November 2, 2011

Politico essay "Cain reaction: Not by the book" should really be titled "Cain, give up before it gets ugly."

"Herman Cain... has already broken every rule in the book on how to deal with a political scandal," says Suzanne Garment (at Politico, where the allegations were first revealed):
After 25 years of post-Watergate scandals, political people have figured out what you do about a skeleton like Cain’s: Enter crisis mode. Gather every witness and piece of paper you can. Have your story straight. Identify the holes in it and shore them up. Then get out in front with the story line—quickly, before the cold turns into pneumonia. Everybody knows this....
But what Garment really wants to talk about is — as she puts it — "what the Cain scandal... says about us." She offers 2 "possibilities." One is that the scandal confirmed what the press already thought of him, that he's got a "substandard... organization," and so the scandal works as "a hard news hook on which to hang a soft judgment." If that's what's going on, we are in the middle of ending Cain's viability as a candidate.
The other possibility is the one people mention, then recoil from as if they’d touched a hot stove: the possibility that we’re watching a Thomas. It’s no wonder they recoil. Twenty years ago, the question of whether Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas made unwelcome sexual comments to Anita Hill turned into a piece of political theater that scorched not just the two principals but those who observed them and the confirmation process itself.

Even partisans of then-Judge Thomas asked themselves, if they were honest, about the climate that subjected Hill to such an unremitting attack on her character. Even partisans of Hill asked themselves, if they were honest, about the venom of the attack on a conservative black man.

Yes, we have no idea of how much or how little the particular facts of the Cain and Thomas situations resemble each other. But no one who watched the Hill-Thomas struggle can forget the sheer hatefulness exposed by the controversy, and no one who watches the Cain scandal can avoid the echoes of that memory. All one can hope is that an awareness of the past ugliness will keep us from repeating it.
What is Garment really trying to say? I find her writing a strange combination of tortured and mealy-mouthed. I think she's saying Cain is an inadequate candidate and this scandal provides an opportunity to take him down soundly and efficiently, but she's worried that people will fight for him, and she warning us not to go there. It will be ugly.

I don't know her politics, but I suspect that if she was around 20 years ago, she was one of the many people who thought that Clarence Thomas, when accused of sexual harassment, would accept the shame and quietly remove himself from the national stage. But he stood his ground, the fight took place, and he has held his position on the Court to this day.

Can Garment really think that those of us who respect Clarence Thomas wish he'd spared us that fight by departing on cue? What would have happened next? We'd have learned that opponents can take down a preferred candidate by throwing an accusation against him about something that happened without witnesses other than the accuser and the accused. How many times would that scenario play out before people would rouse themselves from that self-defeating passivity?

Garment doesn't mention Bill Clinton, but there's a man who dragged the country through an unbelievably ugly ordeal to hold onto his power, and his co-partisans supported him on that long march through the mud, even at the cost of selling out all the principle they'd seemed to care so deeply about only a few years before when they tried to take down Clarence Thomas.

199 comments:

BarryD said...

Sounds to me like she is doing exactly what many suspect. She's a partisan operative trying to take down a candidate who, as time passes, seems more and more like someone who could beat Obama.

Rose said...

Getting ready for school, the morning news on the TV - discussion of the sememn on the dress, phone sex, blow jobs and cigars - I look at my then about 10 years old kids and wonder, what will this do to their respect for the office.

Press conferences with foreign leaders, marred by shouted questions about "Lewinsky" - semen, phone sex, blow jobs...

A President, with a well-disciplined strategy for combatting the inevitable, with his guilty history.

Yeah - people like Clinton are prepared. People like Cain, who are not guilty, are caught in the headlights trying to respond. What can one say? defending yourself drags it out and makes you look guilty.

Like Palin - he now knows - the press is not his friend. And they are not honorable.

wv: conest (reporters: not quite honest)

edutcher said...

What she's saying is that she may have encountered a Conservative even she has to admit is smarter than she is.

(he is a rocket scientist, you know)

And it scares the Hell out of her.

cubanbob said...

After Bill Clinton and John Edwards there are no sex scandals worth mentioning unless it involves a live boy or a dead girl. Cain will ride it out just fine and the 'media' will once again make fools of themselves.

Joaquin said...

Imagine counsel for a Republican today saying what Lanny Davis said in 1999?

“Lanny J. Davis, former White House special counsel, assailed the Broaddrick story before the broadcast, saying: "Is journalism about reporting facts or not? Where have we gone when an unsubstantiated allegation becomes a fact if others report it? It is not corroborated because her girlfriend saw her with a swollen lip. That doesn't make the charge of rape a fact."

Fast forward that to today!

ndspinelli said...

The authors politics are irrelevant. She is a scribe for the political two party aristocracy. Cain is not a member of the fraternity..and they're not accepting new applicants..wink wink, and said in hushed tones,"At least not of his ilk."

Christopher in MA said...

Yes, when "we" want to know how a conservative should handle a problem, "we" always count on the sincere, objective advice of a barely-literate left wing hack. Because they always have the country's interests firmly in mind.

Henry said...

What cubanbob said. If nothing else comes out, this is pretty much over, despite all the shouting. The next weather event or celebrity scandal will put an end to it.

This is an interesting statement:

Even partisans of then-Judge Thomas asked themselves, if they were honest, about the climate that subjected Hill to such an unremitting attack on her character.

Yes, many partisans of then-Judge Thomas did ask themselves this question. And the answer they honestly sought was "who was the degenerate who leaked the FBI files to Nina Totenberg?"

bagoh20 said...

The punditry that is criticizing Cain about his reaction seems to be saying that he should have had a good bullshit story ready and waiting, because that's what a quality political candidate does. Excuse me if I find that not to be a feature I'm looking for. I've seen that silky pony. It's not so good at getting real work done, nor telling you the truth when they know it.

You would think slimy politician is a role model now days.

Titus said...

My only concern is that the two women may be fat crackers.

If they are, I will be suspicious.

Scott M said...

The next weather event or celebrity scandal will put an end to it.

Justin Bieber's supposedly a daddy. If true, the 20-year-old chick could be up on statutory rape. That's two, two, two scandals in one.

Allie's Apple said...

Charlie Sykes, right wing talk show host , in Milwaukee 1130AM on the dial, aid this morning that Cain actually voted for Bill Clinton.

MayBee said...

Anita Dunn said the White House would be investigated as a gender-hostile workplace if it weren't the White House.
Obama had all of his past work records sealed off.

I think we should demand he have all his records released, so we can see if his current attitudes about gender ever caused him problems in the past.

cassandra lite said...

Garment to Cain: "Your lack of faith in our ability to destroy you is disturbing."

bagoh20 said...

And BTW, when has one of these political bullshit explainations, that everyone thinks Cain should have had ready, ever worked?

I'll tell you when: When the liberal media wants to buy it. Republican don't get that much, and Black conservatives - never.

Freder Frederson said...

People like Cain, who are not guilty, are caught in the headlights trying to respond.

How on earth do you know Cain is not guilty. If nothing else, he has lied about pertinent facts. First he claimed he didn't know if a settlement had been reached then he changed his story. He also lied about the amount of the settlement. He claimed it was three months pay, when it was actually a year's pay.

AllenS said...

Well, Freder, since the money didn't come out of Cain's pocket, he might not know of all the details.

bagoh20 said...

"Obama had all of his past work records sealed off."

And his college records too. How does someone effectively do that with an investigatory press out there working to find the truth about important people?

I guess it depends.

Even with Bush they at least made up some stuff Rather than come up empty handed.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

He claimed it was three months pay, when it was actually a year's pay.

Actually, he claimed that he thought that it was 3 months pay, but said several times that he wasn't sure and didn't know. There's no justification for lying about what he said.

- Lyssa

franglo said...

Bill Clinton, but there's a man who dragged the country through an unbelievably ugly ordeal to hold onto his power

HILARIOUS! The House Republican committee of holier than thou adulterers had NOTHING to do with the ordeal, right? For God's sake. They IMPEACHED the president. For the second time in history.

Michael said...

There is no question that Cain is guilty of being accused two decades ago of making one woman feel uncomfortable and offending another. They were both willing to settle their claims for money and entered into non-disclosure agreements in return. One or both now wish to change that deal and have another bite of the money and fame apple.

I would urge Cain to release them from their agreements, ask the NRA to sue them for a return of the original settlement plus interest, and get to work getting to know how these women have spent the last two decades. Really getting to know them.

Allie's Apple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

The chief law enforcement officer in the country lying under oath to a federal grand jury is not an impeachable offense?

CJinPA said...

Don't look for consistency. A few years before they defended Clinton, they were reading Sen. Bob Packwood's (R-Frisky) diary on the floor of the Senate to expose his serial gropism.

MayBee said...

bagoh-
I'll tell you when: When the liberal media wants to buy it. Republican don't get that much, and Black conservatives - never.

Darn tootin'.

Obama (Axelrod) blatantly lied about Bill Ayers being a guy in his neighborhood and their kids going to school together. The press completely accepted that, and completely ignored all the unsavory money wasting lying about the whole Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Ayers family.

Obama obfuscated about Rezko, finally getting away with saying it was "boneheaded".

So lying and calling taking money from a felon are acceptable, presidential ways to handle an accusation. Sometimes.

Allie's Apple said...

Correction, Sykes is 620 AM on the dial.

Saint Croix said...

Oh my goodness, the liberals keep destroying our candidates.

"Your daddy had a hunting lodge and it had a rock on it with the N-word and we turned the rock over and found it!"

Wow. And now they took out another one.

"Ten years ago, you made a funny gesture, or you said the wrong word, or something. And I don't know what it was, but it made a woman feel bad!"

I don't see how I can vote for either of those guys, after that liberal smackdown.

It's like character assassination with a squirt gun.

Mr. D said...

FWIW, Garment is a conservative. Her husband is Leonard Garment, an old Nixon hand and she has written, among other things, a book called "Scandal" which talks about the history of political scandals. That book came out in 1991, just before the Thomas/Hill controversy.

bagoh20 said...

Freder,
What makes something a lie is whether or not you know the truth. I don't know if he did or not, or if he forgot until briefed, but being an executive in the 90's meant you had a pretty decent chance of getting sexual harassment charges from someone, regardless of the merit. It was, and still is, often just a way to play the lottery out of greed, revenge or both. The "victim" even if lying is rarely at any risk of anything, so why not go for it.

Regardless though, even if the charges are true, it would not cause me to eliminate Cain as a viable candidate. It's trivia. Is there any doubt that every candidate has something equally bad in their history that we do or don't know about. I take that as a given.

damikesc said...

For committing perjury. Cain should quit...why?

And why do we know so much more about the Republican nominees than about our damned President? He is still a blank slate three years later.

Michael said...

franglo: I am with you on this one. I sincerely wish the current president spent all of his time in the oval office getting blow jobs from interns instead of trying to do what he does not know how to do. We would all be better off.

Impeaching a president for getting blowjobs from an intern was an outrage!! It was strictly his business. Clearly the president of the U.S. getting a blowjob from an intern could not be conceived of as being sexual harassment and as any woman knows blowing the boss is both acceptable and encouraged and definitely not cause for impeachment.

bagoh20 said...

"They IMPEACHED the president. For the second time in history.

Yea, and don't forget how the holier than thou court found him in contempt, and how he lost his law license. It must have been all the work of the vast right wing conspiracy.

franglo said...

Yes, liberals are destroying the Republican candidates.

Liberals, not, say, the other Republican candidates. In a wide open, competitve primary battle. Nope, couldn't be them. It's liberals.

Libruullllls. Liberulllllllls. It's allll their fault. Boo. Spooky.

franglo said...

The blow-job getting president who left the country at peace with billions in surplus. Give us more like him.

Allie's Apple said...

So it appears that Cain is being attacked from the right as much as he is from the left. Charlie Sykes ( right wing Milwaukee radio talk show host ) hates him and has said on numerous occasions that Cain's association with Mark Block alone should disqualify him from the Presidency, due to extremely poor judgement.

Michael said...

franglo: I hope that Cain did nothing more than get a blowjob from one of the people who worked for him at the NRA because that would definitely not be sexual harassment.

Allie's Apple said...

So it doesn't bother anyone here that Cain voted for Bill Clinton?

Michael said...

franglo: I am with you on this all the way!! Using an intern for sexual favors is OK by you and OK by me.

Michael said...

"So it doesn't bother anyone here that Cain voted for Bill Clinton?"

No. Why should it bother anyone here? Did he vote for him once or twice?

traditionalguy said...

The well financed campaigns have under contract polling services giving them confidential results a 5 days before the Public Polls catch up.

The Quinnipiac Poll's showing a sudden acceleration of Cain's support leaving Romney in the dust must have been the signal to launch this attack.

What can a black man possibly do when a woman says he was sexually suggestive to her?

The white fears of black men's sexuality caused the Civil War and then caused the 80 years of Segregation Laws after the reconstruction era.

If a drunken Herman acts sexually at adulterous levels, then it was never before his NRA job and it was never after his NRA job.

But that proves nothing when faced with an accusation everyone is ready to believe. You know, those darkies are so weak that they drink and fool around every time we are not looking.

Now prove we think wrong Herman.

Allie's Apple said...

Twice.

pogo101 said...

"Garment doesn't mention Bill Clinton, but there's a man who dragged the country through an unbelievably ugly ordeal to hold onto his power ..."

Good point, and remember: If Clinton had resigned, Al Gore would have had the advantage of incumbency in 2000 and, very likely, beaten George W. Bush. So in a very real way, Clinton's clinging to power gave us 4, probably 8, years of a GOP presidency, and Justices Alito and Roberts to boot.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Has anyone here other than Allie's Apple ever heard of Charlie Sykes? I sure haven't.

franglo said...

I don't think Cain settling this case means much. It's up to the Republican primary voters whether they think that's a disqualification for leadership.

But making this an MSM vs. conservative issue is completely ridiculous. As if ANY candidate of ANY ideological stripe would not see this kind of case become an issue at this high level. A candidate for president.

What else are you going to blame on the MSM? The fact that all your candidates are completely lame? It's all a plant by the MSM? Lols upon lols.

Michael said...

Allie's Apple: Cool. You might have noticed that a number of prominent liberals have written scathing articles about Obama in the NYT and the WSJ. Some conservatives don't like Cain.

Are these meant to be observations that are unique or creative?

bagoh20 said...

"It's like character assassination with a squirt gun."

I completely agree, but such crap matters to educated people who vote for the guy with the best pants crease.

Some people find Cain not to be their idea of a President. Unlike Obama, he actually sounds and acts like a successful Black man. Although highly educated, he does not have that aloof, academic haughty quality that makes them feel all comfortable. He sounds like a working business man, not a writer, pundit or professor. To many of the elites, that, like a southern accent, sounds stupid to them. They can't help it. The reinforcing bubble is very powerful and not real open-minded.

Michael said...

franglo: You remember our candidate John Edwards and how the press covered for him? Perhaps you were too young, but you can google John Edwards and follow the whole tawdry story. Not tawdry for John because all he did was get laid and knock up a girl and kept it from the press. That part is OK because at least she wasn't an intern, she was actually getting pretty good pay as a film maker. Tawdry because "journalists" knew about this and decided you and I didn't need to know because John was a good guy and would help the poor people.

Allie's Apple said...

Lyssa, do you live in Wisconsin? I am sure Althouse knows of Charlie Sykes.Mark Block is VERY well known in Wisconsin politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/mark-block-cains-smoking-aide-has-troubled-past/2011/10/28/gIQAte20PM_blog.html

damikesc said...

The BJ having President who ignored some of the most egregious accounting fraud ever seen. And who, in spite of his "surpluses" increased the debt every year in office...

bagoh20 said...

"So it doesn't bother anyone here that Cain voted for Bill Clinton?"

No. We all know who Althouse voted for, and most think it a mistake, but we still respect her. A Presidential election doesn't give you much choice. It's not Baskin Robins Now her Dylan sickness is another story. If Cain is a Dylan fan, then that changes everything.

Mike said...

All of this hoohah amounts to two road apples in the middle of a highway in Amish farm country.

In a career as corporate counsel I've been around enough of these sexual harassment lawsuits to know that $35K is chump change to (a) get rid of a disgruntled employee; and (b) is a lot less than the cost of defense.

He said, she said "he made me uncomfortable" is a very messy analytical situation. You can nevery definitely conclude "she's a lousy employee" or "he's a lousy sexual predator of a boss" in that situation.

Now if the lady can come up with a specific night and a hotel room on an out of town trip, your analysis is simpler. Photos are good too.

But if you are a white male (sorry Herman, you don't quite make the cut there) and the EEOC is investigating the lady's all too often spurious claim, the deck is stacked against you. And since the company or its insurers are the ones who usually pay the bill, Settle! is the order of the day.

Allie's Apple said...

Michael again with the personal insults, once again I should follow my instincts and not address you.

franglo said...

Michael: what was the result of the MSM coverup? President John Edwards?

In other words, who gives a shit and what does this have to do with anything? Toolbags like Limbaugh are running around saying the MSM is trying to destroy Cain because he's a "strong black conservative" which is a) patently false, since ANY candidate with this kind of suit would be covered in the press for it and b) playing the dastardly "race card" that the right has been bitching and moaning about for years now.

It's just pathetic.

Michael said...

Lyssa: Liberals know the names of all the disc jockeys.

Christopher in MA said...

"So it doesn't bother anyone here that Cain voted for Bill Clinton?"

What a silly little thing you are, Allie. Perhaps Cain had good reason for voting for Clinton. Perhaps he was as blinded by the bullshit of the Syphilitic Hillbilly as you and franglo (of the laughable 'country at peace with billions in surplus' fairy tale) appear to be.

Hey, did you know the sainted Ronaldus Magnus was actually once a (the SHAME!) Democrat? Quick, girl, tell the people! Warn the GOP before it's too late, for God's sake!

Matt said...

Someone answer this.

You are a journalist. A politician who two months ago was unknown to most Americans is now leading in the polls. He is still unknown having not gone through the usual vetting process. Suddenly you get word that there were two sexual harassment claims levied against him when he was the head of a company 15 years ago. Only you and a small handful of journalists know about this.

What do you do?

bagoh20 said...

Clinton did not leave a surplus, that was only his administration's projection that never actually came to be, and he left us in a recession.

AND, he left a hell of a mess on that blue dress. That's shows poor judgment.

Michael said...

Franglo: It matters because John Edwards could have been president if the National Enquirer (of all rags) had not doggedly pursued the story that others in the media knew about but did not think you needed to know about. Do you want the National Enquirer to be guarding your liberties? are you really as dumb as you appear?

Rumpletweezer said...

Gloria Steinem will show up any time now, right? Herman Cain apparently didn't even use his "one free grope" card on either of these women. I'm sure she'll be out to defend him.

DADvocate said...

The people who were really scorched by Thomas/Hill, Clinton/Lewinsky, Edwards/what's her face are journalists and liberals, especially liberal journalists.

It became blatantly obvious that they had no objectivity, were not interested in the free exchange of ideas and that equality, diversity, sexism, and racism were just buzz words used in the most jaded and disingenuous ways to further their goals.

Scott M said...

Gloria Steinem will show up any time now, right? Herman Cain apparently didn't even use his "one free grope" card on either of these women. I'm sure she'll be out to defend him.

Has anyone checked with Whoopi to see if she thinks it was harassment harassment?

write_effort said...

Cain entered the GOP race as a version of American Idol, where the losers usually have better career prospects than the winner. He's now got a larger audience and he will separate them from their money for decades to come with his story of Black conservative martyrdom.

Allie's Apple said...

http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/charliesykes

The point is that even a right wing mouth foamer like Charlie Sykes sees Cain as unacceptable , because of his extremely poor judgment in choosing to associate himself so closely with Mark Block.

Scott M said...

He's now got a larger audience and he will separate them from their money for decades to come with his story of Black conservative martyrdom.

You're really putting the lamp before the lawn jockey, aren't you?

Michael said...

Matt: Excellent question. If you are a journalist and the candidate in question is a Democrat you pursue several sources who are willing to be named to corroborate the story. You then contact the women involved (and you are a journalist so you will be able to figure this out) and you ask them directly what the story was and if you find them sleazy or trailer-trashy you discount whatever they say and move on to an important story about bankers making more money than they should.

If, on the other hand, the candidate is a Republican you simply report what you have learned and let others do the heavy lifting and the candidate to swing in the wind.

If the candidate was a Republican who had been on the board of a non-profit with a member of the KKK you would read about it every day. A domestic terrorist? Not so much.

Rumpletweezer said...

Matt--

What do I do as a journalist?

Easy. If he's a democrat I don't do anything. If he's a republican I print any and every rumor, opinion, and innuendo that I can find or make up out of whole cloth.

How'd I do?

Oh, and I get extra credit if the candidate is a woman or the candidate is black and I can get a negative quote from NOW about the woman or a negative quote from the NAACP about the black man.

MayBee said...

I don't have a problem with the sexual harassment claims being covered, I just think they need to be covered more honestly.

It's easy to get money out of a company that is firing you by claiming sexual harassment or something or other. We are a litigious society with a "don't you dare offend me!" attitude.

What I dream of is some consistency in coverage of these "scandals", though. Consistency and sense of proportion.

Michael said...

Allie's Apple: Did the disc jockey have any opinions on Cain's achievements at Burger King? Did he dig into who his direct reports were?

franglo said...

A domestic terrorist? Not so much.


One name.
G GORDON LIDDY.

But what's the point of tit for tat. If you really believe the deck is stacked against you and the mighty, mind controlling MSM determines the political fates, then just give up! You're the victim after all.

Christopher in MA said...

"The point is that even a right wing mouth foamer like Charlie Sykes sees Cain as unacceptable, because of his extremely poor judgement in choosing to associate himself so closely with Mark Block."

Well, if CHARLIE SYKES says it. . .by the way, Allie, when did Mark Block regret not having set off more bombs during his career as a domestic terrorist? When did his wife call the LaBianca murders "groovy?" And when did Block, in appreciation for America, say it was a country where you could be "guilty as sin, free as a bird?"

Please let me know. If Cain associates with a man like that, I certainly would not wish to vote for him. You'd never vote for a candidate with such sketchy taste in associates, would you?

Saint Croix said...

Even partisans of then-Judge Thomas asked themselves, if they were honest, about the climate that subjected Hill to such an unremitting attack on her character.

Oh my God. In the words of fourth graders everywhere, she started it.

The attack on Clarence Thomas was cooridinated, and hysterical. Feminists were sure that he was going to overturn Roe v. Wade.

He saw a porn movie!

Oh my God, a man saw a pornographic film. I can't believe it. How could that happen?

He said, "hey, there's a pube on my coke can."

In the best case scenario, Anita Hill is a woman with serious OCD issues, who remembers insane shit from 10 years ago.

Worst case scenario, she exaggerated and made up shit to keep Roe v. Wade in place.

Who doubts that the attack on Thomas was based on Roe v. Wade? Of course it was. Liberals had scorched the Bork nomination, and this was more of the same. Except they had no real record to attack and malign. So they dumped raw sewage on his head instead.

Anita Hill wanted her attack to stay private. Like this attack on Cain. They want it to be secret, because it's horseshit.

I have no illusions that Clarence Thomas is perfect, or Herman Cain. Nobody is perfect. Everybody has a rude comment, a not-so-nice scene, a lousy day, a skeleton in the closet.

If it's a tort, allege the fucking tort. Allege it when it happens. If you're not going to do that, then damn if I sypmathize with you a decade after the fact. When you have something to gain by making the allegation.

The attacks on Clarence Thomas were obscene.

I'm sorry, but pro-lifers are not insane like this. You don't see this hatchet work on Ginsburg, for instance, or Breyer, or either of Obama's nominees. We are not going through your trash looking for evidence of your porn, or used condoms.

They did this to Thomas, and more. It was utterly vile.

Allie's Apple said...

Michael, when you ask an intelligent question, I'll answer it.

MayBee said...

Did Mark Block make millions of dollars doing things like kicking poor people out of emergency rooms at Herman Cain's wife's behest?

damikesc said...

I'd have bought Hill's story...if she didn't follow him to multimedia jobs while this was all going on and she had standing offers to remain at her job.

janetrae said...

Ann -- could you please ban Allie? She is an idiot who has several blogs of her own, but perists in highjacking yours, threatening and disparaging everyone in sight. Allie -- who cares if Cain voted for Bill Clinton? How is that relevant to ANYTHING?

Saint Croix said...

Liberals, not, say, the other Republican candidates. In a wide open, competitve primary battle. Nope, couldn't be them. It's liberals.

There is not a Republican in the world who would send field ops down to Texas to turn over rocks looking for the N-word in order to leak it to their pals in the Washington Post.

What pals in the Washington Post?

I doubt there's a Republican alive who would leak anything about Herman Cain, because for all you know the media will divulge the leaker, and suddenly that Republican campaign is charged with racism. And you know they would be.

No, I'm sorry, this is a liberal game, run by liberal media, with the same liberal template. White guys from Texas are racists. Look for the story. Black guys like sex. Look for the story. Liberals have an ideology, and they look for facts to match up with it. That's how they roll.

janetrae said...

Dear Allie: Michael's questions are perfectly intelligent to anyone who is trying to advance the discussion here. He just asked what the person on the radio said that would illuminate the issue of Mr. Cain's behavior that is being questioned in the media -- as opposed to discussing his voting record for President.

Michael said...

Allie's Apple: Understood that curiosity about Cain only extends to his missteps and not to his accomplishments. Thanks for clarifying.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Lyssa, do you live in Wisconsin? I am sure Althouse knows of Charlie Sykes.

No, like what I am pretty sure is the majority of the commenters here, I'm from another part of the country. But, regardless of where he's from, "Charlie Sykes said it" means nothing to anyone.

Andy Freeman said...

There's a third possibility - Cain takes a minor hit and journalism takes a bigger hit.

The Journolist story is popping up again. Even if there isn't any intentional coordination this time, the unintentional coordination is raising questions.

The US Constitution may not be a suicide pact, but MSM may be in one. I wonder if they care.

damikesc said...

Cursed Android auto correct. Multiple jobs.

edutcher said...

Freder Frederson said...

People like Cain, who are not guilty, are caught in the headlights trying to respond.

How on earth do you know Cain is not guilty. If nothing else, he has lied about pertinent facts.


So Freder admits Willie was guilty.

franglo said...

Bill Clinton, but there's a man who dragged the country through an unbelievably ugly ordeal to hold onto his power

HILARIOUS! The House Republican committee of holier than thou adulterers had NOTHING to do with the ordeal, right? For God's sake. They IMPEACHED the president. For the second time in history.


Somebody tell franglo that's the Constitutional responsibility of the House.

The evidence was there and they did their duty.

ricpic said...

If the confidentiality deal imposed on both Cain and his accuser holds where can this story go?

gerry said...

This is white liberals lynching a black conservative.

Allie's Apple said...

Janetrae said;
Ann -- could you please ban Allie? She is an idiot who has several blogs of her own, but perists in highjacking yours, threatening and disparaging everyone in sight. Allie -- who cares if Cain voted for Bill Clinton? How is that relevant to ANYTHING?

11/2/11 1:06 PM
---------------------------------------
How am I threatening to you, because I post a differing viewpoint than your own? Wow if that is threatening to you you need to put on your big girl panties and take off your aluminum foil hat. I suspect Althouse doesn't want a blog site filled with yes men and followers. Besides has she come out and definitively said what her viewpoint on Cain's politics are?

MayBee said...

No, I'm sorry, this is a liberal game, run by liberal media, with the same liberal template.

There is one candidate with a history of getting records unsealed to attack and remove opponents. And getting almost no blow back for having done it.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Matt said: You are a journalist. A politician who two months ago was unknown to most Americans is now leading in the polls. He is still unknown having not gone through the usual vetting process. Suddenly you get word that there were two sexual harassment claims levied against him when he was the head of a company 15 years ago. Only you and a small handful of journalists know about this.

What do you do?


Is Herman Cain still unknown? I've known about him for years, and learned a lot more since he entered the race.

But to answer your question, which I do think is a good one, I think that I would investigate to try to find out what actually happened.

Reading the allegations (he said some things that made them uncomfortable and made some non-sexual gestures that made them uncomfortable) sounds like a National Enquirer piece (If you've ever read one of the scandelous headlines, then followed to the actual article, it's usually 4 paragraphs of background about the celebrity and one about someone said that something might have happened that vaguely resembles the cover headline. - I used to work in a grocery store.)

If I couldn't find out what happened, I dont't think that it would be appropriate for a serious journalistic article. But, if it was, I would think it should include some skepticism, noting something along the lines of that settlements are often paid by the companies to avoid litigation and that they really don't know what happened.

hombre said...

franglo wrote: But making this an MSM vs. conservative issue is completely ridiculous. As if ANY candidate of ANY ideological stripe would not see this kind of case become an issue at this high level.

"This kind of case ...."

Did I miss something? Has the lefty telegraph sent out the details? Was a lawsuit filed? Do we really disqualify a candidate for President based on unsourced, undisclosed allegations?

Of course it's a case of the MSMediaswine versus a conservative.

These are the same mediaswine who covered up John Edwards' adultery and misuse of campaign funds and Obama's Chicago-style corruption. How about those kinds of cases?

AlphaLiberal said...

Clarence Thomas is corrupt. He failed to report the significant income his wife Virginia Thomas received from the Heritage foundation and others with interests in business before the Supreme Court.

So, Clarence Thomas' household is pocketing money from people trying to convince him to rule in their interests. And he kept it a secret for many years.

Let me guess, this is no problem for cons out there, right? Clarence could murder someone on the Capitol lawn and you guys would make excuses.

Allie's Apple said...

Lyssa I posted the connection between Charlie Sykes, Mark Block and Cain, it's not that difficult to see the point I'm making . It's not just a local issue with Charlie Sykes.Sykes KNOWS what Mark Block IS. Cain has chosen Mark Block as the face of his campaign, does that say nothing to you about the character of Cain?

frank said...

Strange. Here she says they're gonna 'Thomas' him. I thought the term at the time was to 'Bork' [fuck] him. I know 'fuckinlawyer' is one word. Is 'fuckin journalist' one or two? Dickta: Hillary served as junior counsel on the Senate Watergate committee, lol. Query: What feminist said "Every American woman should get down on their knees and give Bill Clinton a blow job for protecting their right to an abortion."

MayBee said...

I have no idea why Politico is keeping the women's names secret.

Can anybody tell me?

Scott M said...

I'm still waiting for that example of misrepresenting what people say, Alpha. You ducked out pretty quickly after I asked for that example yesterday.

MayBee said...

Clarence Thomas is corrupt. He failed to report the significant income his wife Virginia Thomas received from the Heritage foundation and others with interests in business before the Supreme Court.

I understand that's wrong, but can we have a flashback to the funding on presidential libraries?

janetrae said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Allie's Apple said...

Janetrae, have you visited my blogs, come look , I have pictures of scrumptious babes in sexy costumes.

janetrae said...

Dear Allie: Why do find it necessary to talk down to everyone here? This morning alone you have made dismissive and rude postings to no fewer than 6 other posters, many of whom frequent this blog, and now you disparage and talk down to me. I have my "big girl panties" on, and I don't find tin foil hats attractive. However, I do think you need to get a life with safe little yes-people around you. Now, leave me alone. If you continue to address me directly, I will sic my JD-owning, military scion on you and you will regret it, maybe not now, but soon and for the rest of your life. XXOO

hombre said...

No, I'm sorry, this is a liberal game, run by liberal media, with the same liberal template. White guys from Texas are racists. Look for the story. Black guys like sex. Look for the story. Liberals have an ideology, and they look for facts to match up with it. That's how they roll.

And St Croix captures the mindset of the MSM perfectly in a single paragraph.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Allie's Apple, you didn't post anything about a connection; you posted that Charlie Sykes said some things with which you apparently agree, and are arguing that the fact that Charlie Sykes said something somehow makes it true.

This thread is about the media response to the sexual harassment charges, not about Mark Block. I have read the allegations against Mr. Block and am not impressed. The fact that some radio host that I've never heard of, even if you say that he's a radical conservative, is impressed does nothing to change that. The fact that some radio show host that I've never heard of thinks that the sexual harrassment story here is significant means nothing to me. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up as if it should.

janetrae said...

Allie -- you just creeped me out (again). I don't swing the way you are suggesting, and the way you are apparently suggesting Mr. Cain does. Now, how is this baiting of me advancing the discussion at hand of the Politico essay and "things getting ugly"?

WV= blatiose -- too bad it wasn't otiose, because that is what you are. Oh, and who cares if it is 620 or 1120 on the AM dial?

Shouting Thomas said...

To answer Atlhouse's question:

Kudos to Judge Thomas for having the balls to stand up to that attempt at defamation.

I don't know if I could have weathered the public humiliation tactics that were employed against him, but I'm glad he had the cojones.

He's turned out to be a very good, principled justice.

For those of you who don't know what it's like to be in a storm of public praise and criticism (and I've been through it in the music biz), you have no idea how tough and determined you have to be to struggle through what Judge Thomas survived.

Shouting Thomas said...

Allie posts three links on her bio, one of which is Scott Walker is Going To Kill Me.

The first article on that blog is to a HuffPo article that states conclusively that Republicans hate women.

About 50% of Republicans are women.

Allie is a complete fucking leftist loon.

frank said...

@janetrae: smile. xoxo

Matt said...

lyssalovelyredhead

Thanks for the answer. I think a journalist always has to seek out the truth of any story. But many of them jump to immediate conclusions because of the nature of the 24 hours news cycle. And ratings!

But if a story like this lept into most journalist's lap I don't think they would hold it long. If anything, because some other news source would surely pick it up.

I think to most Americans Cain was definitely unknown until just the past couple of months, actually. And for that reason when a sexual harrassment claim comes along it should be considered. [Not all sexual harrassment claims are bogus] Yes, this one may be sheer bunk - but if it is then Cain can easily distance himself from it.

I think the claims are worth considering. Clinton survived far far worse news against him.

Allie's Apple said...

Janetrae are seriously trying to assert that Althouse's blog is filled with choirboys?

This is a good thread, commenters are debating and discussing their varying opinions,why are you trying to derail it with the sheer nonsense you just posted?

Alex said...

Matt did another hit & run troll.

Shouting Thomas said...

Allie is using a tactic that's become a favorite among the left...

How dare Republicans listen to or read [fill in the blanks].

Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are the usual fodder for leftists attempting this odd tactic.

So, Allie, do you read the commie rag, The Nation. If you do, then you're too fucking crazy to be allowed out in public. I assume you do read that Stalinist rag. So, shut up and quit commenting.

Tit for tat.

Allie's Apple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

"Cain has chosen Mark Block as the face of his campaign, does that say nothing to you about the character of Cain?"

No, but it must to you, so why don't you tell us what it says about his character. I'm interested.

write_effort said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

To repeat, Allie is a completely fucking loony leftist, who apparently publishes a blog called Scott Walker Is Killing Me.

Allie, you're a loony leftist dingbat.

Allie's Apple said...

Shouting Thomas, the blog you mentioned is not MY blog, I am following it.The other two blogs ARE mine. I also follow this blog and this is hardly a liberal haven.

Scott M said...

Clinton survived far far worse news against him.

Scooter Libby did far far less and didn't survive.

write_effort said...

from www.businessinsider.com

"...I suspect Cain is mostly proof that the country is utterly exhausted by the same old campaign nastiness and predictable accusations and is just relieved to actually be getting something new. Even if Cain's version of new sometimes seems like the Onion has decided to get into Presidential politics."

Allie's Apple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher in MA said...

"Clarence Thomas is corrupt. . ."

Frankly, AL, I wouldn't believe you if you said the sun rose in the east. But for the sake of your whiny victimhood, I'll play along. IF it's true - and with leftists like you, "if" is a very powerful consideration - then it's a bad thing. I condemn him.

Now. We know that Little Black Jesus is using taxpayer money to buy up copies of Bill Ayers' - sorry, Obama's - book, and pocketing the royalties. Is that corrupt? I do await your equivocation.

"Clarence could murder someone on the Capitol lawn and you guys would make excuses."

Coming from an acolyte of the party that insists its electoral representatives sanction murder short of actually jamming scissors into a woman's womb, that's particularly rich.

MayBee said...

Clinton was coddled for a long time before he felt any pain for his behavior.

Gennifer Flowers? No real proof- and look at that smart wife Hillary standing by him. She must be lying.
Paula Jones- trailer trash.
Monica Lewinsky? Nut. Slut. Liar.

And it's not just Clinton. Has there ever been a bigger pig than the "Lion of the Senate"?

Chip Ahoy said...

Politico, you're doing it wrong.

Hasn't bigjournalism shown you anything?

Wake me up when you come out with the second much more damaging video. No video? Didn't happen.

As to organization, that's what scandals are for -- to raise money. So I imagine Caine appreciates Politico's cooperation.

Did you catch the sidebar item on Ace about L. Ingram's Nov. 1 tweet:

"Cain says yesterday was one of their best fundraising days of the campaign so far."

Shouting Thomas said...

The proprietor of this blog is a liberal who voted for Obama, supports gay marriage and is an ardent feminist, Allie.

Do you read The Nation?

You're the one who started the guilt by association tactics.

So, tell us. Do you read that Stalinist rag?

janetrae said...

Dear Allie: Why do you continue to address comments to me personally? How is that advancing the discussion here. Many of us are not "choirboys" but neither are we Yes Men, as your earlier post suggests. Now, in case you hadn't notice, no fewer than 10 people (including me) have now pointed out that your posts are NOT advancing the discussion. I agree that the discussion is interesting, apart from your "contributions" to it. Indeed, as was pointed out in other stories this morning, your comments consist of making unsupported allegations and/or personal comments and/or off-the-point comments and/or personal attacks. Please, before you embarrass yourself further -- go away or take your meds and then go away.

Allie's Apple said...

Again Shouting Thomas, the blog you mention is not mine, why not go there and ask the owner if she is me and posts on Althouse? I would be proud to have that blog though, she does a good job.

Do any of you own all the blogs that are listed on your page as being FOLLOWED by you? I see this thread is deliberately being derailed because you cannot hear a differing opinion without feeling threatened and resorting to personal attacks, but hey I'm a big girl, I'm not going anywhere.

Browndog said...

Who didn't see this coming yeserday?

Herman Cain better lay low (shut up) and quit digging a deeper hole (stop defending himself)and let this play out (let us define the narrative)and see where the electorate stands after the dust settles (stand back and watch us bury him and make him regret he ever even thought about running for office)

Allie's Apple said...

Janetrae, oh mommy ,mommy , PLEASE ban Allie cause she says stuff I don't like! Good lord.

frank said...

...and you will regret it, maybe not now, but soon and for the rest of your life. Play it again Sam, smile.

janetrae said...

Allie: again with the personal insults, once again I should follow my instincts and not address you. Smile. XXOO

Allie's Apple said...

Bye Janie two shoes, go cry to Mommy Althouse some more,LOL.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm not interested in your martyrdom fantasies, Allie. That's just the common bullshit for lefties.

If Althouse won't ban J, she won't ban you.

Now, quit playing out your martyrdom fantasies. You can bullshit here all you want.

And I can call you a leftist dingbat all I want. You're a nut case, Allie.

I'm semi-retired. Not so busy today. I'll sit here and demolish your nutjob leftism all day, if that's what you want.

janetrae said...

Dear Allie: Here we go. Words with one (1) syl-la-ble. I do not like what you say, not for what you say, but what you say has not a thing to do with the subject matter under discussion. You are highjacking this blog to blather away about irrelevant nonsequiturs and nonsense. You have a very bad habit of doing that. It is counterproductive. OK, big words crept in towards the end there, but are you really (a) so lacking in self-awareness that you do not see what you are doing, or (b) dumb, or (c) deliberately obtuse? And I mean this in the kindest way possible -- take the meds and call back in the morning.

janetrae said...

I actually enjoy J -- not a yes man -- but he usually posts something that isn't complete drool.

Allie's Apple said...

Shouting Thomas, why so vicious again today, a couple days ago you were actually civil. Are you mad because I follow a liberal blog, I'm a liberal , why wouldn't I? I also follow Althouse, is she a liberal too?

What a way to derail a thread. That's pretty desperate. Didnt like the connection I made between Mark Block and Cain?

Allie's Apple said...

Janie two shoes, so did I break the schoolyard rules,whaaa,! Mommy Althouse needs to put Allie in time out!

Shouting Thomas said...

A person who follows a blog titled Scott Walker is Killing Me wants to bitch about viciousness.

You are quite the con artist, Allie, as is the usual with leftist dingbats.

Scott M said...

I actually enjoy J -- not a yes man -- but he usually posts something that isn't complete drool.

Once in a blue moon, which contrasts severely with your use of the word "usually", he will actually write something coherent. Usually his scat is nothing more than poorly-written, horribly spelled inane and nearly unintelligible spew. Anti-Semetic spew to boot. Do you really want to hitch to that pony?

Shouting Thomas said...

What's your bitch about Block?

That he smokes cigarettes?

Block isn't running for president. Cain is.

Shouting Thomas said...

Janie two shoes, so did I break the schoolyard rules,whaaa,! Mommy Althouse needs to put Allie in time out!

Jesus, leftist dingbats and their martyrdom fantasies.

Boys, we've really got a live one on our hands?

Don't worry, little baby Allie. Nobody's going to hurt you.

Allie's Apple said...

What a shame this was a good thread before the thumbsuckers took over, I'll be back later when substantive discussion resumes.

Allie's Apple said...

Shouting, you seriously don't know about Blocks history here in Wisconsin, I've posted it before , but I'm happy to do it again, just for you cause you are a sweetie.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2011/11/02/more-trouble-brews-for-the-cain-campaign

Scott M said...

Here, janetrae. This is a prime example of what you're referring to as "not drool".

Yr the jerk off here, Byro Mary the AZ-fag-thespian...you and yr boy Billy Bob. Just STFU actor- queer (and Sac churches got yr shit too. Hasta la buh bye)

That is a completely unaltered copy and paste from the Ken Burns/Packers thread.

Jenner said...

I am getting slightly appalled at the criticism of Cain's "handling" of this accusation. I feel that is the wrong thing to be concerned about, if in fact, he did do something wrong.

But if, like Ann says, the point is to bring down a candidate, then anything he does in reaction to it is fair game for showing why he wouldn't be a good president?

So then it's true that they really don't care so much about the veracity of the incident; they really care about throwing out anything to see if they can get him in one way or another. Whether he lacks principles because he did sexually harass someone, or whether he's a bad manager - they'll take either one, so it's really a no win situation for the candidate. If he somehow manages to smooth his way out of it, the allegation still hovers.

I'm just tired of hearing about how he's handling this. I'd rather have more information about the incident. But with that on hold for various reasons, it really doesn't matter, as the attack machines can continue to churn without any facts.

JCELEPHANT said...

If they are successful at driving this man out of politics then we will be stuck for the rest of history with a professional political class only concerned with retaining their power.

Herman is scaring the establishment. Shepard Smith on Fox News just asked if he was 'really' running for president or just selling books. This crap has to be answered. Where is Lee Atwater when we need him?

Plus, people forget the Jennifer Flowers press conference in 1992 and Stuttering John asking her if she planned to sleep with any other presidential candidates. Clinton came in third and dubbed himself the comeback kid and the rest was history. Keep your powder dry and your sights clean.

Cedarford said...

Cain, up a few points as conservatives reflexively rally to him. He and the other right wing candidates now trail Barack Obama by double digits, some over 20 points behind Obama.
Romney slipped from leading or in a tie with Obama to 5 points behind, just outside the margin of error.
Factors appear to include the success in Libya, Obama defending the middle class while conservative Republicans have pushed recent tax initiatives that give massive new tax cuts to the Richest 1%, and add to the deficit.

Conservatives are 48 years removed from the Goldwater debacle and prefer to see that election that ushered in the Great Society, mass immigration, and affirmative action as a Golden Moment....the ground being laid for Saint Reagan 16 years later.
Democrats have more recent memories of how they lost an election running a liberal idealogue from their Left that the centrist voters rejected - political purity given them McGovern, Dukakis, John Kerry.

Cedarford said...

The great blindness presently existant in conservatives is, like liberals in the past running an unelectable, divisive candidate they *Heart!*. The delusion is conservatives that cannot believe if Sarah Palin stirs their blood, if everyone at their megachurch loves Rick Perry, or as an old man he hears Rush tell them that Herman Cain is untainted with RINO-hood - they cannot believe that anyone in the country besides deluded blacks and OWS protestors can fail to see the greatness and truth in the pure conservative!

(Even Obama ran as a centrist, a uniter not divider of "purple America" - though he proved he wasn't once he gave carte blanche to Pelosi)

traditionalguy said...

The Herman Cain that I know will not run away from this.

If they cannot get him to quit, then he will become the nominee. Put some ice on that, Mitt and Rick. And Karl Rove can go wrap himself in the Bush Family flag and commit Hari Kari.

I bet Herman also survives at the baseball Dunking Tank test at the State Fair in Iowa, with a big smile on his face.

Michael said...

Cain is a fundamentally happy man and American's like happy people, want to be happy themselves. We had our time with an unhappy man, a man who can't hide his disgust and his anger. I think we will have two very different versions of America presented to us, two views of how to set things right. Cain's view will win out.

Cedarford said...

One good thing for Cain and the far right conservatives who have their appropriately black non-RINO hero to go against Obama as "Son of Alan Keyes" is that the sex scandal has obscured two huge new gaffes showing this guy doesn't know some basic stuff:

1. When asked by “Meet The Press” moderator David Gregory whether he would describe himself as a neo-conservative in his foreign policy views, Cain said, “I’m not familiar with the neo-conservative movement.”

2. Same show, Cain alleged that China was trying to obtain nuclear technology for the purpose of building a nuclear weapon. Asked again, he affirmed he was concerned about China doing this, and he would act.
Later, he and his handlers said he was just joking.

Stuff like that just makes the kindly old grandfather and former fast food exec all the more adorable and appealing to "movement" conservatives.

janetrae said...

Allie -- see, calling people thumbsuckers is not constructive, does not contribute to the discussion, and any way, back at you.

Shouting - Oh, THAT J -- with the Seventh Seal avatar -- well, like I said, still better than what Allie has to say any time, any where.

And, as for Mr. Cain: 1) who cares what Ann thinks about him (Allie brought that up -- trying to be a yes-man, I guess), 2) I think he is more centrist than many of the other Republican contenders, 3) I have been accused of harassment, by another woman -- so I know what bull shit it most often is, and 4) I do not take my talking points from conservative commenters or liberal commenters of any ilk, and 5) I love his rendition of God Bless America and his religious conviction -- and thanks Allie for pointing out that he is a member of a church founded by slaves that has a church-like mission to help the sick and indigent, as if that would be a disqualifying attribute for a "conservative" candidate. You really are a closed minded bitch, aren't you?

WV = chemp

... and a chemp too.

write_effort said...

Chris Wilson:

"It was very uncomfortable," said the pollster, recalling that other individuals present asked Cain to stop.

www.politico.com

garage mahal said...

Romney slipped from leading or in a tie with Obama to 5 points behind, just outside the margin of error.

But Cain is pure, and he talks some mean smack about libruls!

Bruce Hayden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Cain is not pure. He is a man about to go through the fire and he will survive and prevail. He is a happy guy, an optimistic guy and that is going to win the day. Liberals hate him because he is the wrong skin color for a conservative. Blind fury erupts from the barely concealed liberal dislike of independent blacks. They need their votes, they have counted on their votes, they have assumed their votes. Now this. Can you imagine what the Democratic party will look like when it has to treat black people as independently thinking voters?

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Write-Effort- Re: Chris Wilson,

What a strange story! Why on earth would a person (Mr. Wilson, apparently) go forward with this sort of information, but then refuse to say what actually happened? He did something that made people uncomfortable and someone asked him to stop. What?

Cedarford said...

Cain's 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...

Mary Beth said...

The 2011 version of 1955 Mississippi.

janetrae said...

Well, Drudge is reporting that apparently he called a receptionist "pretty" in Iowa, and that made her "uncomfortable" and was "inappropriate". And a third woman has come forward again specifying that he told her she was "attractive" -- look out female bodied persons, apparently Herman notices that fact!

garage mahal said...

Why on earth would a person (Mr. Wilson, apparently) go forward with this sort of information, but then refuse to say what actually happened?

If you ask Cain or Michael they will tell you it's liberals fault for a conservative ratting on a conservative who is sexually harrassing women. Makes perfect sense don't it?

Alex said...

garage - was just listening to Ed Schultz show and he had a radio host on who said Herman Cain has shown a history of "sexual bullying".

Michael said...

Oh shit, he drank alcohol. Even in the morning. Bad bad Negro.

Michael said...

"If you ask Cain or Michael they will tell you it's liberals fault for a conservative ratting on a conservative who is sexually harrassing women. Makes perfect sense don't it?"

No, it doesn't. Getting a blowjob from an intern is OK though. Especially if she works for you.

Michael said...

It is going to be very interesting to have a long had look at the lives of the two women who made these accusations all those years ago. The internet wasn't quite the tool back in Clinton's day that it is today. And there weren't as many citizen journalists as there are today. I am looking forward to this because Cain is not going to mind if it "gets ugly."

lyssalovelyredhead said...

If you ask Cain or Michael they will tell you it's liberals fault for a conservative ratting on a conservative who is sexually harrassing women.

I don't care who's fault it is; I want to know what the heck Cain is actually supposed to have done. You have to read the article; it literally says that this Wilson guy came out and said that he did something that made others uncomfortable, but that he "declined to say" what he actually did.

Why on earth would a person do that?

cubanbob said...

franglo said...
The blow-job getting president who left the country at peace with billions in surplus. Give us more like him.

11/2/11 12:22 PM

Lets see, a federal judge found him guilty of perjury but because he was a president gave him a pass and that little thing about setting us up for 911, surely an oversight. And did you mention that he also left us a stock market crash and a recession? Obviously you were too young to remember those minor details.

Alex said...

Cain is guilty until proven innocent, and even then he's guilty. The media damage is done, Cain might as well pull out of the race. Romney breaths a sigh of relief. *WHEW*

AlphaLiberal said...

And now we have a 3rd woman saying she was sexually harassed by Herman Cain.

And a witness to one of the earlier accounts.

love how the wingnuts assume the wingnut is right and must be defended - right or wrong. Just like some Clintonites did back in the day, they immediately attack the woman.
-----

I look at my then about 10 years old kids and wonder, what will this do to their respect for the office.

Why don't you tell it to Ken Starr? Have you read his salacious report? He was the one who put this news on the radio by making a federal case out of a blowjob when he was supposed to be investigating a real estate deal.

You guys are completely blind.

garage mahal said...

I am looking forward to this because Cain is not going to mind if it "gets ugly."

Romney isn't going to mond either. Or Perry. Or even Obama. Popcorn time!

garage mahal said...

*mind

Scott M said...

Stick with mond.

AlphaLiberal said...

Lets see, a federal judge found him guilty of perjury but because he was a president gave him a pass

For the love of God. Have you no sense of proportion?

Bush and Cheney lied repeatedly. Bush lied to Congress and the nation and the world about Iraq WMDs, about his capacity to manufacture WMDs and about torture by the US government.

You defend that. But ol' Billy Jeff gets his knob polished by a young woman who asks "wanna see my thong" and all of a sudden you get the vapors? Starr set a trap with the goal to "get Clinton" on something, anything. He failed after wasting, what $85 million?

What a joke.

janetrae said...

Dear Alpha Liberal -- In fact I read Ken Starr's report. I refer you to the "Incident at the West Gate" which clinched the case for me. Mr. Clinton abused his authority and deserved to be ousted based on that alone.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Alpha LibAnd now we have a 3rd woman saying she was sexually harassed by Herman Cain.

Couldja let me know when any of them says anything that actually gives us the first clue what actually happened?

Barack Obama did something that made me uncomfortable this one time*. See, I can play this game, too.

* One. Ha, if only it was only once.

AlphaLiberal said...

Here you go. The Ken Starr Report.

a.k.a. "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Witchhunt"

Ken Starr, injecting salacious sex stories into the homes of American families:

Ms. Lewinsky testified that her physical relationship with the President included oral sex but not sexual intercourse.(38) According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President; he never performed oral sex on her.(39) Initially, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President would not let her perform oral sex to completion. In Ms. Lewinsky's understanding, his refusal was related to "trust and not knowing me well enough."(40) During their last two sexual encounters, both in 1997, he did ejaculate.(41)

AlphaLiberal said...

OMG! Call the National Guard, you guys! (Not saying this is true, I don't know and don't care).

According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the President had brief genital-to-genital contact.(4

Oh, and all the dead people in Iraq? Ignore them. The lies told to start the war? Things happen.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Ms. Lewinsky testified that her physical relationship with the President included oral sex but not sexual intercourse.(38) According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President; he never performed oral sex on her.(39) Initially, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President would not let her perform oral sex to completion. In Ms. Lewinsky's understanding, his refusal was related to "trust and not knowing me well enough."(40) During their last two sexual encounters, both in 1997, he did ejaculate.(41)

Great, so can we have some sort of confirmation on whether what Mr. Cain is alleged to have done was more or less sexually charged than having someone provide him oral sex to or not to completion? Anything? Or at least confirmation that it was more or less harrassing then repeating the details as set forth in that report.

Personally, Alpha Lib's use of the word "ejaculate" makes me uncomfortable, and, apparently, that's sexual harassment.

Also, how creepy is the person who just has large excerpts from the Starr report ready to access and quote at the drop of a hat?

Deb said...

Interesting that this never came up when Cain ran for Senator some years ago. Small potatoes, I guess. I'm on the side of those who say this is coming from the Republicans - Romney probably. Why would the dems waste this gem this early in the game when the candidate hasn't been determined? Romney's camp better go back over his past with a fine toothed comb. He's the guy everybody seems to want to run. What do they have in the wings for him I wonder?

wv: spolin.

AlphaLiberal said...

some redhead:
Personally, Alpha Lib's use of the word "ejaculate" makes me uncomfortable, and, apparently, that's sexual harassment.

In response to the stale old complaint about kids having to hear about Clinton's diddlings,
I was quoting from a public document, "From independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report to the House on President Clinton."

It was Ken Starr who used the term "ejaculate," along with breasts, genitalia, gratify, semen and more!

You seem to have missed that part.

As far as Cain, the wise route is to suspend judgment, not rush to it and pile on the (likely) possibly victims.

Cedarford said...

The problem conservatives have is that RINO-hood, purity, and strength of conservative conviction since grade school - are all values things defined by solely by conservative pundits in the media that preach profitably to crowds of lower middle class yahoos. That exist to make money off the 10% of the population that are true believing conservative sorts, None bother to try and deal with the general population and expand their niche. Add extremist Fundie and conservative cause activists that are also unelectable members of the peanut gallery.

The problem with conservatives getting their marching orders on purity, who are the RINOs, the celebration of ignorance as authenticity and all the litmus tests is the same as liberals getting their marching orders from similar "liberal gatekeepers" of what is holy and liberal from the NY Times, OWS sorts, and Ivy law faculties.

None of these gatekeepers on the left or right could win an election. The former pols in the punditry circles are there precisely because they are now unelectable, washed up pols.

But as they march the flock to debacles that come from backing unelectable extremists - the media entertainers, law profs - get more power and make more money. Then the debacles stain the Party's reputations..The Party of socialism, or the Party of stupid science rejectionists, the Party of opposition to 1964 Civil Rights, the party of enemy rights lovers..and so on.

Michael said...

AL. Perfectly ok to get blowjobs from interns who are on your payroll. As long as you dont start a war, no problem with having a little fun with the girls who you pay.

rhhardin said...

Garment had some interesting essays in the WSJ when she worked there, long ago.

I don't remember what about, but I remember always reading them.

Synova said...

My first thought (I just got home) is that if the "scandal" becomes about how Cain handles it, there is really no there, there.

And why should he be prepared to handle something that amounts to nothing?

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Alpha Lib: As far as Cain, the wise route is to suspend judgment, not rush to it and pile on the (likely) possibly victims.

So, umm, you're planning to suspend judgment yourself sometime soon?

And was what Cain allegedly said better or worse than the language quoted in the Starr Report? Oh, wait, we don't know, do we? All we know is that someone said they were uncomfortable.

By that same standard, you should go down for making me uncomfortable. Hey, I didn't make the rules.

frank said...

In olden times one was wise never to get into a fight with a skunk who bought in by the barrel [to mix metaphors]. But today they buy ink by the ounce and counter balance with 'journolists'. Egads!! Is it true? Alcohol in the morning? Our very own REAL American Black Winston Churchill!!! Praise God Amen and AMEN!!

frank said...

*ink

Synova said...

So...

Is it harder for a woman to work for Cain or for Obama?

Women working for Obama got all together and made him sit through an airing of grievances. Does Obama take women who work for him seriously? Do women perceive a bias against them in the workplace?

Rumpletweezer said...

Alpha--

I'm a registered Libertarian without a dog in this fight. I have to say that I will never forgive liberal Democrats for the 8 years I spent defending George Bush from your stupid attacks. He lied about WMDs. Bullcrap. Everyone else in the world with any actual knowledge thought they had them. I may not agree with conservative Republicans, but liberal Democrats make my skin crawl. Keep up the good work.

Oaklander said...

The issue with Clinton was not whether he had lied; that was obvious. The issue was whether a sitting president with broad political support should be impeached because of that lie. One could condemn both the conduct and the lie, and still believe that impeachment did not make sense.

Thomas was not a popularly elected president. He was a candidate for a lifetime unelected appointment. His objective credentials for that appointment were not especially strong--arguably the weakest of any person appointed to the Supreme Court in the last 30-40 years. The accusations were relevant to his fitness for that appointment.

So I don't see any necessary inconsistency between opposing Thomas's appointment and opposing Clinton's impeachment. Am I missing something or are you?

Synova said...

"Cain is a fundamentally happy man and American's like happy people, want to be happy themselves. We had our time with an unhappy man, a man who can't hide his disgust and his anger. I think we will have two very different versions of America presented to us, two views of how to set things right. Cain's view will win out."

In a nutshell, this is leadership.

Yes, true enough, it's not policy or performance or the day to day work, but at a very fundamental level this sort of example is leadership.

Obama ran on Hope and Change, but he does seem to be a fundamentally dour personality. He likes to scold us. Don't go to Las Vegas, etc., but the nation is pretty much all down in the dumps because of the economy. We don't need to be scolded as if we were all blithely going on our merry way. Where is the Hope when everyone is depressed and then gets scolded on top of it?

Heh... wv is ingeardo... in gear and do... active, positive words.

Synova said...

Other than the skanky behavior and by-definition using-low-ranked-female-employees-as-a-sexual-resource thing... my issue with Clinton and his lie under oath is the pointlessness of the lie. Firstly, had he not lied under oath and just said, "Yes, she blew me," (only probably not in those words) there would be nothing to have impeached him *for*. And Secondly, the duration of the scandal would have been cut by weeks.

This is why people who tend toward the notion of conspiracy sometimes wonder what he wanted us all not to notice going on at the time.

sorepaw said...

Only you and a small handful of journalists know about this.

What do you do?


Maybe do your own investigative work (you know, like identifying the complainants and trying to nail down the facts, if any, about what took place) before publishing?

But that's a lot of hard work, and you might end up with a non-story when it's finished.

sorepaw said...

His objective credentials for that appointment were not especially strong--arguably the weakest of any person appointed to the Supreme Court in the last 30-40 years.

Actually, Clarence Thomas's objective credentials were extremely strong.

If only someone had made a comparable fuss over David Souter's objective credentials.

sorepaw said...

Hey Alpha,

Are you opposed to rushing to judgment against Herman Cain?

Or just opposed to rushing to judgment for Herman Cain?

JAL said...

Politico = Journolist, right?

Late to the party, but wanted to summarize the main point.

Latest news is Newt is creeping up. Sharpest knife in the drawer, but not real sure where he is on the important issues. Think he needs to move right.

jim said...

No matter how ham-handed his ability to handle the aftermath, Cain isn't likely to drop out - at least, not because of this particular issue. Think back to 2008 (cue harp & fog-machine) ... when John McCain was caught out in a likely affair - with a lobbyist, no less - & then stayed in the race anyway while others dropped out for much lesser failings ... & later won the nomination. That's the new ethical benchmark for potential GOP nominees now. So please, feel free to lecture those godless liberals all about "Family Values" some more! I'm sure they can use the comic relief.

Comparing Clinton with this is awfully weak sauce - there's the little matter of consent, just for starters. Not to mention that the whole thing stank to high heaven of being a prefabricated ratfuck from Day One. It was Starr & Gingrich whose fanatical determination to bring him down any way they could dragged America through a pointless impeachment process over an idiotic affair, not Teh Clenis.

Probably not too swift to bring up Clarence Thomas, either: his penchant for both kinky porn & treating women staffers like shit was well-known in DC circles long before Hill called him out on it. History will damn him far more harshly for his part in judicial abortions like "Citizens United" than for his slimy personal traits.

Steve Koch said...

So far the charges against Cain are no big deal to anybody except maybe the religious right. It is healthy to expose this kind of stuff and discuss it but it won't have any serious impact unless Cain decided to quit because of it.

Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and it was no big deal to the left so the sexual transgression bar has already been dropped quite low.

Here is an article about the alleged rape, including a discussion with a nurse friend. Broaddrick told her (right after the rape) that she got raped by Clinton. The nurse friend asked how her lip got damaged and her response was that Clinton bit her on the lip to get her to be quiet.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19483

Steve Koch said...

Let's not forget Ted Kennedy's role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. After a party (almost certainly drunk), Ted drove off a bridge at Chappaquidick. He got out but Mary Jo could not get out. Ted did not report the accident to the authorities for many hours, even though a prompt response might have saved Mary Jo.

That was ok with lefties, in fact Ted was the lion of the senate for decades.

The idea that Cain making a pass at an employee might disqualify him for the presidency is ludicrous.

Fen said...

dragged America through a pointless impeachment process over an idiotic affair

Here we go again - the "its just about sex" nonsense.

1994 Crime Bill. Violence Against Women Act. Language written by NOW:

"plantiff has a right to any and all information that establishes a pattern of sexual predation in the workplace on the part of the defendant"

What it means: if one of your employees files a sexual discrimination or harassment suit against you, she has the right of discovery. Even if you're having a consenual affair with your secretary, she has a right to put that woman on the stand to determine if she was coerced into trading sexual favors for her job/raise/promotion. If you lie about that affair, if you suborn perjury and obstruct justice, you are violating plantiff's civil rights.

Dumbing it down to "just about sex" is stupid and hypocritical. And its what killed the feminist movement.

You have the audacity to complain that the country was "dragged through a pointless impeachment" when it would have all been moot if Clinton had simply told the truth under oath.

Fen said...

AlphaLibtard: It was Ken Starr who used the term "ejaculate," along with breasts, genitalia, gratify, semen and more!

It was a legal document defining sexual misconduct in clinical terms.

If that titilates you Alpha, you should head down to the ER and get off reading the Rape Reports. Probably soft porn to your demented mind.

Christopher in MA said...

"Oh, and all the dead people in Iraq? Ignore them."

Now, see, AL, that's why I like you. Every one of your blatherings is comedy gold.

If "dead people in Iraq" mean so much to you, surely you can point to all the cri de coeurs you made when Saddam was gassing the Kurds and shoving his own people into industrial shredders. After all, one would hate to think you guilty of (gasp!) selective outrage.

Or, conversely, I might say that wailing about "dead people in Iraq" is laughable to the point of hysteria from someone who cheers on the deliberate murder of 40 million-plus babies solely for the crime of inconveniencing someone's lifestyle.

frank said...

@ fen:
Of course you realize the 'Violence Against Women Act' was declared unconstitutional. Any UW-1L could use either 'original intent' to show this or use Prof Church's method: Any law whose main sponsor is the Senator from Master Card, Joe Biden, is--ipso facto--an attempted abortion of the Constitution.

Fen said...

No, it was not declared unconstitutional. It was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005.

Maybe you're thinking of something else.

Fen said...

Oh my bad, I missed the dig at Biden, you we're being sarcastic.