"The Republican debate Wednesday is supposed to focus on the economy. It’s likely, though, that Herman Cain's sexual assault allegations will dog him throughout the debate."
Well, that's absurd. Cain's troubles are playing out in the public arena. We've heard his defense: He didn't do it. I don't want to hear more of that. I want all the candidates to have their shot at distinguishing themselves on the merits. That's especially important if Cain's candidacy is collapsing. I am satisfied with Romney getting the nomination, but I know a lot of people want another option. Tonight is an important opportunity for someone who isn't Cain (or Romney) to move forward.
I'll be covering the debate after some time lag, because I've got an appointment that cuts into the first hour. Please use the comments on this post to talk about the debate when it starts in a couple hours, and I will join you later.
ADDED: Sexual assault allegations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
You can bet the candidates will take the opportunity to poke Cain about the public (so-far unfounded) allegations.
Why do some insist that the next office-holder (pick the office) be politically 'savvy'?
Does savvy mean 'a good liar'?
Can 'diplomatic' mean 'disingenuous' depending on the circumstance?
Does Zero possess the 'social grace' it takes to be able to tell someone to 'sod off' without actually saying it?
I say no. Angry people make horrible politicians.
And, decisions made under emotional stress (sorry liberals) tend to be bad decisions, creating rich environments for the countless 'unintended' consequences that result.
We need more deliberative people to run things. Not people that joke about 2000+ page bills, and the need to pass said bill to find out what is in them.
The kind of deliberative people we had a long time ago. The kind that the self-serving knowitalls we have in key positions now, are not.
IMHO, Bialek's story would represent sexual assault if true.
However, not even lawyer Allred went so far as to claim that the described act is a felony.
Perry for one has said he wants to stay on message and most of the rest, if they're smart, will do the same.
PS Don't Tread's points about savvy and angry people are on the money.
Sexual battery allegations.
Attempted rape allegations.
How far do you have to get before it's moves from one to the other by the way?
Allegedly
Of course it will be brought up by the MSM moderator. GOP debates are always managed by hostiles and the stupid party never cottons to that handicap.
"IMHO, Bialek's story would represent sexual assault if true."
Maybe. I'd like to hear more about it.
Here's a hypothetical: A woman goes out to dinner with a man. He puts his hand on her thigh. He gradually moves it up her thigh. Eventually, she says "This isn't the kind of relationship I had in mind" and he removes his hand. Is that criminal?
The Left hates Coulter, and lives to prove her wrong. Hence, she has to do her homework more than most, and, hence, I tend to pay close attention to what she says. As Kirk once said to Spock: "your [her] guesses are better than most people's facts".
Some Cain speculations
Professor, If he doesn't touch her vagina then maybe not. If charged w/ any crime he would probably be able to plead to a reduced disorderly conduct charge.
Moderator: "Governor Romney. Earlier this week, the deficit reduction committee reached at impasse when Republicans offered limited revenue increases in exchange for Democrats yielding ground on entitlement reforms. The Democrats rejected this deal and walked out. What are you thoughts?"
Romney: "My thoughts are that the US economy, right now, is sitting in the passenger seat of a car. For three years the Democrats were in the driver's seat, grabbing America's breasts and putting their hands up America's skirt and reaching for her genitals. 'You want a balanced budget, don't you?' they asked. I think the American public has answered with a resounding, "I have a boyfriend!" and would like to reach a balanced budget without being groped."
And that, class, is how the Republicans will stay on topic.
Yes, indeed... sexual *assault*.
He's not a harasser who acts inappropriately in the work place, he's a sex offender.
Didn't you notice in the conversations here how he "grabbed" and "thrust" and "jerked" and acted all violent? Not even his accusers suggest anything of the sort, but people feel free to sort of up-grade the adjectives.
Spinnelli -- So if you touch somebody's pussy without first explicitly seeking permission, that's always an assault? Really?
So much for romance.
It went like this...
Cain *leaped* across the comfortable 3 foot private space barrier she was maintaining, *jammed* his hand up her skirt and *jerked* her head toward his crotch.
Yes, he did.
What if a powerful black man took the GOP out to dinner and placed his hand on their polls...even moved his hand up to the top of the polls to the GOP's "tipping point" and suddenly a hooded (anonymous) hoard of vigilantes charged into the restaurant, took the black man outside and hung him.
The only question is whether the black man is guilty of inciting a riot, failing to pay the bill, and cursing defiantly as he swings from the noose.
No wonder Clint Eastwood likes Cain's life story. That is an Eastwood script.
Althouse said
"Eventually, she says "This isn't the kind of relationship I had in mind" and he removes his hand. Is that criminal?"
Depends on the woman. Unless you are going to insist that there exists a textbook definition of sexual assault that does not involve sex organs, then no, its not criminal.
The only assault I have seen here is the one on Cain's reputation.
Criminal? Well, it depends. Is the leg that the hand is slowly riding up on a real leg or a prosthetic one?
An unwanted, uninvited touching of an intimate area by putting a hand up a skirt -- other than by Clintonian (and now Cainian) standards, how is that not a assault/battery of a sexual nature?
But, in any event, just exactly what is the defense here? Make up your mind. Is it that Cain didn't touch her at all? Or that, even though he did touch her, it was no big deal?
But since that woman's credibility has been called into question, since so many people are now parsing the definitions of sexual harassment and sexual assault, if Bialek were lying, don't you think she'd come up with a more serious and scandalous lie? Why merely claim that he put his hand on her upper thigh and stop there with the lie?
If you are "out to get" Cain, why not go all in and claim that he shoved his hand all the way up to her crotch? Why not claim an attempted digital penetration? Why not claim that, in addition to pulling her head down to his crotch, he "took it out"?
If you are going to lie about it, why such a fairly lame lie?
To make it more believable? A lesser offense needs less evidence (one might think) to justify assent.
Making a pass is criminal? No wonder the market for foreign girlfriends/brides is exploding.
An unwanted, uninvited touching of an intimate area by putting a hand up a skirt -- other than by Clintonian (and now Cainian) standards, how is that not a assault/battery of a sexual nature?
Hard to know if touch is unwanted sometimes unless you go for it, but you have to go slow...
One woman has "come forward" and made explicit public statements charging Mr. Cain with inappropriate behavior, and Mr Cain has flat out called her a liar.
Now let us wait for some fact, however small, that may come to light that will show us which of them (or both) is the liar.
As for the other women, we still have no idea as to what their charges might have been, or now are, and have no basis for judging if they constitute "sexual harassment" or any other actionable cause.
I want all the candidates to have their shot at distinguishing themselves on the merits.
If they haven't done that for you by now, then how many more debates will it take? Just give me a number.
"An unwanted, uninvited touching of an intimate area by putting a hand up a skirt -- other than by Clintonian (and now Cainian) standards, how is that not a assault/battery of a sexual nature?"
See... that's why I included, "He leaped across the 3 foot private-space she maintained."
What she described, as far as I heard it, didn't even make sense unless they were sitting very close.
So... does it make any difference to YOU if they are sitting next to each other, close enough for the "uninvited" touches?
"Hard to know if touch is unwanted sometimes unless you go for it, but you have to go slow..."
At which point, no means no. Which according to her, he accepted. (According to him, it never happened, ever.)
But we're all about believing the woman's story, right?
So either he went from nothing to way to much, according to her story, or she was being friendly, and he stopped when she told him to.
sorepaw said
"This is going to get interesting."
I said the other nite on one of the threads that what we are seeing is a smear, Chicago-style (this was just after Bialek made her allegations).
Someone questioned the connection to Chicago.
Be patient.
Tread -- What on earth makes you think any Democrat is scared to face Cain -- a man who has never won an electoral office in his life?
Let me guess. You think it's race. You think Obama is afraid to face a black candidate. Do you really think so? What about Obama's track record in electoral politics provides any evidence of this?
An unwanted, uninvited touching of an intimate area by putting a hand up a skirt -- other than by Clintonian (and now Cainian) standards
I had a boyfriend in high school who made a practice of specifically asking permission before so much as kissing me (who had already agreed to go steady with him).
Even at 15, I thought that was a little bit weird.
Here's a hypothetical: A woman goes out to dinner with a man. He puts his hand on her thigh. He gradually moves it up her thigh. Eventually, she says "This isn't the kind of relationship I had in mind" and he removes his hand. Is that criminal?
Depends on the relevant statute of the jurisdiction where the alleged touching supposedly occurred. ;)
But if you didn’t mean “criminal” literally, then my answer is “if one of them is married and it’s not to the other person then it’s definitely not okay.”
Herman Cain passes law enforcement lying test.
"Tread -- What on earth makes you think any Democrat is scared to face Cain -- a man who has never won an electoral office in his life?
Let me guess. You think it's race. You think Obama is afraid to face a black candidate. Do you really think so? What about Obama's track record in electoral politics provides any evidence of this?"
Not biting.
Can't, because you've put so many words in my mouth. And, you 'guess' dead wrong.
Why don't you go bother someone else? You seem particularly adept.
Tread -- Why is Obama scared of Cain?
AA -- Bialek *says* he grabbed her head and pulled it to his crotch. That sound like something more than harassment -- so why was Allred thinking?
Allred sure knows how to push the yuck factor. (That and what woman refers to her "privates" as "genitals?")
That's "what" was Allred thinking.
@Bender don't you think she'd come up with a more serious and scandalous lie? Why merely claim that he put his hand on her upper thigh and stop there with the lie?
Maybe she has a conscience?
Maybe she couldn't lie big well enough?
Not sure what to make of all this. Waiting for facts to surface and what they are.
"Tread -- Why is Obama scared of Cain?"
Why don't YOU tell us, swami? Do YOU believe that?
Support the memes you trot out, we are all waiting.
Tread -- I don't believe that. But I don't understand why a rational person would believe -- as you apparently do -- that Obama and his minions planted some story to destroy Cain unless they did not want to face him in a general election. And why wouldn't they want to face Cain in a general election, unless they think they will lose?
Do you believe Obama is evil? Do you believe that he and his cabal of evildoers simply destroy candidacies for the joy of the evilness of it?
I am really intrigued now. I must know.
Rick Perry is Texas Toast.
What a moran.
"But I don't understand..."
I feel your pain.
wv - irlityou
Exactly.
Tread -- Why would Team Obama be behind an attack on Cain? Are you going to continue to evade the question?
Sorepaw -- That's all very interesting, and I mean that sincerely and genuinely.
I have read the Coulter piece. It strikes me as innuendo upon innuendo.
I subscribe to Mikcey Kaus's Feiler Faster Thesis, which states that society is able to digest information at a blistering pace. As such, the theory goes, what once was a long time is now a short time. In politics, the time between now and the general election is forever. Any wise political consultant would only drop a bomb like this one when it would matter to them. Shorter Feiler Faster Thesis: October Surprise.
I don't agree with David Axelrod about politics. I think he's a lucky hack. But I don't think he's a dumb lucky hack, and I think it makes no sense whatsoever to place this kind of news now. If Cain does win, all of this will be thoroughly digested. It will be fecal matter that won't affect the election a scintilla.
On the other side of the Feiler Faster Thesis, ask yourself: who needs to destroy Cain right now? Who needs his votes and his political energy? A few suspects come to mind.
Cain must be a sociopath if he did anything like what's alleged while continuing to maintain his innocence. Either this is a complete put-up job orchestrated by the Democrats (which I doubt since they can't seem to do anything right in any other area) or else Cain is a sociopath. I wish he'd go away now. He makes me sick.
We might as well have Sandusky running for president.
Who needs these creeps around?
I really fail to understand those who think that there is a maxim in the law of "first grope is free."
Under the law, there is no presumption of consent to a touching. Especially in an intimate area, there is a presumption of a lack of consent. And going to dinner with a guy is not an invitation for him to try to feel you up. A person has no obligation to first say "no." Rather, the groper has the obligation to first obtain consent.
You know, this is not some new concept of law. The law of assault and battery is only several hundred years old. No need to reinvent the law merely because it is some politician that you like.
Bender -- It was for people like you that the term of art "totality of the circumstances" had to be created.
Using Ann Coulter as a source?!?! Really?
Looking across that stage last night made me feel a lot better about Obama's chances...
They are not "afraid" of Cain...or Perry...or Romney...etc...
Ann Coulter wrote an article questioning the Chicago connections behind the Cain allegations. She talks about the fact that Bialek knew David Axelrod when they resided in the same Chicago apartment building and that the woman who made the NRA files available to the media is the current president of the Illinois Restaurant Association and was an aide to Richard Daley (Obama's Chief of Staff) when he was mayor of Chicago. Coulter also points out that all the accusations are tied to Cain's short tenure at the NRA, with not a whisper from his decades as an executive in other arenas. It's worth pondering.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438
Kirby Olson said
"We might as well have Sandusky running for president."
Really?
Post a Comment