Monday, October 31, 2011

The accusations against Herman Cain

I don't know about this sexual harassment story against Herman Cain when he was head of the National Restaurant Association. It's not enough for him just to blame the media. The story is all reported with anonymous women and it's not unbelievable that the association would have settled just to close down the accusations without any proof that the stories were true. And the accusations seem to revolve around things he said, not did. Will all the feminists who told us that the personal was separate from the political when there were much worse accusations against Bill Clinton now rally to Cain's defense? Of course not. However, accusations that emerge in a political campaign have a different weight than those against an elected leader. If these accusations are true or if Herman Cain can't shake them off, then Republicans should be glad to find this out now before any votes have been taken. And Republicans pride themselves on holding to a higher standard than the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers standard.

Mitt Romney must be wondering what sort of lucky star he is running under. When attention might have been on the poor week he had with more, as George Will terms it, pretzel-twisting on issues that should be clear for a true conservative, the country's limited political attention will be distracted by this distasteful story.


mark said...

Forget Herman Cain. He's entertaining, but he was never a serious candidate.
Nice speech by Perry Friday night. Has a grown man ever been so giddy about getting a bottle of maple syrup? Subtance abuse problems?
Maybe not, but it will be fun to "poke at him" until he finally drops from the race.

RightKlik said...

" it's not unbelievable that the association would have settled just to close down the accusations without any proof that the stories were true."

It's entirely believable. It happens. A lot of details are missing in this story. It's much too soon to draw any conclusions. Cain can't just blame the media, but a substantive accusation would merit a substantive response.

Pat Patterson said...

Depends on who has the substance abuse problem? The guy making the speech, the guy editing the clip and refusing to answer questions on who he is or the guy who gullibly believes the truth of an edited clip that is not as presented?

LarryD said...

How does one distinguish anonymous sources from outright lies? How do you defend yourself from a charge with no specifics, that is all vapor? How do we know that the "reporter" isn't just making all of this up?

mark said...

Yes, Pat, all the giggling, giddiness and flamboyant gestures were taken out of context by a shifty liberal (an agent provocateur, perhaps?). I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation. Do all you cowboy wannabees have these meltdowns?

mark said...

Poor Herman's already been caught telling one lie (regarding the settlement). His campaign manager has contradicted him as to whether the accusations were anonymous. He had ten days to prepare for this, and this is the best he can do? Maybe that's why Perry was acting like a giddy schoolgirl.

Pat Patterson said...

The article makes it clear that it was edited by someone the writer notes did not respond to when requested. Unless of course that makes all those I am a Kenyan snippets pieced together make Obama really a Kenyan? Do all you lemmings hve these suicidal urges? ?

pumping-irony said...

Really, quoting "talking points memo" as a source for information about Republican candidates? Why not just ask the Obama campaign's opinion (that's pretty much what they did.)

mark said...

I suppose you can (and will)blame Talking Points and the "lame-stream media", but Perry disgraced himself. Barring an extremely creative excuse from his team, he's done.
His only "break" is that Cain's campaign also imploded today. But the image of Rick's fascination (and subsequent cuddling) of the bottle of syrup might linger.
Romney's luckiest day ever.

tfhr said...


How did you figure out all by yourself that Cain, as you put it, "was never a serious candidate"?

A remark like that should be something you're ready to back up, so let's hear it.

Pat Patterson said...

Just in case mark gets his info from some one other than TPM and HuffPo here is a long video, no grimaces or ticks, from a editorial question session in NH broadcast of CSpan.

mark said...

You really have trouble with the whole concept of "common sense" (as witnessed by your 'OBL must be dead because we don't hear much from him' embarrassment).
I base it on the many repubs who have said he has no campaing structure in place, as well as his lack of preparation to defend his plans or his scandal.
When you or others accuse Obama of playing politics with issues, do you really think you have definitive evidence?

Producing a video in which Perry doesn't act giddy and flamboyant only backs up my post that he was probably under the influence during his Friday night speech. I'm guessing a couple of drinks mixed with pain medicine (fairly recent back surgery).

Again, folks, try to use common sense.

tfhr said...


A lecture from a Progressive on common sense, that's rich!

Your Osama bin Laden default is making you sound like a one string banjo again but then your strategy has always been to attack in order to deflect from substantive debate, so depth has never been a requirement for you.

Another example of your intellectual sloth and detestable behavior would be the unfounded claim you make suggesting Perry is "under the influence". While you've engaged in libel here I know you can go lower, mark, it's only a matter of time but it is sad to see it replayed here over and over during your descent.

Pat Patterson said...

I'm glad to see that mark is "...just guessing," since it is obvious he didn't do due diligence and find the original speech but is merely aping the CW, and a weak version of it, in assuming that the complete version is not helpful. Is it safe to assume when President Obama has one of his umah moments on camera that it is the sum total of his intelligence? Of course not but mark simply choses the glib and shallow version heard third hand from the usual suspects.

BTW, the ISAF, Stephen Pressfield, Michael Yon, Small Wars Journal and even Jane's had arrived at the same conclusion during the communication blackout of Osama Ben Ladin. That he was either dead or seriously wounded.

mark said...

The OBL "default" is just to hard to lay off, as it epitomizes what an incompetent fraud you are.

Speculating that Perry might have mixed alcohol and pain pills before his speeach is "detestable"? This is about the guy who said he didn't doubt Obama's citizenship, but thought it was fun to poke him with it.

What "communication blackout"? Some people speculated (there's that dirty word again), that the OBL tapes were fake. tfhr claimed he was dead based on "a decrease in communiques". Obviously, that's idiotic. It's sweet of you to lie for a friend. What a pal!

tfhr said...


My views on the status of bin Laden prior to the raid were not unique, as Pat Patterson points out for you. While the ISAF mention is broad, the others are very specific and like me, they would have had to rely on open source information. I read Janes on a regular basis, as do many people within the Intelligence Community and they, like most of us, myself included, based their assessments on the information available. To suggest that their conclusions, my conclusion, or Pat Patterson's reference, were "lies", is just bizarre.

To agree or disagree with someone on the validity of an opinion apparently requires more maturity that you are able to marshal at this point in your life. That's sad because we've been led to believe that you are not an adolescent but rather an adult. One wonders what it must be like to work with you in some capacity that could put you at odds with another person. Would you shriek, "LIAR!", if you did not agree with the other party? Life must be very difficult for you, mark.

In the course of this thread you have accused others of being liars because you don't agree with them and you've suggested that a presidential candidate was under the influence. Do you have any idea how unhinged you sound?

I doubt we'll ever get an answer to that question because you still have not answered, in your own words, why you believe Cain is not a serious candidate. Deflection is a tactic but your persistence is just plain boring.

mark said...

Just a bit strange coming from someone who deflected all criticism of Bush by saying saying critics were "spitting on the troops".
That Cain is not a serious candidate has been discussed by conservatives on Fox News w/ Chris Wallace (the best of the Sunday morning programs). It is certainly not "unhinged" thinking, nor is it to speculate that Perry was under the influence during his speech.

I don't usually archive comments, but I did save your OBL gibberish because I knew you'd change your story. According to you,
a drop-off in communiques + a much lower communication profile = dead terrorist

But don't be mad because Obama's successes have made you look like an idiot. You did that all by yourself.

"As I've said many times before, I did believe that bin Laden was dead. My suspicion was based on his drop-off in public communiques. It would seem that his keepers in Pakistan may have made his security arrangement contingent on UBL keeping a much lower communication profile than he had in the past."

tfhr said...



I've never attempted to side step my position, to suggest that I have is ridiculous, but that's nothing if not you, mark.

Anyway, I'm glad you've decided to anchor your position on the opinions that you say you've heard on Chris Wallace's show. Are you getting hand picked quotes from your favorite Progressive blogs or do you watch Wallace often? I did ask you for your own opinion but since you don't seem to be able to come up with any supporting views of your own, we'll have to wait until next Sunday so you can get some more help with filling that melon of yours up with something new to spew out here. Take notes.

Of course you could venture to offer your own opinion today about why Cain, in your words, is "not a serious candidate", but you continue to fail at that for the second day in a row. I wonder why you are afraid to risk your own words here. Are you fearful that you are not up to the task?

One other point, I'm thrilled that Obama has decided to go on a killing rampage across Pakistan's northern territories, Yemen, and Somalia. It sure beats a lot of messy trials following complicated confinement. I know you liberals and progressives voted him into office on the hopes that he would also start an air war in Libya. Remember that? I still laugh when I think about the fits liberal freaks would have been having if Bush had launched air attacks on Tripoli and other cities across Libya for 8 months. Just think of all the anti-war parades and demonstrations you missed out on because Bush didn't attack Libya? The funniest part is the complete lack of honesty on your part that prevents you from admitting you would've opposed such an action.

I'm glad Gaddafi is dead but I'm very worried about the aftermath in that country, just as I'm concerned about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran, to provide a partial list of current incoherent Obama administration foreign policy failures in progress.

Pulling our military and advisors out of Iraq before that country is fully prepared to go it alone and announcing dates for withdrawals in Afghanistan, now that's "spitting on the troops", especially on those that made the ultimate sacrifice, to say nothing of the disservice it does to their families. But short term political gains during campaign years here in the US has always been your style, mark. You did it when we went to war and you're doing it on the way out but that doesn't stop the war.