.

      Congrats . . .

  • Xasteius

    I still think that someone else will pop in front of the cameras soon. Remember that more than one accusation existed.

  • bzip

    Herman Cain’s former colleagues recall different sides to him
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cain-accuser-20111104,0,7565476.story

    Attorney: Multiple instances of sexual harassment by Herman Cain;
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-accuser-20111104,0,3457354.story?track=rss

    Restaurant group confirms Cain settlement;
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cain-accuser-20111105,0,7631013.story

    Herman Cain complaints were familiar issue for NRA
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67669.html

  • bzip

    Watchdog group files complaint against Cain campaign, senior aide
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-crew-20111104,0,6799607.story

    Watchdog complaint: Cain campaign manager illegally paid for iPads, campaign travel using nonprofit money
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/04/watchdog-complaint-cain-campaign-manager-illegally-paid-for-ipads-campaign-travel-using-nonprofit-money/

  • bzip

    You just can’t make this up. Some how I feel so secure that Cain might lead our country some day.

    Cain, Block have different explanations for China gaffe
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/04/cain-block-have-different-explanations-for-china-gaffe/

  • bzip

    This is what I think: Cain?s sexual harassment story will eventually die unless new fresh details come out. I don?t think it will die right away as it is too fresh with too many un-answered questions but it will die of boredom. Though be sure that if Cain wins the primary that this issue will come back in the general election.

    You will have to judge Cain and this mess on your own merits and what you know yourself. Hopefully you don?t judge Cain based on allegations without knowing the details. Hopefully you judge Cain by his actions, reaction, the decisions making and the way Cain has handled this entire fiasco.

    If your mind is open and has been paying attention you cannot dispute Cain has handled this mess very poorly, very un-presidentially. Cain has presented his version of this mess in many different versions, clearly lying. Cain has played the race card, the victim card, the blame game and has even tried to blame and bring down another campaign without even having any evidence.

    It is with the above statements I have made that I feel Cain should be judged on. If you?re mind is open and have paid attention hopefully you will judge Cain on this issue by what I have judge Cain by not by allegations but by Cain?s reaction to this allegations.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      nt

  • rickperryreport

    There is a pattern of unsavory conduct my Mr. Herman Cain that should give all conservatives pause. I’m old enough to have been around arrogant and abusive bosses. They don’t believe that the rules apply to them. The sexual harassment ordeal is just a very noisy of many problems Cain has exhibited throughout his short campaign that make me feel he’s not presidential material.

    Speaking for myself only, I detailed all of them here:

    http://rickperryreport.com/article/2011-11-01/herman-cain-reckless-and-arrogant

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      Why is he seemingly, from the very first, full of antipathy to Perry when his views and Perry’s are much closer than his views and Romney’s?

      Also, Romney is the front runner and he has not gone after him, instead he went after Perry.

      I think it very possible he entered into a deal with Romney to further divide the conservative vote, then when he sinks he will throw his support behind Romney and be the VP.

      Why am I so cynical? I suppose just because I have lived long enough.

      • westcoastpatriette

        And you just may be right. I have been befuddled trying to figure out why Cain has such overt disdain for Perry and your explanation would explain it.

        I can be cynical, too, but have learned to listen to my cynicism as it is always there for a reason. Unfortunately, politics–more than any other profession–brings out the best and the worst in people.

      • gator_hoo

        One of the editors at Breitbart is on the record with the same speculation. It seems like there is something to it, especially with Cain having mostly positive things to say about Romney, as well as Mitt saying a vote for Cain is a good vote.

        It will be interesting to see what happens if he ends up being a real threat to Romney.

    • circlegranch

      According to the article, she voted in the Democrat primary in ’08 (doesn’t say if she voted for Obama or another Dem) and in reviewing records since 2000 she’s voted Democrat a number of times. Thought I’d put this up because we know you won’t hear it from Rush or Sean on Monday. It will be interesting to hear how Let Herman be Herman will come out and reframe this. Maybe what she meant to do is vote Republican but accidently voted Democrat. Or, since Herman is a former registered Independent, she got confused on the issues and he wasn’t around to clarify. There HAS to be a simple explanation, after all, he’s the most conservative candidate we have. Just ask him…

      • gator_hoo

        Cain himself voted for Clinton in ’92.

        http://nebraska.watchdog.org/17577/cain-voted-for-bill-clinton/

      • pttx333

        ;;;;

      • pttx333

        ;;;;

        • pttx333

          nt

  • texasroots

    Appreciate the info. I do not go on Newsmax or Drudge because I get a virus when I do. My gut tells me Gloria voted for Obama and will do so again.

  • morristhewise

    King of the bulls is a sexual predator, the cows tremble when he comes near. It is no different in the workplace; the boss is king of the bulls and female employees tremble when he comes near.

  • pantera

    I thought our system was set up for the Cains of the world.
    Wasn’t our founders businessmen who made their money in the private sector then did public service through short term governance.
    Would a 5 star general be unqualified because hes never held office?
    Do we want career politicians?

    If the ”issues” are too ”complex” for a successful business person to comprehend then Cain being a fixer of broken systems is exactly whats needed.

    999 has as good a chance as perry’s 20% plan of passing. A flat tax takes the politics out of politics.

  • ragnard_skjold

    According to the pundits here at RedState and all over the blogosphere, who are supposedly “outside the beltway” and non-establishment in their thinking, yet still they cant understand the phenomenon of Herman Cain. They ridicule his campaign, claim he cant win Iowa because of lack of spending every day there until the Caucus, claim he cant get past SC because of no organization there. So in other words, because Cain does not do exactly what the inside the beltway crowd thinks is neccesary to win, he cant win. And Erick and others seem to just follow the same mentality. I listen to Ericks radio show every night that he is on, and his short-sightedness is amazing. Obviously he is smart as hell, but he is so into the inside politics that he cannot see outside anymore. He has been pretty much incorrect on every single candidate since May. I heard in June, how Newt was not going to be the nominee, and should just get out, but was sticking around to rebuild his image and pay off campaign debt. I heard how Herman Cain’s grassroots support couldn’t flourish, and how Michelle Bachman was the anti-Romney, then their was Perry.
    First Perry wasn’t going to get in. No chance. Then it was IF Perry gets in, that’s the end of Bachman, Cain, Newt, and Pawlenty. Then it was how Rick Perry has the smartest, tightest group of advisors, and how they play hard and dirty and win at all costs. Then Perry announces, and it’s all over but the credits. Perry will win not only the anti-Romney contest, but the whole thing. But there was a problem with this. Perry actually had to play the games. Nobody forfeited, and they actually showed up to win. So Perry flops, yet there is still people saying how he’s still in it. At 6-8%? But he has so much money, and dont forget that A-team of political consultants. Really? Herman Cain’s staff is lambasted for how they’ve handled a non-story. Well how has Rick Perry’s campaign handled his own, “You have no heart”? Why are they not “amateurish”? Why are they not accused of “handling this so poorly that it brings into mind, if he cant handle this crisis how can he be President?”

  • serpounce

    The problem with following the horse-race closely whether you’re an “insider” an “outsider” is that you take day-to-day maneuvering too seriously. The big criticism of Cain is that he handled the breaking of this story poorly. I think that’s true, at least to an extent, but it’s also a bit to “inside baseball” for most people.

    My general rule is to discount the impact of any day-to-day stories to about 25% of the impact that the pundits think it will have. The Perry stories involving immigration (“you have no heart”) are probably a good example of this, yes they hurt him, but not as much as the pundits thought right after it happened.

    I try to temper this effect in myself by talking with people who don’t follow politics as closely. I was talking about the Cain “harassment” story with my wife, and she was just totally disinterested in the “how he handled it coming out” aspect. Her focus was entirely on “did he do anything wrong” (and as a side note apparently for her to think of something as harassment requires a hell of a lot more than it does for me, but I guess you don’t become an eye surgeon by being sensitive in the workplace)

  • littlemousethatroars

    Did it ever occur to anyone that Cain so called “handled it poorly” is because he is an honest man that was falsly accused? I mean really people. Cain supporters like Cain because he isn’t the typical “slick Willy” smooth candidate we always see like PERRY. NEWSFLASH: Most people in the public thought that Perry’s campaign had something to do with it after we heard that one of Perry’s pollsters used to work at the NRA. ALSO, after witnessing Perry’s awful and aggressive performance at the debates I would not put it past him tnot to leak the story, not at all. He comes across as a vicious drunken two faced jock. I immediately thought Perry was behind it WAY before Cain’s campaign implied anything and I still do. The best thing for this country would be a CAIN/GRINGRICH team in the Whitehouse. Cain has the transparency and enthusiasm and Newt certainly has the ability and experience. Ron Paul comes across negative and is a complete downer. Romney just seems like the same old thing we’ve had before and I don’t thing that much would change. However, he certainly would be better than Obama. I still support Cain, regardless what the liberal media and the racist and/or corrupt far right is trying to do him.

    • llorta

      Oh, so someone is guilty by being suspicious? Is that the direction you want to go, considering your guy has more than one sexual harassment settlements against him?

      And you lie, Cain didn’t IMPLY Perry was behind it, he flat out accused him of it, demanded that Perry apologize to him and his family, and denied there was any other plausible explanation (despite the fact that there were many people aware of these sexual harassment allegations).

      In fact, when the evidence came out, Block was embarrassed into dropping the accusation against Perry.

      And THIS is why Perry supporters can’t stand Cain or Cain’s supporters – lies and smears, smears and lies. The last thing we need to do is support Cain and help him usher in an age of race-card-Republicanism.

    • gekster

      You said: “Cain supporters like Cain because he isn?t the typical ?slick Willy? smooth candidate we always see like PERRY”
      Ok, but then you said: “after witnessing Perry?s awful and aggressive performance at the debates” and “vicious drunken two faced jock”.

      If he is “Slick Willy” then how come he had a “an awful and aggressive performance ” and he is a “vicious drunken two faced jock”.
      Is he slick or not. He can’t be both

      And do you have proof that Perry leaked the scandle.
      And also, do you know that the ‘pollster’ you talk of was hired by the Perry team one week ‘after’ the leak came out.
      Can you explain to me these things.

    • davesinsanantonio

      then all he has to do is say that. Instead he equivocated, blamed Perry and demanded an apology, still hasn’t apologized for that one, finally admitted there were accusations and a payout, and admitted some of the details.

      But, you “still support Cain, regardless….”

      Your sieve of an article doesn’t seem to hold water. And while your loyalty may be admirable, your thinking is questionable.

  • tricianc

    I posted most of this in Tbone’s diary but posting here, as well.

    I knew something was bothering me about Herman Cain and the sexual harassment allegations. It’s not the allegations. I don’t believe nor do I disbelive them. But something’s been nagging at me but I figured it out. HE
    LIED. See below:

    There are two things and they prove he lied.

    When Mr. Cain came out to speak about the allegations, he only ever mentioned one woman. We knew there were two that made allegations and
    received settlements because that’s what was reported. However, like I said,
    Mr. Cain only spoke of one woman and one allegation (complaint, the You’re
    as tall as my wife thing and I’m sorry but you don’t get a complaint filed,
    nor a settlement for that) over and over.

    Here’s the problem with that:

    The woman whose lawyer spoke for her, her allegations and settlement were in 1999. “The attorney for one of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment said Friday that the then-National Restaurant Association CEO engaged in ?inappropriate behavior? and ?unwanted advances? that led to a cash payout in 1999.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67655.html

    The National Restaurant Association would never have approved the statement if it had the incorrect information such as the year of the complaint and settlement: 1999. Additionally the statement the National Restaurant Association released said: “Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint.”

    So he WAS aware of the allegations and the details of such of the woman in
    1999. Even J.D. Gordon came out after the NRA statement and said the NRA confirmed Cain disputed the allegations. However, she was the SECOND woman.

    The First woman left the NRA and received her settlement in 1998. “The
    woman, who now works in New Jersey, left the NRA in May 1998, shortly
    after the incident ? under an agreement that paid her one-year?s salary, in the mid-$30,000s, sources said. ”
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67581.html

    Therefore, we know from the NRA’s statement that he KNEW about the 2nd woman’s allegations from 1999 as they said he disputed it.

    He had to have also known about the other woman’s allegations and settlement in 1998 too. It is beyond the realm of reason that he could not have.

    This also backs that up:

    Mr. Cain said he told his wife in 1999. ?I told my wife about this in 1999
    and I’ve got nothing to hide,? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/herman-cain-changes-subject-blames-perry-campaign-for-leak/

    But why didn’t he tell her in 1998 when the first woman made allegations and
    got a settlement?

    But let’s say he meant to say he told his wife in 1998. I don’t believe he
    did though. I believe this was a calculated, political misdirection.

    Also, let’s say he really did tell her in 1999. Why would you not tell her
    in 1998 about those allegations in the year they happened? If my spouse told
    me in 1999 about an incident in 1999 and then also told me about the one in
    1998 at the same time, I would have to wonder why he didn’t tell me in 1998
    Not to mention, TWO women now…any spouse would definitely begin to wonder and question. If I had to bet, if indeed he did tell his wife, he only told
    her about the one in 1999.

    In 1999, he had to tell her at that point because he left the NRA in 1999.
    Coincidentally (?), it was right after the 2nd woman filed her complaint.

    He also couldn’t come out and tell us he told her in 1998 as it would redirect us to the incident that year and we’d know there were TWO women and
    that he knew of BOTH of their allegations, details of the complaint, and
    settlements.

    He’s counting on us knowing only part of the story, the part which is of his
    words.

    • retire05

      These events happened in 1998 and 1999. In 2000, Cain threw his hat in the presidential ring, for a very short time. He knew then these accusations would be an issue. Yet, he said he pulled out of the race because he had no clue how much money and organization would be required. Kind of belies his claim to all these talented organizational skills he says he possesses, doesn’t it?

      The main thing that bothers me about this is that Cain, and his hatchet man, Mark Block, tried to blame everyone else for this problem. First, Cain smeared the 2nd woman by saying she was a bad employee. Then he, and Block, went after Rick Perry, Curt Anderson and even Rahm Emanuel. What was the purpose of that? It was an internal problem, and as such, Cain, and Team Cain, should have handled it without trying to push the blame on others.

      I read the statement by the National Restaurant Association. It clearly says that Woman #2′s lawyer had permission to make a statement. It did NOT say that she had the right to personally go public. There is a major difference.

      Did Cain do what was claimed? Don’t know. Don’t really care. For me, it was the attempted cover-up that sealed his fate for me.

  • bzip

    I don’t think this is going away fro Cain.

    “A new woman alleging sexual harassment by presidential hopeful Herman Cain will break her silence at a news conference with her powerhouse attorney Gloria Allred Monday afternoon in New York City, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.”

    Report: Allred to appear with Cain accuser
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67746.html

    New Woman Accusing Herman Cain Of Sexual Harassment Hires Gloria Allred
    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/11/new-woman-alleging-sexually-harassment-herman-cain-will-go-public-monday

    • gekster

      Remember the poor abused illegal house keeper in the Califonia election.
      I would just be leary of anything Allred has her hand in.

      • retire05

        but she destroyed Meg Whitman’s campaign. And while you can’t touch Allred without wearing rubber gloves to protect yourself from the slime, she’s a powerful attorney and a lot of people like her because she presents herself as sticking up for the woman scorned.

        • westcoastpatriette

          While Allred played a part in sealing Whitman’s downfall, Whitman did most of it to herself when she waffled so thoroughly after the primary that she alienated her base.

          Allred just supplied the final straw.

          • retire05

            but so has Cain from his first statement (which I will happily provide for you if you are not aware of it) to his statements less than 12 hours later with Greta.

            Allred is an opportunist, but the hard cold fact is that Whitman at least had a chance until Allred got involved. The rest is history.

          • westcoastpatriette

            She had already lost, in my opinion, way before Allred entered the scene.

          • retire05

            that Cain is telling the truth and the women were liars. Perhaps you can share with me a link to the NRA documentation that upholds that theory.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Said nothing of the sort.

          • retire05

            Either you believe what Herman Cain has said, that he was innocent of these charges and they were found via an internal investigation to be “baseless” and the women lied, or you have doubts about Cain’s credibility.

            Which is it and what documentation have you seen that supports your position?

          • westcoastpatriette

            You are not making any sense.

          • retire05

            Do you believe Herman Cain is telling the truth and the women are lying?

            If so, on what documentation do you base that opinion?

            Is that simple enough for you to grasp?

          • westcoastpatriette

            from Allred’s role in Whitman’s campaign to accusing me of things I never said.

            So, what’s up with that?

          • retire05

            so you can learn the difference between an accusation and a question.

            Now, care to answer my questions that you are obviously trying to dodge?

          • westcoastpatriette

            If you will look upthread, the only issue I addressed is the role Allred played in Whitman’s campaign–nothing more and nothing less.

            You proceeded to conclude from my comment that “you have obviously made up your mind that Cain is telling the truth” (the accusation part).

            My point is very simple. I repeat, all I was addressing was the role Allred played in Whitman’s campaign. Period.

            You tried to rope me in to an entirely larger subject using an accusatory manner and I refuse to take the bait. Got it?

          • retire05

            If I had “concluding” something, I would not have asked you the questions I did.

            So do you want to clairfy your position or continue to dodge the questions and play the role of the aggrieved?

            And yes, I understand that playing the victim is so en vogue.

          • westcoastpatriette

            you are a bonafide a** who doesn’t merit any further discussion from me.

          • retire05

            avoiding answering my questions.

            Are the answers that painful?

            And then you resort to name calling? Sorry, you just outed yourself. A feeble mind who cannot answer simple questions and feels persecuted when asked those simple questions.

            You would be much happiers somewhere where your mind is not challenged.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            Westcoastpatriette doesn’t have to answer your question if she doesn’t want to, and berating her only turns your into a bully. She’s not a courtroom witness.

            And she is correct that this tack of yours started with mind-reading on your part as to her motivations in her initial comment here

            You’ve made a number of good contributions to RedState in terms of analysis, especially in the RickPerry Flip-Flopper post, and you definitely add value to the discussions.

            But you’re really out of line here.

          • westcoastpatriette

            It feels good when someone else can see clearly. And I appreciate your consistent efforts at RedState to keep things civil.

            Thanks, again.

          • acat

            Some will believe Cain, some will believe the accuser. Both are missing the point.

            I have said before that this is going to end in a he-said-she-said scenario, no clear outcome, and it’s going to end up hurting Cain.

            I expect this because, if there were conclusive evidence, i.e. videotape, it would have been introduced at the outset, and the initial story would have ended differently; larger settlement amount, for one thing.

            On the flipside, there was a settlement – there was sufficient evidence that something happened to justify “making it go away” rather than destroying the false accuser – so there was evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

            That’s all beside the point, though, because we’re not talking about a court of law, we’re talking about the court of public opinion.

            The correct question is whether we think Allred and others can generate enough FUD – Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt – about the honor and integrity of Herman Cain to cause voters (who don’t likely follow Red State) to go with another choice?

            Guilt or innocence doesn’t matter. Perception of integrity is the key, and Herman’s early handling lends itself to FUD’ing him.

            Mew

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            “Perception of integrity is the key”.

            Where there’s ambiguous evidence, people then have to rely more on their gut and intuition – and that’s where initial impressions and media bias can be critical is turning people one way or the other.

            Conservatives have no room for error because the media are gunning for them.This is why a bad initial response, like the Cain team did, is so devastating – because it opens up FUD, as you phrased it.

            (As an aside, Perry has made things difficult for himself because his initial debate performances gave the gunning media an opening to create FUD.)

            It’s a different language than conservatives are used to speaking, which is why we don’t understand why are guy are looking up while the referee is counting.

            Actually more than different language: it’s a world view – the postmodern mindset that is increasingly permeating our culture. And in that world, facts and objective truth are irrelevant or,at most, secondary to gut and intuition dominated by pliable feelings.

          • acat

            Pretty much sums it up.

            Lack of critical thinking, excessive emphasis of “feelings”.

            Mew

        • Scope

          Allred is seen as someone who looks out for women, and women’s issues. From what I’m reading, Cain had heavy support by women in particular, and the female support is what is dropping off first. Allread is a sleaze bag, but I bet some women are left with at least open questions about Cain with now 4 women accusing him that it can’t help him. Cain has already stated more than once “end of story” so I doubt that he will answer anyone’s open questions.

          I just heard that the presser will be covered live on CNN.

        • acat

          I am not under the impression that she’s popular among conservatives… Allred seems to have a habit of .. call it “inciting legislating from the bench”.

          Mew

          • retire05

            I said a lot of people like Allred. I did not say a lot of “conservatives” like Allred.

            Yes, Allred has proven she is an opportunist. But there are those, including independents, who view Allred as a defender of women who have been wronged. And Allred didn’t get where she is, and as wealthy as she is, because she is stupid.

            This does exactly what Cain does not want; keep the story alive. He needs it to go away, yesterday.

          • Scope

            threaten to sue Allred, and the news outlets that will be covering the presser.

          • retire05

            she cannot be held liable if her client lies to her. Cain would have no standing to sue Allred. Nor would he have much of a case to sue the woman, unless he can prove financial harm, which would be hard to do since his campaign funds have increased.

          • acat

            You sound like one. No offense intended.

            I’m asking because it would explain why you’re trying to argue this as if it’s a court case, rather than as a matter of public opinion.

            Mew

          • retire05

            politics, the Constitution and law.

            The most recent case I can point to re: slander was the Valerie Plame case. She sued a number of people over slandering her reputation, but she could not prove financial damages and the case was thrown out of court. It never even went to trial.

          • acat

            And if you asked people who don’t read Red State or other conservative outlets, my guess is you’d find a consensus that she, not Scooter Libby, was wronged.

            Bringing in Allred is a clear red flag that this is not a case of law, it is now a case of managing public opinion. I hope Herman’s better at that than his early statements on the issue appear to indicate. Otherwise, he may as well take the money and run.

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            No one with any brains could have gotten upset about revealing that she was at one time an agent since it was common knowledge around Washington, But it was in their interest to feign outrage.

            After a while it became real outrage because they are emotion based beings without a shred of intellect, only animal cuning.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            We win debate points; they win elections. That’s the point. Don’t argue with success – learn from it.

          • Scope

            saying that in jest mostly.

            I was just listening to a lawyer on TV talking about the Michael Jackson manslaughter trial. Someone asked her if she thought the prosecution or the defense presented the best case. Her answer was that the strength of a case lies with the strength of either sides facts, presentation of those facts, and the provable evidence presented.

            So far, with the Cain sexual harassment issue, we know for a fact that there were settlements. We haven’t been given any facts by Cain, except his words and interpretations. Many ran right out and said that a year’s salary wasn’t enough to warrant real sexual harassment charges, and it was just a nusience (sp)payment. I haven’t heard the first word from anyone saying that the accusers were’t being greedy and looking to make millions. It almost sounds as though everyone with a valid lawsuit should bankrupt whoever they are suing, and just go for broke. Isn’t that exactly why we have had so many problems with the runaway legal system in this country today?

            We need Perry’s tort reform, and his loser pays lawsuit reform to end that practice. It should be a national goal.

          • acat

            remains on the author… UT doesn’t just mean University of Texas.

            This isn’t going to go away, as much as he needs it to. The clouds of FUD will only get worse. Yes, having Allred on the case is a bad thing for Cain… but it hurts him more in the general than in the primary as she’s seen as an opportunist among likely GOP primary voters.

            Mew

      • bzip

        Ah, who knows about Allred and the accuser – the bottom line is:
        This isn’t going away anytime soon.
        Cain has left many unanswered questions that will break him in the general if he ever got that far.

        The Allred accuser thing is just another stone in a big pile of stones that are adding up to massive collapse at some point.

        I remember Meg and the house keeper very well :-) .

        • bzip

          …hold a news conference with her Attorney, Gloria Allred on Monday, November 7th, at 1:30 p.m. (e.s.t.)

          http://www.businessinsider.com/report-fourth-woman-alleges-cain-harrassment-will-hold-press-conference-today-2011-11

          • izoneguy

            I guess Rick Perry put Gloria Allred up to it? /sarc

            The worm slowly turns…..

            I wonder if Cain will even comment about this…..

            The democrats really, really don’t want to deal with Cain in the general.
            Their playbook is all about Romney.

            Let’s not give the democrats Cain or Romney…..

          • bzip

            I still say until Cain comes completely clean – Cain is not electable in the general. Cain himself ensured this by leaving so many unanswered questions lingering.

            I also still say to me it doesn’t matter who got the story started, it needed to get out long before the general and if anyone has a head on their shoulders and what to make a informed decision for the primary it needs to be out now.

            We surely have learned a lot about Cain and how he handles this issue – not good, play the blame game, the race card, gets testy with the media…all the things you don’t want in a future president.

          • westcoastpatriette

            On one hand, I wonder why they would do this this early in the game.They could wait to see if Cain wins the nomination and then use Allred to take him down. So, I am not sure the advantage in taking him out now.

            In any event, we can know for sure that this is being orchestrated from the left as opposed to inside the Republican party as Allred is a die- hard shill for liberals.

          • izoneguy

            But don’t put it past the RINO’s to get amped up by using liberal tactics.

            Either the left is so desperate at this point or the RINO’s have some other tricks up their trunks….who knows?

            And people say politics is boring!

          • pttx333

            “people” sniffing out the “big ones” 24/7, then she comes swooping in to “save the day.” Having worked many a year for a very large law firm defending the “evil big boy corporations” (as well as other large companies) against the ambulance chasers, I know exactly what they do – and it ain’t pretty or nice. And their reputation in the legal field is not so good, believe me.

          • texasroots

            It reminds me of when Gloria had news conference about Tiger Woods; it was “hasta las vista”, Tiger!

          • Scope

            The Tiger story that is. If I remember the Whitman housekeeper story was that Whitman’s husnband got a no SS match back from the IRS when they submotted their W-2 info to them. When the husband asked the housekeeper about it, she admitted that she was illegal, so they let her go. The Whitman’s were correct, but Allred had the weeping housekeeper on TV, and she provided the face of victimhood. How mean and cold the Whitman’s were to put a poor victim on the street after she was such a great and caring employee in their household for how ever long.

            I don’t know if the identity will be known about the accuser today, but we know she will get the same treatment as Joe the Plumber got. If she is identified, within hours every one will know what color underware she wears. It depends on what she says, what details she provides, how credible she sounds, and what could be proven. If she sounds credible at all, and there are in fact charges that constitute sexual harassment, there is now a face, a story, and possibly missing piece to an ongoing and growing puzzle.

      • pttx333

        She smells some big $$ and lots of free air time for advertising! I wouldn’t have anyone like her represent me for a parking ticket – the shame of it all would be too embarrassing! Get ready for several thousand rounds of her on FNC, TMZ, CNN … ad nauseum.

        • retire05

          Bapol Coale, Greta Van Sustern’s husband, who seems to be Herman Cain’s new bestest friend? LOL.

          • pttx333

            At one point I actually thought Greta might come around to a little more conservative thought, but now I see “not so much.” Why would they be bestest new friends? What’s the catch here? Gotta be one – or is it my conniving mind deceiving me?

          • Scope

            I wonder if it wasn’t Bopal (who in the heck names their kid Bopal) that didn’t give Cain the idea of saying he was going to sue Politico for journalistic malpractice. This, after Palin and Bachmann sat on her show after one of the debates and accused Perry of being a crony capitalist with no proof. Or Bachmann saying on Greta’s show that Gardasil makes you retarded. Yet her husband may be the one that still may represent Cain in his lawsuit against Politico? This is getting more and more entertaining by the day.

          • pttx333

            As for the name Bopal, maybe his folks were flower children – you know what names they gave to their poor children! If he is planning on representing Cain, I would be more inclined to predict that some of the hot-shot, big-city lawyers would do that – name recognition and all that rot. Unless Bopal is with one of those upper-crust firms and brings in big $$ to the firm. But if he is a small-practice lawyer, not so much. That’s just me talking. However, I think that ALL of the parties should abide by their settlement/confidentiality agreements and let it go at that. UNLESS, one or all of them have already broken their agreement(s), then that is another story, I would think. What a rotten, stinking mess this is becoming … and the pity of it all is that it is distracting everyone from what b.o. and his thugs are doing while the circus continues. Wanna bet they have a few hands in this also?

  • bzip

    Foes count on Herman Cain to self-destruct
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67728.html
    …
    “Ed Rollins, the longtime Republican operative and former Michele Bachmann campaign manager, told POLITICO that Cain?s moment in the sun was already over: ?This guy knows nothing about foreign policy, ?9-9-9? has been ripped apart, the girl problem is not going away and his beating up the media shows a thin skin that will get him in trouble. You combine that with no real campaign and his days are limited.?
    ….

    Taking Ed Rollins a bit further – Cain is basically unelectable at this point. Stop and think about it – If Cain actually got the nomination and went into the general election without any changes in this scandal what that will mean.

    A scandal that hasn’t been cleaned up by Cain with many unanswered questions is surely going to hit big time in the general. Unanswered questions and the lousy handling by Cain thus far only ensures Cain’s disaster in the general. Anybody that thinks other wise is living in a bubble.

  • Scope

    and said pretty much the same thing. He said that his lashing out at the media shows an incredible thin skin. Saying that he will no longer talk about, or answer questions about the harassment issue, and sticking with his “don’t even go there, end of story” line does not mean that the story is over, just because he says it is. Rollins made the point that as much as Cain want’s to move on, and to stay on his chosen message of 999 etc., no one is hearing any of his policy messages because the only thing still in so many people’s minds is the sexual harassment story because he has never adequately addressed it to anyone’s satisfaction. Until he addresses it in a manner that puts it to bed, it will remain the big story that will keep dogging him.

    Rollins also pointed out that Cain is not in control of the media, and that the media has always been prominent in politics, and that as president, Cain will not be able to keep the media at bay just by lashing out at them. He said that if he can’t handle the media now as a candidate, he will surely fail when he would have to deal with them in a higher office.

    The leftist media went after Bush relentlessly, the right leaning media has been going after Obama relentlessly. Unfortunately, it is a part of the game. Should the righties just shut up about the destruction that Obama is doing to the country? Likewise the lefties will never stop going after a Republican president, who ever it is. If Cain can’t handle the pressure from the media now, he does not have the necessary thick skin to become the president. Bush was hung in effigy, burned in effigy, and there were posters of him as Hitler. How would Cain handle that?

    Cain is currently lashing out at all the reporters, whether they are left leaning or right leaning. He doesn’t know the reporters that are asking him questions about the sexual harassment issue. There are many on the right that want more answers as well. When I saw the clip of him with the reporters after the debate Saturday night, especially when he looked around and said “where’s my chief of staff, will you please send this guy the journalistic code of ethics” while pointing his finger, I almost fell over. CNN had a segment yesterday where they read the journalistic code of ethics, and then discussed the fact that the Politico story did not break that code. Cain is just bloviating with that tactic.

    The other candidates should in fact just go on with their own campaigns, and rest assured that Cain is killing his own campaign, even more so than the left leaning media.

    • retire05

      One was of a beheaded Bush, carried by a CodePinko. The other was of Bush hanging from a noose. Perhaps you can refresh my memory. Do you remember Herman Cain complaining about that or even the conservative press (what little there is of it) complaining that Bush was being unfairly “persecuted” because I can’t seem to remember any comments from Hannity, Levin, Rush or any other so-called conservative talking heads calling the press, and CodePinko, down for those placards. And I remember very little from anyone when Condi Rice was portrayed as Prissy, the slave, from Gone With The Wind.

      Where was the outrage when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tried to label Allen West as being for abuse against women because of an article he wrote that was in a biker magazine? West never mentioned women, but Wasserman-Shultz tried to portray West as a woman hater.

      The attitude from conservatives in those cases seemed to be “typical left wing attacks. Nothing to see here. Move on” yet they all now have their Hanes in a wad proclaiming Herman Cain to be a victim. Why? Why is Cain being rallied around when others, who were equally smeared by the LSM, not?

      Dan Riehl had an excellent piece yesterday about how Herman Cain cannot take the blame for things Cain has actually said, and tries to blame others for what Cain, himself, said. To Cain’s detriment, Riehl posted videos that proves what Cain said. Cain cannot continuje to rely on the excuse “No, that is not what I said but this is what I meant. America needs to learn to take a joke.”

      Only the weak minded are willing to accept that excuse.

      • Scope

        especially the radio talking heads when the WaPo story about the rock came out, implying that Perry was a racist? Cain jumped right on that racist bandwagon when interviewed by Wallace, I believe on the same day that the story broke. Why didn’t the right scream about the racist allegations on a story that was so weak and non-significant? With the Cain Politico story, it is a fact that there were settlements, as stated even by the NRA. One accusers attorney came out with the story that she stood by her case against Cain. Yet, now they play the leftist race card game, and all circle around Cain to protect him when no one knows exactly what he did or did not do.

        The fact does remain though that Cain will never be able to “get back on message” until he wakes up and realizes that it is up to him to put the story to bed, which so far he has refused to do.

      • avagreen

        which I’ve read before, especially the part about selling books which his campaign has complained about in the past along with his malaise about campaigning.

        Here’s what Riehl said:
        The campaign irregularities now being investigated? Look, Cain isn’t a dumb guy. They didn’t care because they never thought any of it would matter. He’d sell some books, raise some cash, maybe take a shot at Saxby Chambliss for the Senate down the road, or something else – more radio affiliates, a Fox gig, etc…. But the dude just wasn’t in it to win it.

        Knowing that, as I honestly felt I did, and watching him manipulate people just pissed me off. Frankly, if he had been serious maybe a year or so ago, who knows, he may have had a shot. Cain has been in and around DC for decades. He knows full well what you can and can’t do if you seriously want to become POTUS. The man just didn’t care. But his schtick made a lot of other people care. And that leaves me not caring for him at all, frankly.

        His presidential bid was meant to be a lark, likely a gambit to increase speaking fees and book sales, perhaps to gain him a gig on cable news. At first, he was in on the joke, gaming the primary process and making up policies as he went along. He drank alcohol during public appearances, even in the morning. He allowed the release of a bizarre ad showing his chief of staff blowing smoke. He greeted female interviewers as ?sweetheart? and occasionally gave them hugs. His staff celebrated his quirks in a don?t-feed-the-animals memo to those aides traveling in a car with the candidate: ?Do not speak to him unless you are spoken to.”…….

        http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/11/dana-milbank-unmasks-herman-cain.html

  • lucasblack

    Cain has been defying the laws of gravity. I expect his poll numbers to start falling with the only question being how fast, how far and who to? My instinct is that they will go to Newt as long as he doesn’t say something stupid but for him to hold them, he has to get out there more and sweat off a few pounds shaking hands. Perry will be throwing money all around and Santorum all over Iowa like a line of army ants. Gingrich has a moment if he wants to seize it. Now we’ll see if he really does want to be President or if this is all about Newt Inc selling more books and DVDs. I, for one, hope he’s for real.

  • radicalrighty

    “On the Make”
    The Rise and Fall of Herman Cain

  • carolynr

    Let’s forget the fact that Herman seems to be a little “light” on foreign affairs. Let’s forget the fact that he speaks before he thinks, guilty of the very thing he accuses his accusers of. Let’s look at something that is more irritating. The Race Card.

    His latest ad, wherein he uses Justice Thomas to bring home his message starts out with “Hi Tech Lynching”. People…have you had enough of this crap? I have. What does this have to do with lynching…drawing a parallel between slavery and his situation. His situation is simply this. He knew about this, didn’t get out in front of it, allowing the media define the entire situation…whether it is true or false is in material.

    Fact: There was a settlement for sexual harassment. Fact: Cain knew about it and at first was oblivious to the details. Fact: Cain gave several scenarios of his recollection of the incident. Fact: Herman Cain blamed Perry and then demanded an apology without any evidence. Evidence or disclosure would vindicate Cain but we only have an admission of a settlement. Fact: Herman Cain played the race card to garner sympathy from the TPM, hoping (which they did) that they would be able to identify how the Media and government had screwed them over.

    Now that we have the facts out of the way. Do you want more of the same old crap as we have been hearing for the past three years. I don’t. Rich against poor, black against white, regions of the country against others. Division, division, division. So…TPM…of which I am a member…wake up…we’re in a race to save this country…not talk about lynching…which has NOTHING to do with this…other than to hype the polls.

    Poor Herman has nobody to blame for this but himself. He knew about the charges…take care of it yourself Herman…we’re looking for a leader…not some bleeding heart liberal.

    • 1bunny

      n/t

  • septembergurl

    off as scheduled.

    Not because allred/Radar is about as far down the media/legal food chain as you can get. Not because the claim is baseless or the woman is of questionable background.

    No, it’s because this would be a crack in the lid the media has put on this story.

    wait, what? the Media? Yes.
    Isn’t it odd that our media, who love nothing better than outing people in a good sex scandal (more so if it’s a Republican), have fallen silent just as it gets interesting, that is, just when we were about to meet the woman/women involved?

    The conservative nomenklatura, Limbaugh, et al are quite sure that this is a media set-up aimed at a conservative. Yet it’s the media that’s holding back. The media obviously think that there is something about these women that we can’t handle, that we are better off not knowing. Hmmm, what could it be?

    First shoe – sex
    Second shoe – race?

    • septembergurl

      Damn. I’m good. Been dropping hints all week that can’s accusers are silent (and the media is silent too) because they are all, like Sharon bialek, white. And, it goes without saying, good-looking.

      Blonde I didn’t figure on.

      These women have been injured twice — once by being sexually harassed by Cain, then by being smeared by conservatives who are doing victory dances over these women’s bodies. Disgusting.

      Isn’t it obvious the women were trying to protect cain by not coming forward? As the first accuser found out, it was not possible to explain her accusation without doing it in person, and she did not want to do that. So she gets called a liar and a bimbo for trying to do the decent thing.

      I don’t pretend to understand Cain. I suppose he will hang around a while longer. Thanks for screwing up another week of our primary, Herb. I think we understand why Mrs Cain doesn’t join him on the trail. Herb has some splainin to do1

  • hitthedeck

    This attorney for the mystery woman knows he is sitting on big money and the more popular Cain gets will increase the monetary value of his client?s identity. American attorneys are experts at legalizing extortion or should I say blackmail by calling it a settlement. This attorney was successful in his first attempt on a settlement and now is he is trying to find a legal solution to void her original agreement of nondisclosure to collect a larger settlement of better yet big dollars from the media. Today the biggest Hollywood ambulance chaser ?Gloria Allred? has jumped on the Cain wagon with a sexy blond with more allegations. There?s a good statement in the New Testament that says it all?Let he who has no sin cast the first stone!
    They don’t give a dam -they are going to throw them anyway!

  • Pingback: Google