Timeline May Explain Cain's Lack of Awareness of Second Harassment Claim

Maybe.

The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999--and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it's conceivable that Cain didn't even know about it.

...

Cain has insisted he only knew of one complaint, and says he knew of no legal settlements--only what he calls a severance agreement with one woman. This timeline could well bolster his claims.

I only say "maybe" it explains his lack of knowledge because, timeline aside, it seems to me that if you're accused of something after you leave a job, you still hear about it. Someone is going to call you up and ask for your side of it.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM



Comments

1 Don't worry about timelines, we'll tell you what you need to know.

Posted by: The MFM at November 04, 2011 01:20 PM (lLKjJ)

2 It no longer matters. He has played the race card for the second time and he still blames Perry. Screw him.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 01:20 PM (YdQQY)

3 99 problems and.......

Posted by: Herman Cain at November 04, 2011 01:21 PM (3Okgs)

4 Warriors, come out to plaayyyyyyyy.

Posted by: That guy from that movie at November 04, 2011 01:22 PM (JYheX)

5 By this point, the original allegations don't even matter anymore. It's all about how he handled it over the past week, and what that says about him as a candidate, and as a potential Chief Executive. And it is not saying good things.

Dammit. Somebody page me when amateur hour's over.

Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez!
This message brought to you by Morons Against HTML Abuse
at November 04, 2011 01:23 PM (GBXon)

6 Its hard to get a good chimichanga around here.

Posted by: Ricardo Perry at November 04, 2011 01:24 PM (JYheX)

7 Furthermore. since the lawyers were representing the NRA and not Cain (since he wasn't an employee then) they were under no duty to inform Cain of a settlement and were probably barred from disclosing the terms of the settlement.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 01:24 PM (ytdP/)

8 O.K., so he knew there was something out there, but didn't bother to get all the details beforehand sohe could pre-empt or respond coherently towhat he should have known was coming. Is that about right? Might he have been so confident in his speaking skills he thought he could just slip-slide his way through?

Posted by: long toss at November 04, 2011 01:24 PM (J6a22)

9 It no longer matters. He has played the race card for the second time and he still blames Perry. Screw him.

Sans an actual provable instance of misconduct, how do you propose to convince those emotionally invested in Cain to change whom they support?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 04, 2011 01:24 PM (0q2P7)

10
Is there some kind of statement coming out today?

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2011 01:25 PM (G/zuv)

11 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 04, 2011 01:25 PM (8y9MW)

12 Perry blew the painted rock issue and immigration (which he's still trying to walk back) yet I see no cha-cha line of people claiming these mistakes make Perry ineligible to be President.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 01:26 PM (ytdP/)

13 Anyone who would believe that he didn't know about the 2nd settlement is a fucking idiot.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 04, 2011 01:26 PM (9zzk+)

14 8
O.K., so he knew there was something out there, but didn't bother to get
all the details beforehand sohe could pre-empt or respond coherently
towhat he should have known was coming. Is that about right? Might he
have been so confident in his speaking skills he thought he could just
slip-slide his way through?

Posted by: long toss at November 04, 2011 01:24 PM (J6a22)
Since he wasn't a party to a non-disclose settlement all he could get was second hand accounts. That's why what he thought he knew wasn't accurate...and probably thought he could talk through it.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 01:27 PM (ytdP/)

15 Blame it on CainDon't blame it on meIt's nobody's faultBut we need somebody to burn.

Posted by: The Elvis Costello Jukebox at November 04, 2011 01:27 PM (hIWe1)

16 It's obvious to me now that these many complaints were made by anonymous wimmenz, under cover of darkness, and settled by big corporate interests all without the accused having knowledge of them. Got it.

Posted by: Osama bin Truck Monkey, TEArrorist Son of a Bitch at November 04, 2011 01:27 PM (jucos)

17 One woman's lawyer is going to "speak on her behalf" per the Fox News babe. I'm hoping it's on the radio cuz I gotta take off. Cain could take a step towards vindication if the guy is the kind of Gloria Allred spawn I expect him to be. Or maybe he'll introduce himself as her "press agent" and we can all laugh and laugh...

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 04, 2011 01:27 PM (Qjh0I)

18 it seems to me that if you're accused of something after you leave a
job, you still hear about it. Someone is going to call you up and ask
for your side of it.

Not necessarily. If they just said, from the beginning, "How much can we pay you to make you go away" they wouldn't have done an investigation.

However- if an investigation happened, they certainly would have queried Cain to get his side.

But, as I recall, the claim was always 2 women/2 settlements, and Cain said he couldn't talk about either because of the confidentiality agreement. Not, "Well, I only remember one complaint, and I can't discuss specifics because of a confidentiality agreement. As for the other, I have no recollection." At least, not at first. He's had so many different versions, that I can't guarantee he hasn't said that.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 04, 2011 01:28 PM (8y9MW)

19 Perry blew the painted rock issue and immigration (which he's still
trying to walk back) yet I see no cha-cha line of people claiming these
mistakes make Perry ineligible to be President.

Probably because by that point, the 'heartless' line and a procession of poor public performances had folks all tuckered out. It just kinda blended into the noise.

Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez!
This message brought to you by Morons Against HTML Abuse
at November 04, 2011 01:28 PM (GBXon)

20 GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry said Thursday that he would be
open to granting temporary work visas to undocumented immigrants in the
United States, but reiterated that he is opposed to granting them a path
to citizenship.
That a way, amigo.

Posted by: La Raza por Ricardo Perry at November 04, 2011 01:28 PM (JYheX)

21 Speaking as a lawyer who has seen similar situations: If we had an employee who I knew was a harassing dirtbag based on past cases, and a new complaint came up after he left the company, I wouldn't bother calling him up to hear his latest "excuse" - since we already knew he was a lying bullshit artist. If the lady seemed credible, we would pay her.

Posted by: wooga at November 04, 2011 01:29 PM (vjyZP)

22 It no longer matters. He has played the race card for the second time and he still blames Perry. Screw him.

Wasn't the first one based on a hypothetical posed by Wolfy Blitzer? If so, I'd give him a pass on that one.

Posted by: taylork at November 04, 2011 01:29 PM (5wsU9)

23 Actually Quilly quite a few people have decided Perry is not the man for the presidency, look at his poll numbers. It was his race to lose right after he announced as his numbers looked great, I was behind him myself. Well, he found a way to lose. Now it looks like Cain has too. I would still take Perry if he could turn it around but that isn't looking likely at the moment. He has doubled down on his immigration bullshit. It's Romney.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 04, 2011 01:29 PM (9zzk+)

24
heh, yeah, why isn't Gloria Allredbabboonass all over this?

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2011 01:29 PM (G/zuv)

25 13
Anyone who would believe that he didn't know about the 2nd settlement is a fucking idiot.


Posted by: Ken Royall at November 04, 2011 01:26 PM (9zzk+)
You're right. It's clear the NRA's lawyers would have risked disbarrment to tell Cain about it. The CoB of the NRA at the time said _he_ wasn't told about the settlement.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 01:29 PM (ytdP/)

26
.... I wish as much effort was expended connecting the dots in say.... the Fast and Furious timeline .....as we spend on, well..... this.

Posted by: fixerupper at November 04, 2011 01:29 PM (C8hzL)

27 I know you generally eat pizza with your hands, but really, stick a fork in Cain--he's done.

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 04, 2011 01:29 PM (DlrDR)

28 Hey. We're just asking questions.

Posted by: Rick "Better Put Some Ice On That, Herman" Perry at November 04, 2011 01:30 PM (HqO0T)

29 Perry blew the painted rock
================================

Great name for a band.... Or a line from Poetry Slam.

Posted by: Osama bin Truck Monkey, TEArrorist Son of a Bitch at November 04, 2011 01:30 PM (jucos)

30 I thinbk it's time to look at Newt again

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 01:30 PM (ytdP/)

31 Gesturer

ace is "just asking questions".

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:30 PM (OhYCU)

32 Wouldn't Cain's lawyer at least have been monitoring this? It seems imprudent not to have done so.

Posted by: joncelli at November 04, 2011 01:31 PM (RD7QR)

33 If the lady seemed credible, we would pay her.

But that presupposes that there was some pattern previously- which Cain maintains there wasn't. Would you have done the same if the accused in question had had 1 complaint that turned out to (in Cains' words) "have no basis in fact?"

Or would you have investigated fully, at that point?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 04, 2011 01:33 PM (8y9MW)

34 Speaking as a lawyer who has seen similar
situations: If we had an employee who I knew was a harassing dirtbag
based on past cases, and a new complaint came up after he left the
company, I wouldn't bother calling him up to hear his latest "excuse" -
since we already knew he was a lying bullshit artist. If the lady
seemed credible, we would pay her.

Posted by: wooga at November 04, 2011 01:29 PM (vjyZP)

Where should my complaint be sent?

Posted by: A Very Credible Female Former Employee at November 04, 2011 01:33 PM (QKKT0)

35 Speaking as a lawyer who has seen similar situations: If we had an
employee who I knew was a harassing dirtbag based on past cases, and a
new complaint came up after he left the company, I wouldn't bother
calling him up to hear his latest "excuse" - since we already knew he
was a lying bullshit artist. If the lady seemed credible, we would pay
her.

Speaking as a guy that hired and fired idiot lawyers, if a "lady" was slinging shit after we tried to fire her, we would pay her to go away.

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:34 PM (OhYCU)

36 Ok, I'm sick of this now. Can we talk about Christine O'Donnell?

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2011 01:35 PM (/TFUb)

37 On the other hand, and admittedly engaging in wild, unsubstantiated speculation . . .

Could it be that he was forced to leave the NRA because of the second set of allegations?

Posted by: The Q at November 04, 2011 01:35 PM (LnQhT)

38 Herman Caaaaain, you still walk the furrowed fields ofmy miiiiiiiind!

Posted by: Kenny Rogers at November 04, 2011 01:35 PM (2DaHw)

39 One complaint he knew of, so it was initiated before he left and apparently resolved before he left since he is bound by some sort of NDA.

His contract is not renewed (June 30, 1999 would be the end of the fiscal year, a common time to let go of executives).

A second complaint is initiated in either June or early July of 1999 and resolved two or three months later in early September.

I don't think this helps Cain. It does make me wonder why he left the organization.

Posted by: Y-not at November 04, 2011 01:35 PM (5H6zj)

40 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: Alte Schule at November 04, 2011 01:36 PM (MLJu8)

41 Cain said he knew about the settlement - well, one anyway. Yeah - he didn't know about them before he did know about them - true dat.
But one of his story changes was that "yeah I knew about the settlement and it was for three months pay - maybe two months."

Posted by: HondaV65 at November 04, 2011 01:36 PM (8NiWI)

42 .... I wish as much effort was expended connecting the dots in say....
the Fast and Furious timeline .....as we spend on, well..... this.

I share your frustration. But, unfortunately blogs don't have armies of reporters on their payroll to do research and pound the pavement. And so to a great extent are limited to factual content unearthed by other sources. e.g. the MFM. As long as we are dependent on Issa, and a few local interests to investigate FF it is going to take serious amounts of time before all the facts are known, if they ever are.

So what you are bitching about is that despite the new media power, they are still dependent to a great extent on the old media for information. And what the old media ignores, well they ignore.

So when you gotta write posts about the happs, are you just going to sit on your hands at wait for some new FF stuff to trickle out, or are you also going to write on the news of the day so your readers have *something* to read; and they won't go someplace else to learn details about issues affecting say the Republican Primary?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 04, 2011 01:36 PM (0q2P7)

43 Cain's problem is that he loves too much, and then acts on that love by rubbing his dong on subordinates.

BOOM!

And hellz yeah I leaked that shit!

Posted by: Rick Fucking Perry at November 04, 2011 01:37 PM (Sh42X)

44
Okay Mitt. I've kept Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Haley Barbour out of the race for you. And I've got this sexual harassment stuff going with Cain, and I put Rick Perry to sleep at the debates. But you'll have to do the rest on your own. And remember... you owe me.

Posted by: Satan at November 04, 2011 01:37 PM (1rflU)

45 32
Wouldn't Cain's lawyer at least have been monitoring this? It seems imprudent not to have done so.

Posted by: joncelli at November 04, 2011 01:31 PM (RD7QR)
I actually had this exact discussion with Todd Kincannon and with my sister the Liberal Lawyer and _both_ said that in this type of case (3rd party beneficiary) that there is no duty to inform...which means Cain's attorney would not have been able to know either.What happens is that the retained councel of the NRA acts to protect _the NRA_ and not Cain's. They make a settlement, non-disclsures are signed and it's never supposed to see the light of day again. In fact, councel doesn't even have to disclose the details to the NRA of the money if it came from a Litigation Insurance Policy.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 01:37 PM (ytdP/)

46 Why did Cain leave NRA?

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 04, 2011 01:37 PM (D5iHx)

47 So, we had the Politico run a story about anonymous charges (what was he accused of doing exactly?) by anonymous sources. The MSM, Ace, and the rest of the progressive "media" demanded that he then explain the facts.
Now we find out he wasn't a even at NRA when the money was paid and the paperwork was signed.
So now we are going to say "It doesn't matter that we all look REAL FUCKN STUPID for doing the MSM's hit job for them. It doesn't matter that this was a total smear job based on rumor and innuendo. No, what matter's is that his campaign didn't handle this right"!!
Keep it up, geniuses. I think Cain just raised another million and got another bump in the polls.
Chooo Chooo

Posted by: FleshBomb at November 04, 2011 01:37 PM (V9JwF)

48 Dang, that was my point in the other post:
OK, hold on a minute here: If, as some of you are trying to spin, Cain
may not have even had any involvement in the claim (or claims), so that
means . . .
I don't know where your excuse him is from there, it doesn't matter.

Here's
the point: Are you really going to sit there and tell me that the NRA
shelled out thousands of dollars based on one side of the story? You
mean to tell me they never, ever went to the guy accused of all this and
said, "Hey, here's what we've been told, what's your side?"
Is this
how it went down now: "Yes, Ms. Accuser, you may or may not have been
harassed. Here's some money. No, we don't need to talk to Mr. Cain, it's
not important."

Are you fucking kidding me? There's bullshit and then there's eating a shit sandwich and calling it a steak.

And also: Cain has copped to more than one he knew about. So if he didn't know about this one, how in the wide world of sports does it make this all better? That makes three--not one--incidents now.

Jeez. Cue the circus music and the clown car for the Cain campaign.

Posted by: Jimmuy at November 04, 2011 01:37 PM (hROVJ)

49 Blame it on the Cain!

Posted by: The Milli Vanilli Experience at November 04, 2011 01:37 PM (LnQhT)

50 Oh, good. It's been so long since the HQ has posted a story about Cain, I was beginning to worry!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 04, 2011 01:38 PM (4df7R)

51 Can we talk about Christine O'Donnell?

Build a bridge out of her!

Posted by: Peasant No. 2 at November 04, 2011 01:38 PM (QKKT0)

52 I haven't been following this "controversy" closely, so can someone be so kind as to explain exactly what Cain did. Did he touch some woman? Grope a woman? Phuck one or more that were not his wife? What exactly?

Posted by: ole scratch at November 04, 2011 01:38 PM (+56Bh)

53 Could Herman Cain with a crossbow beat a sexual-harassment lawyer with a longbow?

Posted by: nickless at November 04, 2011 01:39 PM (MMC8r)

54 37, Could it be that he was forced to leave the NRA because of the second set of allegations?
Just asking questions, huh?

Cain had already left NRA. Does that help?


Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:39 PM (OhYCU)

55 39..... It does make me wonder why he left the organization.
I was about to ask this same thing, Y-not.
Has Cain ever mentioned why he left the Restaurant Assn. job? ....I haven't heard it mentioned, but then I might have missed it.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 04, 2011 01:39 PM (v26Nx)

56 42

Also, ideally, Issa is framing FF for 2012, with the possibility of Holder having to get gone right in the middle of the campaign

Posted by: The Q at November 04, 2011 01:39 PM (LnQhT)

57 Speaking as a lawyer who has seen similar situations: If we had an
employee who I knew was a harassing dirtbag based on past cases, and a
new complaint came up after he left the company, I wouldn't bother
calling him up to hear his latest "excuse" - since we already knew he
was a lying bullshit artist. If the lady seemed credible, we would pay
her.

Speaking as a person who watched a women falsely claim discrimination in the company we worked for and then brag how she did it at a college course she attended with my wife, the company stilled payed out.

So ya, petty sums of cash in settled claims out of court don't indicate jack shit.

Filing a sexual harassment claim as a woman or a racial claim as a person of color is an easy out for those without morals and it happens more often than the real thing. People love playing the victim and getting easy money, just look at 42% of this country right now.

Posted by: Fire with Fire at November 04, 2011 01:39 PM (lcwvr)

58 Speaking of race relations, Rick Perry is raked over the coals for daring to try to help people of a race other than his own. Cain is applauded for trying to help nobody but himself by claiming he's a victim due to his race.

Does any of this strike anybody but me as nutty?

Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 01:40 PM (Gc/Qi)

59 Quillly

How is Cain the best person to be President?

What's your evidence?

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 01:40 PM (rJVPU)

60
....so can someone be so kind as to explain exactly what Cain did.

Cain did something.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2011 01:40 PM (G/zuv)

61 No sex. No sex pics. No sex talk. No women.

What the hell are we talking about?


Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:40 PM (OhYCU)

62 Husband, ethics attorney, said he often tells people esp those who he suspects of just being tattletales that "steps are being taken" and does his best to get them to stfu, esp over stupid stuff and things that don't matter.
Ex: I saw that guy over there ask that guy to look at his kid's resume. I want justice!!!!!

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2011 01:40 PM (/TFUb)

63


I'm going under the assumption that Herman did nothing.

It would explain the media going so full throttle trying to destroy him, they've just been waiting for ANYTHING at all.

Maybe he opened a door for a feminist bitch?

They go completely fucking bonkers over the slightest thing.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Racism Identifier at November 04, 2011 01:41 PM (tcSZb)

64 Jimmuy,

Are you really going to sit there and tell me that the NRA
shelled out thousands of dollars based on one side of the story?

You will when the settlement is far cheaper than actually going to court.

Posted by: GMan at November 04, 2011 01:41 PM (sxq57)

65 Speaking as a guy that hired and fired idiot lawyers, if a "lady" was slinging shit after we tried to fire her, we would pay her to go away.
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:34 PM (OhYCU)
Wow, sounds like you don't know shit about litigation. When a sexual harassment accuser has a legit claim, particularly if backed up by salacious emails or witnesses, the WORST thing to do is to drag the case out to the point where you have to bring in the harasser for interviews and depositions - as the cost of the case will increase - both in fees and damages. Moreover, all communications with Cain after he left are no longer protected as attorney-client communications and are discoverable. Good luck with that.Plus, accumulating knowledge about bad acts will destroy any plausible deniability that the company had. Once the company can be charged with knowledge of having harassers in its employe (present or past), all future claims against the company (by other employees) grow exponentially in costs.

Posted by: wooga at November 04, 2011 01:41 PM (vjyZP)

66 How is Cain the best person to be President?
Well, he's definitely not Romney, so he's got that going for him.

Posted by: GMan at November 04, 2011 01:42 PM (sxq57)

67
Oh, you want specifics? Okay.

Cain did something in the 1990's involving two women in two separate occasions. Possibly three. Or even four.


Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2011 01:42 PM (G/zuv)

68 Someone brought up a good point in last hour's Cain thread. If, after a few more days of this, Cain's poll numbers haven't gone down or have even gone up, would that mean that he *hasn't* handled this badly?

To paraphrase Maimonides: is something bad because Ace says it's bad, or does Ace say it's bad because it's bad?

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at November 04, 2011 01:42 PM (qndXR)

69 I know you generally eat pizza with your hands, but really, stick a fork in Cain--he's done.

Maybe; The !Romney is strong. As long as Cain remains the lead of the !Romneys he is viable. He may maintain that lead by hardening the emotional voting base. If he maintains that lead he becomes the alternative choice to Romney.

Basically, right now (subject to change in four hours) on Cali primary day, if Cain is still a substantial leader of the !Romneys, though I like other candidates better, I vote for him to try and keep Romney from the nom.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 04, 2011 01:42 PM (0q2P7)

70
Waltzing Matilda ... waltzing Matilda ... you'll come a waltzing Matilda with me. And he sang as he watched and he waited till his billy boiled. You'll come a waltzing matilda with me.

just a brief musical interlude ...

Posted by: Honey Badger at November 04, 2011 01:42 PM (GvYeG)

71 54 Cain had already left NRA. Does that help?

Partially.

I may be reading it wrong, but Cain was let go at the end of June, and this settlement was reached in September.

Lawyer folk: how long would it take for a settlement to be reached from the episode in question?

Posted by: The Q at November 04, 2011 01:42 PM (LnQhT)

72 What the hell are we talking about?


Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:40 PM (OhYCU) crisis mgmt failure of clownshoes proportion

Posted by: Red Shirt at November 04, 2011 01:42 PM (FIDMq)

73 At the very least Cain is sloppy. I still cannot believe that commercial with his campaign manager blowing smoke. What was that saying? I am stupid? I am going against the trend of people trying to be healthy? Just stupid amateur stuff.

I guess it is conservatives turn to vote for and with blind hope. I wish somebody like Rubio or Ryan would feel the call of God and run, we need a Lincoln right now, our country is in no less danger than in 1860.

Instead we get juvenile, ambitious American Idol sort of assholes running. I mean does anyone think with all the accusations out there Cain was not walking the edge, patting on the ass, or winking double-entendres?

Or we get Romney who wants to be President, really, really, really bad, so says what any group wants to hear at different times.

Or Perry that thought he would just plunk down a map of Texas, and everyone would nod and pull a lever. Can't run Santorum, cause people think he will force everyone into the missionary position, even dogs.

Can't go with Bachman...she overemphasizes the wrong things. Can't go with Gingrich, he came into the hospital room with his wife dying of cancer and fucked his girlfriend right there, O, wait his daughter refutes the now urban legend. Also Gingrich sat on a couch with Pelosi...grinning like an idiot.

Gee if we only had Bush with his grinding the English language like sausage, doing nothing on the border, and helping to institute strip searches at airports of 80 year old white grannies. Yeah we are just doing bitchingly well. Meanwhile the MSM Juggernaut is stoking the coal furnace to reelect the single greatest destroyer of America we have ever known.

Re-looking at Perry and Gingrich

Posted by: Jehu at November 04, 2011 01:43 PM (E62cz)

74 @52
Because the women - unlike Anita effin' Hill - actually went through channels and filed complaints, we do not know the details, except what Cain told us about standing close to one of the women in his office and comparing her to his wife in height.

The only "details" we have, which started out salacious and quickly got corrected (shame on Pajamas Media for their sloppiness), are from a woman who said that at around the same time as the two formal complaints (so 1999), she was "taken advantage of" by Cain in his corporate apartment.

This is the challenge. The fact that the women complained through channels at the time means the information is protected by HR rules (and NDAs, apparently). Since there's no evidence that the women are the ones who got the ball rolling on the story, I don't think we can conclude anything from the lack of details.

Posted by: Y-not at November 04, 2011 01:43 PM (5H6zj)

75 51 Can we talk about Christine O'Donnell?Build a bridge out of her!
Posted by: Peasant No. 2 at November 04, 2011 01:38 PM (QKKT0)
Can you not also build a bridge out of stone?

Posted by: Sir Bedemere at November 04, 2011 01:43 PM (v+QvA)

76 Then how is Mark Block a great hire, and does he owe his boss-Cain- an apology?

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 01:43 PM (rJVPU)

77 Has Cain ever mentioned why he left the Restaurant Assn. job? ....I haven't heard it mentioned, but then I might have missed it.

Just asking questions? He had a 3 year term that ended in 1999.

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:43 PM (OhYCU)

78 Cain did something in the 1990's involving two women in two separate occasions. Possibly three. Or even four.
Who didn't ?

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2011 01:43 PM (/TFUb)

79 Posted by: Jimmuy at November 04, 2011 01:37 PM (hROVJ)

I once had a fender bender in a parking lot. Progressive never told me that they shelled out $25K for "soft tissue injury" until it came up a few years later in an insure-ability review. Progressive said "cheaper then fighting it".

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 01:43 PM (ytdP/)

80 I haven't followed every nuance of this tale, because basically it gives me tired head. I don't know if this is all just made up or if he was tagging every gal he worked with.
What appears to be true, however, is that he knew about some of this and he acts likehe just learned about it yesterday. Any conservative that doesn't know that his every past action will be poured over, isn't smart enough to president. He may be a very smart guy but he's eat up with the dumbass.
All the while the Dems and SCFOAMF get a pass as they laugh. Thanks for allowing that to happen you idiot.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at November 04, 2011 01:44 PM (xx92t)

81 Again, this sort of thing normally occurs in clusters. Someone claims discrimination and gets paid, and all of a sudden, it's discrimination all over the place. And, BTW, "you're all a bunch of sexist pigs -- Herman and John and George and Paul and Ringo!" is just the sort of claim that seems easiest to whip out a checkbook for -- who wants their entire executive team to spend hours making depositions instead of actually managing their enterprise?

Posted by: cthulhu at November 04, 2011 01:44 PM (kaalw)

82 #61
Exactly. It's going to be very entertaining watching all the folks around here that went right along with an MSM smear job on Herman now trip all over themselves to keep this charade up.
I'm sure they'll keep kicking at non existent tires in the meantime.

Posted by: FleshBomb at November 04, 2011 01:44 PM (V9JwF)

83
Who didn't ?

Ah-Ha! So you admit it is sex scandal?!?!!?

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 04, 2011 01:44 PM (G/zuv)

84 Bret Baier breaks down the numbers in comparing the first three days of
coverage of the Herman Cain sexual harassment story to the corresponding
Former President Bill Clinton harassment allegations.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 04, 2011 01:44 PM (m8ARs)

85 Lawyer folk: how long would it take for a settlement to be reached from the episode in question?

Bennett, the lawyer for one of the ones who filed a formal complaint, said it was resolved relatively quickly - he said in two or three months.

Posted by: Y-not at November 04, 2011 01:44 PM (5H6zj)

86 Is this
how it went down now: "Yes, Ms. Accuser, you may or may not have been
harassed. Here's some money. No, we don't need to talk to Mr. Cain, it's
not important."

Possibly, yes.

A nuisance suit is a nuisance suit, whether the accused is still part of the company or not. So, if they thought they could settle ("agree"), pay it out of their insurance, and just get her to go away- they may have.

And they're much more likely to do so if they've already done that once.

HOWEVER- it seems to me that if this had been a "real" accusation, she wouldn't just have gone to the NRA to file the complaint, she would have filed suit against Cain himself (Ex CEO of the Company? He had some change lying around).

And, again, I find myself saying: What I'm seeing from the purported accusers and MFM tells me that there's nothing really here. What I'm seeing from Cain and his campaign tells me there is.

I'd really, really like to know which it is.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 04, 2011 01:45 PM (8y9MW)

87 I'm singing Herman Cain,
Just singing Herman Cain,
What a glorious feelin',
I'm happy again.
I'm laughing at clouds,
It's dark up above
The sun's in my heart
and I'm ready for love.

Posted by: Zombie Gene Kelley at November 04, 2011 01:45 PM (jucos)

88 61 No sex. No sex pics. No sex talk. No women.What the hell are we talking about?
Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:40 PM (OhYCU)
Miss me yet?

Posted by: Anthony Weiner at November 04, 2011 01:45 PM (2DaHw)

89 Ace, your argument that vetting our candidates this thoroughly and publicly can only lead to the strongest possible candidate being nominated presupposes something:

That which does not kill us makes us stronger.

And this is frequently false; you're not stronger after you recover from cholera. And you're not stronger as a candidate after being put through the wringer.

Example: Gingrich. He'd be a great candidate; except for the fact that 40% of the electorate believes that he took a giant shit right on the head of his dying wife, on her death bed, and then danced joyously on her grave.

And this is 100% accurate, except for the fact that he never took such a shit, she wasn't dying, and she's still alive today.

It doesn't matter how many retractions and corrections are printed and posted now; the damage is done. And now Cain is damaged too. And whoever we nominate will be similarly damaged, whether there's anything behind the charges or not. The media will find something, and if they don't, they'll invent it.

Now in this case, Cain isn't the greatest candidate, and I'm not crushed if he's pushed by the wayside; and it does appear as though he was prone to chasing women around the office with his dick in his hand.

I'd just encourage you to approach any more breaking stories of past scandal by our few remaining viable candidates (Romney, Gingrich, Perry) with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Posted by: Pastafarian at November 04, 2011 01:45 PM (p7jpu)

90 I think the scandal is that no one has ever accused Obama of a sex scandal. Why would that be? Seems unlikely, unless...............

Posted by: dagny at November 04, 2011 01:46 PM (/TFUb)

91 Well, he's definitely not Romney, so he's got that going for him.

OK-not Romney-that is a start but I think there are seven other -not Romneys.

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 01:46 PM (rJVPU)

92 Mr. Takagi successfully defends Nakatomi plaza.

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at November 04, 2011 01:46 PM (4136b)

93 2 It no longer matters. He has played the race card for the second time and he still blames Perry. Screw him.
Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 01:20 PM (YdQQY)

Vic, I asked this in the last Cain thread: why are you all ticked off that Cain is using the Left's weapon-of-choice against the Left? The only reason I can see is that he has engaged it haphazardly, as you mentioned (wrt to Perry), which is a serious flaw.

But I like the concept of clubbing an enemy with his own club. All we need is someone who has better weapon-control.

Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 01:46 PM (T2/zQ)

94 crisis mgmt failure of clownshoes proportion

Except his poll numbers have gone up, and his fundraising has skyrocketed. Your definition of "failure" is odd.

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:46 PM (OhYCU)

95 81 Again, this sort of thing normally occurs in clusters. Someone claims discrimination and gets paid, and all of a sudden, it's discrimination all over the place. And, BTW, "you're all a bunch of sexist pigs -- Herman and John and George and Paul and Ringo!" is just the sort of claim that seems easiest to whip out a checkbook for -- who wants their entire executive team to spend hours making depositions instead of actually managing their enterprise?
Posted by: cthulhu at November 04, 2011 01:44 PM (kaalw)
Exhibit 1? Pigford 1
Exhibit 2? Pigford 2

Posted by: Not an Attorney, but slept with one once at a Holiday Inn at November 04, 2011 01:46 PM (NtXW4)

96 The next President is speaking right now:
http://tinyurl.com/42yalcd

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 04, 2011 01:47 PM (DlrDR)

97 Operation Fast and Furious is just one of ten gunwalking operations in
five states, including at least one operation in the Midwest that
supplied weapons to domestic criminal gangs.
OT reminder.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 04, 2011 01:47 PM (JYheX)

98 97 Operation Fast and Furious is just one of ten gunwalking operations in five states, including at least one operation in the Midwest that supplied weapons to domestic criminal gangs.OT reminder.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 04, 2011 01:47 PM (JYheX)
But was anyone in those domestic criminal gangs a potential victim of possible sexual harassment by Herman Cain?
No?
Then it's not important.
Back to the REAL story.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and Padawan at November 04, 2011 01:48 PM (4df7R)

99 To paraphrase Maimonides: is something bad because Ace says it's bad, or does Ace say it's bad because it's bad?

Ace has an opinion. And his opinion in this case happens to be predicting the future. Opining that bumbling the response (And based on my knowledge of professional crisis control, it was bumbled) to allegations of sexual harassment is bad for a campaign is not some outside the window, far in left field opinion. If it turns out well for his campaign, I for one will be surprised, and would be hard pressed to attribute that success to any campaign genius Cain might have. Maybe he is crazy like a fox, and is just deliberately pissing on his own campaign because he figures folks don't want to see a clean, sharp campaign, because they hate politicians, but I remain skeptical.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 04, 2011 01:49 PM (0q2P7)

100 And, again, I find myself saying: What I'm seeing from the purported
accusers and MFM tells me that there's nothing really here. What I'm
seeing from Cain and his campaign tells me there is.

Thanks, Allen. I've been trying to explain what's driving me nuts about all this, and THIS is it.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 04, 2011 01:49 PM (bjRNS)

101 I don't know. I think Cain would still be considered a client even if he left if the events occurred while he was still employed at the NRA. And I think I'd sure as hell want him still considered a client if I'm the lawyer for the NRA on account of I can control what he says and to who a little better than if he's just a fact witness.
I can't imagine not being able to communicate with the guy who's actions your defending without it being privileged.
But, I'm not sure. Not my area of law.

Posted by: Jimmuy at November 04, 2011 01:49 PM (hROVJ)

102 You fucking people are unbelievable. This statement basically says that there is NOTHING to this. Its all unsubstantiated innuendo. Cain was not even at the association when this complaint was filed. It reeks to high hell and yet because Ace can't admit he blew it on this bullshit story he has to peddle it one more fucking day to get website views.

What is wrong with you guys?

I have a scoop for everyone on this thread: I heard from a source, who wants to remain anonymous, that they heard that Ace likes to hump goats. Now, I have it on good authority that the goat just wants to move on, but Ace needs to handle this correctly or he is just a goat buggering pederast and therefore unqualified to blog.

Posted by: JCELEPHANT at November 04, 2011 01:49 PM (TYm2g)

103 I used to work for a large car rental company. At a dinner for a new franchisee one of the senior members told a very raunchy joke. There were female employees there. Several months later I was deposed about the incident. I couldn't even remember the joke. The female said that since that event she felt uncomfortable working around the senior member of the team.

She may have. She may have felt the guy was a pervert lusting after her. She did get a large severance and was hired with-in weeks by a competitor.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 01:50 PM (ytdP/)

104 #94
Thank you! I keep hearing all of these smartest people in the room type folks parrott the MSM talking point that Cain has really handled the response poorly.
Yet, his numbers in the polls and fundraising keep going up. Hmmmm, maybe these geniuses don't know what the hell they're talking about? No. Couldn't be that.
Now excuse me, I have a car fax report to look over.

Posted by: FleshBomb at November 04, 2011 01:51 PM (V9JwF)

105 And you're not stronger as a candidate after being put through the wringer.

Your entire post assumes it we don't do it now, it doesn't happen at all.

I don't understand this thinking at all. The MFM will work unpaid overtime to destroy whomever we nominate. Every issue that is exhaustively aired now is one that cannot be effectively used later.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 04, 2011 01:52 PM (0q2P7)

106 Dang, high-five on the Maimonides reference.

Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 04, 2011 01:52 PM (tazG1)

107 Speaking as a person who watched a women falsely claim discrimination in the company we worked for and then brag how she did it at a college course she attended with my wife, the company stilled payed out.Look, here's how it works. I interview the accuser, and evaluate her credibility. Aftera few hundreddepositions, it gets kind of easy to separate liars from honest people. I already know what the accused is going to say - he will deny it. The only reason to bother with him is if I actually want to fight the case, and I have to see if he'll hold up under scrutiny.

Posted by: wooga at November 04, 2011 01:52 PM (vjyZP)

108 @ 74
Thanks, Y-not. So, to sum up, as Ole Shaky would say, this is much ado about nothing. Or sound and fury signifying...something. This reminds me of a time not long ago when Ace saw fit to shit all over Ms. Palin in quite a few threads. The Palin supporters were screaming WTF! Why does Ace like to pile on and help the leftoids desparage the R's he doesn't like? Just askin'. For the record, I am neither a Palinite or a Cainite (though I think both would be a major upgrade to the current SCOAMF in the White House).

Posted by: ole scratch at November 04, 2011 01:52 PM (+56Bh)

109 Except his poll numbers have gone up, and his fundraising has skyrocketed. Your definition of "failure" is odd.

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 01:46 PM (OhYCU)
This.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 04, 2011 01:53 PM (FkKjr)

110 Vic, I asked this in the last Cain thread: why are you all ticked off
that Cain is using the Left's weapon-of-choice against the Left?

Because I positively hate the race card no matter who is using it. It is BS. We are not the left and I personally don't want our candidates behaving like the left.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 01:54 PM (YdQQY)

111 #102
I just heard from an anonymous source that Ace has a SECOND goat that is accusing him of some VERY naughty things.
Ace, you have some explaining to do. In the meantime I'm going to have a car fax pulled.

Posted by: FleshBomb at November 04, 2011 01:54 PM (V9JwF)

112 Cain was not even at the association when this complaint was filed.

I don' think that has been established. Based on what Bennett said, the second complaint was either filed in June 1999 or early July 1999 (in order to fit with a resolution occurring on Sept 9, 1999, two to three months after the complaint was initiated).

That's also assuming that there was just one incident and she went straight to HR.

Posted by: Y-not at November 04, 2011 01:54 PM (5H6zj)

113
101 I don't know. I think Cain would still be considered a client even if he left if the events occurred while he was still employed at the NRA. And I think I'd sure as hell want him still considered a client if I'm the lawyer for the NRA on account of I can control what he says and to who a little better than if he's just a fact witness. I can't imagine not being able to communicate with the guy who's actions your defending without it being privileged. But, I'm not sure. Not my area of law.
Posted by: Jimmuy at November 04, 2011 01:49 PM (hROVJ)
Depends on the terms of representation. I suspect that the lawyer on the respondent side was counsel for the NRA, not Cain personally. Representing the entity and representing its officers are not automatically one and the same.

Posted by: Insomniac at November 04, 2011 01:54 PM (v+QvA)

114 is using the Left's weapon-of-choice against the Left?

****

Plus his weapons director-Mark Block-sucks.

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 01:55 PM (rJVPU)

115 This circular firing squad is the best we’ve seen since, well, since the last time around with you chumps.

FYI, when the campaign kicked into gear the only guys on our radar screen were Perry and Romney. We didn’t even bother thinking about your other candidates. A collection of empty suits, nuts and flakes who would be out of the contest in due course, or so we thought. But we overestimated your rubes and your wingnuts. Never in our wildest dreams did we think your primary could turn into this spectacular of a trainwreck. First the vaccine thing. Then of course illegal immigrants. Hell, throw some dark-skinned Catholics at the John Birch Society Retread Club and all hell breaks loose. Then to top it off the rise of Herman Cain.

Ah, yes, Herman Cain.

Honestly, this is the most ridiculous candidacy ever. It’s not even a candidacy. The guy doesn’t have a campaign. It’s a book tour designed to amp up his speaking fees for the talking head circuit. Seriously. He doesn’t have any ground operations in any state.

Yet the less Cain does the more your rubes flock to him. The more gaffes he makes the better his poll numbers. When his total lack of any relevant experience is exposed your robo-rubes support him even with more blind faith.

Now these allegations and the back-and-forth recriminations. Comedy gold. Your rube blocs have saddled you with this Cain anchor and it's dragging you down into the abyss. So instead of talking about the horrendous job market, the disastrous housing market, inflation, Europe, the Middle East, etc., you’re relegated totalking about he said, she said harassment claims. Heh.

Anyways, stay classy, conservatives. Make sure you pick an “outsider” as your nominee. LOL. Principles over politics. Send your messages.

We’ll send you a postcard from the 1st vacation Barack takes in his 2nd term.

Posted by: David Axelrod at November 04, 2011 01:55 PM (f8XyF)

116 Director-as in vector-

Block is shooting all over the place-in fact I think he fragged Herman.

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 01:56 PM (rJVPU)

117 I'm willing to represent these poor goats pro bono.

Posted by: John Edwards at November 04, 2011 01:56 PM (2DaHw)

118 All we need is someone who has better weapon-control.
Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 01:46 PM (T2/zQ)
If he had better weapon control we wouldn't have sexual harassment allegations in the first place.
I denounce myself.

Posted by: Insomniac at November 04, 2011 01:57 PM (v+QvA)

119 This statement basically says that there is NOTHING to this. Its all unsubstantiated innuendo.

No. It doesn't. It says that one complaint was made after he left the company. There's at least one more where he was still with the company (sorry: association). He's already admitted to that one.

Here's the thing: You're in what you believe to be a hostile work environment. Someone else you know (or know about) complains, is paid off to leave, but nothing else happens. Do you have faith to take your complaint to HR immediately? Or do you wait until that manager/sr. manager/ CEO leaves before you say "Consequently, while he was still here... 'x'?"

Because, me? I'd tend to wait. The likelihood of reprisal goes way up in that case.

Now, I don't know that that happened here. As I said, based on the facts as presented, this is all stupid and small-potatoes. On the other hand, the way Cain and his campaign have failed to handle this makes me less than secure that nothing really happened.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 04, 2011 01:57 PM (8y9MW)

120 111
#102

I just heard from an anonymous source that Ace has a SECOND goat that is accusing him of some VERY naughty things.

Ace, you have some explaining to do. In the meantime I'm going to have a car fax pulled.

Posted by: FleshBomb at November 04, 2011 01:54 PM (V9JwF)

I would be concerned it Ace didn't have a couple of love goats tied up in the basement. I mean -- Ace. Hellooooo!

Posted by: joncelli at November 04, 2011 01:57 PM (RD7QR)

121 I would be concerned it Ace didn't have a couple of love goats ewoks tied up in the basement. I mean -- Ace. Hellooooo!
Posted by: joncelli at November 04, 2011 01:57 PM (RD7QR)
FIFY.

Posted by: Insomniac at November 04, 2011 01:58 PM (v+QvA)

122 And this is frequently false; you're not stronger after you recover from cholera.



About that...
"natural infection confers effective and



long-lasting



immunity against cholera"

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 04, 2011 01:58 PM (0q2P7)

123 Hell it's like a nuclear reaction

Block shot Perry, Herman, Perry staffer shot Romney, MSM shot everybody while jacking themselves off- Cain is suing-NRA is doin' a meet up, Obama is off everyone's radar...

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 01:59 PM (rJVPU)

124 @ 107
"Speaking as a person who watched a women falsely claim
discrimination in the company we worked for and then brag how she did it
at a college course she attended with my wife, the company stilled payed out.

Look,
here's how it works. I interview the accuser, and evaluate her
credibility. Aftera few hundreddepositions, it gets kind of easy to
separate liars from honest people. I already know what the accused is
going to say - he will deny it. The only reason to bother with him is
if I actually want to fight the case, and I have to see if he'll hold up
under scrutiny."

Look here is how it happened, we went to court, was supposed to be a slam dunk, venue ended up in very liberal area, company witnesses were made out to be total idiots, company layer thought we had a slam dunk win, company settled to save money as it was gonna cost a lot and was quickly looking like a lose in the end anyway. I worked with the defendent and the person was a total waste, didn't matter in the end, settled anyway.

Posted by: Fire with Fire at November 04, 2011 01:59 PM (lcwvr)

125 I tried to find the lengths of the terms of the NRA CEOs. The only two others I could find were not 3 yr incumbents, nor were their tenures multiples of three.

Obviously, Cain could have left for standard career reasons. Perhaps he was anticipating his short-lived presidential bid the next year.

Posted by: Y-not at November 04, 2011 01:59 PM (5H6zj)

126 Geez, this guy is really incompetent.

Posted by: Jamie Gorelick at November 04, 2011 01:59 PM (8/DeP)

127 I can't imagine not being able to communicate with the guy who's actions your defending without it being privileged.
But, I'm not sure. Not my area of law.


Posted by: Jimmuy at November 04, 2011 01:49 PM (hROVJ)
That was the argument that I was making on Monday. But I am convinced now that the whole 3rd Party thing makes sense. I thought Cain was not being honest about this, but that changed my mind and this article reinforces it.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 02:00 PM (ytdP/)

128 Why isn't anyone asking Cain why he left the NRA before his term was up? Left shortly after the first accusation. Suspicious??? Maybe or maybe not but I still want an answer.

Posted by: 1bunny at November 04, 2011 02:00 PM (/1lWZ)

129 I think Bachmann is going to hunt Herman down with her Garadasil dart gun.

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 02:00 PM (rJVPU)

130 (JYheX),

Some people are upset by illegal immigration because they have a principled belief in the rule of law, then there are people that just hate Mexicans. You know the type, they can't even talk about the issue without latino-izing the names of people who disagree with them on how to handle the matter. It is like they believe that if you are named Ricardo or Jorge or Juan you can't possibly be an American. Or at least a "real American" anyway.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Mr. Book at November 04, 2011 02:00 PM (qe1yY)

131 @ 117
Hey, John Edwards, I'm pro boner also!

Posted by: anthony wiener at November 04, 2011 02:01 PM (+56Bh)

132 110 Vic, I asked this in the last Cain thread: why are you all ticked off that Cain is using the Left's weapon-of-choice against the Left?

Because I positively hate the race card no matter who is using it. It is BS. We are not the left and I personally don't want our candidates behaving like the left.
Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 01:54 PM (YdQQY)


I understand. But it isn't as if Sharpton, Belafonte, Finney, and other designated supporters of Democrat Slavery didn't use "Uncle Tom" epithets against the guy. So if he said nothing that would be better?

BTW, the slavery reference above isn't a racial one: the Democrats do and have always supported slavery. In this century, they support it for all races, creeds, and colors, so I guess you can say that they are equal opportunity "employers."

Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 02:01 PM (T2/zQ)

133 Posted by: JCELEPHANT at November 04, 2011 01:49 PM (TYm2g)

Ace's proclivities as a goat-buggering pederast have been widely known for years. It's one of the things we love about him.

You'll have to do better than that.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at November 04, 2011 02:02 PM (QKKT0)

134 Some people are upset by illegal immigration because they have a
principled belief in the rule of law, then there are people that just
hate Mexicans. You know the type, they can't even talk about the issue
without latino-izing the names of people who disagree with them on how
to handle the matter. It is like they believe that if you are named
Ricardo or Jorge or Juan you can't possibly be an American. Or at least a
"real American" anyway.

Gracias, hermano. That's the point I was trying to get across several debates ago.

Posted by: Ricardo Peré at November 04, 2011 02:02 PM (nkSOV)

135 Geez, this guy is really incompetent.
Posted by: Jamie Gorelick at November 04, 2011 01:59 PM (8/DeP)

*****

I feel sexually harassed by your last name.

You're hired!

Posted by: Al Gore at November 04, 2011 02:02 PM (rJVPU)

136 Because I positively hate the race card no matter who is using it. It is BS. We are not the left and I personally don't want our candidates behaving like the left. Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 01:54 PM (YdQQY) You are supposed to foresake your beliefs and moral convictions in politics.
Alinsky wrote a rule about it or something.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:03 PM (OWjjx)

137 @128
Wiki says he went and moved to Arkansas for a brief time before returning to Atlanta (like a year later). It doesn't list a specific job, but he's a wealthy guy and was on a lot of boards, so that doesn't mean anything.

My only point for raising it is that the timing of the second accusation relative to his departure has been brought up as some sort of vindication, but to me it does not vindicate him. It could mean nothing. It could me that the NRA gave him a graceful exit because things were starting to swirl around him.

Posted by: Y-not at November 04, 2011 02:03 PM (5H6zj)

138 Posted by: Insomniac at November 04, 2011 01:57 PM (v+QvA)

Good point. lol

Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 02:04 PM (T2/zQ)

139 Is this how it went down now: "Yes, Ms. Accuser, you may or may not have been harassed. Here's some money. No, we don't need to talk to Mr. Cain, it's not important."I depends on the strength of the woman's claim. If she had salacious emails, Cain was a "known offender" in our files, and she's willing to settle immediately for far less than her claim is actually worth, then what is the point? Cain is going to deny the claim anyway, so why waste billable hours having him lie to me?
Moreover, many of the HONEST women who make sexual harasment claims do not want to have the thing drawn out, and are willing to take a quick lowball settlement (rather than milking the case for maximum value)so as to avoid "reliving" the situation. They are mostly concerned with making sure that there is a formal record of the harassmentso that it doesn't happen to other women.If wequietly shove the offender out the door right after she makes the accusation to us - even better. She gets vindicated, the harasser is gone, and the settlement is less than the cost of having to fight the case. Win for everybody (again, assuming the allegation were true, which a competent lawyer should be able to figure out relatively quickly).

Posted by: wooga at November 04, 2011 02:04 PM (vjyZP)

140 A waltz anyone ...????

Posted by: Honey Badger at November 04, 2011 02:04 PM (GvYeG)

141 We are not the left and I personally don't want our candidates behaving like the left.

No, we're worse than the Left. We're perfectly comfortable using the Left's own tactics, even as we cluck-cluck over them, to personally destroy one of our own candidates merely because our Betters in the conservative blogosphere have decided he's unelectable.

I dunno. There was probably an Eval on Cain somewhere along the line that should have warned us all this was coming.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:06 PM (nkSOV)

142 127 It isn't a question of privilege. It is a question of awareness.

Posted by: Boone at November 04, 2011 02:06 PM (Jl3Mu)

143 >>>Alinsky wrote a rule about it or something.

So did Machiavelli.

Posted by: 1/1027th of a Janitor at November 04, 2011 02:06 PM (tazG1)

144 Maybe or maybe not but I still want an answer.

Righhhht.
You know, if I was in his shoes, enough past success to not really have to work, just doing it because I liked it, I might leave before the end of my term for all sorts of reasons: Including, "It just isn't fun anymore"


Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at November 04, 2011 02:08 PM (0q2P7)

145 136
Because I positively hate the race card no matter who is using it. It is BS. We are not the left and I personally don't want our candidates behaving like the left.
Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 01:54 PM (YdQQY)

You are supposed to foresake your beliefs and moral convictions in politics.

Alinsky wrote a rule about it or something.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:03 PM (OWjjx)






Well, it's only a "race card" when it's played to defend oneself against charges of incompetence and/or malfeasance. In the case of the Left, they really do want to keep a brutha down. So pointing it out is not playing the race card.

Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 02:08 PM (T2/zQ)

146 I think what disgusts me the most is the attitude of some on the Right
that "The seriousness of the allegations are warrant enough for
concern."

No one knows anything other than an allegation was made and a settlement was paid out. A really, really small settlement.

This settlement was paid out in the age of Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones.

Paula Jones got a pretty decent settlement, but the alleged harasser got to keep his job.

And
after all this, the Washington Post released a poll in which a majority
of those polled don't think the allegations are serious and 70 percent
think it won't affect Cain's chances (I can't link the article because
you have to register for it).

Seems the general public don't
really care what a few hysterical chickens are clucking about in certain
camps on the Right and the Left.

The allegations against Harman Cain continue to be a non-issue everywhere except here and MSNBC.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 04, 2011 02:09 PM (EIAxq)

147 So, if Cain didn't know about the second settlement, it must be the first settlement that related to the "holding his hand up to his chin" incident, right?
So, as long as the first settlement can fairly be summarized as relating to Cain holding his hand up to his chin, which then led to paying the woman an amount equal to a year's salary, then we're good.

Posted by: OCBill at November 04, 2011 02:09 PM (YJvVE)

148 I personally witnessed Herman Cain choke that bitch like she was a dog!

Posted by: michael vick at November 04, 2011 02:09 PM (+56Bh)

149 Vic is a raaacciiiist!

Posted by: jesse jackson & al sharpton at November 04, 2011 02:11 PM (+56Bh)

150 Look in my eye.....
What do you see.....
A Cult of Personality
A cult of Personality
A Cult of Personality

Posted by: Living Color at November 04, 2011 02:12 PM (OWjjx)

151 "Dammit. Somebody page me when amateur hour's over."


Yeah...because what we REALLY want is a professional politician.

For fuck's sake.

The same people who thought Cain was awesome because he was an outsider are now decrying him because he's an outsider.


Posted by: Sgt. York at November 04, 2011 02:12 PM (EIAxq)

152 Ok...so here's a new take to consider. I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet so here goes...what IF Mr. Cain just has issues with women in general. You know, women and 'THEIR PLACE"...? I have seen issues such as these with men in the corporate and professional workplace. Certian male personalities consider women (any woman) only good for certain things (sex, gettin' my coffee, etc., etc.). Maybe Cain just has problems with women in general. Thoughts?

Posted by: ReadyorNot at November 04, 2011 02:13 PM (ErUlJ)

153 The same people who thought Cain was awesome because he was an outsider are now decrying him because he's an outsider.

We want what we want, until we don't.

When we don't want it anymore, it's someone else's fault for not keeping us interested.

Posted by: Just Asking Questions! at November 04, 2011 02:14 PM (nkSOV)

154 152 Ok...so here's a new take to consider. I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet so here goes...what IF Mr. Cain just has issues with women in general. You know, women and 'THEIR PLACE"...? I have seen issues such as these with men in the corporate and professional workplace. Certian male personalities consider women (any woman) only good for certain things (sex, gettin' my coffee, etc., etc.). Maybe Cain just has problems with women in general. Thoughts?
Posted by: ReadyorNot at November 04, 2011 02:13 PM (ErUlJ)



That's that other black guy.

Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 02:14 PM (T2/zQ)

155 #99, good answer. I like Cain but I agree it's much more likely that he's bumbling than that he's playing 11-dimensional chess. Still, as a wise man -- well, a man -- well, a live human being once said: "Hope and change!"

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at November 04, 2011 02:14 PM (qndXR)

156 According to Cain's Bio, on his website, he was with the Nat'l Restaurant Assn in 1994 when he did that confrontation with Bill Clinton at a town hall.
From Cain's Bio:
In 1994, as head of the National Restaurant Association, he had the opportunity to speak with President Clinton during a nationally televised town hall meeting. [...]
Through these and other appearances on behalf of the National Restaurant Association, Herman began working with business leaders across all sectors of the American economy. This led to his acceptance of a position on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and he was subsequently elected their chairman. In this role, he analyzed economic conditions in the region and notified the Federal Reserve of how their policies should respond.
[It doesn't mention when he left the Nat'l Res Assn....or why he left.]

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at November 04, 2011 02:15 PM (v26Nx)

157 "I know you generally eat pizza with your hands, but really, stick a fork in Cain--he's done."

Heard that six months ago. Probably just as true now...

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 04, 2011 02:16 PM (EIAxq)

158 152
Ok...so here's a new take to consider. I haven't seen this posted
anywhere yet so here goes...what IF Mr. Cain just has issues with women
in general. You know, women and 'THEIR PLACE"...? I have seen issues
such as these with men in the corporate and professional workplace.
Certian male personalities consider women (any woman) only good for
certain things (sex, gettin' my coffee, etc., etc.). Maybe Cain just
has problems with women in general. Thoughts?
Maybe Cain's accusers (whoever the hell they might be) just had a problem with a black man in a position of authority over them. Maybe they thought Herman himself didn't know HIS place.

See how easy unsubstantiated bullshit is?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:16 PM (nkSOV)

159 wooga
There are also cases where a woman is genuinely upset by something that most people would not see as sexual harassment. I've seen it.

Another case: I was S-1 of an infantry battalion. We had an attached PAC (personnel clerks) that were required to go through a 72 hour field exercise. Everyone had to demonstrate the ability to defend yourself regardless of your MOS. Two women claimed they were sexually harassed because they weren't allowed showers. They made a Congressional complaint. A very liberal congressman to boot.

Luckily for me and the CO the congressional investigator had gone to Vietnam...one of the few female air force personnel to do so. She felt that while the women were truly upset there was no harrasment and reccomended that the PAC's parent unit do a better job of preparing their female soldiers for teh rigors of the field (this was 1985)

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 04, 2011 02:16 PM (ytdP/)

160 128, Why isn't anyone asking Cain why he left the NRA before his term was
up? Left shortly after the first accusation. Suspicious??? Maybe or
maybe not but I still want an answer.
Gesturers "just askin questions".

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 02:17 PM (OhYCU)

161 Has Rush said Codify again? I had to step away for a moment...

Posted by: Your Papers Please at November 04, 2011 02:17 PM (EL+OC)

162
Ace,
Are you going to humbly apologize to Herman Cain when it comes out that he is innocent?
I really don't think you can do it, but it would be nice.

Posted by: JPF at November 04, 2011 02:17 PM (PoAQX)

163 Undead,
Yeah, I guess having 15% of the population convinced that republicans hate them because of their race isn't good enough, if we really work at it we can drive that number up to 30%.

Posted by: Mr. Book at November 04, 2011 02:18 PM (qe1yY)

164 156, Cain was on the Board of the NRA in 94. Became CEO in 1996.

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 02:23 PM (OhYCU)

165 #162
Forget the apologies to Mr. Cain. Herman needs to get in the back of the apology bus. The two anonymous goats need to hear it first!

Posted by: FleshBomb at November 04, 2011 02:23 PM (V9JwF)

166 Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 02:01 PM (T2/zQ)

I gave him a conditional pass on the racist rock BS. And said OK, that's strike one. Maybe it was just a bad hair day. But this is the second time he has attacked Perry with zero justification. Not only that he has doubled down on it.

To me that shows a lack of integrity and honesty. And with that remember what I said in his evaluation. His plank looks good in principle, but since we must depend entirely on his rhetoric (no record) his plank rests on his honesty and integrity.

At the time of his eval I said since he had been happily married for 40 years and no allegations there had arisen and none from other locations he could be trusted.

That is starting to fall apart now, piece by piece.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 02:24 PM (YdQQY)

167 Are you going to humbly apologize to Herman Cain when it comes out that he is innocent?
Why would he? After all, one of Cain's grievous sins was that he didn't have a plan to deal with the character assassination attempt that was launched against him, which as we all know is just as bad as if the murky allegations against him were true. Ace was just asking questions.

Just wait until we have a nominee. It's going to be REALLY hilarious watching the same blog that was all-in on the Herman Cain hit-job try to defend the eventual GOP nominee from the same kinds of vile, unsubstantiated Democrat smears.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:25 PM (nkSOV)

168 Wow, sounds like you don't know
shit about litigation. When a sexual harassment accuser has a legit
claim, particularly if backed up by salacious emails or witnesses, the
WORST thing to do is to drag the case out to the point where you have to
bring in the harasser for interviews and depositions - as the cost of
the case will increase - both in fees and damages. Moreover, all
communications with Cain after he left are no longer protected as
attorney-client communications and are discoverable. Good luck with
that.Plus, accumulating knowledge about bad acts will destroy any
plausible deniability that the company had. Once the company can be
charged with knowledge of having harassers in its employe (present or
past), all future claims against the company (by other employees) grow
exponentially in costs.

Posted by: wooga at November 04, 2011 01:41 PM (vjyZP)
How can any company survive?
A big corporation, like an IBM or Disney, with 10s of thousands or more employees will almost certainly have at least one legit claim of sexual harrassment against it. Even if that person is fired, the settlements are more likely to grow larger and more likely?
That's treating a corporation like a person, yet the actions of individuals in a company do not represent the culture (necessarily, sometimes they do).
If true, I can't understand why anyone would take the risk of hiring someone of the opposite sex - from a legal standpoint, companies composed of nothing but men or nothing but women only make sense.
What's worse is that companies are simply willing to pay out claims to get people to go away because there is no purpose to fighting it. So suppose these weren't legit claims but these women were paid to go away. You can say the accused will not suffer damage, but we're seeing how true that is right now.
Our legal system is REALLY fucked up. It seems to forget about the victims in criminal cases, while presuming the accused guilty on the civil side.

Posted by: blindside at November 04, 2011 02:26 PM (x7g7t)

169 How many viewers will Rush lose this week?

10-20-30 percent?

Posted by: Your Papers Please at November 04, 2011 02:29 PM (EL+OC)

170 Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 02:24 PM (YdQQY)

Hey Vic, I got a dirty little secret to share with you.

The personal character of Herman Cain (or anyone else for that matter) isn't really dependent on what some pompous ass in an early primary state, who appointed himself the Arbiter of Conservative Candidates, pounded out on a spreadsheet several months ago.

But go ahead, hoard your "conditional passes" for more deserving people.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:29 PM (nkSOV)

171 A statement from a lawyer for the accuser, without naming the accuser, the officials and lawyers negotiating the settlement and the superiors of the accuser, etc., isn't squat in my book.
All this shows is the GOP is made of the same class of people as are the Donks.

Posted by: icepick at November 04, 2011 02:31 PM (o0Uno)

172 How many points in the polls will Herman Cain lose this week?

10-20-30 percent?

Oh, wait. That's right.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:31 PM (nkSOV)

173 Our legal system is REALLY fucked up. It seems to forget about the
victims in criminal cases, while presuming the accused guilty on the
civil side.

That is because trial lawyers control most of the State legislatures and they have "fixed" the laws so it is damn easy to sue and there is no downside to losing.

But the biggest piece of crap is enacting the deep pockets shared responsibility laws. There all they have to do is show the slightest "fault" for the deep pockets guy (or his insurance) and he will be responsible for 100% of the tort.

Then the get to "pick" the jury. If you have ever been called for jury duty you can see how the "tort" attorneys pick a jury. Never fear though, 99% of the Morons would never be picked for a civil action trial, and probably not a criminal trial either.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 02:33 PM (YdQQY)

174 Hey Vic, I got a dirty little secret to share with you.

I've got one for you to ESAD fucktard. If I want any shit out of you I'll squeeze that big pimple on your shoulders.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 02:34 PM (YdQQY)

175 Gosh, Vic, does this mean I don't get a Conditional Pass?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:36 PM (nkSOV)

176 If Herman Cain is nominated by the Republican Party to be its candidate for President, I think I would start apologizing to somebody, because I'm pretty sure that's one of the signs of the coming apocalypse.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 02:37 PM (Gc/Qi)

177 JPF at November 04, 2011 02:17 PM
Any chance Cain apologizes for blaming Perry? Or the ROmneybots for blaiming Perry?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 02:38 PM (kaOJx)

178 Rush "Codify"

Drink!

Posted by: Your Papers Please at November 04, 2011 02:38 PM (EL+OC)

179 Any chance Cain apologizes for blaming Perry? Or the ROmneybots for blaiming Perry?

Any chance Perry apologizes for blaming Romney?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:39 PM (nkSOV)

180 It's quite revealing that Romney's fans both say that Cain has no chance of actually winning, but go way too far in defending him, basically impugning the character of people who are obviously just analyzing this pretty reasonably and often just highlighting the things Cain did wrong that we actually do know, for sure, he did because we saw him do it.

Supporting Cain = Helping nominate Romney.

At least that's what I believe, and what I see the Romney fans being motivated by.

It's perfectly obvious these gaffes of Cain's are far graver than Perry's gaffe about 'have no heart'. And Perry has a great conservative record and the organization needed to beat Romney.

If you ignore the MSM and Romney fanatic's cries, and actually watch Perry in an interview or an uncut video (that 'he's drunk!' one was dishonestly edited) Perry comes across as very intelligent and personable. I know, they all pretend Perry is a moron because of his humble background, but I respect the self made man piloting for the Air Force, winning a decoration for defending Israel, and paying his way through school with the GI Bill. Sure, he didn't have the prep schools. He didn't have the connections and money to get a Harvard Law degree. So what? He's proven he can run a large government competently.

You don't hear excuses for Perry's record.

Cain fans should reconsider supporting Perry. If we do not unify behind one conservative, the extremely liberal Mitt Romney will be the nominee, and he will do what he promised liberals in 2002: be their guy in the GOP in DC. None of us honestly believe a word Romney says, and the stakes are just too high to trust him with power again. That's why Romney never won a subsequent election.

The only way Romney wins is if the right is split because we reject conservatives for 5-10% deviation from our views. Then we get an amnesty shill who gave free health care to illegals, a spender, a Romneycare lover, and a gun grabber.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 02:40 PM (rQ/Ue)

181 "Any chance Perry apologizes for blaming Romney?


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:39 PM (nkSOV)"
Prove he didn't. The way Curt was cleared, proving the Cain smear on Perry was untrue.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 02:40 PM (rQ/Ue)

182 "Any chance Perry apologizes for blaming Romney?"
Link where he did . And pointing out Cain's successor at the NRA is a political donor of Mittens isn't Perry blaming Romney. I'll wait.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 02:41 PM (kaOJx)

183 Once again.....with feeling:
Alan Keyes 2012
"If it is amatuer hour, he is the most experienced amatuer!"

Posted by: Living Color at November 04, 2011 02:42 PM (OWjjx)

184 The people who are criticizing Cain for the way he handled this would never have voted for him anyway, so it's just a big circle jerk of Cain haters. It never even seems to occur to the haters that the way you handle having the media crucify you with unsubstantiated claims is NOT TO HANDLE IT. So long as Cain doesn't respond (which he has now decided to do officially) and the truth is on his side,a lack of response is the only thing that will work. It deprives the story of oxygen and it diesa slow painful death, rather than the media and Ace latching on to the insufficiency or endlessly parsing every little comment (e.g. Ace's contention that denial of sexually harassing is not equal to denial of sexual intercourse).
How do you haters reconcile your argument that Cain hasn't handled this well with the FACTS that: 1.) he has not dropped in the polls; 2.) he has raised record amounts ofcampaign cash; 3.) He has been lead story for a full week with no conclusive evidence emerging that he actually did anything?

Posted by: mjhlaw at November 04, 2011 02:43 PM (YQ4mh)

185 Prove he didn't.

Prove Perry wasn't behind it.

Hell, for that matter, prove anything related to these Cain charges are anything more than bullshit.

That's where we are now, isn't it? Just Asking Questions?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:44 PM (nkSOV)

186 It never even seems to occur to the haters that the way you handle having the media crucify you with unsubstantiated claims is NOT TO HANDLE IT.
The mortgage company keeps calling with unsubstantiated claims I am behind in my mortgage.
The best way to handle this is NOT TO HANDLE IT.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:45 PM (OWjjx)

187
Well fellow jurnolisters looks like we have antagonized those dubass conservatives into a circular firing squad and so far eliminated the Skerry Texan with 8%, have Cain taking water and oppss, raising record amounts of money? Looks like we need to do some more work on this Cain feller he's not going away, justgotsome of the pissed off Skerry guys are dissin on him, but he's still kickin ass on our friend Romney and if that twit Newt pokes his head above 15% we got letisha, levita, sharmane, candy, and trixxy ready to put him down like a used rubber.
As far as the rest lets just not dilute our efforts on them and keep after the Big guy, say he's dumb and doesn't handle stuff well or lie to good when he tells the truth and stuff.
meeting adjorned. no minutes, no emails Puullleeeese

Posted by: The Presstitutes at November 04, 2011 02:45 PM (vXqv3)

188 The kids keep telling me all these unsubstantiated rumors that it is lunch time and they have not been feed.
The best way to handle this is NOT TO HANDLE THIS!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:46 PM (OWjjx)

189 I just got a call from a witness who says they spoke to an attorney representing a third goat. The witness says they saw the third goat and Ace together at a TGI Fridays on a Thursday nite (which is - of course - goat night) and that said goat left the bar with Ace and got into a cab with him. The next day the goat woke up in his bed and has been unable to eat garbage since. The attorney says that the goat wants to remain out of the public eye and therefore the lawyer is gonna handle the press.

There are no details, but the lawyer says that the intimate details include a Cuisinart and Jello Pudding Pops.

Posted by: JCELEPHANT at November 04, 2011 02:46 PM (TYm2g)

190 "Link where he did . And pointing out Cain's successor at the NRA is a
political donor of Mittens isn't Perry blaming Romney. I'll wait.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 02:41 PM (kaOJx)"
Exactly.
"Prove Perry wasn't behind it."
LOL. Pathetic.
We all saw Romney's shills insisting "Perry was behind the hit". When Perry was defended with 'Romney has connections here too' and 'Romney benefits just because you're blaming Perry for it' they insisted we now have to prove Perry didn't do it.It's just sophistry on their part.They wanted to blame Perry, the specific grounds were proven to be completely wrong, and now they act like Perry did the same thing, when he clearly did no such thing.Anyway, Romney fans badly, badly, badly need Cain to stay viable. Let's not nominate Romney, OK?

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 02:46 PM (rQ/Ue)

191 The water company is out front threatening to turn off my water based on unsubstantiated claims I did not pay the bill.
The best way to handle this IS NOT TO HANDLE THIS.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:48 PM (OWjjx)

192 Link where he did

Perry camp blames Romney campaign for leak.

"Oh, but wait," you say. "Perry didn't say this, his communications director did." (I'm anticipating what you're going to say in advance, since divining things we know nothing about has been all the rage during the Cain non-story.) Okay, then either Rick Perry's own communications director isn't speaking for the Rick Perry campaign, or Perry is so disorganized and bumbling he has no control over his camp's message. Oh, wait, isn't that a big part of what we're piling onto Cain for?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:48 PM (nkSOV)

193 Perry's two gravest errors, and I do believe they are errors:

1. Supporting an initiative to have teenage girls vaccinated against HPV strains that cause cervical cancer.

2. Trying to find a solution to the substantial problem of illegal immigration.

They are errors because the people who oppose his efforts are so emotionally tied up into their positions that they can't be reasonable about it. I happen to agree with him on both issues, but realize a candidate for the Republican nomination can't be honest with people about his desire to do the right thing on these two issues, because some people will not forgive you for it.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 02:48 PM (Gc/Qi)

194 Speaking of "just asking questions"; could someone in the media get a hold of one of these goat's lawyers?
I'd like to know if the goat was a willing participant or if they felt harrased and intimidated into rolling around in the hay with Ace.

Posted by: FleshBomb at November 04, 2011 02:49 PM (V9JwF)

195 We'll just have to see where this ends up.A side issue starting to rear it's ugly head is some of the media are incredulous that Cain's numbers aren't going down. They interpreted this to mean Conservatives don't care if you sexually harass women. I kid you not.

Posted by: The terrorist Hobbit formerly known as Donna at November 04, 2011 02:50 PM (5Wl/f)

196
"It's perfectly obvious these gaffes of Cain's are far graver than Perry's gaffe about 'have no heart'. And Perry has a great conservative record and the organization needed to beat Romney. "

Cains gaffes are gaffes of a non-politician!
Your boy Skerry just pulled it out and pissed on his base so take your shuck and jive BS elsewhere. Your ploished guys pissed on his boots and isn't quite so shiny or polished as advertized.

Posted by: Concealed Kerry or submit at November 04, 2011 02:51 PM (vXqv3)

197 My car has stopped running based on unsubstantiated rumors that the gas tank is empty (the fuel indicator is saying nothing but E - which has to be code for "I would lie...but for that damn non-disclosure agreement I signed with the ignition").
The best way to handle this IS NOT TO HANDLE THIS!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:52 PM (OWjjx)

198 Your link doesn't say what you say it says, Undead. He said "i wouldn't put it past them." Not that same as accusing... you do understand the difference, don't you?

Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 02:52 PM (Gc/Qi)

199 The mortgage company keeps calling with unsubstantiated claims I am behind in my mortgage.
The best way to handle this is NOT TO HANDLE IT.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:45 PM (OWjjx)
LOL, I got a call yesterday from the Hospital saying had not paid a bill last month. Wife took the canceled check and bank statement down to their office and showed it to them. They said that the person who called had screwed up. But they sais we have this other "new" bill we haven't mailed yet and asked my wife if she wanted to any any on it.She said, yeah, I'll pay all of it. They asked are you sure and when she joking said yes do I get a discount that said yes. If you pay it all we'll cut $400 of it.We had been paying all of these bills for years via mail, will never do that again. I was only by that mistaken call that we found out we could have saved thousands over the years.

Posted by: Vic at November 04, 2011 02:52 PM (YdQQY)

200 "The people who are criticizing Cain for the way he handled this would
never have voted for him anyway, so it's just a big circle jerk of Cain
haters."

No, that's not true. I was often saying we need to support Cain if he's the leading not-Romney.

But Cain smeared Curt. He baselessly has attacked Perry on repeated occasions. His handling of this scandal thing has contradicted itself repeatedly and it's hard to understand why he's defending himself so poorly.

There are legit reasons to have a problem with it.

One major reason is that Cain's #1 motivation does not appear to be overcoming the scandal or winning the nomination. It appears to be stopping Perry from beating Romney. He constantly acts as though that is top priority.

Cain is the guy acting like he doesn't want my support with his constant ugliness towards Perry's supporters. He's gone so far as to suggest supporting Perry is worse than supporting Ron Paul or John Huntsman or Mitt Romney or any other GOP candidate.

No, I'm not a hater. I just want the most conservative guy who can win, and I don't appreciate how Cain's bashing a guy with the most conservative record, over conspiracy theories that are quickly proven false.

I also think it's ludicrous to claim that these harassment claims would not exist if Cain were white. That kind of accusation should have some kind of evidence behind it, or otherwise it is just as corrosive to society as when Obama's shills do that.

Should the race card be played sometimes? Sure: if there's a clear reason for it. Otherwise, it's very off-putting.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 02:52 PM (rQ/Ue)

201 Anyway, Romney fans badly, badly, badly need Cain to stay viable.

Perry fans badly, badly, badly need Cain to collapse. This need informs everything they've tried to trot out about Cain over the last week. They so fervently want to get their boy back into contention that they're at the point where they'll say and do literally anything. The stench of desperation wafts off the Son of a Tenant Farmer's supporters like the rot off a three-day-old smashed armadillo on I-10.

It ain't working.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:53 PM (nkSOV)

202 "Prove Perry wasn't behind it."
He said he wasn't and stated that if anyone in his campaign was involved in showing Cain to be a serial molester they would be removed from their job.
Why hasn't Romney said that publicly?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 02:53 PM (kaOJx)

203 "Cains gaffes are gaffes of a non-politician!
Your
boy Skerry just pulled it out and pissed on his base so take your shuck
and jive BS elsewhere. Your ploished guys pissed on his boots and
isn't quite so shiny or polished as advertized.

Posted by: Concealed Kerry or submit at November 04, 2011 02:51 PM (vXqv3)"
OK, that's a fair point. Perry is a career politician and doesn't get any slack for making a gaffe. Cain is not a politician despite running for two offices and is not expected to be gaffe-free.But Cain's gaffes are much worse, and in my opinion, say much more about his character, and they are bad enough that I would hold them against someone who is not a politician.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 02:54 PM (rQ/Ue)

204 @193

Perry's problem is not that he tried to find a solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

And opponents of his dream act are not irrational, unreasonable, or bigoted, no matter how many times you and/or Perry peddle that horseshit.

Posted by: Dave at November 04, 2011 02:54 PM (Xm1aB)

205 198
Your link doesn't say what you say it says, Undead. He said "i wouldn't
put it past them." Not that same as accusing... you do understand the
difference, don't you?Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 02:52 PM (Gc/Qi)

High-five, buddy.

Posted by: Bill Clinton, Parser-in-Chief at November 04, 2011 02:55 PM (nkSOV)

206 Meanwhile, over at Polipundit:

Ted Kennedy asked Carrie Fischer to have sex with Chris Dodd.

Fisher: If I was going to have sex with Chris. I said, ‘No, not tonight. I’ve just gotten sober recently,’ and I don’t even know what I said. What I did was I out-answered his inappropriate questions.

You can't make this stuff up, Folks.

http://tinyurl.com/6xdmouw

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 04, 2011 02:55 PM (niZvt)

207 We had been paying all of these bills for years via mail, will never do that again. I was only by that mistaken call that we found out we could have saved thousands over the years.
I have not paid a medical bill in full for years. During the time I was a trial lawyer, I was amazed at how quick a care provider would reduce a bill, particularly if it was old. Since then, I have probably saved an average of 20% over any bill I have ever had. Well, until now.
Because now, when faced with unsubstantiated claims that I owe for medical services rendered to me, I know the best way to handle it IS NOT TO HANDLE IT!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:55 PM (OWjjx)

208 "Perry fans badly, badly, badly need Cain to collapse."
According to RealClearPolitics, the ABC most recent poll shows Romney has passed Cain in the National Poll. All this week. Looks like ROmney directly has benefitted from Cain's past gropes.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 02:55 PM (kaOJx)

209 He said he wasn't and stated that if anyone in his campaign was involved
in showing Cain to be a serial molester they would be removed from
their job.

Really? He used the term "serial molester"?

Ol' Rick isn't very good at this, is he?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 02:57 PM (nkSOV)

210 The best way to handle a bad poll.....................IS NOT TO HANDLE IT!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 02:57 PM (OWjjx)

211 "He used the term "serial molester"?"
No. I did. Because it looks like Cain has a problem with both running his mouth and dealing with women.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 02:58 PM (kaOJx)

212 "Perry fans badly, badly, badly need Cain to collapse."

Well, I'm most an Anybody But Romney fan.

But yeah, of course Perry needs Cain's supporters to win. That's absolutely true.

I see no problem with that, as Perry is not a liberal or a liar like Mitt Romney.

We do need ONE not-Romney to gain most of the Not-Romney votes to win. Yes. It's called math.

This is a lot different from Romney's gameplan. Romney makes very little appeal to conservatives. His fanboys treat us with contempt, threats, smears, and hatred because they can't use appeals to ideology without lying.

Romney wants to split the majority of the GOP and win with the largest plurality. So he needs Cain as a spoiler.

The Not-Romneys (other than Cain, whom Romney's fans assure me is not serious about winning) want to win a majority of the party's support.

I see a major difference in type here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Undead, but two days ago you were insisting that you would trash Perry after the primary, all the way up to general election day, because you were so angry that one of his supporters was criticizing Romney. If that's true, you're not really even a Republican. You're just a petty cult of Romney weirdo.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 02:58 PM (rQ/Ue)

213 Dustin,
Anyone who won't support the eventual GOP nominee is a Obama supporter. Just a FYI.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:00 PM (kaOJx)

214 You keep trying to tell me you're not a bigot, Dave. Even though I never accused you of being one. So I'm starting to think you are. See, that would be an example of rational thinking, Dave.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 03:01 PM (Gc/Qi)

215
Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 02:38 PM
This whole thing is a classical media smear on a Republican Candidate. A candidate who is a good man.
Now, if it comes out that Perry and Romney are innocent and they don't have people in their employ who did this, I do expect Cain to come out and apologize.
I don't know if Cain can beat Obama, but you guys have done your damdest to do the dirty work of the lefties in this country. Are you going to apologize to Cain when it comes out he is innocent? I doubt you can do it.
If you knew lawyers, you would know that this is a smear on Cain. Call up your favorite lawyer. Ask what this is about. You will be surprised.

Posted by: JPF at November 04, 2011 03:01 PM (PoAQX)

216 The oldest daughter just called, saying that she heard some unsubstantiated rumors that her second semester tution was due soon.
I explained to her the best way to handle this was NOT TO HANDLE IT!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 03:01 PM (OWjjx)

217 "Looks like ROmney directly has benefitted from Cain's past gropes.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 02:55 PM (kaOJx)"
Of course. The only people claiming Romney doesn't benefit from this are idiots or cultists. It was pretty clear all along that he was the primary gainer here.Regardless, I think it is very unwise to assume there was any conspiracy, and especially to blame one without some great evidence. All signs indicate this would have come out organically. Too many people already knew about it months ago. Cain told people about this internally YEARS ago. His initial worry was that one of his own former guys had betrayed him (now disproven, and the betrayal was Cain's).So I think it's wrong to blame Romney for this. There's no evidence, these guys do need vetting, and it was an inevitable story.Can't stand Romney, and many of his most outspoken fans are quite ugly, but that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:02 PM (rQ/Ue)

218 This whole thing is hilarious. All the anti-Cain, and yes that term has been used here, posters are rolling around like pigs in slop. The Perry supporters(some of them anti-Cain) are so happy this is taking center stage they're drunk with joy. But the two people enjoying this the most are Romney and Obama.And come on, people saying this is about how 'Cain handled the story' is a crock. No matter what he said or did if you didn't like him from the get go you'd find fault with it. Why doesn't everyone just admit they are forcertain candidates and will do everything they can to discredit the others. It's politics as usual, down and dirty...so can we quit being sanctimonious and quit making stupid rationales for what we say and admit we're speculating in hopes it turns out to be true? I haven't had this much fun watching political postings since Bubba and the cigar fiasco. I've said it before, I don't like Cain or any of the candidates, but I am all ABO.

Posted by: Deanna at November 04, 2011 03:02 PM (IfQdQ)

219 "Are you going to apologize to Cain when it comes out he is innocent? I doubt you can do it. "
So there wasn't a settlement or two made in this matter already? Are you saying that settling two sexual harrassment claims means you are innocent?
Define innocent for me in this matter with Cain.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:03 PM (kaOJx)

220 According to RealClearPolitics, the ABC most recent poll shows Romney has passed Cain in the National Poll.

Oh, you mean this one? The one still showing Romney and Cain statistically tied, as has been the case for a while? The one titled "Cain Shows Initial Resilience in the Face of Controversy"?

Oh yeah, EPIC collapse on Cain's part. And just look at ol' Rick surging back into double-digits there! The man has arrived.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:03 PM (nkSOV)

221 OK haters....what you morons don't realize is in every example you offer, there is a DOCUMENTED CLAIM (Hospital, Mortgate, etc.). While in the case of the allegations against Cain, the only documentation is Politico's word, WITHOUT documentation. Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by: mjhlaw at November 04, 2011 03:04 PM (YQ4mh)

222 "Now, if it comes out that Perry and Romney are innocent and
they don't have people in their employ who did this, I do expect Cain to
come out and apologize."

That's a cool headed view. Note that Cain's campaign already conceded that their specific accusation against this Curt staffer was plainly wrong. And it is pretty much proven that Curt wasn't the source of the Politico story.

Curt made a mistake even working for Cain. Cain's other staffers who know some of his dirty laundry should feel a twitch of nervousness now.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:04 PM (rQ/Ue)

223 Define innocent for me in this matter with Cain.

Define guilt. Then prove it.

That's how this country works, or is supposed to.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:05 PM (nkSOV)

224 "The one still showing Romney and Cain statistically tied"

So you say that, but you also dismissed the notion that Romney benefits if Cain loses support?

Are you high?

You're the guy who said "Perry is behind the hit". Your evidence was that, in your opinion, Romney can't benefit. How strange.

Now, you demand proof Perry didn't do it. An irrational proof of a negative, and about something that seems very unlikely anyway.

Pure sophistry.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:06 PM (rQ/Ue)

225 I just went to look at the pdf of that poll...want to know how many ways it sucks-

National poll- that doesn't tell you much about the state by state primary process.

Registered voters -doesn't even bother to find "likely voters.

Magin of error misreported every where.

They polled 1,000 respondents or there abouts for the bipartisan questions but only polled 300 + for the Republcan primary questions.

The margin of error for that is-

above 5% I think it's 5.5%

Last but not least there is this in the pdf-that I am pretty sure no one in the press reports-

this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that a vast 69 percent of potential Republican voters say there’s at least some chance they could change their minds – and 45 percent say there’s a “good chance” of it.

*****

Jeebus.

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 03:06 PM (rJVPU)

226 Correct me if I'm wrong, Undead, but two days ago you were insisting
that you would trash Perry after the primary, all the way up to general
election day, because you were so angry that one of his supporters was
criticizing Romney.

I didn't say that at all.

Besides, I won't have to.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:06 PM (nkSOV)

227 I guess War the fact that Romney picked up support in that poll this week means nothing to you. OK, I get it. You are in the tank for Romney. You still haven''t proven anything today. Basically, you are curious without the stupidity. Or maybe just some of it.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:07 PM (kaOJx)

228 "Define guilt. Then prove it."

That's easy. Guilt is when the politician smears an innocent staffer without evidence. Guilt is when a politician plays the race card and lacks a basis. Guilt is when a politician traffics in MSM smears, baseless smears, and even expands upon them, and then flip flops to decrying much milder versions of this sin.

And that's all stuff I've seen.

That's Cain's problem. Some of his behavior is off-putting to me. I don't know if the sex scandal crap is true, but I know Cain's reaction to it was wrong.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:08 PM (rQ/Ue)

229 If you knew lawyers, you would know that this is a smear on Cain. Call up your favorite lawyer. Ask what this is about. You will be surprised.
I did call my favorite lawyer. Turns out, it was me. Here is the conversation we had:
Mallamutt: So, lawyer Mallamutt, have you been keeping up with this Herman Cain stuff.
Lawyer Mallamutt: Yes, I have.
Mallamutt: Pretty clear its a smear job and a high tech lynching....no?
Lawyer Mallamutt: Well, that is hard to say. Here is what I know, from reading the news report about it: 3 women alleged they were sexually harrassed by Herman Cain. In 2 cases, it appears that monies were paid to 2 of the women and the third failed to file a claim. If it was just this third women, then I would tend to agree that it was a smear campaign, in that she did not file a complaint or proceed further. But, in the case of the other 2 women, I think it would depend upon what the circumstances of the claims were. Until I know that, it is hard to determine if it was a smear.
Mallamutt: But the monies paid out were not that much --- looks like a smear to me, would not a real claim be worth more?
Lawyer Mallamutt: Not necessarily. See, most sexual harrassment claims deal with economic damages. The amount of money you lost when you had to quit your job till your next job because of a hostile work environment. Considering it was the 90s, these amounts could indicate the claim may have had merit --- or that there was some structural weakness in the case, but that a claim could go to trial, so the settlement was a combination of cost of defense and risk of a small jury award. Again, without the facts, it is hard to say what it is.
Mallamutt: Come on, surely you are not telling me that an employer may actually settle a claim because there is some merit to it for less than a 100,000 dollars ---
Lawyer Mallamutt: Lot of cases settle that way. Its all about the elements of damages that are contained in the jury instruction.
Mallamutt: so what your saying is
Lawyer Mallamutt: based upon everything, I think it is hard to say if its a smear, a legitimate claim or what. But it is politics. And politics is a hardball occupation. Don't like getting whacked by things like this....stay out of the arena.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 03:08 PM (OWjjx)

230 "Define guilt."
Accusations were made. A settlement was reached. Money changed hands. According to you, Hermann is innocent.
Sure thing sparky.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:09 PM (kaOJx)

231 Now, you demand proof Perry didn't do it. An irrational proof of a
negative, and about something that seems very unlikely anyway.

Now that's ironic, coming from the "prove Cain didn't do it" crowd.

(And still, after five days, the question remains, "didn't do WHAT?")

Good for the goose, good for the gander. You people don't need any hard evidence to implicate Cain? 'Kay then; I guess I don't need any to implicate Perry.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:09 PM (nkSOV)

232 "I didn't say that at all.

Besides, I won't have to.


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:06 PM (nkSOV)"
I apologize, then. I'll take you at your word for this. One Romney fanatic did say he would trash Perry, should he be nominated, all the way to the general election, and I thought that was you.Whoever did that is basically a democrat, IMO. And an excuse that Perry won't win is no defense at all.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:10 PM (rQ/Ue)

233 Hell since I pulled up the pdf for that last quote let me give you guys the exact quote for the Republican primary margin of error-

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 31-Nov. 3, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,004 adults, including landline and cell- phone-only respondents, and 438 leaned Republicans. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points for the full sample and 5.5 points for leaned Republicans. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 03:10 PM (rJVPU)

234 Accusations were made. A settlement was reached. Money changed hands.

None of which proves anything.

After all, you can't even articulate the charge that is supposed to be proven or disproven.

What is the charge?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:10 PM (nkSOV)

235 " I guess I don't need any to implicate Perry."
People who support Romney are like Obama supporters without the white guilt.
It's a fact. He's Obamalite.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:11 PM (kaOJx)

236 And frankly, I'm not sure I understand how or why anyone would consider it such an evil, dirty, underhanded trick for one campaign to leak negative information about another. We are talking about American politics, aren't we? Last I checked, these guys weren't running for sainthood.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 03:11 PM (Gc/Qi)

237 "Now that's ironic, coming from the "prove Cain didn't do it" crowd."

What in the world does this even mean? It's not intelligible at all.

I have defended Cain from this smear. I see no factual basis proven, so we should not try to solve this and focus on real issues and things we do know.

Perry said the same, btw, which I praised him for because that's ethical and classy.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:11 PM (rQ/Ue)

238 230,
Accusations were made. A settlement was reached. Money changed hands. According to you, Hermann is innocent.
Sure thing sparky.


Of course, Cain wasn't even there, Sparky. But you're just askin questions, right?

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 03:12 PM (OhYCU)

239 But Cain's
gaffes are much worse, and in my opinion, say much more about his
character, and they are bad enough that I would hold them against
someone who is not a politician.


Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 02:54 PM (rQ/Ue)

I can accept that explanation, you would hold them against a non politician, I wouldn't.I want truth and real change not pandering, lying, cozying up to crony capitalists and global warming green energy BS.

Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at November 04, 2011 03:13 PM (vXqv3)

240 "And frankly, I'm not sure I understand how or why
anyone would consider it such an evil, dirty, underhanded trick for one
campaign to leak negative information about another. We are talking
about American politics, aren't we? Last I checked, these guys weren't
running for sainthood.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 03:11 PM (Gc/Qi)"
Sure, but the idea here is for Romney's fans to kill two birds with one stone. Cain loses a little ground, putting Romney in the lead, and Perry doesn't get any ground, because he's blamed for something petty.Just to be clear, I'm not saying Romney did this with some kind of super laser chess move he lacks the intellect to carry out. Just his fans see the opening for two birds with one stone here.Romney's fans such as undead have asserted that Perry was behind this. They have failed to show a basis for this claim. Now they play sophistry when it's more and more clear they are hacks.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:14 PM (rQ/Ue)

241 "Of course, Cain wasn't even there, Sparky."
Then why was there a settlement reached? Why did money change hands?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:14 PM (kaOJx)

242 I apologize, then. I'll take you at your word for this. One Romney fanatic did say he would trash Perry, should he be nominated, all the way to the general election, and I thought that was you.

Since I'm not a Romney fanatic, or a fanatic over anyone or anything else, for that matter, it couldn't have been me. I know that Perry's fans like to gnash their teeth like Captain Queeg about everyone and everything conspiring to put him down, but you're going to have to do better than that.


Whoever did that is basically a democrat, IMO. And an excuse that Perry won't win is no defense at all.
Your candidate actually was a Democrat at one point in time. He still behaves like one, and it seems to be rubbing off on his supporters. Old habits die hard, apparently.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:14 PM (nkSOV)

243 OK haters....what you morons don't realize is in every example you offer, there is a DOCUMENTED CLAIM (Hospital, Mortgate, etc.). While in the case of the allegations against Cain, the only documentation is Politico's word, WITHOUT documentation. Thanks for proving my point.
No.......the best way to handle when someone disagrees with you on the internet is to NOT HANDLE IT!
And no, we do not know if there is no documentation. Well, there is Cain's admission that claims were raised and settlements were paid. As for everything else, that is being held up by NRA. NRA has not produced anything. However, please do not let that stop you from assuming there is nothing there. Also, you have no idea what the writer at Politico has or has not seen. Who he has or has not talked to. Yes, annoymous sources suck......but it is the way of life.
See, that is the point...no one other than maybe someone at NRA, Cain and the alleged victims know anything. Yet, everyone can yell and scream that its a high tech lynching or the most series charge of the world.
Oh, and the point behind the mocking...NOT HANDLING IT is by far and away the dumbest advice to date. Really, your accussed of sexual harrassment and your just going to ignore it.....and pretend that the media isn't going to ask you questions about it....or that people are not going to write articles about it....and your just going to let them do that without getting your side of the story? Really?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 03:15 PM (OWjjx)

244 Then why was there a settlement reached? Why did money change hands?

You tell us. That's your burden as an accuser.

It's telling that we've gone through an entire week of this bullshit, and still don't have an answer.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:16 PM (nkSOV)

245 "Since I'm not a Romney fanatic,"
OK.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:16 PM (kaOJx)

246 "You tell us."
Herman admitted there were settlements executed and money paid. Since he didn't sign the agreement since it is being claimed he wasn't there, why hasn't Herman come clean on this? He didn't sign a NDA, did he?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:18 PM (kaOJx)

247 "Of course, Cain wasn't even there, Sparky."
Then why was there a settlement reached? Why did money change hands?
Ask the NRA. They paid the severance without Cain's involvement.

More Gesturers "just asking questions".

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 03:18 PM (OhYCU)

248 I want truth and real change not pandering, lying, cozying up to crony capitalists

Ya death to the capitalist pig dog-I'm with you comrade!

Posted by: Trotsky at November 04, 2011 03:19 PM (rJVPU)

249 Herman admitted there were settlements executed and money paid.

So?

What's the charge?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:19 PM (nkSOV)

250 "I can accept that explanation, you would hold them against a non politician, I wouldn't."Well, regardless, it's a good point to make that Cain's appeal is that he's not a connected and slick politician. He does deserve some slack for this.I do think some of his BS crossed the line even after slack is applied, but as far as his contradictory handling of this mess, I do think people should consider that Cain's in a very difficult position with these stupidly vague accusations, and it's very tough to keep up with the MSM on this stuff.I wish he just came out with a press conference and noted he just can't keep up with the MSM's rapidly shifting and ever changing drip drip drip scandal. He can't deny things he doesn't know. He is running for president with policy x,y,z, and he's not the slick man who can play racquetball with accusations all day.He could do this without playing the race card or accusing innocent former staffers, IMO.It's very important to me that we all unify behind one not-Romney. That is priority one. It's not personal. I would rather that be Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan (though I have concerns he's not ready), but Rick Perry is the best running. Newt is the second best running, but I really think Perry's the guy. It's not personal. I don't hate Cain. If Cain is the leading not-Romney when I vote, I will happily vote for him, but I do not think he's a serious candidate, and I think he intends to endorse Romney.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:19 PM (rQ/Ue)

251 "They paid the severance without Cain's involvement."
Apparently he was involved. Wasn't it Cain behavior that cause the whole mess?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:19 PM (kaOJx)

252 OK haters....what you morons don't realize is in every example you offer, there is a DOCUMENTED CLAIM (Hospital, Mortgate, etc.).

What's a "Mortgate"?

Posted by: Trotsky at November 04, 2011 03:20 PM (rJVPU)

253 Of course, Cain wasn't even there, Sparky."
Then why was there a settlement reached? Why did money change hands?
Ask the NRA. They paid the severance without Cain's involvement.
More Gesturers "just asking questions".
A) You do not know if Cain was or was not involved. Cain says he wasn't....but then again, when the news first broke, Cain claimed he was unaware of...well.....everything.
B) No one knows why the claims were paid and for what amount. I'm not going to once again explain the structure settlement of sexual harrassment claims.
C) Once again, a lot of this could go away if Cain would just tell teh NRA to let the women out of their non-disclosure agreement so everyone could just get to the bottom of this.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 03:21 PM (OWjjx)

254 AllenG:

Cain has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be bound by any confidentiality agreements. He has repeatedly stated that he was aware of one settlemet/agreement, and that he does not remember the rest of the details very well.

The accuser's lawyer was the one running around claiming that Cain was bound by an agreement, and that he, by talking about the issue, had violated the agreement and freed his client to talk. Then we find out, on Nov 2, in a Forbes article, that the lawyer did not have a copy of the agreement, and hadn't seen it in 12 years.

In that Forbes article, we find out that Politico gave Cain and his campaign zero info about the chargesthat they were about to print. The campaign begged for some details, and was refused. Then Cain's campaign, and Cain personally, begged the NRA to give them copies of the agreements, or some details, and were refused. So it was not ineptitude that kept Cain in the dark; he and his campaign tried to get details, and were stymied. Yet at the same time Cain is expected to respond, and to defend himself. Not an easy task for the best of us.

Now this scumbag lawyer has gotten copies of the agreement, and lo and behold, Cain hadn't signed it, and may never have seen it. And the shyster wants to make a statement in his client's name that still does not disclose details of the supposed harassment, or disclose her identity. What a surprise.

I'm betting this lawyer asshole is Politico's source. I'm betting Politico had nothing to give Cain because they had nothing but the asshole lawyer's innuendo to give, but didn't want to admit it. I'm betting Politico never saw copies of the agreement(s) before they went to print. I'm betting this is being walked back now because Cain's threat of a lawsuit. I hope he does sue.

Cain hasn't handled this well, there is no question about that. BUT THAT IS NOT THE STORY HERE! The story is that Cain looks to have been telling the truth to the best of his knowledge, and that Politico and the MSM have committed journalistic malfeasance.

Posted by: M at November 04, 2011 03:21 PM (sZbvS)

255 Herman admitted there were settlements executed and money paid. Since he
didn't sign the agreement since it is being claimed he wasn't there,
why hasn't Herman come clean on this? He didn't sign a NDA, did he?

Keep lynching bro

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 03:21 PM (OhYCU)

256 I know, Dustin, I'm not even entertaining the notion of who was behind the leak. I'm firmly in support of Perry, so it doesn't bother me that this story has gotten out. I wouldn't care if Romney's people leaked it either, but I would be surprised, as I think it is not in his best interest to have Cain lose support at this time.

Right now, I'm not going to assign any blame anywhere, because we know nothing more than that the claims of S.A. exist. Whether they're true or not, I don't have a clue. And neither do Cain's supporters.

Posted by: BurtTC at November 04, 2011 03:21 PM (Gc/Qi)

257 Your candidate actually was a Democrat at one point in time. He still behaves like one, and it seems to be rubbing off on his supporters. Old habits die hard, apparently.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:14 PM (nkSOV)

****

My stars! Say it ain't so!?

Posted by: Ronald Reagan at November 04, 2011 03:22 PM (rJVPU)

258 Apparently he was involved. Wasn't it Cain behavior that cause the whole mess?

Cain said he never sexually harassed anyone. You don't believe him? Or you're just askin questions?

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 03:23 PM (OhYCU)

259 "
Your candidate actually was
a Democrat at one point in time. He still behaves like one, and it
seems to be rubbing off on his supporters. Old habits die hard,
apparently.


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:14 PM (nkSOV)"
Democrat behavior = 12 years of balanced budgets and 20 years of fiscal conservatism and consistent non flip flopping rejection of global warming and Roe v Wade and the health care mandate and gun grabbing?That's RIDICULOUS.I would vote for a man like that if he ran in the damn Green party. Who cares?
Meanwhile, the Romney dynasty is liberal, union cock sucking pro choice flip flopping gun grabbing and gun taxing, forcing innocent people to have their assets send to pay health insurance they didn't want, without due process of law. Romney is the worst, but his entire family of politicians is ridiculously liberal. Oh, but they are in Team R, just like Lindsey Graham and Arlen Specter for most of his career.
I don't care.I care about principles. Rick Perry has governed very consistently at 4 levels of government to these principles, and these principles are the reason Texas is successful today, like it or not. Mitt Romney has no principles.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:24 PM (rQ/Ue)

260

Ya death to the capitalist pig dog-I'm with you comrade!

Posted by: Trotsky at November 04, 2011 03:19 PM (rJVPU)
Nice try comrade! I'm all for capitalism, I happen to hate CRONY capitalism where big business gets in bed with government at the expense of free enterprise and small business. you might ask the lyin kING or in the case of green energy.....Rick Skerry about that!

Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at November 04, 2011 03:24 PM (vXqv3)

261 My stars! Say it ain't so!?Posted by: Ronald Reagan at November 04, 2011 03:22 PM (rJVPU)
I'm no Ronald Reagan. 'Case y'all ain't noticed yet.

Oh hang on a sec, I got a round left and a piece'a my boot that still doesn't have a hole in it. *BLAM*

Posted by: Rick Perry at November 04, 2011 03:25 PM (nkSOV)

262 "Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 03:21 PM "
Ah yes, the race card. Thanks, I find it funny you'd accuse me of racism.
"Cain said he never sexually harassed anyone."
He falsely accused a Perry Pac employee of being the source then walked back on that within 24 hours. Plus he made some contradictory statements on day one of this whole mess.
Sure, Cain is above lying. Perry isn't, but Cain is.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:26 PM (kaOJx)

263 Cain was unqualified to be potus before this overblownand trivialstory brokeand he will be asunqualified afterwards, no matter how it ends.
But judging from the comments here,it obviously turned the Cainiacs into a full-blown, Palinista-like cult community. Have you guys already a C4C website?

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 04, 2011 03:26 PM (P/F96)

264 I would vote for a man like that if he ran in the damn Green party. Who cares?

You're saying you'd vote for the Green Party, and you're trying to float hysterical accusations about me being a fanatic?

Good God.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:26 PM (nkSOV)

265 " I wouldn't care if Romney's people leaked it either, but I would be
surprised, as I think it is not in his best interest to have Cain lose
support at this time."

Yeah, that sounds about right to me too, Burt.

I don't think Romney's folks are behind it. I think those insisting they know one party or another is behind it are selling something.

And to your larger point, that these guys are not saints and they need to fight it out, I respectfully disagree but I see the merit of what you're saying. These guys need to up to the fight against Obama, after all.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:27 PM (rQ/Ue)

266 Dick, you're spinning and weaving out of control. Keep askin question bro.

I'll catch you in another thread.

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 03:27 PM (OhYCU)

267 Cain was unqualified to be potus before this overblownand trivialstory
brokeand he will be asunqualified afterwards, no matter how it ends.This is absolutely true.

But for some people, some avowed conservatives, in fact, that seems to mean that personal ruination of the man is therefore fair game. I'm pretty proud to be able to say I don't understand that mindset at all.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:29 PM (nkSOV)

268 But judging from the comments here,it obviously turned the Cainiacs
into a full-blown, Palinista-like cult community. Have you guys already a
C4C website?

More trolls. I am not for Cain. I am for defending conservatives against high tech lynchings however.

When facts get in the way, you resort to labeling people cultists. We've had enough.

Posted by: Cherry pi at November 04, 2011 03:29 PM (OhYCU)

269 Dear Jon Kerry-

Sorry to break to both you and UNdead-but your poll-

it sucks.

Here's the biggest steaming "nugget" in the "poll" you are staking your whole tent on:

this poll, "produced"- for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that a vast 69 percent of potential Republican voters say there’s at least some chance they could change their minds – and 45 percent say there’s a “good chance” of it.

*****

Nothing to go to DEFCON 5 over...

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 03:29 PM (rJVPU)

270 "When facts get in the way, you resort to labeling people cultists."
When you get upset, you call people racists. Which one is worse?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:31 PM (kaOJx)

271 Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 03:29 PM (rJVPU)

Oh, wow. There's a large bloc of undecided primary voters in November of 2011.

You don't SAY.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:33 PM (nkSOV)

272 152
Ok...so here's a new take to consider. I haven't seen this posted
anywhere yet so here goes...what IF Mr. Cain just has issues with women
in general. You know, women and 'THEIR PLACE"...? I have seen issues
such as these with men in the corporate and professional workplace.
Certian male personalities consider women (any woman) only good for
certain things (sex, gettin' my coffee, etc., etc.). Maybe Cain just
has problems with women in general. Thoughts?

Posted by: ReadyorNot at November 04, 2011 02:13 PM (ErUlJ)
Hey, what else can we posit with no inkling of proof today?

Posted by: blindside at November 04, 2011 03:33 PM (3Uns6)

273 "You're saying you'd vote for the Green Party, and you're trying to float hysterical accusations about me being a fanatic?

Good God.


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:26 PM (nkSOV)"
Undead, I checked, and it turned out you are a liar. You did threaten to trash Rick Perry all the way up to the general election day.You said you would support Rick Perry when hell freezes over, and I asked if you meant you wouldn't vote Perry in the general. Buzz noted you clearly meant you wouldn't, and you replied:Cause really, I'll be more than happy to blow holes in this dipshitted Aggie fuck right here on this blog right up until Election Day, if that floats your fucking boat.I'd hate to disappoint you, after all.Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 03, 2011 12:55 AM (oKLTg) http://minx.cc/?blog=86post=323312#c16055175
So you are whining that I was 'hysterical' to accuse you of saying something that you know damn well you actually said. That's sad. When a man can't even admit his own words, he is truly a hack.You Romney fanatics are so angry for the past six weeks or so, I guess when it became clear Romney is in deep kimschi. He only wins if the GOP is badly fractured, and how in the world is he going to win a general election after that?Undead, I encourage you to relax and give Perry another chance. He's fought for fiscal conservatism all his career. He served his country. He's run a huge state properly with law drama. He's a good man. And I believe he deserves your support more than Mitt Romney, who is unprincipled.You have noted you think someone's political party is super important, and I ask you reconsider that as well. These days, there are very few, if any, decent democrat politicians, but we should never forget that it's principles that we support, not partisan hackery.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:33 PM (rQ/Ue)

274 Albright stiffed

Posted by: aMessNBC-BS at November 04, 2011 03:34 PM (m8ARs)

275
Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:19 PM
Cain has never been charged with sexual harassment. He has never plead guilty. All you know is that someone at sometime claimed that he did something bad.

Now, did you do your homework? I don't think so, because you would know that routinely lawyers will settle small claims out of court despite evidence that will win the case because the cost of going to court is enormous.
If the amount is less than $100,000 dollars, a lawyer settles. That is all across the nation. If you would do your homework, you would not be talking this way.
Next time do your homework.

Posted by: JPF at November 04, 2011 03:36 PM (PoAQX)

276 UNdead-

Well we're talking about your specific poll which is "registered" voters with an MOE of 5.5%.

You picked that weapon....

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 03:37 PM (rJVPU)

277 I happen to hate CRONY capitalism where big business gets in bed with
government at the expense of free enterprise and small business.

They usually use lobbying organizations like the National Restaurant Association to facilitate the cronyism.

Posted by: Mr. Book at November 04, 2011 03:37 PM (qe1yY)

278 More trolls. I am not for Cain. I am for defending conservatives against high tech lynchings however.
Thats exactly what Im talking about. High tech lynching? Really? Its like in the old days when mobs used to kill guys and the only difference is better equipment? Do you even listen to yourself?
I said this story was trivial and overblown, so I dont get the emotion on both sides of this. But if I had to facepalm to do statements like thatjustice, I would need several more arms.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 04, 2011 03:38 PM (P/F96)

279 "Cain has never been charged with sexual harassment. He has never plead guilty. All you know is that someone at sometime claimed that he did something bad."
And that a settle or two was reached and money changed hands. you left that out.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:38 PM (kaOJx)

280 "When facts get in the way, you resort to labeling people cultists."
It would help if you actually pointed to the fact I am mistaken about.
Not every Romney fan is a cultist kook. Not every Obama fan or Palin or Perry or Cain fan is. There are some of each.
Lately, I see a ton of Romney fans getting really ugly all the time, acting like they are about to have a stroke or smash their monitor with a sledge hammer. One of you nuts was threatening me with ITG 'if I knew where you lived I would kick your ass!' and another was whining 'you sound like a girl!!!!'
This is stupid. And it points to something important: Romney's true argument is that the GOP needs to move left to win. It is somewhat contemptuous of conservatism, as is Romney's record. And his flip flops show bad faith and disrespect, IMO. So all this stuff culminates in a badly divided GOP that I don't think will be able to beat Obama. I don't want another 1996.
I want to note I'm not talking about Mormonism. I only say that because I just realized there is a connotation there since I keep saying 'cult' and that Jefferrs kook called Mormonism a cult. I'm talking about a cult of personality like we've seen surround Obama, ignoring all the problems with the guy because he's super brilliant and slick.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:39 PM (rQ/Ue)

281 UNdead-

Tell me a little about yourself-

who is your candidate-and what are your top five reasons for liking them?

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 03:41 PM (rJVPU)

282 "I haven't seen this posted
anywhere yet so here goes...what IF Mr. Cain just has issues with women
in general."

Cain has already had several women come out and talk about how great it was to work for Cain, and how they find it unimaginable that Cain is a creep harasser.

So no, that doesn't seem to be the problem. Cain appears to have acted like a professional with several women.

There really are no proven facts beyond that allegations resulted in settlements. Which could be bad, I guess, and sure, maybe Cain did something, but I don't think it indicates a problem working with women.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:43 PM (rQ/Ue)

283 "who is your candidate-and what are your top five reasons for liking them?







Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 03:41 PM (rJVPU)"
hahahahahaGreat riposte. Unfortunately, there are a couple of guys out there who constantly trumpet and defend Romney, to the point of exhaustion, and then pretend they are objective and aren't even Romney's fans really... just concerned conservatives.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:44 PM (rQ/Ue)

284 I would vote for Romneyfor a price, in the low 5 figures.

Posted by: icepick at November 04, 2011 03:47 PM (o0Uno)

285 Dustin-

Oh-you saw the first one...haaaa!

Oy-Ace has a new thread-bottom of it has a link to a CNN live feed for the reading of the statement from the lawyer...

Posted by: tasker at November 04, 2011 03:48 PM (rJVPU)

286 If the amount is less than $100,000 dollars, a lawyer settles. That is all across the nation. If you would do your homework, you would not be talking this way.
This is a pile of horsehit. As someone who actually tried a case or two (well, a bunch, over 13 years) this is utter horeshit.
Companies, defendants and insurance company do not throw around $10,20 or even $90,000 dollars like it is nothing.
Cases settle based on several factors 1) what are the elements of damages (in other words, if the defendant is found to be negligent, or to have committed the civil breach, what amount of money would compensate the plaintiff for the elements of damages that they can prove) 2) how strong/weak is the case 3) what are the cost of defending 4) what is the negative reaction and 5) overall, what is my exposure to this claim.
Again, for the I don't know, umpteenth time, sexual harrassment claims generally focus on economic damages. This isn't the pain/suffering and permanent physical injury type of elements that there is difficult to put an exact dollar value on...it is elements such as how much in wages did you lose, how much wages did you lose because you did not get the promotion, the dollar value lost from your former job to your current job, money lost from wages while you looked for work.
Its not a $100,00 or more threshold for a real case vs. a non-real case. I may have the best case of sexual harrassment ever. But, if I was only out of work for a few month, and then got a better job, my case is not going to have that much value....why....because the element of damages just are not there.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 03:48 PM (OWjjx)

287 "Next time do your homework."
Looks like Mallamutt just did yours. FOAD.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:50 PM (kaOJx)

288 206
Meanwhile, over at Polipundit:





Ted Kennedy asked Carrie Fischer to have sex with Chris Dodd.





Fisher: If I was going to have sex with Chris. I said, ‘No, not
tonight. I’ve just gotten sober recently,’ and I don’t even know what I
said. What I did was I out-answered his inappropriate questions.





You can't make this stuff up, Folks.





http://tinyurl.com/6xdmouw

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 04, 2011 02:55 PM (niZvt)
And this woman is still a liberal. I think the alcoholism permanently damaged her brain.

Posted by: blindside at November 04, 2011 03:52 PM (3Uns6)

289 Undead, I checked, and it turned out you are a liar. You did threaten
to trash Rick Perry all the way up to the general election day.
Of course I did. (And indeed, one of Perry's biggest problems is the whiny fanaticism of his own supporters.) But that's not what you accused me of.

You accused me of "insisting
that would trash Perry after the primary, all the way up to general
election day, because [I was] so angry that one of his supporters was
criticizing Romney." Which clearly is bullshit.

But then, bullshit accusations seem to be the stock-in-trade of the people who desperately need to take down Herman Cain in order to prop up the Son of a Tenant Farmer.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 04, 2011 03:54 PM (nkSOV)

290 "because the element of damages just are not there.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 03:48 PM (OWjjx)"That's a good point.If it turns out these were just gold digging liars, then the NRA's strategy of paying the first one off was ill conceived.If it's true that I can get $100,000 for threatening to sue rich people for things I made up, well dayum I better get cracking.In reality, lawyers who work that way do not stay lawyers very long.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:54 PM (rQ/Ue)

291 "I gave him a conditional pass on the racist rock BS. And said OK, that's strike one. Maybe it was just a bad hair day. But this is the second time he has attacked Perry with zero justification. Not only that he has doubled down."

--Vic

Well, the Perry stuff is separate from the attack on the Left, but I agree with you. And the Perry stuff taints the legitimate attack.

But the video counterattack on the Left is *not* "playing the race card," that is, using race as fig leaf for incompetence/malfesance. Just wanted to make that distinction.

Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 03:54 PM (T2/zQ)

292 At least Carrie admitted she'd have to be drunk to sleep with Chris Dodd.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:54 PM (kaOJx)

293 213

Dustin,

Anyone who won't support the eventual GOP nominee is a Obama supporter. Just a FYI.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:00 PM (kaOJx)
Is that like any Republican who won't support the bill wants women to die on the floor?
Can you imagine if someone had tried this with Nixon after he was impeached? 'Well, if you don't support Nixon in his lies, you're for Jimmy Carter'?Please. What if Jon Huntsman wins the nomination? If I don't support him am I supporting Obama?

Posted by: blindside at November 04, 2011 03:55 PM (3Uns6)

294 -Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 03:48 PM

Wow, so, you are a poor lawyer. I didn't know that. You didn't make that much money as a lawyer, and never worked for a large corporation.

I know it sounds preposterous, but call up a lawyer who does deal routinely with sexual harassment cases. The type of guy who dealt with twenty a week. The most these accusers were paid was $45,000. Hardly pocket change to me, but it is nothing to a large corporation.

Posted by: jpf at November 04, 2011 03:55 PM (PoAQX)

295 "If I don't support him am I supporting Obama? "
If you do not vote for the eventual GOP nominee you are directly supporting Barak Obama's re election. Is that plain enough?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:58 PM (kaOJx)

296 "You accused me of "insisting
that would trash Perry after the primary, all the way up to general
election day, because [I was] so angry that one of his supporters was
criticizing Romney." Which clearly is bullshit."

You said you would support Perry "when hell freezes over".

And you said you'd hate to dissapoint, so you would trash Perry up to the general election day.

You knew what I was talking about. You denied it absolutely, instead of making whatever lame 'that's not precisely what I said' you're attempting here (and frankly, that's BS too).

I even apologized for having you mistaken for someone else, and you ran around saying I was hysterical for even thinking you would say you'd trash Perry up to the election day if he's the nominee (thus campaigning for Obama as far as I'm concerned).

but I wasn't being hysterical. You did say that.

What distinction, specifically, are you attempting to make here? How is my accusation wrong? Is it that you'll trash Perry after he's nominated, but not because of how angry you are at Romney's critics? Is that it? A) BS B) not a good excuse C) my summary is clearly a good faith account and anyone can read the URL I provided and see that.

Why did you deny saying you would trash Perry after the primary if he's nominated, Undead?

More to the point: why would you trash the GOP nominee? You have also expressed a strict partisanship in this thread. Apparently that is not your true view.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 03:59 PM (rQ/Ue)

297 Hey WUS, when you spin like that, do you get dizzy? Just wondering.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 04:00 PM (kaOJx)

298 "Please. What if Jon Huntsman wins the nomination? If I don't support him am I supporting Obama?


Posted by: blindside at November 04, 2011 03:55 PM (3Uns6)"Fair enough. There is a good common sense line you must draw.I'm not a strict partisan like undead claims to be (he thinks Perry sucks merely for supporting the most conservative democrat in an election decades ago).But come on. Perry is easily preferable to Obama in a general election. He's only a 90-95% conservative, and sure, he's lame on occasion in his presentation, but someone not trashing Perry when he's the GOP nominee is frankly not a very thoughtful conservative.As I said in that thread, to undead, I respect his right, as an American to not support Perry if he's the nominee. That's his right. But it's misguided.Perry is not like Huntsman, frankly. I don't think fair minded conservatives would dream of rejecting Perry AFTER he's nominated if his opponent is Obama. I mean, let's get real for a second.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 04:03 PM (rQ/Ue)

299 Wow, so, you are a poor lawyer. I didn't know that. You didn't make that much money as a lawyer, and never worked for a large corporation. Having failed at your first try you come back for round 2. O.K.
No, I never did work for a large corporation. I actually, however, can call abn attorney who does work for a large corporation and deals with claims all the time, including discrimination claims (such as sexual harrassment, age, race, etc.) My wife, who is also a lawyer (general counsel staff), did and still does that work. And no, she would still have to get approval to pay off that type of money for a claim and, no, it would not just be considered "nuisance money". It would be "we gotta lay someone off now because of this cost" money. So, your 0 for 2 skippy, wanna keep trying.
And they don't throw that type of money around on frivilous suits and you know why....because once it gets out, you have a line down the door. Which is why large corporations don't just throw that money away.
And outside defense counsel do not keep clients happy by pissing away their money. Outside defense counsel keeps their clients happy by saving them money. That is how they get hired, by being able to say to a large corporation "we were able to squash x number of frivilious claims last year" and "we saved our clients x amount of dollars last year by rejecting settlements for this and that and winning cases at trial". And contrary to popular belief, you can actually try a sexual harrassment suit for less than $45k. Signficantly less. So if it is completely frivilous, absent some other overriding factor (publicity, maybe) you would fight that.
Now, please go back to manning the counter at 7-11....those Slim Jims are not going to sell themselves.
(Oh, and poor - nope. Doing tax work now because A) I enjoy it and B) as a trial lawyer, I always felt like I was just redistributing wealth)

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011 04:04 PM (OWjjx)

300 "

But the video counterattack on the Left is *not* "playing the race
card," that is, using race as fig leaf for incompetence/malfesance.
Just wanted to make that distinction.

Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 03:54 PM (T2/zQ)"I think you're right. I kinda forgot the definition of the race card, but this is probably a more informed definition that what I was relying on.Regardless, it's so corrosive to claim racism without a good basis for it. I really resent that. It's not a huge, huge deal, but it's unfortunate.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 04:06 PM (rQ/Ue)

301 High tech lynching? Really? Its like in the old days when mobs used to kill guys and the only difference is better equipment? Do you even listen to yourself?

Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 04, 2011 03:38 PM (P/F96)

No it's not like like the old days, hence the adjective 'high-tech.' It's called a metaphor.

You do, of course, know that Clarence Thomas coined the term during his, ahem, high tech lynching at the hands of Senate Democrats during his SC confirmation hearings, right?

Posted by: baldilocks at November 04, 2011 04:08 PM (T2/zQ)

302 it seems to me that if you're accused of something after you leave a
job, you still hear about it. Someone is going to call you up and ask
for your side of it.

NOT true...at all, and not gonna be true just "because you wish it"

Posted by: NfromNC at November 04, 2011 04:11 PM (MbeEN)

303 Anybody read Undead's initial denial and his faux outrage, even explaining I must have him confused with someone else, and then read what my quote of him.

That's obviously bad faith.

I know we all are passionate about politics, but this kind of thing is not worth it. Perry, Romney, Cain: these guys are not worth our personal integrity being compromised. They are all egomaniac weirdos who are willing to trade a normal life, and a normal life for their family, for power. Can you imagine your spouse or mom becoming President?

Not that I hate these guys. Someone's gotta do it. But these guys are politicians. All of them. ESPECIALLY the ones who claim they are not politicians. Anyone running for President is a politician who thinks of himself as an excellent politician.

And none of these guys deserve the kind of loyalty and devotion I see in some folks. None of them deserve a cult of personality.

When my guy screws up, I don't pretend he didn't, or that those who are ticked about it are being sinister or dishonest. Perry doesn't deserve that kind of devotion. We need to reject the slick brilliant superleader motif entirely, and reject the 'I am devoted!!!!' attitude.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 04:11 PM (rQ/Ue)

304
If you do not vote for the eventual GOP nominee you are directly supporting Barak Obama's re election. Is that plain enough?


Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:58 PM (kaOJx)Man, I sure hope the SCOAMF doesn't switch to the GOP.
Yeah because it's all about party. Except for me, and quite a few of us, it isn't. It's about princples. My 'all about party' days ended with eating the shit sandwich that was John McCain.
I know, politics have to be placed over principle. How is that working out for the United States?

Posted by: blindside at November 04, 2011 04:14 PM (3Uns6)

305 295 "If you do not vote for the eventual GOP nominee you are directly supporting Barak Obama's re election."
And voting for Romney isn't, when we've warned you over and over we will not vote for the spineless Elitist liar?
GFY fool.
My first opportunity to vote for POTUS was '72 among Nixon|McGovern|Socialist.
I declined, but that was a better choice than you offer.
Tell your mother what I said.

Posted by: icepick at November 04, 2011 04:15 PM (o0Uno)

306 "That's obviously bad faith."
Actually it's called lying.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 04:16 PM (kaOJx)

307 Dustin, Undead is doing this to get a rise out of you.

I'll support Perry if he is the nominee, but I have some questions about how he'll handle the illegal immigration question, and I have some concerns about his big-government proclivities (vaccine mandate, etc).

However, he has a lot of good points as well - I have no doubt that he'd do some damage to the EPA, and I HATE HATE HATE those fuckers.

There is still time to decide, and plenty of time for people to make, break, remake, and then rebreak themselves.

Posted by: blindside at November 04, 2011 04:18 PM (x7g7t)

308 "And voting for Romney isn't, when we've warned you over and over we will not vote for the spineless Elitist liar?"

I get where you're coming from. I can't stand Romney. His judicial appointment record is awful, and I don't trust him, and he seems to be pandering for more entitlement spending (linked to my name below the comment), which would be even more of a disaster.

But if we are stupid enough to nominate Romney, I urge you to at least vote for him while working hard for GOP congressional candidates.

Yeah, a lot of conservatives just can't do it, in good conscience, and I understand totally, but Obama is terrible and he's gotta go. Romney is, at least, a man who wants to govern America successfully. He will be centrist or liberal, but he will also be competent. And he won't screw us on foreign policy.

Frankly, the difference between Romney and Obama is huge.

If you really don't want Romney, we all need to unify around a candidate who is serious about winning the primary and wants to be the not-Romney candidate, rather than wanting to be the Romney VP slot.

Just my opinion, but I really think Perry's got the best record, and regret very much that he's being rejected for mere 90% agreement when I know that's leading to Romney.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 04:20 PM (rQ/Ue)

309 "I'll support Perry if he is the nominee, but I have some questions
about how he'll handle the illegal immigration question, and I have some
concerns about his big-government proclivities (vaccine mandate, etc)."

That is totally reasonable. Yes, Perry has, three times by my estimation, used government to solve problems he should have left alone.

That's over a very long career with almost entirely making the right call to stay out of it, but those are real mistakes he's made that you should hold against him.

He does have the best record of actual conservative leadership. His bad calls are rare, he's corrected two of them, and one the TX Dream act, he didn't actually have any control over because it was so popular (he still owns the mistake, since he defends the concept).

He is merely a 90-95% conservative. And he is mostly a fiscal conservative. His big government goofs should be measured against a largely great record, and of course, those who do not even have a record of conservative success, or like Newt, also have a few dings on their record, do not surpass Perry.

So ultimately, this is a problem where conservative have to settle. Perry is not perfect, and I ask conservatives to settle for him because he's got a record of making hard spending cuts, such as cuts to education (And every other agency).

Also, Perry has a very strong record on border control, and has a strong record on opposing Amnesty. He also used emergency powers to attempt to ban sanctuary cities, though he's yet to succeed with that. I think Perry is, at worst, a B on immigration. He should be defined on this matter by his entire record, rather than one aspect that I readily admit he is dead wrong about.

Dustin, Undead is doing this to get a rise out of you.

Believe it or not, but I rarely realize I'm being trolled in a timely fashion. I assume the people I'm arguing with are being 100% straight. If they say something that isn't so, I assume they were either honesty mistaken or actually trying to fool me. The idea they are just trying to get me angry and instigating a fight didn't even occur to me, but you're obviously correct.

I've commented on blogs for ages, and I still never see the trolls coming.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 04:28 PM (rQ/Ue)

310 "we will not vote for the spineless Elitist liar?"
If ROmney is the nominee and you don't vote for him , go put on your Obama 2012 T shirt and preach on.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 04:29 PM (kaOJx)

311 286. "Horsesh[*]t".
Go peruse Hinderaker's column on the issue of settlements from yesterday where he quotes an expert on the matter.
In suburban DC of the 90s for these trade associations $35K-45K was "chump change" in Hinderaker's words. In the expert's words it was of such a sum as to indicate nothing about the merits of the charges, whatever they might be. The costs of litigation far exceeded that and they were insured.
Moreover, the sums were at most 6 months earnings for the market.

Posted by: icepick at November 04, 2011 04:32 PM (o0Uno)

312 310. " preach on"
Remove the log from your own eye, hypocrite, b4 presuming to remove mine.
I've never supported either major. I owe you nothing but disrespect.

Posted by: icepick at November 04, 2011 04:36 PM (o0Uno)

313 Anyway, maybe I should amend a little bit when I say the difference between Romney and Obama is huge.

They are both elitists with Harvard law degrees with heavy wall street backing who treat politics as a game where they say the right things, rather than what they really believe.

But also are willing to use your money to win votes by promising goodies to voters.

But Romney is probably more competent. It's hard to say for sure, given he didn't exactly made MA a better place (he made it far worse with Romneycare, and bloodier with his strong gun control and gun tax). But I am confident Romney would at least not apologize for America all over the world. And Romney's a successful businessman. I don't credit Romney directly, but he had great help, and some of that help did follow him to the MA government, and I assume would follow him to the White House. These guys are smart, and they would be better than Obama's administration in every freaking way.

Just consider how out-right corrupt Obama's admin is. Fast and Furious. Romney would never sign off on that.

So I'm not trying to insult those who don't see the big difference between politicians, but there is a difference and we should support any of the GOP candidates if they are nominated. And of the top few candidates would be an improvement.

I hope we nominate someone who would be a huge improvement instead of a murky one.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 04:38 PM (rQ/Ue)

314
Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 04, 2011

Ahhhhh, I'm sorry. I outed you. Please forgive me.

Posted by: JPF at November 04, 2011 04:39 PM (PoAQX)

315 Damn that's a lot of typos.

Posted by: Dustin at November 04, 2011 04:40 PM (rQ/Ue)

316 it seems to me that if you're accused of something after you leave a
job, you still hear about it. Someone is going to call you up and ask
for your side of it.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm still wondering about the "payoff/severance/hush money" situation.

If I've heard correctly, we're talking $30K-$45K.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I've never hired one... but I suspect a court case like this, dragging out for 18 months; along with an irate worker you can't fire, and the PR nightmare for 18 months would be costly... at least 6 figures costly, maybe more.

Getting the whole thing to go away and be shut up forever for low 5 figures... that seems like a bargain. Why bother Cain if your choices are "he was innocent, so lets spend hundreds of thousands fighting" or "he was guilty, settle for $40,000 now".

Who chooses the (pulling a number out of the air) $200,000 choice when there is a $40,000 choice sitting right there? Do you need to know if he was guilty or innocent or what his side was when regardless of that answer you're taking the "settlement/severance" option for $40,000?

He very well could be as guilty as sin here; or as pure as the driven snow... and in either case I suspect the $40K option is the better business call. So why try to contact him?

This says nothing about guilt; nor does anything else I've seen. Still nothing in the way of meaningful, useful, or tangible information on this story... I wonder if that'll ever show up.

Posted by: gekkobear at November 04, 2011 04:48 PM (X0NX1)

317 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at November 04, 2011 04:56 PM (fyOgS)

318
Dick Nixon at November 04, 2011 03:50 PM
I'm sorry about making you look like a fool. If it is any consolation it wasn't hard.

Posted by: JPF at November 04, 2011 05:09 PM (PoAQX)

319 if you're accused of something after you leave a job, you still hear about it. Someone is going to call you up and ask for your side of it.

Not necessarily. In reallife your Emperorrepresent corporations and institutions in litigation, and doesn't always actually talk to the accused harasser. If the accused individual no longer works for your institution, you may never contact them if you can settle it for some reasonable sum before the case gets heavily into discovery. You kinda just assume that the accused is going to deny the direct accusation so you aren't in a rush to talk to them unless there's some detail or odd point that's come up.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at November 04, 2011 07:10 PM (epBek)

320 Anywho, I'm starting to think this is a baseless smear. Granted, Cain handled it badly.
But in my experience, a couple months extra pay is nuisance value, and 45k is a reasonable settlement early on for a case involving an executive who has previously been accused of sexual harrassment, even if the prior complaint was pretty baseless. This is true even if you think the second complaint was baseless also.
In other words, there currently is nothing going on here that I can see.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at November 04, 2011 07:19 PM (epBek)

321 I have a contractor who is in the red on one job and has made it clear that he will go down in flames if we pursue a $200,000 deficiency... Office of Counsel says it isn't worth pursuing if he's gonna file a claim.

Posted by: Romney Throw Away at November 04, 2011 07:44 PM (7MFxV)

322 Pipe fitting pipe fittings carbon steel pipe fittings
Carbon steel pipe fitting Steel pipe fitting Butt welded elbow Pipe fittings
A234 wpb pipe fitting Seamless elbow Equal tee 180 degree elbow
Carbon steel pipe fittings 90 degree elbow Pipe bend Pipe tee
Butt weld pipe fitting Pipe elbow Steel pipe fitting Seamless pipe fitting
Butt welded pipe fitting Butt welding pipe fitting pipe elbow ansi b16.9

Posted by: pipefittings at November 04, 2011 08:29 PM (2fZ8A)

323 Still supporting him till someone better comes along.

If/when he/she does, I'll switch off him...but when I want to, not when the media says I should.

Posted by: Evan3457 at November 04, 2011 08:44 PM (J4B6X)

324 Nice commentary. last thirty days I uncovered this internet site and desired to permit you be conscious that i’ve been gratified, heading via your site’s posts. I should certainly be signing equally as much as the RSS feed and can wait around for another post.

Posted by: Winter Moon Rises ePub at November 04, 2011 10:36 PM (Omjkj)

325 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

Posted by: The Wedding Quilt epub at November 04, 2011 11:07 PM (8K2/b)

326 This web site is my breathing in, really fantastic pattern and perfect subject matter.

Posted by: I Am Half-Sick of Shadows ePub at November 04, 2011 11:33 PM (ukwQ3)

327 This info is a terrific read. Thanks for the info.I am looking forward for more updates

avi to flash swf to avi converter swf video converter flash video creator video to flash flv to dvd converter

Posted by: doumaduo at November 05, 2011 02:27 AM (g+2lY)

328 Yep! I was agreed, I'll keep in touch to your blog.

Posted by: Catherine the Great ePub at November 05, 2011 02:34 AM (1I3mC)

329 Ahhhhh, I'm sorry. I outed you. Please forgive me.
Posted by: JPF at November 04, 2011 04:39 PM (PoAQX)
That is ok, JPF...........sorry I made you look stupid.
Oh, no, I am sorry I used your own stupidity to make you look stupid.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 05, 2011 08:47 AM (OWjjx)

330 Did I ever tell you about the time I stepped off an airplane before the stairs were pushed into place. That was just last week.

Posted by: moncler outlet at November 07, 2011 01:10 AM (rIJVT)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0859 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0399 seconds, 339 records returned.
Page size 232 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat