October 31, 2011

Cain On Fox News Now
— Ace

Says he was accused, but falsely so; claims turned out to be "totally baseless."

Says he doesn't know about a settlement, but seems to allow the Restaurant Association might have settled (without his knowledge? apparently that's what he's saying).

Here's a big question: "Are we going to hear about other allegations in the future?"

He says, "Absolutely not." But immediately says: "If more allegations come, people will [sic] simply make them up."

I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more.

I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here.

"When will see more of your wife?" He says it was a "conscious decision" to not have his family campaign for him. In particular, his wife "represents that calm and tranquility I like to see when I get home."

Posted by: Ace at 06:23 AM | Comments (394)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

1 First!

Posted by: Ducatisti at October 31, 2011 06:25 AM (KYE7u)

2 Just tuned in.

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 06:25 AM (Qjh0I)

3 I'd harass the bejeezus out of Jenna, by the way.

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 06:26 AM (Qjh0I)

4 "IT'S OVER: Cain Is Done"
Interesting how they seem to want to "call it".

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 06:26 AM (k1rwm)

5 Well this account better hold up.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 06:26 AM (pLTLS)

6 That was a flat out denial right there. "These are false allegations."

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 06:27 AM (Qjh0I)

7 9 for you....9 for you....and 9 for you.

Enjoy!

Posted by: Herman Cain - Ladies Man at October 31, 2011 06:27 AM (pLTLS)

8
Drew's post above went down the memory hole!

I want the JEF to do the same.

Posted by: SiM at October 31, 2011 06:28 AM (1rflU)

9 My thoughts regarding the Cain situation and some advice to the Republican establishment.

-Stop Panicking, I find it rather unlikely he will make it all the way through the nomination process and win.  He doesn't have money, organization, is extremely gaffe prone, and as we are finding out has not even had anyone poked his history yet.

-Cain being in the race at least lessens the disillusionment conservatives have with the Republican establishment (if Romney does end up winning).  The quicker you try and sweep Cain under the rug the more they feel ignored and voiceless.  Cain running may be messy but smothering conservatives last hope and pushing a Rino candidate is a crisis.  (especially so soon after McCain disaster)

-Bush was a social conservative only, a neo-conservative on military and a huge free trader but totally not a fiscal conservative.  So the Rino and Conservative base plausibly blame each other for his apostasies and failures.  Cain might win the nomination and lose the general.  So did McCain but conservatives still showed up to vote for him.  The establishment risks permanently fracturing the relationship by refusing to even think of returning the support.  People outside the big money Coasts and beltway know that's how a healthy relationship works.  Sometimes you take one for the team... because sometimes the team takes one for you.

-Note to everyone if you don't show up two elections in a row you are no longer considered a voice in the Party.

Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 06:28 AM (I9fXA)

10 poked = probed

Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 06:29 AM (I9fXA)

11 9 + 9 + 9 = 27. Which is impressive, no matter how you look at it.

Posted by: tsj017 at October 31, 2011 06:29 AM (4YUWF)

12 I'm making hand gestures at Jenna right now.

Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 06:30 AM (5eVSI)

13

Posted by: Shiggz undecided - weighing pros-cons-balls at October 31, 2011 11:28 AM (I9fXA)

+1

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of Curious at October 31, 2011 06:31 AM (yAor6)

14 At least I had the follow through to nail the chick I sexually harrassed.

C'mon. Second look at me, now?

Posted by: Newt Gingrich at October 31, 2011 06:32 AM (usXZy)

15 I think I like Herm more now because he chooses to sheild his family from the wolves. He learned a little something from the Palin campaign.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 31, 2011 06:32 AM (ZDUD4)

16 I wonder if Anita Hill will suddenly remember working for Godfather's Pizza.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at October 31, 2011 06:32 AM (psns8)

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

Posted by: Insomniac at October 31, 2011 06:33 AM (DrWcr)

18 Well sorry, but he is done.  The only way to survive this is to be able to completely deny all of the accusations.   "I'm not aware of it" doesn't cut it. 

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 06:34 AM (aDFMZ)

19 Herman Cain also stated that he wasn't aware The National Restaurant Association made the settlements....

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 06:34 AM (rJVPU)

20 If it's in the news now, there MUST be comething to it. Unless Mr. Cain can conclusively disprove these heartfelt and tear-jerking allegations, I must reconsider my support for him, even though Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: Concerned Conservative on the Fence at October 31, 2011 06:34 AM (/E3ql)

21
What's the point of our story?

There is no point. It's just a handful of shit we threw against the wall.

Posted by: Poshitico at October 31, 2011 06:34 AM (sqkOB)

22 Looks look at the positives, if Cain was successful 50% of the time on his "flirtations" then he got laid by 2 different women.

Posted by: Dr Spank at October 31, 2011 06:34 AM (Sh42X)

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

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:35 AM (8y9MW)

24 Dr Spank at October 31, 2011 11:34 AM (Sh42X)

He always claimed to be batting .999

Posted by: Newt Gingrich at October 31, 2011 06:35 AM (usXZy)

25 Well sorry, but he is done.  The only way to survive this is to be able to completely deny all of the accusations.   "I'm not aware of it" doesn't cut it. 

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 11:34 AM (aDFMZ)

That isn't how it works in the corporate world though.  My wife's co-worker went through this, when a subordinate accused him of racism (unfounded).  He never learned what the settlement was.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 06:36 AM (FkKjr)

26 Says he doesn't know about a settlement, but seems to allow the Restaurant Association might have settled (without his knowledge? apparently that's what he's saying). Okay...so you heard him say that too. That's weird. Most of the time-as the defendant-you are part of the settlement process-aren't you? As a defendant you have a right to fight the charges-and wouldn't be up to the defendant to essentially wave that right and settle? wth?

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 06:36 AM (rJVPU)

27 Having watched Herman Cain this far, I'm certain the allegations are absolutely, indisputably true.

He probably told them that their outfits made their ass look big.

Posted by: jwb7605 at October 31, 2011 06:36 AM (Qxe/p)

28 I accuse every liberal of sexual harassment.   There.  They have also been accused.  They must deny.  Or its true.  And I need proof.

I am on the Newt Train.  Bandwagon.  Horse.  ok, we're walking uphill in a snowstorm.  Nevertheless, I can't stand the never ending MFM sect of the democratic party.  And the PC bull that goes on, anyone can be offended by anything, so what?   Anyone can be accused or sued for nothing?  F them.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 06:36 AM (JYheX)

29 Here's a big question: "Are we going to hear about other allegations in the future?"

Of course we will. What surprised me was idiot on Fox admitted they "broke" the Bush DUI story in the "waning days" of the Bush-Gore campaign.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 06:36 AM (YdQQY)

30
Ace: "But I heard there was a long and numerous history here."

The plot thickens.

Posted by: Soothsayer at October 31, 2011 06:36 AM (sqkOB)

31 Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Posted by: Will Folks at October 31, 2011 06:36 AM (7EV/g)

32 He never learned what the settlement was. But he knew there was a settlement-correct?

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 06:37 AM (rJVPU)

33

I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more.

I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here.

Ace, I understand that this is a story that has to be discussed, but I don't think mentioning things you've heard but that aren't publishable is beneficial in any way.  All it does is add grist to the rumor mill. 

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 06:37 AM (4df7R)

34 Oh man, that Cain campaign is such a mess.  Geez all everyone is talking about this morning is Herman Cain.   He's on the media every single day.  People are clamoring to interview him and have him on.  Michael Savage last week was bemoaning the fact that he is being advised not to go back on Savage's program, therefore he's got the wrong advisers.  Hmm, all that free publicity, and those poor other folks have to pay for their exposure and beg to be interviewed.

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 06:37 AM (k1rwm)

35 Herman Cain. He'll rape your women. And then deny it.

Herman Cain. Wrong for Women. Wrong for America

Posted by: Paid for by Romney for President at October 31, 2011 06:37 AM (40Wzt)

36 19 Herman Cain also stated that he wasn't aware The National Restaurant Association made the settlements....

He was CEO. 

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

I believe he thinks he did not sexually harass them.  You know what?  That's not unusual.  The whole point is that a lot of bosses think they can get away with shit that is against HR policy. 

I think that Cain must have done something sufficiently improper or sloppy in how he treated these employees that it merited action by the organization to protect itself.  That fits with my observation of his shoot from the hip style.

For some of you, that's no biggy.  For me, I don't like this aspect of his style/personality and I definitely don't want it in a POTUS, nor do I like the glib way he tried to dismiss the story yesterday. 

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 06:38 AM (5H6zj)

37
Cain will survive this and conservatives will donate $$ because of this.

That's my gut feeling.

Posted by: SiM at October 31, 2011 06:38 AM (1rflU)

38 My wife's co-worker went through this, when a subordinate accused him of racism (unfounded).  He never learned what the settlement was.

Was he the CEO?

That's where this breaks down for me, he was the CEO of the Association, and yet is claiming they did something like make two sexual harassment settlements without his knowledge?  At the very least, if a check was cut, he should know.  Which means, in this specific case, lack of evidence really would be evidence of lack.  That is: if he doesn't know about a check that big being cut, a check that big should not have been cut.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:38 AM (8y9MW)

39 I'm sexually harassing 2 3 chicks as I write this.

Posted by: Herman Cain, Sex Machine at October 31, 2011 06:38 AM (Sh42X)

40 personally, I question the timing. As I have said, Mondo from the blog Double plus undead, has written a book and has an article on American Thinker blog about questions concerning the spotty Obama past. Also, Rove has come out with his hope that none of these accusations about Cain are true. The long knives are out for Cain, and I don't like it. It is very easy to file a harassment claim, and it is common for an association to settle. And a sexual harassment claim can even mean that a female was not given a promotion that a male was.

Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 31, 2011 06:38 AM (6IV8T)

41

Ace: "But I heard there was a long and numerous history here."

The sheep lie.

Posted by: Old Punchlines r us! at October 31, 2011 06:38 AM (5eVSI)

42 Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 11:30 AM (5eVSI)

Eh. She's pleasant looking, but nothing special.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at October 31, 2011 06:39 AM (3vSLn)

43 But he knew there was a settlement-correct?

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:37 AM (rJVPU)

All he knew is that it wasn't an issue anymore.  The woman in question didn't lose her job either.  The issue was handled completely by the legal department for his company.  So whether she dropped/settled he doesn't even know.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 06:39 AM (FkKjr)

44

1. WTF? There is no way he can be head of the resturaunt association and not know they settled two lawsuits during his time there. He wasn't served and named as co-defendant? If he can, how did he run the place? Was he really in charge of anything?

2. This is a real problem for Cain more than most becuase he is running mostly on who he is. I agree wtih Ace, I cannot recall one overtly conservative statement made by Cain.

3. Romney has good oppo research, and will stick a knife in with a smile on his face. Ruthlessness can be a virtue if we learned anything from McCain's honorable loser campaign.

Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 06:39 AM (NCw5u)

45 Hmm, all that free publicity

I see a flaw in your logic.

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 06:39 AM (aDFMZ)

46 Every large company in America has to deal with this crap.  That's why they make their employees take those stupid classes, not for education, but for defense.  We need a loser pays system (a credit to Perry btw).

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 06:39 AM (JYheX)

47 Person hardest hit if these allegations turn out to be true (or if they take a chunk out of Cain's support anyway): Mitt Romney.

He was counting on Cain to be his flak-catcher/stalking horse all the way to the Iowa primaries, suffocating the rest of the field before imploding under the weight of his own inherent impossibility.  If he begins to collapse now, that lets someone else back in the door who can become the more plausible "not Romney" candidate -- most like Perry.

>>>I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more.

As Allahpundit would say: "Oh my."

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 06:39 AM (hIWe1)

48 Oh fer pity's sake. I'm so fed up with political correctness that I think it should be a + that a candidate was red blooded male enough to make a couple sissies uncomfortable. *now if I find out there was any kind of trying to use authority position to get sex that is different* But a little bit of crude language? Get over it sissies.

Posted by: Palerider at October 31, 2011 06:40 AM (ITaIZ)

49 Most of the time-as the defendant-you are part of the settlement process-aren't you?

As a defendant you have a right to fight the charges-and wouldn't be up to the defendant to essentially wave that right and settle?

wth?

That goes under the assumption that the grievance was directed at HC, not at the NRA. It's much easier, in the end, to go for "hostile work environment" against a large entity than which will pay money to make things go away, than against an individual who might actually fight the thing to court.

Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at October 31, 2011 06:40 AM (BvTwT)

50 I'm making hand gestures at Jenna right now.

*uptwinkles*

Posted by: Waterhouse at October 31, 2011 06:40 AM (mjSSA)

51 Any Republican nominee must be a flawless human being who has never made a mistake in their life, otherwise they are guilty of hypocrisy and we must support Obama.

Posted by: concerned christian sock puppet at October 31, 2011 06:40 AM (xovnt)

52 I like the guy...know the stuff is bullshit...but he destroys the English language.

Posted by: LtT26 at October 31, 2011 06:40 AM (5gsHx)

53 He's looking more presidential every day. 

Posted by: Truman North at October 31, 2011 06:40 AM (G5JPI)

54 Oh and that weather girl on Fox is giving me a eye boner again.

And Happy Halloween.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 06:40 AM (JYheX)

55

If he begins to collapse now, that lets someone else back in the door who can become the more plausible "not Romney" candidate -- most like Perry.

Romney will have the debates to help w/ that possible Perry comeback

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 06:41 AM (yAor6)

56 >>>Ace, I understand that this is a story that has to be discussed, but I don't think mentioning things you've heard but that aren't publishable is beneficial in any way. All it does is add grist to the rumor mill. I have always assumed I was the sixty thousandth person to have heard it. It's not like i heard it from a source who was a friend so I could plausibly be "in the know."

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 06:41 AM (nj1bB)

57 Conservatives are still angry about what Anita Hill did to Clarence Thomas. This will be viewed as an unfair attack unless some very indisputable and horrifying evidence surfaces.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at October 31, 2011 06:41 AM (psns8)

58 Hot mussy!

Posted by: Wolfman Jack at October 31, 2011 06:41 AM (m8ARs)

59 The long knives are out for Cain, and I don't like it.

Would you like it better if he was our nominee and the MFM did it?

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 06:41 AM (aDFMZ)

60

Not a very good answer from Herman. ....Damn.

I mean....that's the thing, he was the CEO at the time, right? You can't say "I knew nothing" if you're the CEO. You just can't.

Like I said in the other thread....Cain probably just told some joke, or made a joking remark. And these women decided to cash in on it.

 

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 06:41 AM (XkwIi)

61 That goes under the assumption that the grievance was directed at HC, not at the NRA.

He was CEO of the Natl Restaurant Association.

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 06:41 AM (5H6zj)

62 But he knew there was a settlement-correct? Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:37 AM (rJVPU) No he is denying he "Knew" about any settlement, not only how much? That just doesn't sound right to me

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:42 AM (i6RpT)

63 At the very least, if a check was cut, he should know. 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 11:38 AM (8y9MW)

Maybe, maybe not.  I'm not sure how legal departments procure funds for settlements.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 06:42 AM (FkKjr)

64 26 As a defendant you have a right to fight the charges-and wouldn't be up to the defendant to essentially wave that right and settle?
__________

Apparently rights weren't the only thing he was waving.

Posted by: Anachronda at October 31, 2011 06:42 AM (IrbU4)

65 Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 11:39 AM

If Cain and Romney aren't 1-2 in either order in Iowa based on their current standing, they have both screwed up. If Perry invents a top 2 finish in Iowa, he will win the nomination.

According to the Cain and Romney fans, Perry is dead. So if the top 2 can't close the deal, oh well, new race for all.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 06:42 AM (40Wzt)

66

mmmm, Maria Molina...

I'm going to skip the hand gestures and go straight to indecent exposure.

Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 06:42 AM (5eVSI)

67 It is very easy to file a harassment claim, and it is common for an association to settle.

It is, but it is not common for the CEO to be unaware of how that played out- at least in general terms.  What he said was that he's unaware of if the Association made a settlement.  That might fly if he was some middle-manager, or even some Jr. VP somewhere.  It doesn't work for the CEO.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:42 AM (8y9MW)

68

settlement doesn't equal guilty.

Often times its less costly to give the person money rather than pay lawyers in a protracted trial.

That said, if this is the first of many charges, I'm guessing he won't last much longer.

It seems that Cainiacs can overlook quite a bit, but a long record of sexual harrassment isn't one of them.

Maybe this is why Karl Rove and others have been comepletely dismissive of the Cain campaign. This might have been common knowledge and they simply didn't want to be the first people to drop the info.

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2011 06:42 AM (wuv1c)

69 >>He was counting on Cain to be his flak-catcher/stalking horse all the way to the Iowa primaries, suffocating the rest of the field before imploding under the weight of his own inherent impossibility. If he begins to collapse now, that lets someone else back in the door who can become the more plausible "not Romney" candidate -- most like Perry. Shh. Don't spoil the meme. Romney did it.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 06:42 AM (TMB3S)

70 He's a lady's man! So what??

Is there something wrong about liking the ladies now??? 

This is such bullshit.  If he attacked a woman.. or even attempted rape.. well, that would be one thing..  But being "sexually suggestive"?  WTF?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 06:43 AM (f9c2L)

71 I think that Cain must have done something sufficiently improper or sloppy in how he treated these employees that it merited action by the organization to protect itself.  That fits with my observation of his shoot from the hip style.

For some of you, that's no biggy.  For me, I don't like this aspect of his style/personality and I definitely don't want it in a POTUS, nor do I like the glib way he tried to dismiss the story yesterday. 
Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 11:38 AM

I'm right there with ya, sweetie!

Posted by: Barry Obama at October 31, 2011 06:43 AM (fecOD)

72 He was counting on Cain to be his flak-catcher/stalking horse all the way to the Iowa primaries, suffocating the rest of the field before imploding under the weight of his own inherent impossibility.  If he begins to collapse now, that lets someone else back in the door who can become the more plausible "not Romney" candidate -- most like Perry.

That's why part of me wonders if this was leaked by Perry. If I were Romney I'd rather leak this shortly before a critical primary in order to (a) drive down Cain's numbers and (b) keep those voters from fleeing to another candidate. Leaking now gives them time to find someone else.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at October 31, 2011 06:43 AM (JxMoP)

73 I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here.

A statement made in closing that impugns Cain's character even further with no evidence....  How very Kos-like.

Posted by: Jazz at October 31, 2011 06:43 AM (syGwn)

74 But I heard there was a long and numerous history here.
_________

I hear Cain is long and numerous like a horse.

Posted by: Anachronda at October 31, 2011 06:43 AM (IrbU4)

75 Would you like it better if he was our nominee and the MFM did it?

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 11:41 AM (aDFMZ)

The MFM is doing it.  Politico ain't exactly the National Review.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 06:44 AM (FkKjr)

76 It's just a matter of time before all the republican candidates face these kind of "charges".

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 06:44 AM (k1rwm)

77 All he knew is that it wasn't an issue anymore. The woman in question didn't lose her job either. The issue was handled completely by the legal department for his company. So whether she dropped/settled he doesn't even know. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 11:39 AM Thanks for the info... I literally went to talk to a lawyer and labor law is his specialty and he finds it weird that Herman Cain says that he was unaware of The National Restaurant Association settling. He says that's not how these things work. When you are that high in the hierarchy- the attorneys have a fundamental duty to keep you informed. And to send a letter for Cain's records.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 06:44 AM (rJVPU)

78 I like Cain. He seems like a decent guy. He seems competent. It seems his heart is in the right place, but this isn't some local board election. He is just not ready for running for the Highest Office in the Land.

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:44 AM (i6RpT)

79 >>>personally, I question the timing. As I have said, Mondo from the blog Double plus undead, has written a book and has an article on American Thinker blog about questions concerning the spotty Obama past. Also, Rove has come out with his hope that none of these accusations about Cain are true. The long knives are out for Cain, and I don't like it. In these "question the timing" claims, I'm always curious when the "non-suspicious" timing would have been. The guy never ran for president before. he wasn't taken very seriously, until recently. When do you think this stuff should have/would have come out, to not be case of arranged timing? These charges were filed in the 90s. I question your questioning of the timing, given the fact that no one was guessing he'd be running for president in 15-20 years.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 06:44 AM (nj1bB)

80

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 11:44 AM (k1rwm)

seriously things were better when you were gone, go back to occupy wallstreet

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 06:45 AM (yAor6)

81 Who does this Cain think he is, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, or John Edwards ?????

Posted by: The MBM at October 31, 2011 06:45 AM (Y+DPZ)

82
I’ve been looking everywhere for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing.Thx
Discount Smears Cheap Dirty Tricks Rumors wholesale


Posted by: Joe Merkin at October 31, 2011 06:45 AM (sqkOB)

83 The MFM is doing it.  Politico ain't exactly the National Review.

Why would they, when they could drop the bomb on him after the nomination and throw the election?   Nope, this isn't them, for once.

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 06:46 AM (aDFMZ)

84 Who is Rove working for again?   Haven't been around, not sure where he "hired on".

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 06:46 AM (k1rwm)

85

settlement doesn't equal guilty.

One settlement, no. 2, 3, 4, 5? At some point it starts to look that way.

Besides that, after being asked about it his respone was something like "what if you were accused of sexual harrassment" That is kind of an elementary school answer that didn't really work then.

Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 06:46 AM (NCw5u)

86 Id like to think this is a baseless claim, and it might just be, but Cain seems a little suspicious here with his "I was the CEO but I know nothing" reply

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 06:46 AM (yAor6)

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 31, 2011 06:46 AM (jx2j9)

88 >>>3. Romney has good oppo research, and will stick a knife in with a smile on his face. Ruthlessness can be a virtue if we learned anything from McCain's honorable loser campaign.

The people who are now muttering about how Romney must be responsible are missing several obvious things in front of their faces: first these allegations were so well-known "off the record" that EVEN ACE KNEW MONTHS AGO before they broke.  What does that tell you?  Was Romney seriously shopping oppo research on a candidate polling at 4% months ago?  Of course not.  Secondly, if this came from a GOP candidate then Romney is the least likely source, because he had every reason to want to keep Cain propped up as his "rival" all the way to the end, as opposed to some more credible candidate.  He has the most to lose of anyone in the race by a Cain collapse right now, as opposed to during/after the voting.  This opens the door for Perry, or maybe Santorum or Bachmann. 

If you must look to possible sources of these allegations (and we discussed this in the ONT thread last night, where we concluded that it honestly wouldn't have had to come from anyone in the race), then those three campaign teams are by far the most likely answer.  They have motive and something to gain, unlike Romney.

But yes, I know, Romney is a supervillain, and does stuff like this just because he loves being a bastard, even when it directly harms his own interests.  He's just so evil like that.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 06:46 AM (hIWe1)

89

I think, in the long run, all this story will do is convince people who weren't sure if they were going to vote for Cain that they won't vote for him.  Or that they will.  People who were already leaning toward voting for Cain will see these allegations as a mere media smear campaign ala Clarence Thomas.  People who were already leaning away from Cain will see this as yet more proof that he's not President material.

In other words, I don't see this being a huge hit piece.  Unless someone comes forward, out of the "anonymous" veil, and details some of the specifics of what happened, then it will fade.  People will remain uneasy -- I don't like it, and I'm largely a Cain fan -- but until I have something more than a settlement and some unsubstantiated allegations, I'm not going to damn his hide.  Not when I know how vicious, malignant, and undiscerning the media are when it comes to defaming anyone who dares to identify themself as a Republican, conservative, and/or a Tea Party supporter.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 06:46 AM (4df7R)

90 Seems to me that the only way for liberals to attack black men in political offices is to use sexual harrassment.  Anita Hill is back, and we have to treat all conservative black men as we do Clarence Thomas.

Posted by: doug at October 31, 2011 06:47 AM (gUGI6)

91 Why would they, when they could drop the bomb on him after the nomination and throw the election?   Nope, this isn't them, for once.

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 11:46 AM (aDFMZ)

Um, Politico printed the article.  So obviously they want to do it now.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 06:47 AM (FkKjr)

92
I have big plans to sexually harass S E Cupp by asking for her autograph while complimenting her tits and ass.

Posted by: Doctor Fish at October 31, 2011 06:47 AM (Lt/Za)

93 You order the pizza, the pizza will cum.

Oh, wait, I think I got that wrong.

Posted by: Herman, the pizza guy at October 31, 2011 06:47 AM (vSiVD)

94

>>He was counting on Cain to be his flak-catcher/stalking horse all the way to the Iowa primaries, suffocating the rest of the field before imploding under the weight of his own inherent impossibility. If he begins to collapse now, that lets someone else back in the door who can become the more plausible "not Romney" candidate -- most like Perry.

 

No way. This is Romney all the way. He's going for broke. He thinks he can win Iowa and have this thing wrapped up in the first two weeks.

If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire then he'll probably sale to victory in Florida and Nevada as well.

I think Romney is switching strategies. Originally he wanted a three man race where Perry and ???(Cain, Bachmann, etc) siphoned votes off each other. Similar to what Romney and Huckabee did in 2008.

Now I think Romney sees an opening to win this quickly and be done with it.  

This was definitely leaked by Romney

 

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2011 06:47 AM (wuv1c)

95 The guy never ran for president before. he wasn't taken very seriously, until recently.

This didn't come up during his Senate campaign, did it?

Posted by: dick cheese at October 31, 2011 06:47 AM (IfkGz)

96 I heard Obama had a gay relationship.  One of his accusers came forward, and another, a gay member of Wright's church, and a friend of Obama, was killed under mysterious circumstances.  His mother is trying to find answers.  True?  Who knows?  Where are all Obama's ex-girlfriends? But no one is asking questions about it and no one is looking.    But you can bet they will be talking to anyone who "heard something" about any one of the GOP candidates.  I wouldn't be surprised if they found a racist rock that held some secrets.  I also heard a Democrat President got ahead while in the White House.  No one cared about that and even women shrug it off. 

Posted by: fused at October 31, 2011 06:47 AM (P34gz)

97

Since the SEIU heavily populates the Restaurant Industry as a whole......I don't think that we should rule out the possibility that some SEIU lawyer knew about this and was the one who leaked this.

The Left would love to see Herman Cain go down in flames over something like this. It's a two-fer. ....They can sit back and declare that Republicans are 'racist' for either....a) standing by Cain and defending him through this....or b) throwing him under the bus for this.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 06:48 AM (XkwIi)

98 Like I said in the other thread....Cain probably just told some joke, or made a joking remark. And these women decided to cash in on it

I agree. Unless there's more. We'll see if what ace has heard has panned out. These things usually turn into a floodgate.

Ex. A -- Weiner.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 06:48 AM (pLTLS)

99 Did ever Herman Cain change parties?  I'm asking because if Cain was a Democrat when this alleged harassment occurred, then it's not a problem.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 31, 2011 06:48 AM (jx2j9)

100 settlement doesn't equal guilty.

The problem here isn't his guilt or innocence (which is where Cain is messing this up) its in his BS story that he's unaware of what happened.

As the CEO it simply seems incongruous (or even dishonest) to say that he would not know if the Association did something regarding the accusations: especially if he also says that the claims "turned out to be baseless."  That would mean there was some kind of investigation.  As CEO, he would have been kept informed of what was going on- even if he, personally, had to be 'hands off' regarding the handling.  He still would have been kept in the loop.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:48 AM (8y9MW)

101 I believe he thinks he did not sexually harass them.  You know what?  That's not unusual.  The whole point is that a lot of bosses think they can get away with shit that is against HR policy.

I wouldn't say a lot of bosses "think" they can get away with this shit in corporate America. I have seen an executive vice-president get fired for inappropriate comments. In any large company that has a "legal" department and an HR group you can bet that people have been educated to death on this issue. Mostly to provide legal defense in case of a stupid suit.

That is the "real" purpose of stupid "diversity" programs and classes.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 06:48 AM (YdQQY)

102 How very Kos-like.
Posted by: Jazz
........
and you deserved that, Ace.

Everyone likes to have some insider info that they love to tease people with.. but you should be more careful with this kinda crap.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 06:48 AM (f9c2L)

103 "Who is Rove working for again?"

It ain't Perry for sure. Perry already embarrassed a Rove backed candidate in KBH last time around. Rove hates the Tea Party.

Wonder if he's been chillin in Mass. lately?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 06:48 AM (40Wzt)

104 >>>A statement made in closing that impugns Cain's character even further with no evidence.... How very Kos-like. Yup, it's all an establishment conspiracy, of which I am a part, going all the way back to the 90s.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 06:48 AM (nj1bB)

105

Corporate Counsels often, even on the executive level, make setttlements without the knowledge of the accused.  Especially since in the 90s every pyscho, Hillary-empowered, abortion-loving, not so bright, "administrative assistant" saw a way out of her crap job.

#justsaying 

Posted by: Nora at October 31, 2011 06:49 AM (VxqUc)

106 When you are that high in the hierarchy- the attorneys have a fundamental duty to keep you informed. Ugh-I'm trying to type what he is saying...too fast. ut he is saying that Herman Cain had to be represented by a attorney both representing Herman Cain and the Association... Or that Herman Cain also had representation on top of the Restaurant Association having a lawyer. It is the fundamental duty of the attorneys to keep Herman Cain informed. At the end of the case they would have to notify him of the disposition of the case-which in this particular case was a settlement-and the attorneys are guilty of malpractice if they did not do that.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 06:49 AM (rJVPU)

107 Cain and Perry, mostly Perry, have been coming on to me since day one and I'm the crazy one? And why Perry will not meet with me, one on one, at my favorite motel, to hash-out this matter is beyond me.

Posted by: Michele Bachmann at October 31, 2011 06:49 AM (Sh42X)

108 You want to know about this before or after he secures the nomination?

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 06:49 AM (nj1bB)

109
Beautiful, a two-fer!

Not only do we knock off Cain, Romney gets the blame!


Posted by: Poshitico at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (sqkOB)

110 Now I think Romney sees an opening to win this quickly and be done with it.

The problem with that is all those are "proportional" primaries and will settle nothing delegate-wise.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (YdQQY)

111 Um, Politico printed the article.  So obviously they want to do it now.

Um, remember how CBS ran stories on Bush's NG service before fully vetting them, because they were afraid they would lose them to the NYT? 

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (aDFMZ)

112 I want the specifics.  Why do we always have to play this rumor/denial game with the media.  If he did it, he did it and he's toast.  If there's a record, this should be an open and shut case.  But noooooo, we always have to drag it out and interview and talk about it for fucking ever before we see anything, and you know who that serves?  The Liberals.  Why?  Because they get their narrative aired 24/7 so that the first thing people hear about the GOP candidate is that he's been accused of something heinous.  And that's what sticks and creates impressions and furthers the narrative.

Posted by: jeremiadbullfrog at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (Y5I9o)

113 He says that's not how these things work.

When you are that high in the hierarchy- the attorneys have a fundamental duty to keep you informed.

And to send a letter for Cain's records.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:44 AM (rJVPU)

And any Plaintiff's attorney worth his contingent fee will add the CEO as a co-defendant. More pockets, more money. There's no reason not to.

Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (NCw5u)

114 89 I think, in the long run, all this story will do is convince people who weren't sure if they were going to vote for Cain that they won't vote for him.  Or that they will. 

-MWR

Thread Winner

Posted by: Truman North at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (G5JPI)

115 But that is not to say that Romney staff is not behind this shit. They have been known to do this kind of crap before.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (YdQQY)

116 Fuck the MFM. When they explain why Obama has no past, then I'll consider whether what they have to say about Cain is relevant.

Posted by: Truman North at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (G5JPI)

117 Vera anyone?

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2011 06:51 AM (wuv1c)

118 Regarding blaming it on Perry or Romney... I heard about this a month ago or more. Why is it hard to believe that the media could just have heard, too? No one swore me to secrecy or anything. (Although I didn't peddle it around or mention it to anyone.)

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 06:51 AM (nj1bB)

119 @11 "27"

Herman the cowboy.

I think I am in love

http://tinyurl.com/3wn4px8

Posted by: Lilly at October 31, 2011 06:51 AM (vSiVD)

120 Excellent Amigo! Keep slogging away at it Ace, maybe we can smear this guy sufficiently that I can at least pass him in the polls in my own state, where he presently is edging me.

Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 06:51 AM (gvW6C)

121
At the rate we're going we're gonna make the 1968 DNC riots in Chicago look like Romper Room.


Posted by: Soothsayer at October 31, 2011 06:51 AM (sqkOB)

122

Word on the street is that he just cut a hole into a pizza box before delivering it to co-workers if you get my drift.

 

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2011 06:52 AM (wuv1c)

123 and you deserved that, Ace.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 11:48 AM (f9c2L)

 

That hurts Chi-Town Jerry more than it hurts you Ace...now fix yourself up and go make him a pot pie.

 

 

Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 06:52 AM (5eVSI)

124 Now I think Romney sees an opening to win this quickly and be done with it. The problem with that is all those are "proportional" primaries and will settle nothing delegate-wise. Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 11:50 AM (YdQQY) Romney's big problem, as I see it, is that he is stuck at 25%. He is hated by a great part of the Republican Party. No matter who else goes up or down ( by by Cain ) he is stuck there. I'm beginning to think he be stuck

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:52 AM (i6RpT)

125 Hey, "I wasn't aware of it" worked for me.

Posted by: Eric Holder at October 31, 2011 06:52 AM (VndSC)

126 "I think that Cain must have done something sufficiently improper or sloppy in how he treated these employees that it merited action by the organization to protect itself. That fits with my observation of his shoot from the hip style. For some of you, that's no biggy. For me, I don't like this aspect of his style/personality and I definitely don't want it in a POTUS, nor do I like the glib way he tried to dismiss the story yesterday. " "Glib" would describe your condemnation of Cain for what he "must have done" without knowing what he's accused of, who by whom. "Sexual harassment" covers everything from whistling to battery.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 06:52 AM (3GtyG)

127
And you wonder why, after a fantastic 1946 election season, the Republicans shit the bed in 1948 and gave it all back.

Posted by: Soothsayer at October 31, 2011 06:52 AM (sqkOB)

128 Ultimately, thanks to Justice Thomas, I don't think these accusations have the traction to separate Cain from his support; Which means he will remain the lead of the !Romneys. It is a blow, but unlikely to be the re-ignition of the Perry campaign unless something more damning comes out of the incident.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 06:52 AM (0q2P7)

129

A settlement means nothing, but the press will make it seem like an admission of guilt. For many years, I had to approve settlements of this kind of claim (no, not against myself). When you are faced with complaints where the plaintiff is either financed by the government or by some contingency fee lawyer, you very quickly decide that paying 5K or 10K to get rid of the silliness is a whole lot better than spending 50K or 100K to defend. It is a form of extortion.

Posted by: JeffM at October 31, 2011 06:53 AM (zD0RO)

130 I heard about this a month ago or more. Why is it hard to believe that the media could just have heard, too?

No one swore me to secrecy or anything. (Although I didn't peddle it around or mention it to anyone.)

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 11:51 AM (nj1bB)


That makes sense cause the cain spokesperson in the geraldo "interview" alluded to the european media passing on this so that sort of alludes to the fact that someone was "shopping" the story.

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 06:53 AM (k1rwm)

131 I've been trying to get a handle on the adult ADD thing, but "Conservative Christian Fundamentalists" are not supposed to use nicotine...

Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 06:53 AM (gvW6C)

132 The worst I have heard as that Cain is accused of having used language and/or made gestures that offended some women.

Bill Clinton is plausibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick. No Big Deal.

Ted Kennedy got drunk and killed his secretary. No big deal.

Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd sexually assaulted a DC waitress. No Big Deal.

The Obama White House is documented by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist of being a hostile work environment for women. No Big Deal.

John Edwards knocks up a "campaign aide" and the media cover it up for almost two years.

Al Gore sexually harasses a massage therapist. Once again, no big deal.

I guess sexual harassment is only a problem when a black conservative is accused of it anonymously.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at October 31, 2011 06:53 AM (PLvLS)

133

The Left would love to see Herman Cain go down in flames over something like this. It's a two-fer. ....They can sit back and declare that Republicans are 'racist' for either....a) standing by Cain and defending him through this....or b) throwing him under the bus for this.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter
..............
Cain was instrumental in keeping minimum wage low in the nineties.. yeah.. he's got lots of enemies in the unions.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 06:53 AM (f9c2L)

134

Posted by: Ben at October 31, 2011 11:52 AM (wuv1c)

 

Who ordered the 9" sausage!?

Posted by: Herman Cain at October 31, 2011 06:53 AM (5eVSI)

135 This was definitely leaked by Romney

I'm going with Perry. One of his guys was apparently bragging on twitter they had some oppo on Cain that would take him out.

I didn't get a chance to follow up on this. I think the tweet was from RS McCain

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 06:54 AM (pLTLS)

136 Is it too late for more people to enter the race?

Posted by: Dr Spank at October 31, 2011 06:54 AM (Sh42X)

137 103 "Who is Rove working for again?"

It ain't Perry for sure. Perry already embarrassed a Rove backed candidate in KBH last time around. Rove hates the Tea Party.

Wonder if he's been chillin in Mass. lately?

It's not Mitt, he thinks Mormons are quacks. 

Really, I've heard him say it.

Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at October 31, 2011 06:54 AM (vSiVD)

138 Corporate Counsels often, even on the executive level, make setttlements without the knowledge of the accused. At the end of the process Corporate Counsels would notify you.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 06:54 AM (rJVPU)

139 but "Conservative Christian Fundamentalists" are not supposed to use nicotine...

Who made up that rule?  As far as my experience goes, the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Churches of Christ) is about the most conservative/fundamentalist denomination in existence, and it's sort of a joke that one of the requirements for being a youth minister is using chewing tobacco.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:55 AM (8y9MW)

140 I don't recall the context but several months ago some Rethuglican made a comment that, if you squinted just right, made it looks like he or she was accusing a black male or black males generally of sexual impropriety.  The Drum Circle Media threw a fit to denounce the use of such a racial stereo type regarding black men not being able to control their sexual appetites.  I am sure we are going to her that again from them any second now.

Posted by: WalrusRex at October 31, 2011 06:55 AM (Hx5uv)

141 How he's started off (mis)handling this incident...even if all the charges are bogus...is yet another in a long list of examples of Cain showing he's not ready to be the GOP nominee, much less POTUS. No way, no how. Better his campaign implodes now instead of a month after he wins the nomination.

I was actually of the opinion all this was BS, but after hearing what he said about it, now I'm not so sure. That stuff Cain spouted sounded an awful lot like, "well, yeah, they accused me of it, but they couldn't prove a damn thing," which is not at all the same thing as "I never, ever did anything inappropriate." (shrug)

I wasn't going to vote for him anyway (not since Racist Rock made his campaign debut), so it's not like this cost him my vote.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 31, 2011 06:55 AM (haFNK)

142

Follow the Dem model and go after the bitches.  White males with actual testicles will empathize--we're fucking tired of this menstrual horseshit.  Go direct to the peeps.   

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at October 31, 2011 06:55 AM (1cUr7)

143

I guess sexual harassment is only a problem when a black conservative is accused of it anonymously.

 

To be fair, I raped a lot of women. 

Posted by: Bill Clinton at October 31, 2011 06:55 AM (5eVSI)

144 "I think the tweet was from RS McCain"

McCain went from being totally in the tank for Palin to being totally in the tank for Cain when Sarah crapped on him by not running. Not saying he's full of feces, but I have always regarded RS McCain of running with the wind in search of donations to keep his site running.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 06:56 AM (40Wzt)

145

Ace,

 

Look at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, they have a story that a fake company owned by his manager and co manager funneled large amounts of money and in kind support to Cain's campaign in direct violation of the law

Cain said he was totally unaware of it - again not knowing as a CEO your main source of funding?

He's done

 

 

Posted by: EricPWJohnson at October 31, 2011 06:56 AM (NJbN7)

146 RE: Blaming this story on one of the other Republican candidates - meh.  I don't buy it.  The media doesn't need help from the Dark Side (ie, Republicans) to dig up dirt on their own personal Darth Vaders.  It's their stock and trade.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 06:56 AM (4df7R)

147 You know who doesn't come in 30 minutes or less? Me, that's who.

Posted by: Herman Cain at October 31, 2011 06:56 AM (usXZy)

148 I don't see this being an advantage for anyone except Perry at this point in time.

Romny would have waited til just before a primary, as someone mentioned above.

Libtard opposition like unions would have held on to this as long as they could, just in case Cain got the nomination.  It would make a perfect "October surprise".

The only one it helps right now is Perry.  But, until there is some proof of that, we really shouldn't cast aspersions on anyone!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 06:56 AM (f9c2L)

149 Sexual Chocolate!

Posted by: cvb at October 31, 2011 06:57 AM (HRFxR)

150

During the Clarence Thomas problem, I happened to be talking to a very liberal woman, who was also a rape survivor.  She was pretty certain Thomas had done it, which was, as she put it, "He talked dirty at the office.  Big deal."

Used to be in the insurance business and the employee practices liability companies would say that you need this because any negative personnel action regarding a woman will bring a sexual harassment lawsuit.  Count on it.  Might have been exaggerating for sales purposes, but the likelihood can't be dismissed.  So, as I think I heard Ann Coulter saying, this either is or was--not sure if she had details or was speculating--a more or less innocent comment that, with sufficient determination, could be taken the wrong way.  We're not talking about groping.  Unless we are, in which case, this is very different.  Sort of like Katherine Willey, when it really didn't matter, iirc.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 31, 2011 06:57 AM (k7pZj)

151 When you are faced with complaints where the plaintiff is either financed by the government or by some contingency fee lawyer, you very quickly decide that paying 5K or 10K to get rid of the silliness is a whole lot better than spending 50K or 100K to defend. It is a form of extortion. Posted by: JeffM at October 31, 2011 11:53 AM *** I'm in complete agreement with this-but what do you think of Herman Cain saying he wasn't aware The National Restaurant Association settled?

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 06:57 AM (rJVPU)

152 Of course, since I get an eye boner from the weather babe I can never run for dogcatcher, unless I am a democrat.

Real sexual harassment is of course disgusting.  But the libs have done for SH what they have done for racism.  They have assured it means nothing anymore.  These accusations mean nothing for me, but probably do to the uninformed.  Every hetero man and probably homo man has said something at sometime to fit the new lib definition.

Its not like Cain is the Duke lacrosse team....oh wait...

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 06:57 AM (JYheX)

153 I assure you all that the demonization of my successful opponent, Cain, will not distract AT ALL from the credibility of my pet bloggers should Cain actually win the nomination.

Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 06:57 AM (gvW6C)

154

I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more. I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here. -- Ace

Unnamed source(s) couldn't be Carl Cameron?

Posted by: Dollar Value at October 31, 2011 06:57 AM (lpWVn)

155 Just thought of something else, if the settlements had non-disclosure clauses in them, then Cain, as CEO of the company (and principal party), would have had to be informed about them.

So one scenario is that the women filed complaints (Cain admits this), they were investigated through channels, they were presented with their options by the company (which, in my experience, does its best to represent the situation in a way that discourages the woman from pursuing the allegations further), and also told that if they chose to leave the firm, they'd receive a severance.  That severance might not be legally tied up to the case and be a "settlement" per se.  So in the women might tell reporters they received a settlement, but that was not technically true.

The other possibility is there was a settlement, but the process was mishandled and somehow Cain, the CEO of the Association and presumably also an ex-officio (at least) member of their Board, was not made aware of it. That does not bode well for how the organization he headed was run.

The third possibility is that Cain was informed, including being told he could not disclose (hence his vagueness now), and he's being deceptive (lying) about not knowing there was a settlement. 

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (5H6zj)

156 >>>I heard about this a month ago or more. Why is it hard to believe that the media could just have heard, too?

>>>No one swore me to secrecy or anything. (Although I didn't peddle it around or mention it to anyone.)

Exactly.  This is why Ben's fervid conviction that "of course it was Romney it had to be Romney god I hate Romney so fucking much he's such a weasel" is...pretty comical.  It's sort of like the old saying about cockroaches: if you see one in your kitchen, that means there are probably a hundred more in there, out of sight.  Similarly, if ACE of all people heard about this months ago, then there really is absolutely no possible way the MSM hadn't heard about it either.  Ace isn't exactly Lee Atwater in terms of deep-cover political insiders, now is he.

Again: this could have come from anyone, could have been the MSM doing their own work Rubio-style, could have been some Dem oppo, who knows.  But leaping to the assumption that Romney was the guy responsible is merely a reflection of your own reflexive "I hate Romney and ascribe all evils to him, much like Satan of whom I heard he and his ilk think is the brother of Jesus" mentality.  His team is, if anything, the LEAST likely source of this given how much they have to lose by Cain collapsing in early November as opposed to, say, January.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (hIWe1)

157 At the end of the process Corporate Counsels would notify you.

Along with 6000 other things they notify a CEO of. And this one was a "Don't worry about it, it's handled" item.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (0q2P7)

158 guys - when it matters more who leaked the story, who benefited from it, rather than the SUBSTANCE of the story - we call that spinning

Posted by: EricPWJohnson at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (NJbN7)

159 >>Yup, it's all an establishment conspiracy, of which I am a part, going all the way back to the 90s. Posted by: ace at October 31, 2011 11:48 AM (nj1bB)<< If "Ace was told months ago" is a legit story, go ahead and flesh it out. Who told you, and what did they tell you? If, on the other hand, you just want us to consider the "seriousness of the charges" without getting bogged down in details, then yeah, you are behaving like a mouthpiece for an attack organization.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (3GtyG)

160 Not saying he's full of feces, but I have always regarded RS McCain of running with the wind in search of donations to keep his site running.

I have no idea - haven't looked into it.

Just putting it out there as it was another possibility floating around the interwebz.

Because I'm a paid shill for Perry. Yeah that makes a whole helluvalotta sense.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (pLTLS)

161 139 Corporate Counsels often, even on the executive level, make setttlements without the knowledge of the accused.

At the end of the process Corporate Counsels would notify you.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:54 AM (rJVPU)

Yeah, at least in my company, I make recommendations to the CFO and board, but I can't approve anything like that. Maybe its different, a company to company policy, but I don't see a settlement at least not discussed before the board.

Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (NCw5u)

162 "well, yeah, they accused me of it, but they couldn't prove a damn thing," Hey the jails are full of people who say that? / kidding but still?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (i6RpT)

163 "At the end of the process Corporate Counsels would notify you.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:54 AM (rJVPU) "

Not very often.  Once it's in the corporate counsel office than it's in the corporate office and the discretion of the the corporate counsel.

do you know how many bogus suits / complaints like this are filed and the targets never even know what is going on because the suits turn out to be nothing but time wasters for the falsely accused and the complainer cashing a pick six? 

 

Posted by: Nora at October 31, 2011 06:58 AM (VxqUc)

164 Do I smell a dead horse?

Posted by: dogfish at October 31, 2011 06:59 AM (N2yhW)

165 The worst I have heard as that Cain is accused of having used language and/or made gestures that offended some women.

Bill Clinton is plausibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick. No Big Deal.

Ted Kennedy got drunk and killed his secretary. No big deal.

Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd sexually assaulted a DC waitress. No Big Deal.

The Obama White House is documented by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist of being a hostile work environment for women. No Big Deal.

John Edwards knocks up a "campaign aide" and the media cover it up for almost two years.

Al Gore sexually harasses a massage therapist. Once again, no big deal.

I guess sexual harassment is only a problem when a black conservative is accused of it anonymously.

No, that's not true.  It's a big deal when white conservatives are accused as well.  They hate all conservatives regardless of color.

Posted by: WalrusRex at October 31, 2011 06:59 AM (Hx5uv)

166

Sexual Chocolate!

 

damn!, that boy can sing.

Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 06:59 AM (5eVSI)

167

This should be a two-man race between Romney &.....

 

Gingrich

 

I'm sick of hearing about Newt's personal dalliances in the past.  I'm sick of hearing about some stupid inconsequential commerical he made several years ago.  I'm sick of hearing about a single verbal gaffe about right-wing social engineering.  DAMN are we picky.  Because of all that nonsense we casually discard the fact that this brilliant man has for over thirty years worked his ass off to be one of the most well studied (if not THE most) proactive advocates of conservatism alive.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 06:59 AM (b68Df)

168 At the end of the process Corporate Counsels would notify you.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:54 AM (rJVPU)

But, see, we're assuming Cain read all the correspondence he received.  I hate to say it, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't, and his administrative assistants just filed the letter away in the appropriate drawer when it came in.  If that's the case I'd actually see that as a bigger knock against him than an otherwise unsubstantiated harassment claim (or two, or five, or ten), since I want to know my President is actually going to READ things that come across his desk and not just robo-sign his name on the line like the current SCOAMF.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 07:00 AM (4df7R)

169 Dethpicable!

Posted by: Barney Frank at October 31, 2011 07:00 AM (FcR7P)

170

119 ....Regarding blaming it on Perry or Romney...

I heard about this a month ago or more. Why is it hard to believe that the media could just have heard, too?

Ace, do we know yet what these two women did at the National Restaurant Assn?....As in, what were their jobs?

If they were members of the SEIU, then chances are they had SEIU lawyers handling their claims.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 07:00 AM (XkwIi)

171

McCain went from being totally in the tank for Palin to being totally in the tank for Cain when Sarah crapped on him by not running.

he's secretly Mark Levin

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:00 AM (3XDPM)

172

At the end of the process Corporate Counsels would notify you.

Not necessarily as to the precise details of what happened.  It is not unheard of for there to be very bland "This matter has been concluded" letters sent to the person accused without any hint as to how the matter was concluded.  I saw someone on twitter making comments that a NDA wouldn't stop the association from confirming/denying payments and I actually laughed out loud.  I think every one of the NDAs I've seen has clauses that include confirmation/denial of payment as a default term under the NDA. 

Posted by: alexthechick at October 31, 2011 07:00 AM (VtjlW)

173 159 guys - when it matters more who leaked the story, who benefited from it, rather than the SUBSTANCE of the story - we call that spinning

UNLESS there are additional unsourced rumors of  "many more".
That turns it into real investigative reporting.

Posted by: jwb7605 at October 31, 2011 07:01 AM (Qxe/p)

174 "Because I'm a paid shill for Perry."

Lucky you. I do this and take grief from borderline socialists (Mittens Fans) for free.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:01 AM (40Wzt)

175 This is such bullshit.  If he attacked a woman.. or even attempted rape.. well, that would be one thing..  But being "sexually suggestive"?  WTF?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 11:43 AM (f9c2L)

or even had consentual sex. but a suggestive sexual act? sigh

Posted by: willow at October 31, 2011 07:02 AM (h+qn8)

176 I'm in complete agreement with this-but what do you think of Herman Cain saying he wasn't aware The National Restaurant Association settled?

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 11:57 AM (rJVPU)

No fucking way that he does not know that there was a settlement. He might not have known prior to the settlement agreement but he knew soon afterward.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at October 31, 2011 07:02 AM (mFxQX)

177 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 31, 2011 11:56 AM (f9c2L)

And I see the whole discussion of "who this benefits" as being absolutely stupid (FTR- I don't see any Republican candidate doing this, though someone lower-level in a campaign may have.  "Won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest?")

That's the only way the MFM get's their "two-fer."  If we just accept this as a scandal with which (rightly or wrongly) Cain has to deal, then they're stuck with a mediocre smear-job that's being made worse by Cain's seeming obfuscation.

If we engage in "who does this benefit?" Then they get the added bonus of us tearing each other up over something that would have come out eventually anyway- either now or in the general- or wouldn't have mattered one way or the other (if he never made it to the general).

It does make some sense for Perry's campaign to have leaked this- but it does for Romney's, too (if they see Perry as fatally wounded, and don't want to take the chance that Cain will over-perform, for instance).  Mostly it makes sense for Politico, however- they get to smear on Conservative candidate, and (by extension) the other front-runners as well (because who wouldn't be disgusted if they found out their candidate had deliberately shopped around this kind of smear-job?)

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 07:02 AM (8y9MW)

178 In my field I got sued once. Supposedly everyone does at least once. The case was investigated and found to be baseless. However the plaintiff was asking 25,000. Litigation costs would have been 40,000 and if it went to a jury the potential for loss was 3 million to the insurance and then unlimited personal assets. My policy stated the liability insurance was in the driver's seat to make whatever deal kept their loss "controlled". I didn't really want to risk some douchebag jury getting all teary eyed about some faker. 

Maybe Cain said something maybe he didn't. I don't give a shit. What I give a shit about is the fucking MBM acting as an extension of the Obama campaign.


Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 07:02 AM (mka2b)

179 I love how we have absolutely no specifics, but suddenly everyone and their brother is an expert on the minutiae of corporate law settlements in cases where you don't know any of the facts. 

Posted by: jeremiadbullfrog at October 31, 2011 07:02 AM (Y5I9o)

180 extra sausage? what does that mean?

Posted by: victim#2 at October 31, 2011 07:03 AM (SH3gZ)

181 Writing from phone so can't copy & paste, but as someone not emotionally invested in any of these guys, I agree with Jeff B. (again, see last night's ONT), JackStraw and Lee Atwater: Why would Romney hit Cain now? He's never had it so good, with Perry reeling and Cain sucking up all the oxygen from any other conservative trying to break through. This is all about whether or not Cain has a chin. Someone wants to know. Now. Who might that be?

Posted by: A Liberal AoS Reader, Really! at October 31, 2011 07:03 AM (qMf43)

182 Well...cripes I was thinking no big deal on this issue till he said as the CEO of The National Restaurant Association he was unaware of the settlement. I think the charges are b.s. for a bunch of different reasons but... either he is damn forgetful, the attorneys are guilty of malpractice-or he thinks the Republican electorate is stupid. So now there is a whole new set of questions...

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:03 AM (rJVPU)

183 Can we assume that reporters are descending on the homes of every female, 90's-era Restaurant Association employee that they can find? So far this story has no face, so it's really only half a story. If they can put a face and name to the allegations then it's Katie bar-the-door. Supermarket magazine cover stories, 60 Minutes, probably a quickie book. I'm hoping they don't find anyone.

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 07:03 AM (Qjh0I)

184 If we engage in "who does this benefit?" Then they get the added bonus of us tearing each other up over something that would have come out eventually anyway- either now or in the general- or wouldn't have mattered one way or the other (if he never made it to the general).

Heaven knows we don't need more fodder to rip each other to shreds.  We do it on a daily basis anyway.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 07:03 AM (4df7R)

185 "Glib" would describe your condemnation of Cain for what he "must have done" without knowing what he's accused of, who by whom.

I describe it as "glib" when a candidate for POTUS who when directly asked about these allegations avoided a direct answer and instead asked "Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?" and then (paraphrase) 'you can't prove it' in the hopes that the story would go away... only to find out the next day that he was aware there were allegations serious enough to warrant investigation. 

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 07:03 AM (5H6zj)

186 Vote for Obama. He is completely scandal free.

Posted by: Jon Alter at October 31, 2011 07:04 AM (mka2b)

187 " some stupid inconsequential commerical"

He basically endorsed man made global warming with Nancy Pelosi, who was at that time third in line for the Presidency.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:04 AM (40Wzt)

188 guys - when it matters more who leaked the story, who benefited from it, rather than the SUBSTANCE of the story - we call that spinning

There is very little "SUBSTANCE" to the story so it

1. Accusations were made.
2. They were never proven.
3. A settlement (Not by HC) was made.

Knowing what little can make the above happen makes it a big meh until I have more details.

Who does the story benefit most, I agree with JeffB (Oh my God I need to flay my tongue with fire for saying that) if it was Romney it would have been January, so Perry seems the obvious choice.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (0q2P7)

189

Not very often.  Once it's in the corporate counsel office than it's in the corporate office and the discretion of the the corporate counsel.

And that is probably not  true.

Generally, someone other than corporate counsel has to sign off on the settlement. Yes, that office may be budgeted some funds for routine types of settlement, depending on the business (for example, food supplier's will budget x amount for spoilage and if the spoilage claim got drug out to litigation, corporate counsel may have the discretion of taking the settlement fund out of the spoilage budget). But, for sexual harrasment, there generally isn't such a budget item (Hugh Hefner may be an exception....and I am sure HBO budgets some for Bill Mahr). So, someone has to sign off on it, the board, CEO, CFO, etc. Corporate Counsel is not He-Man, Master of the Universe who can sign off on whatever the hell he/she wants. And not to mention that most Legal Codes of Ethics require a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed about legal matters entrusted to the attorney. 

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (OWjjx)

190 Imagine the jokes if Cain was the CEO of Subway?

Posted by: Barbarian at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (EL+OC)

191 >>>Lucky you. I do this and take grief from borderline socialists (Mittens Fans) for free.

You fool -- Mitt pays *us* ridiculous crazy blog money.  I've been able to quit my job and live off the money I make pushing Romney in the comments of this one blog alone.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (hIWe1)

192 It might be good to remember that this is not Cain's only stumble. He has made many on Foreign Policy Issues and National Security. The point is not wether he is a nice guy, but wether he is electable.

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (i6RpT)

193 I am totally concern trolling right now on Fox.

Posted by: Bret Baier at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (VxqUc)

194 #133

You forgot about Larry Sinclair...

Posted by: Tony253 at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (7my1f)

195

134......Cain was instrumental in keeping minimum wage low in the nineties.. yeah.. he's got lots of enemies in the unions.

Chi-town....yeah, it makes sense that Cain would be for doing that. Minimum wage is a job-killer in the restaurant industry. ....Which is why I suspect that the SEIU could be the source of this story coming out.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (XkwIi)

196 I had a woman at work try to file SH charges at me.  When all was said and done, all it was is that I had disagreed with her "brilliance" and gave her a "look" that made her uncomfortable.  The whole SH schtick has made work a nest of fragile eggshells.

Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (coN0Z)

197 this wasnt some bob in accounting, this was the CEO. no way, no how did a settlement get approved w/o his knowing. to think otherwise is a crazy ass suspension of disbelief!

Posted by: chas at October 31, 2011 07:05 AM (TKF1Y)

198 SUBSTANCE? there was SUBSTANCE ALL OVER MY PIZZA!!!!!

Posted by: victim#1 at October 31, 2011 07:06 AM (SH3gZ)

199 I just heard about this this morning.  What did Herman Cain do?  Did he ask something like "Who put this pubic hair on my slice of pizza?"

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 07:06 AM (b68Df)

200 No fucking way that he does not know that there was a settlement. He might not have known prior to the settlement agreement but he knew soon afterward. Posted by: Velvet Ambition at October 31, 2011 12:02 PM (mFxQX) Thanks. The guy I was talking to was using the same language-repeatedly. I was editing- to make what he was saying less confrontational...

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:06 AM (rJVPU)

201 do you know how many bogus suits / complaints like this are filed and the targets never even know what is going on because the suits turn out to be nothing but time wasters for the falsely accused and the complainer cashing a pick six? --Nora

When Cain was hired to oversee Godfather's Pizza, he cut their franchises in half in order for the company to profit. I'm not criticizing that decision here, only pointing out that Cain's decisions would turn losers against him.

Posted by: Dollar Value at October 31, 2011 07:06 AM (lpWVn)

202

 think the charges are b.s. for a bunch of different reasons but...

either he is damn forgetful, the attorneys are guilty of malpractice-or he thinks the Republican electorate is stupid.

So now there is a whole new set of questions...

Do I have to limit my answer to just 1?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 31, 2011 07:06 AM (OWjjx)

203

It might be good to remember that this is not Cain's only stumble. He has made many on Foreign Policy Issues and National Security. The point is not wether he is a nice guy, but wether he is electable.

^^ This.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 31, 2011 07:06 AM (sbV1u)

204 Newt is probably the most brilliant of the candidates with the most experience but people are also looking for a man of character.  You can't predict what a president will face but you want to put someone in the office with morals and values.  I mean come on, his wife was dying of cancer and he was "stepping out" on her, I mean that's despicable and speaks to his character, his inner voice wasn't working.

hmmm, why does that story sound so familiar?

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:07 AM (k1rwm)

205 " Why would Romney hit Cain now?"

Romney trails Cain nationally. Cain has all the momentum at the moment. Another debate approaches where this issue can be used against Cain by Romney and Crazy Eye. Also, the timing of this with the campaign fund story that is breaking today can really keep Cain off his game plan, assuming he has one.

Cain could be facing a couple of hits right before a debate. It sets it up Corleone style.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:07 AM (40Wzt)

206 >>Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 11:58 AM (5H6zj)<< Fourth: The Association made a conscious effort to resolve the situation without involving the target of the inquiry. It doesn't exist to do anything but talk about restaurants, it isn't a for-profit business enterprise that sinks or swims under its leadership, and it apparently enjoys giving people titles for their participation. It has a President & CEO, a Chair, and a Vice Chair, and says it has 90 to 95 directors. http://www.restaurant.org/aboutus/leaders/

Posted by: Chris Balsz at October 31, 2011 07:07 AM (3GtyG)

207

"I think the tweet was from RS McCain"

McCain went from being totally in the tank for Palin to being totally in the tank for Cain when Sarah crapped on him by not running. Not saying he's full of feces, but I have always regarded RS McCain of running with the wind in search of donations to keep his site running.

In fairness to RMS, he stated in his post that the tweet from the AZ Perry staffer didn't necessarily mean that the Perry people leaked it but that they did know about the story. Ace says he had heard about it months ago so clearly others have as well.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at October 31, 2011 07:07 AM (JxMoP)

208 Why the hell care if there were accusations and settlements?  So.  It happens every day.  Settlements do not mean guilt.

I am completely tired of letting the MFM pick our candidate.  If we let this crap fester, and we have seen nothing yet (wait til next year), no matter who you support is going to lose, so you might want to start questioning the fucking media.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at October 31, 2011 07:07 AM (JYheX)

209 His wife represents calm and tranquility?!!! Really? He must not have been married over a week then

Posted by: Navycopjoe at October 31, 2011 07:07 AM (A1uUz)

210 damn!, that boy can sing.

Let's give it up for the Mr. Raaaaandy Watkins!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 07:07 AM (pLTLS)

211

When he was a youth in the segregated South, Herman Cain had to ride in the BACK of the bus.

 

As a Presidential candidate, Herman Cain OWNS the bus, and has his smiling picture on the side of it.

 

Today, Herman Cain got thrown UNDER the bus.

Posted by: proudvastrightwingconspirator at October 31, 2011 07:07 AM (OwYZX)

212

 but a suggestive sexual act? sigh

 

Herman Cain offered to buy me a Corndog....

he said it would be free if I would...

let him...

watch me, while...

I...

was eating it.

 

Posted by: Michele Bachmann at October 31, 2011 07:08 AM (5eVSI)

213 And not to mention that most Legal Codes of Ethics require a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed about legal matters entrusted to the attorney. This.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:08 AM (rJVPU)

214 You win. Every single Republican candidate is a SCOAMF and deserves to be pilloried.

Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 07:08 AM (mka2b)

215 As with most "scandals" (and this one rates pretty low on the scandal-o-meter so far) it's not the act it's how it's handled when the story inevitably breaks. Cain knew or should have known this was going to come out regardless of where it came from. This is what happens when a Republican runs for national office, vetting everything you have ever done, said or thought and then it will be further twisted to fit the narrative of the day. So far, Cain is not handling this well. How he does going forward will tell whether he survives or not.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:08 AM (TMB3S)

216 His wife represents calm and tranquility?!!! Really? He must not have been married over a week then Posted by: Navycopjoe at October 31, 2011 12:07 PM (A1uUz) Oh man I share your pain!

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 07:08 AM (i6RpT)

217 DRUDGE SIREN!! FoxNews just named one of the women: 42-year-old C. O'Donnell from Wilmington, DE.

Posted by: IreneKurtzIrene at October 31, 2011 07:08 AM (JNqU9)

218 This is Cain's 'Birth Certificate'. Unless we see the evidence, it's just a fable.

Posted by: sTevo at October 31, 2011 07:08 AM (q1Tbv)

219
How soon we forget.

Back in November 2008 a lot of people here were saying how we'd be better off if Hillary Clinton won instead of Obama.

Pinin' for Hillary. Those were the days.

Today we're already rejecting all of the potential Republican nominees.


Posted by: Soothsayer at October 31, 2011 07:09 AM (sqkOB)

220

Here is the "gotcha" - Cain's campaign can NOT deny that POLITICO reported what it reported.  You can't go "well there aren't two women who said this thing to POLITICO."  It happened.  And you probably can't say with any certitude (thanks Anthony!) that there weren't women offended by Cain over something in the past.  He's a blunt speaking fellow, and there are plenty of people in the world who just live to be offended.  He could have said something like "hey you should be bringing me a sammich" - that would fit into what has been reported. 

Hanging something out there with no details is how the game is played - let's see what he will admit to, right?  He must have something in his closet.  So let's pretend we know what it is. 

There is NO implication here that he was "hitting" any of this.  Just some vague thing about he said some stuff, and made some gestures that people did not like.  Okay. 

The beauty of a hit like this is that no matter what some number of people are going to believe it is true whether it is true or not.  Heard a lady on the radio saying she thought it was a matter of basic integrity and judgement, how could he run for President with something like this hanging in his background.  I get the feeling she won't be convinced even if there is audio tape of David Plouffe instructing the women on what to say. 

And Republicans circle the firing squad not the wagons.  Because there is the whole "well, what if this is true" aspect - they will bear the burden of having defended a guy who is, well, worst case here - boorish.  Dems don't have to worry about it.  Who paid for defending Clinton and Edwards and Kennedy and Weiner and Wu? 

No one, that's who.

Posted by: blaster at October 31, 2011 07:09 AM (7vSU0)

221 This heah is what happens when we leave da Massa's democratic Plantation Suh.

Posted by: Slappy Fetchit, Steppin's Peanut Headed Little Brother at October 31, 2011 07:10 AM (jucos)

222

against Cain by Romney and Crazy Eye

watch for Bachmann to act like she was personally harassed by Cain and Perry in the next debate and come to Romney's defense when he's under the spotlight

as I've stated before, she's sold her soul to Mittens

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:10 AM (3XDPM)

223 If, on the other hand, you just want us to consider the "seriousness of the charges" without getting bogged down in details, then yeah, you are behaving like a mouthpiece for an attack organization.

I didn't read it that way at all.  I read it as "They've screwed up the handling of this so far (and they have- AG), so you should be aware that more of this might be coming."

It's just a statement- if anything, saying that Cain's campaign needs to be more plausible in their handling of any future occurrences- or needs to say "No, it didn't happen, period."  But claiming the Association of which he was the CEO made (potentially) two settlements with people who claimed he had sexually harassed them doesn't pass the smell test.

It is not unheard of for there to be very bland "This matter has been concluded" letters sent to the person accused without any hint as to how the matter was concluded.

"The person accused," true.  "The CEO," not so true.  He would have been responsible to the Board of Directors and the President of the Association- so he would have needed to know what was going on.

I just don't buy the idea that he wouldn't have know about settlements- which is what he said.  He didn't say that he didn't know how big they were, or what the terms were.  He said he was unaware that any had been made.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 07:10 AM (8y9MW)

224 I TOLD you there was a pubic hair in my pizza!

Posted by: Anita Hill at October 31, 2011 07:10 AM (JKX4x)

225 26


Most of the time-as the defendant-you are part of the settlement process-aren't you?

As a defendant you have a right to fight the charges-and wouldn't be up to the defendant to essentially wave that right and settle?------ I was the defendand in a lawsuit against myself and my insurance company. I wanted to fight the lawsuit, insurance company didn't. Was never even informed after the settlement. When I called later to check on the status, was told by my lawyer that it was cheaper to settle for 25k than to take it to trial. Basicly the lady scammed my insurance out of 25k for a minor fender bender that happened years before, and was filed the last week of the statute of limitations.

Posted by: Jimmah at October 31, 2011 07:10 AM (vj51i)

226 So what happened either in the administration or in one of the agencies that the MSM would rather not cover so they are trumping this up?

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:11 AM (k1rwm)

227 >>>FoxNews just named one of the women: 42-year-old C. O'Donnell from Wilmington, DE.

I genuinely laughed.  Well-played.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:11 AM (hIWe1)

228 Fourth: The Association made a conscious effort to resolve the situation without involving the target of the inquiry.

Yes, but he would have to know that there was a non-disclosure clause in his role as CEO, if nothing else. 

So I think there is a chance that two women complained, went through channels, were encouraged to leave the company, and given severance packages... but that those severance packages were not formally part of a settlement per se.  However, they could still have been required to sign letters when they left the company indicating that they would not discuss the terms of their separation.  That would be the scenario under which Cain would be least likely to be aware of a 'settlement.'

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 07:11 AM (5H6zj)

229 His wife represents calm and tranquility?!!!
Really?

He must not have been married over a week then

Posted by: Navycopjoe at October 31, 2011 12:07 PM (A1uUz)

Thread Winner. If you had Nacycopjoe at 12:07 PM, go to the pay window and collect your money,

Posted by: AOSHQ Para Mutual Manager at October 31, 2011 07:11 AM (OWjjx)

230

Posted by: IreneKurtzIrene at October 31, 2011 12:08 PM (JNqU9)

LMAO

she's a Romney supporter so who knows...

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:11 AM (3XDPM)

231 "as I've stated before, she's sold her soul to Mittens"

I said the same thing the night of the great Vaccine Hit Job. Straw and Polynikes called me crazy.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:12 AM (40Wzt)

232

188 " some stupid inconsequential commerical"

He basically endorsed man made global warming with Nancy Pelosi, who was at that time third in line for the Presidency.

He called for investigation and conscientious as I recall.  Global warming is not as black or white issue as a lot of people consider it to be.  It is possible to acknowledge that man has made some (perhaps infinitesimal) contribution to climate change without being an Al Gore hysteric.

Newt's commercial was no big deal as far as I'm concerned.  He has had to sporadically do certain things to try to counteract the image of him as a mean right wing radical that Dems and the media have virtually set in stone.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 07:12 AM (b68Df)

233 Some individuals upthread speculating on who this helps and the fingers start pointing at other repubs.  Grow up, people!  The SH meme is leftist splooge.  It's coming from them and them only.  Some of you need to wise up.

Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 31, 2011 07:12 AM (coN0Z)

234

Fine, if it's Romney or Perry or the Wildeyed Scrunt or the Sanctimonious Senator who got this story traction, then I've had it with the GOP. Let the SCOAMF and his vile beast of a wife accomplish his Marxist dream.

 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at October 31, 2011 07:12 AM (1cUr7)

235 >>>as I've stated before, she's sold her soul to Mittens

I don't think Romney would accept it even if she gave it to him for free.  Seriously, could those two have LESS in common, both as candidates and as personalities?

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:12 AM (hIWe1)

236 If there was a curly hair on her slice with pepperoni then we know Herman's story is bologna!

Posted by: Jackie Chiles at October 31, 2011 07:13 AM (5eVSI)

237 And not to mention that most Legal Codes of Ethics require a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed about legal matters entrusted to the attorney.

HC wasn't the "client" he was CEO of the client, and this legal action probably got rolled up with dozens of others that the legal department took care of during the same period and was likely just a line item that likely wasn't wasn't even big enough to notice.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 07:13 AM (0q2P7)

238

Wonder if that mighty Republican majority in the House ever going to get around to narrowing the legal definition of sexual harassment to something clear, definitive and serious that we can all agree on, or if it's just going to sit there and let that whole nebulous "hostile work environment" standard continue forever.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 31, 2011 07:13 AM (oBrVT)

239 And not to mention that most Legal Codes of Ethics require a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed about legal matters entrusted to the attorney.

  
I don't care who you are, but that there is some funny shit. Legal code of ethics. Damn.

Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 07:13 AM (mka2b)

240 I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more.

I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here.

Posted by: Ace at 11:23 AM     Sounds about as concrete as Bullshitico's info.              

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at October 31, 2011 07:13 AM (fYOZx)

241  Straw and Polynikes called me crazy.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 12:12 PM (40Wzt)

dont worry the Romneybots call even the undecideds who have defended their mancrush sometimes crazy so you're not the only one

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:13 AM (3XDPM)

242 234Some individuals upthread speculating on who this helps and the fingers start pointing at other repubs. Grow up, people! The SH meme is leftist splooge. It's coming from them and them only. Some of you need to wise up.

This.

Posted by: jwb7605 at October 31, 2011 07:14 AM (Qxe/p)

243 gave her a "look" that made her uncomfortable.  The whole SH schtick has made work a nest of fragile eggshells.--Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 31, 2011 12:05 PM (coN0Z)

THAT is the most likely scenario against Cain. The charges were not that he touched ladies or made inappropriate requests of them. They simply decided they were offended because they felt uncomfortable. 

Not even funny, that bloggers who are sexually offensive cast the first/second...stone without producing their own sources. 

Democrats and Obama in particular smear Republicans with charges of immorality. And kneejerk media responses are in order, Republicans apologetically kicking Cain in the ass in order to themselves appear above board. Pathetic pawns are not credible, no matter how self important they think themselves.

Posted by: Dollar Value at October 31, 2011 07:14 AM (lpWVn)

244

Its amazing (we not really) how a republicans alledged dalliances and shady aquaintences from decades ago matters so much to the mainstream media.

I find it magically deliscious.

 

Posted by: Bill Ayers at October 31, 2011 07:14 AM (8ieXv)

245

I just heard the news about Herman Cain.

I think I'm going to need another 'treatment session' with Isaac...

or maybe just a quick trip down to the OccupyWallstreet rally?

Posted by: Mac McClelland at October 31, 2011 07:14 AM (5eVSI)

246 I don't care who you are, but that there is some funny shit. Legal code of ethics. Damn. Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 12:13 PM (mka2b) It's on that real small shelf with the 1) List of Italian War Heroes 2) Book of Jewish Business Ethics

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 07:14 AM (i6RpT)

247 "Newt's commercial was no big deal as far as I'm concerned."

Lots of people think MMGW is bullshit. It matters to them. Many of them vote GOP.

Ask Newt if he thinks that commercial helped or hurt him.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:14 AM (40Wzt)

248 Yes I think this, if true, helps Perry more than anyone else.

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at October 31, 2011 07:15 AM (9eDbm)

249

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 12:12 PM (hIWe1)

I dont think he sees her as a VP choice but he's def. using her to help spliut the anti-Romney vote, the fact she's falling for it shows me more evidence that she is in fact a flake

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:15 AM (3XDPM)

250

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 12:12 PM (hIWe1)

I dont think he sees her as a VP choice but he's def. using her to help split the anti-Romney vote, the fact she's falling for it shows me more evidence that she is in fact a flake

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:15 AM (3XDPM)

251

"Physical gestures that were not overtly sexual still made the women who experienced them uncomfortable and regarded as improper in a professional situation."

Licked lips?

Rush reading this now.

Like hit job Wash Po doing on Rubio.

 

 

Posted by: dagny at October 31, 2011 07:15 AM (7enUC)

252 I had a lot of fun the other day during a car ride with a bunch of libs.  I kept Mark Levin on the radio and he was talking about Ron Paul running as a third party candidate and he was really really serious.  And everyone in my car was so seriously uncomfortable.  It was great fun.

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:15 AM (k1rwm)

253

damn it, a double post!

hey! ace and me have something in common now

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:16 AM (3XDPM)

254 Curious warning

Posted by: dagny at October 31, 2011 07:16 AM (7enUC)

255 the RINO Vice President, with his double posting, is now ready for cobbloger status.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 31, 2011 07:16 AM (OWjjx)

256 >>I said the same thing the night of the great Vaccine Hit Job. Straw and Polynikes called me crazy. That's because what you said was crazy. At the time of the vaccine nuttiness, Bachmann was at the top of the polls in Iowa and owning the Tea Party vote. That hit on Perry totally ended her campaign. She's just running a zombie candidacy now. The idea that she would throw away her entire campaign in a nationally televised event which made people think she is a few sandwiches short of a picnic and this would some how make her an invaluable part of a Romney administration is bug fuck nuts. Not everything bad that happens to your candidate is Romney's fault. Romney had no part in Perry's speech in NH last Friday. Perry did that to himself with no help from anyone.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:17 AM (TMB3S)

257 .....they were uncomfortable because they were in your car.......

Posted by: phonixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 07:18 AM (SH3gZ)

258 >>>dont worry the Romneybots call even the undecideds who have defended their mancrush sometimes crazy so you're not the only one

We're like the Borg -- we will not stop until you have all been successfully assimilated.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:18 AM (hIWe1)

259 Grow up, people!  The SH meme is leftist splooge.  It's coming from them and them only.  Some of you need to wise up.

Me grow up? F* amateur! If they had something on Cain they would want him to get nominated so they could use it then. A sexual harassment charge as an October surprise? Obama is too good at campaigning to be wasting bullets trying to wipe out Republican candidates prior to the primary and allowing Republicans to coalesce and unify early. Wise up.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 07:18 AM (0q2P7)

260 ....are you a taxi driver now?

Posted by: phonixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 07:18 AM (SH3gZ)

261

I’m fairly sure that Steve Schmidt and Nichole Wallace didn’t leak this.

 

However, those that did come from the same strain of worthless pieces of shit that they are.

Posted by: jwest at October 31, 2011 07:19 AM (qeYI9)

262 Nah they were uncomfortable cause of what Levin was saying.  Sheesh I was gone a long time and you still haven't taken my advice and taken the reading comprehension course at the community college.

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:19 AM (k1rwm)

263 >>>Not everything bad that happens to your candidate is Romney's fault. Romney had no part in Perry's speech in NH last Friday. Perry did that to himself with no help from anyone.

Did I miss this speech?  What was newsworthy about it?  Link?  Analysis?

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:19 AM (hIWe1)

264 My concern is Cain's lack of a coherent and unified response when this broke. Proper vetting within a campaign is crucial so that a reasonable defense response is ready to go if the need arises. Some campaigns leak these things themselves so they can respond on their own terms.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 31, 2011 07:20 AM (IqM9e)

265

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at October 31, 2011 12:16 PM (OWjjx)

i'd be kicked out after a day if I was a co-blogger when folks saw how i'd piss everyone off, i'd also have to be more careful w/ my grammar, spelling, and editing on here more like I am when i'm writing a manuscript.

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:20 AM (3XDPM)

266 >>>Nah they were uncomfortable cause of what Levin was saying.  Sheesh I was gone a long time

Why did you return?  Things were going so well.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:20 AM (hIWe1)

267 smelly cat in the cab with you?

Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 07:20 AM (SH3gZ)

268 "That hit on Perry totally ended her campaign."

And Romney benefitted. Cain takes the lead nationally and this story breaks about Cain.

Romney wins in both instances. Strange how things just magically happen for Mittens, isn't it?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:20 AM (40Wzt)

269 This smells of dirty, wet Mittens. 

It has to be him,  What a sleazy scumbag.

Posted by: mpfs at October 31, 2011 07:22 AM (iYbLN)

270 242. Hell, they even give me shit for defending Da Cubbies, Da Bears, and Teh Sarah!!! Oh wait.... FML

Posted by: Navycopjoe at October 31, 2011 07:22 AM (A1uUz)

271 she returned to take a shower and pick up some not so dirty clothing.....occupying wall street doncha know......

Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 07:22 AM (SH3gZ)

272

Man the MFM are on fire today, they must of had a big orginizational meeting this weekend.

Another hit job on "conservative corporate interests"

 

http://tinyurl.com/3rtreha


 

Posted by: dananjcon at October 31, 2011 07:23 AM (8ieXv)

273 Did I miss this speech? What was newsworthy about it? Link? Analysis?

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 12:19 PM (hIWe1)

it was pretty bad, Perry is right. He's a doer not a talker. It works in statewide races but national races not so much.

 

Posted by: phonixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 12:18 PM (SH3gZ)

+1 lol

 

Posted by: dagny at October 31, 2011 12:16 PM (7enUC)

we see the blackmailing, porn-linking princess who demands apologies is here

 

PS - and another reason I should be co-blogger - I'd give heart attacks to some of my biggest enemies on here

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:23 AM (3XDPM)

274 >>Did I miss this speech? What was newsworthy about it? Link? Analysis? No analysis needed. Perry speaks for himself. http://tinyurl.com/6z67v3o

Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:23 AM (TMB3S)

275 >>>Did I miss this speech?  What was newsworthy about it?  Link?  Analysis?

My lord, I just Googled it.

My god. 

No wonder there was a news blackout about it on Ace of Spades HQ.  It's...unbelievable.  Perry is behaving...dear lord, the only word I can think of to describe it is "fruity."  "Loopy" would work too.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:23 AM (hIWe1)

276 I didn't even have to drag a $100 dollar bill through a trailer park for this. I love it!

Posted by: J. Carville at October 31, 2011 07:23 AM (jucos)

277 Hmmm that sloppy poorly run campaign has Herman on the front page, yet again.  link

It doesn't matter whether it's negative or positive.....

It matters that everyone is talking about herman cain today. 

wonder what it is that the MSM doesn't want to talk about?

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:24 AM (k1rwm)

278

264 >>>Not everything bad that happens to your candidate is Romney's fault. Romney had no part in Perry's speech in NH last Friday. Perry did that to himself with no help from anyone.

Did I miss this speech? What was newsworthy about it? Link? Analysis?

----------

It's posted on Fox Nation, JeffB.

Perry was verry animated and goofy at a few moments during a speech at a fundraiser. ....Looked to me like he'd taken too many pain killers for his back or something.

I've been surprised that more hasn't been made of it.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 07:24 AM (XkwIi)

279 "With Governor Perry’s appearance, we have interviewed all the major Republican candidates in our 2012 101 series — except Mitt Romney. He has not appeared on this program or any Sunday talk show since March of 2010. We invited Gov. Romney again this week, but his campaign says he’s still not ready to sit down for an interview."

Chris Wallace on Fox News asks this question yesterday.

Why isn't the frontrunner from hell Mitt Romney on the Sunday talk shows Straw and Reggie? You both asked me that about Perry. Perry was there Sunday, where was Romney? Talking to Politico maybe?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:24 AM (40Wzt)

280 Why did you return? Things were going so well.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 12:20 PM (hIWe1)

+1, let's just ignore her. it's more fun having a flame war then dealing w/ "it"

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:25 AM (3XDPM)

281 261. Hey!!! Stop that now!! I am so down-twinkling the hell out of you right now

Posted by: Navycopjoe at October 31, 2011 07:25 AM (A1uUz)

282 The way we're hashing this over and over, I'm wondering what's going to happen when people find out that Perry or Cain don't really give a shit if the tires on their cars are properly inflated.  That's where we're going with this trivial bullshit.

Posted by: Soona - stocking up on ammo at October 31, 2011 07:26 AM (coN0Z)

283 He didn't say that he didn't know how big they were, or what the terms were. He said he was unaware that any had been made. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 12:10 PM (8y9MW) **** Correct.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:26 AM (rJVPU)

284 I agree wtih Ace, I cannot recall one overtly conservative statement made by Cain. Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 11:39 AM (NCw5u) Did I stutter?!!11!

Posted by: Sesual Choklit at October 31, 2011 07:27 AM (idLY2)

285

Why isn't the frontrunner from hell Mitt Romney on the Sunday talk shows Straw and Reggie? You both asked me that about Perry. Perry was there Sunday, where was Romney? Talking to Politico maybe?

I have no idea.  Romney should be on Meet The Press and other Sunday shows.  I suppose because he's close to Cain for frontrunner status, he  might be playing it safe for now.  That's not a satisfactory answer for me however, as I expect him to submit to that kind of scrutiny.  I think you'll see him on those programs fairly soon.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 07:28 AM (b68Df)

286 I read on a blog somewhere  that someone said that they heard someone's girlfriend say they might have possibly heard a lot of allegations  sorta like this a couple of weeks ago and that Cain had run out of pubic hairs by placing them all on Coke cans from the September 20th production run at their Ohio canning plant.

I didn't want to report this at the time  because Sarah Palin is stupid.

Posted by: Ace's journalism class valedictorian at October 31, 2011 07:29 AM (NXBtA)

287 Perry's speech (link to Hot Air Greenroom) is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.  But it is nice to see our Romney supporters parroting the folks at MSNBC. 

Excerpt (partial transcript at the link): 

I love a good snarky rejoinder in political commentary as much as, if not more so, than most people. I engage in it all the time myself. But even I was set back on my heels this morning while watching Morning Joe on MSNBC. They started off by playing a rather choppily edited clip of presidential candidate Rick Perry speaking in New Hampshire. I’ll be the first to admit, it was a different look at Perry than we normally see. He was cracking jokes, doing imitations of the other candidates and having a bunch of laughs. (As was the audience.) But that’s when things took a turn for the bizarre.

Joe, Willie Geist and Mika were joined by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin, as well as a remote appearance by Robert Costa of National Review. Seemingly out of nowhere, Halperin brought up the issue that Perry “suffers from back pain” which immediately resulted in the crew breaking out in a series of jokes about people who dabble in pain medication mixed with alcohol. It’s frequently a running joke on the show that Mika has had some experience with taking vodka and painkillers, so they asked her to list some of her favorites. They continued to imply – without directly stating it – that this was what was going on with Rick Perry.

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 07:30 AM (5H6zj)

288 #287 is today's thread winner.
I have unimportant things to do, so I'm leaving on that high note.

Posted by: jwb7605 at October 31, 2011 07:30 AM (Qxe/p)

289 253 I had a lot of fun the other day during a car ride with a bunch of libs.  I kept Mark Levin on the radio and he was talking about Ron Paul running as a third party candidate and he was really really serious.  And everyone in my car was so seriously uncomfortable.  It was great fun.

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 12:15 PM (k1rwm)

Sweetheart...anyone ever tell you that you sound/write like a spammer? 

epub books, is that you??

Posted by: dananjcon at October 31, 2011 07:30 AM (8ieXv)

290

. Hey!!! Stop that now!!
I am so down-twinkling the hell out of you right now

 

Don't make him get off his beaded seat-cover!

Posted by: garrett at October 31, 2011 07:31 AM (5eVSI)

291 I don't see anything implausible about Cain's explanation. And I'd never suggest that a settlement is in any way an admission of guilt on anyone's part. But, to be honest, I don't much care. Even setting aside the possibility that the women in question simply lied for money, the bar for a sexual harassment claim is very low. If we're going to seriously disqualify anyone from public office who has ever had anyone even accuse them of something untoward, then we're a bunch of stupid saps. We're essentially allowing the media to exclude candidates by using threats of blackmail.

Posted by: Galos Gann at October 31, 2011 07:31 AM (T3KlW)

292 >>>Why isn't the frontrunner from hell Mitt Romney on the Sunday talk shows Straw and Reggie? You both asked me that about Perry. Perry was there Sunday, where was Romney? Talking to Politico maybe?

It's not very hard to figure out the reason why: he's the frontrunner.  He has absolutely no reason to go and do earned media; he doesn't need to 'get his name out there' in the way he did back in 2007/2008, and at this point he only has something to lose from being grilled by Chris Wallace. He would be stupid to go on one of those shows -- it would be campaign malpractice. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:31 AM (hIWe1)

293 Please stop talking to the goddamn TROLL.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 07:31 AM (pLTLS)

294 >>I have no idea. Romney should be on Meet The Press and other Sunday shows. I suppose because he's close to Cain for frontrunner status, he might be playing it safe for now. That's not a satisfactory answer for me however, as I expect him to submit to that kind of scrutiny. I think you'll see him on those programs fairly soon. It may not be satisfactory to you but that's exactly why he is waiting. He's the front runner and he can wait until he wants to go which is not surprisingly last. He gets to answer all the hits from others (read Perry) and leave the last impression. This has only been going on for as long as TV has been involved with politics. Leader gets to go last. Interesting that people who do nothing but slam FOX and other msm outlets are now upset that Romney is making them wait. That used to be a good thing for people like Sarah Palin.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:32 AM (TMB3S)

295 all he did was ask her if she wanted some pepperoni with her pizza

Posted by: Cricket at October 31, 2011 07:32 AM (DrC22)

296

There was no lawsuit, it was an internal claim. So, anyone talking about Cain being served with process or having to be notified of the settlement are incorrect.

A person accused of sexual harrasment or any other violation of law or policy is asked for information by the appropriate person at the corporation..  There is no further role. 

Think about it. If the accused controls the response, he will look out for his interest, not the company's interest.

Once a claim is made against a CEO, either the next most senior official or the General Counsel or the Board of Directors takes over the corporate response, depending on what the charge is.  Cain would be asked for information, that is all. 

I do not know the exact procedure at the NRA.  The lower official(s) may have certain authority to settle or they may need Board approval.

The CEO is not going to have approval of the settlement.  He might be advised of  a settlement, he might not, it depends on the company.

 

Posted by: Bob from Ohio at October 31, 2011 07:33 AM (ROFkf)

297 285 I agree wtih Ace, I cannot recall one overtly conservative statement made by Cain.
Posted by: Jollyroger at October 31, 2011 11:39 AM (NCw5u)

Did I stutter?!!11!

Posted by: Sesual Choklit at October 31, 2011 12:27 PM (idLY2)

Meh, I pretty sure we dispenced of that notion last week.

Posted by: dananjcon at October 31, 2011 07:33 AM (8ieXv)

298 >>> Perry's Speech (link to Hot Air Greenroom) is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.  But it is nice to see our Romney supporters parroting the folks at MSNBC.

Dude, I literally didn't know about it until 10 minutes ago, and I watched the thing cold, without any prompting.  It's goofy as shit, and people clowning on it is a natural response.  Don't be so defensive.  If Romney gave a speech as silly-sounding as this I would totally be joining in on the fun. 

C'mon, Y-not: at 2:15 even you have to admit that shit is hilariously weird.  Actually, in a weird way it makes me like Perry more.  If indeed he was hopped up on too many back pain meds, then maybe that's the version of Perry I'd want to hang out with.  I like loopy.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:35 AM (hIWe1)

299 jeffb you just want his sedatives........sorry......i can't help myself

Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 07:36 AM (SH3gZ)

300 ooo they are twittering that Kim filed for divorce from Chris, it's been just 72 days.  I mean did they even get the show out about the wedding?

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 07:36 AM (k1rwm)

301 omg!

Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 07:36 AM (SH3gZ)

302 In all honesty I could not give less of shit who sexually harasses each other at the workplace.  Most of what suits are brought for are completely trivial matters and the prudes have already made the workplace drearier than it needs to be.  Unless he proposed a quid pro quo (which is NEVER the case it seems) or took his dick out and waved it at everyone then there just isn't anything that interests me in this ca....  oh dear, what an unfortunate bit of phrasing that was.

On the other hand Cain strikes me as the kind of guy with a few wild hairs in his past.  Palin was the safer choice for the Tea Partiers.  The press hounded her for a couple of years and never found anything.  They will have a field day with fresh meat.




Posted by: Voluble at October 31, 2011 07:37 AM (JKX4x)

303 So Straw it's ok for Romney but not for Perry "to make the media wait".

That hypocrisy thing ringing any bells with you?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:37 AM (40Wzt)

304  I like loopy.

Loopy isn't going to get him through a campaign cycle.

I think I underestimated the severity of his back surgery issue.

I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the pain killer stuff. We don't know he's on them - but we can assume he is. That gives me pause.

He's in a bad place with this. He can admit that he's on them and try to brush it aside as it being only a temporary issue. This would explain a lot of thing in terms of how he's run so far. But OTOH, he's just admitting that he's on drugs that can be mind altering. That ain't good.

I feel for him on this point.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 07:38 AM (pLTLS)

305 "I say this is a big question because I heard about this stuff a month ago, and I didn't hear about two incidences. I heard about many more.

I did not have detailed information, certainly nothing publishable. But I heard there was a long and numerous history here."

 

Ace, you're being as awful and horrible as the MSM on this, instead of finding the truth all you are doing is repeating the accusation.

it's moments like this that i wonder who is on which side.

 

Posted by: shoey at October 31, 2011 07:39 AM (jdOk/)

306 >>>So Straw it's ok for Romney but not for Perry "to make the media wait".

>>>That hypocrisy thing ringing any bells with you?

It's what frontrunners have been doing since the beginning of time (or TV talk shows, at least.)  The point is that Perry has something to prove: he's an unknown quantity, and people are questioning his ability to handle the glare of the national spotlight.  Romney, for better or worse (I mean, obviously 'worse' to you, since you don't like him at all), doesn't have that threshold issue to deal with anymore: he's been through this rodeo once before and is the frontrunner who, if nothing else, has reassured primary voters that he's one smooth mofo when it comes to debating and talking about his record.

That's the difference.  "Hypocrisy" has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:40 AM (hIWe1)

307 >>So Straw it's ok for Romney but not for Perry "to make the media wait". >>That hypocrisy thing ringing any bells with you? I don't know who you're accusing of being hypocritical but I have never commented on Perry doing media or not doing media. Not my concern. You asked why Romney hasn't done any Sunday shows. I answered.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:40 AM (TMB3S)

308 MSNBC is sucking some Obama rod:

President Barack Obama will sign an executive order Monday aimed at easing shortages of prescription drugs, according to a White House official.

I guess for the last 3 years he didn't care about shortages.

Posted by: kansas at October 31, 2011 07:41 AM (mka2b)

309

“It's not very hard to figure out the reason why: he's the frontrunner.  He has absolutely no reason to go and do earned media; he doesn't need to 'get his name out there' in the way he did back in 2007/2008, and at this point he only has something to lose from being grilled by Chris Wallace. He would be stupid to go on one of those shows -- it would be campaign malpractice. “

 

 

Jeff B., didn’t you explain to us previously that politicians who didn't appear on the talk show circuit were too stupid to field questions from people other than their friends?

Posted by: jwest at October 31, 2011 07:41 AM (qeYI9)

310 you just want his sedatives........sorry......i can't help myself

Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 12:36 PM (SH3gZ)

LMAO, oh man Jeff she got you good!

 

 

ooo they are twittering that Kim filed for divorce from Chris, it's been just 72 days. I mean did they even get the show out about the wedding?

Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 12:36 PM (k1rwm)

curious ladies and gentlemen!, everybody applaud the woman who will save us as she is emailed by her so called supporters to keep the fight on, yes folks this is our savior in 2012 w/ her infinte inteligence/sarc

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (3XDPM)

311 There was no lawsuit, it was an internal claim. So, anyone talking about Cain being served with process or having to be notified of the settlement are incorrect. You don't believe Cain had the right to be represented? And at the end of the process-Herman Cain would not be notified that the issue is dead, gone-settled?

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:42 AM (rJVPU)

312 Leave my buddy Ace alone! He was there in the room at the announcement of my candidacy...I just hope he is there to support me after I go back to my day job as Tx gov forcing Americans to be compassionate to invaders with their tax dollars. SOMEBODY in this world has to do the "right thing".

Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 07:43 AM (gvW6C)

313 He might not know the terms of the settlement-but wouldn't Herman Cain have a right to know the issue is resolved?

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:43 AM (rJVPU)

314 130

A settlement means nothing, but the press will make it seem like an admission of guilt. For many years, I had to approve settlements of this kind of claim (no, not against myself). When you are faced with complaints where the plaintiff is either financed by the government or by some contingency fee lawyer, you very quickly decide that paying 5K or 10K to get rid of the silliness is a whole lot better than spending 50K or 100K to defend. It is a form of extortion.

Posted by: JeffM at October 31, 2011 11:53 AM (zD0RO)

Dude, the entire legal profession is a form of extortion.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 31, 2011 07:44 AM (T0NGe)

315

I feel for him on this point.

me too, he was so good on paper. I have no regrets for supporting him when I did at all, but I dont see him being the nom. I also dont enjoy watching this whole dancing on his grave by Romneybots even though they're guy is facing stiff competition from a Pizza CEO.

Jeff B., didn’t you explain to us previously that politicians who didn't appear on the talk show circuit were too stupid to field questions from people other than their friends?

im sure Jeff was refering to Palin not talking to the MSM and just running to conservatives and FOX News.

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of k1rwm at October 31, 2011 07:45 AM (3XDPM)

316 Dude, the entire legal profession is a form of extortion.

What took you so long?


Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 07:45 AM (pLTLS)

317 I am not an attorney, so I can only speak from personal experience. When my father was sued for sexual harassment, he was also part of this same association. In my fathers case, he used words that were offensive, but he meant no harm. It was just his natural way to call women sweetie, etc. When he found out about the lawsuit, he had to try to remember, not only what he said, but also who the women were. It was a nonevent to him. He turned it over to the legal department, and that was the end of it. we knew they had settled, but we did not know any details. IIRC, the association even had insurance for such things.

Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 31, 2011 07:46 AM (6IV8T)

318 >>>Jeff B., didn’t you explain to us previously that politicians who didn't appear on the talk show circuit were too stupid to field questions from people other than their friends?

See my 12:40 post for an answer to this.  Palin, like Perry, has "something to prove" to voters.  (Not to you, I'm sure, but you and all those who think like you aren't sufficient to deliver either a primary victory or obviously a general election one either.)  Whatever else you may think about Romney, he's passed the "fluent on the issues, good debater, articulate" test with flying colors, which is main reason he's the frontrunner: he's the only plausible candidate who can do this, whereas Cain and Perry have raised massive doubts on that score.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:48 AM (hIWe1)

319 149 Unless of course, Perry is the one the Dems want Obama to be running against. 

Posted by: you know at October 31, 2011 07:49 AM (yN6cl)

320 >>me too, he was so good on paper. I have no regrets for supporting him when I did at all, but I dont see him being the nom. I also dont enjoy watching this whole dancing on his grave by Romneybots even though they're guy is facing stiff competition from a Pizza CEO. Who's dancing on his grave? All I've seen "Romneybots" do is defend their candidate from being smeared with the accusation that Romney's team leaked this information. The people "dancing on his grave", also know as negatively critiquing how this will hurt his campaign, are mostly Perry supporters. But hey, never let the facts get in the way of another shot at Romney and his supporters.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:49 AM (TMB3S)

321 This is Rove. Guaranteed. As for who this helps, it's Newt. Newt's drag is the woman issue. This frees him.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at October 31, 2011 07:50 AM (deaac)

322 >>>me too, he was so good on paper. I have no regrets for supporting him when I did at all, but I dont see him being the nom. I also dont enjoy watching this whole dancing on his grave by Romneybots even though they're guy is facing stiff competition from a Pizza CEO.

I don't like "grave-dancing" (or 'end-zone celebrations' as I prefer to call them) either.  That's not what I'm doing here.  I really don't have any animus towards Perry at all -- certainly nothing like the way I feel towards Michele Bachmann, who I genuinely hate -- and I feel for him if his back pain is really playing a major role in his campaign right now.  That might be one of the really interesting post-mortem stories we'll learn about when all is said and done: looking back, it really would seem to explain a lot of his missteps.

I also don't think he's dead yet.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:51 AM (hIWe1)

323

“im sure Jeff was refering to Palin not talking to the MSM and just running to conservatives and FOX News.”

 

Oh, if it was only Palin then it wasn’t important.

Posted by: jwest at October 31, 2011 07:51 AM (qeYI9)

324 Actually it is the Romneybots floating the "Perry People did This".

Thought Romney was the front runner. And by fluent on the issues do ya'll mean he can take multiple positions on the same issues depending on the polling results?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 07:53 AM (8O4/a)

325 IIRC, the association even had insurance for such things. Right. And it usually has a deductible-so if you can settle under that amount it usually happens. Say the deductible is $50,000 going to court will soon run more than that amount.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:53 AM (rJVPU)

326 So desperate to be sucking on the cock of Rick "the Hispanderer" Perry that you are willing to publish unfounded, unsourced, "rumors".

Fucking pathetic.  The horse you backed was lame before he entered the starting gate.  Shooting from the grandstands at the other horses won't change the fact that you backed a loser.

Posted by: Oggc at October 31, 2011 07:53 AM (yMeZt)

327 It's "usually"- EPLI. Employment Practice Liability Insurance.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 07:54 AM (rJVPU)

328 There are only 2 sources of this information --

a) Obama / DNC / MSM
     Conclusion -- Cain is the candidate that they fear
     Action that should be taken -- Romney needs to drop out since he is the one that Obama / DNC / MSM wants to run against

OR

b) Oba-romney created & 'leaked' the story
     Conclusion -- Cain is the candidate that they fear
     Action that should be taken -- Romney needs to drop out since he is scum.


Its time for Romney to stop dividing the party

Posted by: Mark E at October 31, 2011 07:57 AM (w5RwR)

329 >>Actually it is the Romneybots floating the "Perry People did This". Sorry, Dick. Anyone who takes the time to read these threads will see that it was Perry supporters and, well, you, who started the Romney did it stuff. It was pointed out to you in response that if anyone did it was probably Perry as he would gain from Cain being hurt whereas Romney loved having Cain suck all the oxygen from the other True Conservatives in the race. The truth is this was more than likely done by Dem operatives who are spending huge amounts of money to dig up dirt on all the Republican candidates. Cain has been trashed all over the left as a "Tom" and a sellout and there have been numerous claims that the right and Tea Partiers in particular love having Cain around to prove they aren't a bunch of racists. They hate Cain. I, on the other hand, like him.

Posted by: JackStraw at October 31, 2011 07:59 AM (TMB3S)

330 >>>Actually it is the Romneybots floating the "Perry People did This".

No, it is the so-called "Romneybots" who are refuting the people muttering dark accusations at Romney by pointing out that, logically speaking, he has the least to gain and the most to lose of any candidate from Cain collapsing in the polls.  And that therefore it makes absolutely no sense to accuse him of being behind this 'hit' unless you just think he's so goshdarned evil that he even does self-destructive things that hurt his campaign for the sheer pleasure of being evil, because hey "scorpion and the frog," people. 

The corollary to this argument is that, if you must insist that this story was pushed out there by an opposing GOP campaign, it makes far more sense to look at the ones which actually have a real motive: on that analysis Perry's team is a far more likely candidate as the source.  But of course that's rank speculation, and ignores the fact that this story quite possibly (probably, even) didn't come from ANYONE in the GOP.  It might have been angry SEIU lawyers.  Or the MSM digging on their own.   Or who knows.

That is all.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 07:59 AM (hIWe1)

331 Let's talk about state judges in Massachusetts-damn it! Another thread, another time.... you guys better be ready to BRING-IT!

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:03 AM (rJVPU)

332

323....I also don't think he's dead yet.

Yeah. This is not fatal. .....It's embarassing, but not fatal.

If anything, it shows how Perry is when he is slightly impaired. ....He gets loopy and goofy and cute.....not one of those mean-drunk sorts.

He didn't waiver from any of his stances on the issues either. He just articulated them in a more animated, goofy way.

It was apparently about a one-hour speech. .....Huffpo, or someone, picked out the goofy parts and ran them all together in an 8-minute video.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 08:04 AM (XkwIi)

333 Incidentally, while we're all talking about some BS sexual harrassment charge, Cain's campaign just got hit something FAR BIGGER: major (and serious) evidence of campaign finance improprieties dug up by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.  Go read about it on Hot Air: it's no joke, this is IRS criminal investigation territory.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:06 AM (hIWe1)

334 There's the KOS kids and then there's the AOS kids. Both like to deal in ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 31, 2011 08:06 AM (IqM9e)

335

me too, he was so good on paper. I have no regrets for supporting him when I did at all, but I dont see him being the nom. I also dont enjoy watching this whole dancing on his grave by Romneybots even though they're guy is facing stiff competition from a Pizza CEO.

 

Take a brief look at Redstate.com for example and see how Romney supporters are treated.  I think avowed communists would receive a warmer reception over there.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 08:08 AM (b68Df)

336 I think it's 98% likely that this story was pushed/generated by a non-GOP contender. The Politico has sources all over the place, the SEIU connection is there, the tendency of the MSM to search out exactly this type of thing in any Republican's past is well known, it sure smells like a MSM/Politico joint to me. Whether there was one key "leaker" or "source" who gave them the gory details we don't know yet. Presumably if there is such a person they have some political affiliation. It would be nice to know, but so far this is a "sourceless" story so I guess we'll have to wait.

Posted by: Lincolntf at October 31, 2011 08:09 AM (Qjh0I)

337 >>>Take a brief look at Redstate.com for example and see how Romney supporters are treated.  I think avowed communists would receive a warmer reception over there.

They get treated that way here, too.  The only difference is that here they're allowed to fight back without being hit by a banhammer.  Also, the general level of intelligence here has got to be at least two standard deviations higher than at Red State: most people here are capable of at least processing an argument from the opposing side.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:10 AM (hIWe1)

338 Um, remember how CBS ran stories on Bush's NG service before fully vetting them, because they were afraid they would lose them to the NYT? 

Posted by: pep at October 31, 2011 11:50 AM (aDFMZ) 

I'm sure Politico was worried about being scooped by National Review.  If the press really wanted to keep their powder dry on this, they would have.

We know that Politico ran the story.  That Republicans were involved is pure speculation on your part, and ultimately secondary to the fact that a left-wing media outlet ran with the story.

It isn't like politico doesn't kneecap conservative candidates during primaries.  Remember the 'Fire in the Belly' story?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at October 31, 2011 08:10 AM (FkKjr)

339 Shit-he should have been dead when his campaign manager made himself the star of a infamous ad-and his star is as tarnished as a_____. Or he should have been dead when he said he would trade all the hostages (sic) of Guantanamo for one US service member being held hostage. Or he should have been dead when he said "Where's Afghanistan!?" /sarc Face it-it's Halloween and Herman Cain is a vampire. It's going to take a load of garlic and some silver.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:10 AM (rJVPU)

340 Eh, I've looked at the campaign finance allegations against Cain's team and I need to walk back a bit: they're real problems, but it's not for major money.  I don't know how 'serious' it really is in the end.  Still, amateur hour over there.

Posted by: Jeff B. at October 31, 2011 08:11 AM (hIWe1)

341 the SEIU connection is there, the tendency of the MSM to search out exactly this type of thing in any Republican's past is well known, it sure smells like a MSM/Politico joint to me... Yep. Add sex to a story and it has er, "legs."

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:12 AM (rJVPU)

342 HEY! Goalpost, get back here! Hey, over here.... THIS WAY!!!! So now you people judge the quality of the denial, not the substance of the anonymous charges? Clinton's lies of denial were of a high caliber delivery were they not? You like your professional politicians don't you boys; stick with the devil you know. Y'all think you can pass your own standards of judgment, being you criticize someone much more successful than yourself without any concept of self-awareness? Because it's out of your sight, your mind can't comprehend how talented Cain/Perry/Romney are compared to you, me, and 99% of people out there bitching about the field (Hi Michelle M., thanks for your helpful critiques!).

Posted by: twoslaps at October 31, 2011 08:13 AM (yBkGb)

343

Lifted from Instapundit:

"Meanwhile, a question: Would Jonathan Martin, Maggie Haberman, Anna Palmer and Kenneth Vogel have put their names on a similar piece, with no named sources, aimed at Barack Obama? Would Politico have run it?"

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 31, 2011 08:14 AM (O7ksG)

344

"You don't believe Cain had the right to be represented? "

There wasn't a lawsuit nor an EEOC complaint. It was a claim made to the HR department. The company lawyer would take care of it on behalf of the company. 

 If  the claims were found valid, then discipline action would be taken aginst Cain. That is when he would probably get a lawyer  


"And at the end of the process-Herman Cain would not be notified that the issue is dead, gone-settled? "

Some sort of general notification, perhaps. It depends on the company .  It would likely be "We investigated the claim. The matter is now closed."

The accused is kept in the dark so no retaliation is attempted against the accuser.

Posted by: Bob from Ohio at October 31, 2011 08:15 AM (ROFkf)

345

Shit. What is this....."take out Cain week"?

I don't hate Cain....I think he's great.

I don't hate Romney either.

I just want to beat the bastard Marxist in Chief....and send all his minions scurring back to whatever hole they were in.

So my analysis of each candidate has been....'What will they be hit with in the general election?' ...Both Cain and Romney will be vilified for being 'evil rich' and 'evil corporate scum', unfortunately.

Which is why I have been supporting Perry. The things that we are hitting him with are not really anything that teamObama could hit him with.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 08:15 AM (XkwIi)

346 Meanwhile, a question: Would Jonathan Martin, Maggie Haberman, Anna Palmer and Kenneth Vogel have put their names on a similar piece, with no named sources, aimed at Barack Obama? John Edwards Would Politico have run it?"

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:16 AM (rJVPU)

347

They get treated that way here, too.  The only difference is that here they're allowed to fight back without being hit by a banhammer.  Also, the general level of intelligence here has got to be at least two standard deviations higher than at Red State: most people here are capable of at least processing an argument from the opposing side.

Jeff, I know all about the banhammer.  There is one particular wretch over there (streiff I believe he is called) who threatens to ban people who completely refrain from using personal insults, ad hominems, or profanity.  I've seen some very comprehensive and intelligent arguments for Romney published over there that showed exhaustive research and not a hint of personal animosity, yet the author still gets threatened with a ban.  The site is a farce.

AOSHQ, yeah it's not particularly fond of Romney, but you can have your say and you won't be thrown off the site.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 08:16 AM (b68Df)

348 288 Perry's speech (link to Hot Air Greenroom) is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.  But it is nice to see our Romney supporters parroting the folks at MSNBC. 

Excerpt (partial transcript at the link): [...]


I have not watched the 25min cut in one sitting but he was certainly capable of being serious. From what I have seen of him previously, it seems more likely that his goofiness was caused by tiredness, painkillers, or both, but I cannot definitively prove that.   

Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 08:16 AM (d6QMz)

349

The next reporter who asks Cain about this should get the following response:
"I am a man.  A real man.  Real men like to fuck women.  Watch out.  I might fuck you!"  And then roll out a variation of the old classic:  "Fuck you?  Next question."

It isn't like he's really going to win the presidency.  He might as well go down in flames as A Legendary Cocksman.

Posted by: Sharkman at October 31, 2011 08:17 AM (wMsKw)

350 "represents that calm and tranquility I like to see when I get home." Of course he has to leave her home. How is he going to harass women on the road if he brings her?

Posted by: cvb at October 31, 2011 08:18 AM (HRFxR)

351 317 Dude, the entire legal profession is a form of extortion.

What took you so long?


Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 12:45 PM (pLTLS)

Long thread...  Had to read until I found the best setup for a zinger.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 31, 2011 08:18 AM (T0NGe)

352

Lifted from Instapundit:

"Meanwhile, a question: Would Jonathan Martin, Maggie Haberman, Anna Palmer and Kenneth Vogel have put their names on a similar piece, with no named sources, aimed at Barack Obama? Would Politico have run it?"

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 31, 2011 01:14 PM (O7ksG)

Did anyone else have the experience that I did?  That the story was so convoluted with all of the anonymous sources that you couldn't figure out who was whom?

Posted by: AmishDude at October 31, 2011 08:19 AM (T0NGe)

353 Bob from Ohio- Thanks for the response-my labor law lawyer friend is off to work... What the hell though-to investigate the claim don't they have to ask Herman Cain for his side of the story?

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:20 AM (rJVPU)

354 so i have fox news on in the background and I look up and the crawl says david, BO's campaign manager? is accusing the republicans of deliberately tanking the economy?


Posted by: cainiac at October 31, 2011 08:22 AM (k1rwm)

355

349.....I have not watched the 25min cut in one sitting but he was certainly capable of being serious. From what I have seen of him previously, it seems more likely that his goofiness was caused by tiredness, painkillers, or both, but I cannot definitively prove that.

I'm thinking painkillers, Miss'80s.

Because backpain is a way of life for me, from an old injury. ....One pill is often not enough, and two pills is too many.  I recognize that loopiness that Perry was exhibiting.  ....I can go days, weeks, months without needing anything. But sometimes just a sudden movement in the wrong way can result in needing to take them for a while.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 08:22 AM (XkwIi)

356 Any man who is in a high profile, had powerful jobs, and is rich will have at least a few women in his past mad enough at him to make up sexual harassment claims, particularly in the 90s when it became in vogue to do so. In many cases, these are probably true, but not always, and this is one of those situations where the mere accusation is enough for a man to be destroyed.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at October 31, 2011 08:24 AM (r4wIV)

357 Cain Leads Perry in........... wait for it........... Texas!

OUCH!

Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at October 31, 2011 08:28 AM (vXqv3)

358 353 Did anyone else have the experience that I did?  That the story was so convoluted with all of the anonymous sources that you couldn't figure out who was whom?

What I find was strange is that the quotes from former colleagues (last page) indicate Cain was not a man given to such behavior, yet we have these allegations and an unsteady response by his campaign. It feels like something is missing.

Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 08:28 AM (d6QMz)

359 "on that analysis Perry's team is a far more likely candidate as the source.  But of course that's rank speculation,"

Sorry, this seems to be Mitt trying to keep Cain from running away with the nomination. Derailing him now with a debate 10 days away sets up a beat down for Herman on national tv.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:28 AM (8O4/a)

360 No decent person would hunt on land that Sarah Silverman (is that.... a pronoun??? WTF?) could someday potentially accuse that person of being racist for having hunted on that said land. Perry must be racist, no? His denial of the charges led to a show on a comedy channel aligning Rick Perry with racism, ergo Perry isn't talented enough to campaign on a national stage, at bare minimum. He's a dumb Texan too stupid to not hunt on land Sarah Silverman could potentially get traction with allegations of racism from; Rick Perry's campaign is finished.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 31, 2011 08:29 AM (yBkGb)

361

Again, if you read the politico story, there is no explicitly defined substantive connection b/t the womens' departure from NRA, and the sexual harassment allegations.  There is a very heavy implication that the "paid settlement to leave the company" was somehow linked to the alleged sexual harassment, based on proximity in the article.  BUT, there is nothing stated in the article that is inconsistent with disgruntled laid off female employees who were asked to sign the standard NDAs and provided standard severance package.  Severance, by the way, is a form of "paid settlement to leave the company".  And NDAs are very common when an employee is laid off.  If they are the type of people to violate the NDAs they signed, is it that surprising that they would fabricate sexual harassment charges AFTER they were notified that their employment was terminated? 

BTW, these women might have sued for wrongful discharge if their termination was related to their reporting of sexual harassment, and yet they were still terminated.  It's very rare for a company to risk dismissing an employee who has reported harassment, for fear of running afoul of non-retaliation policies/laws. 

I was laid off once and got 8 weeks severance, and I was only there for two years.  I was asked to sign an NDA and the amount I recieved was in the five figures.  My boss once made a gesture that made me uncomfortable.  So...I could plausibly make the same claim that is being made in the politico article that conflates that I was once uncomfortable with my being laid off.  But, that wouldn't forward anyone's political cause.

Posted by: mjhlaw at October 31, 2011 08:29 AM (YQ4mh)

362 99 Did ever Herman Cain change parties?  I'm asking because if Cain was a Democrat when this alleged harassment occurred, then it's not a problem. Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 31, 2011 11:48 AM (jx2j9) You are stupid.

Posted by: Random at October 31, 2011 08:31 AM (YiE0S)

363 358 Cain Leads Perry in........... wait for it........... Texas! OUCH! Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (vXqv3) Dear John Kerry- It's 800 "registered" voters and the margin of error was some +/- 4.8%.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:34 AM (rJVPU)

364 From the Texas Tribune:

"The numbers show an even race for the Republican presidential nomination in Texas. Mr. Cain is probably at a high point because the survey was in the field just after the last GOP debate, where Cain continued to garner favorable reviews," Shaw said.

"For Gov. Perry, the news is mixed. The current numbers represent a substantial improvement over his showing in our last poll. On the other hand, he is not dominating here they way one might have expected. For Gov. Romney, this is yet more evidence that the more conservative elements of the GOP are skeptical of his candidacy," Shaw said."

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 08:35 AM (8O4/a)

365 356 349 I'm thinking painkillers, Miss'80s.

Because backpain is a way of life for me, from an old injury. ....One pill is often not enough, and two pills is too many.  I recognize that loopiness that Perry was exhibiting.  ....I can go days, weeks, months without needing anything. But sometimes just a sudden movement in the wrong way can result in needing to take them for a while.

A friend hurt her back and neck in a car accident and she was the same way. I know that back surgery takes months of recovery and Perry has frequently looked like he is in a state of discomfort. He always looks most uncomfortable during debates, which makes sense due to the amount of standing.   


Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 08:37 AM (d6QMz)

366 edit:*is* some +/- 4.8%. ****** While we are at it most of the polling has been less than 500-with the cross tabs stating-according to Ralph Reed-that 50% are still "undecided" and some 80% stating that they could still change their minds. I'm not sure where he is getting that from-in most polling the internals are hard to get to. Also add that a lot of the polling has been for New Hampshire-which is an OPEN primary-and the "voters" answering in the polls have been in large part Independents and/or Democrats. Add to that-Iowa is a caucus so polling individual voters is a bit of an "art form".

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:38 AM (rJVPU)

367 OOOPS! My bad, liberals created bullshit about Rick Perry. He's not racist. That is all.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 31, 2011 08:39 AM (yBkGb)

368 Is there something wrong about liking the ladies now??? It is when the ladies don't like you back. Then you're a creep and a nuisance in the workplace.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at October 31, 2011 08:40 AM (lNGfM)

369 Uh-oh, Amigo Ace...this tasty little hit piece from the Politico is really starting to unravel...you better duck-and-cover, as your eagerness to report the non- story may make you actually look like kind of a "-stain".

Posted by: R Perry at October 31, 2011 08:47 AM (gvW6C)

370 These days you can get sued for harassment by  opening a door for a female co-worker.

Unless there is more there there, this is just so much bullshit.

Posted by: God's Balls at October 31, 2011 08:50 AM (JXxHH)

371 358 Cain Leads Perry in........... wait for it........... Texas!

OUCH!

Posted by: Concealed Kerry or Submit at October 31, 2011 01:28 PM (vXqv3

 

Yeah, I saw that.  Somewhere, Big Sis Incompetano is clearing her throat...

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2011 08:51 AM (Iaxlk)

372 Cain's Former Secretary: This Is Not the Herman Cain I Know
Former staffers call sexual harassment allegations unbelievable.

Posted by: Miss'80s at October 31, 2011 08:51 AM (d6QMz)

373 Actually FOX News is misreporting this. This is a quote about the poll from - The latest UT/Tribune internet survey of 800 registered voters was conducted Oct. 19-26. The margin of error is +/-3.46 percent. On questions of Republican voters, the margin of error is +/- 4.93 percent; on questions asked only of Democratic voters, the margin of error is 6.39 percent. FOX shows you the Republican field results and then below in small print says 800 respondents with the MOE. This is from the pdf of the poll- Q17. [Ask if Q16=1] If the 2012 Republican primary election for President were held today, which of the following candidates would you vote for, or haven’t you thought about it enough to have an opinion? [Randomize 1-9] (n=395; MoE=+/- 4.93) ***** So IOW FOX News less you to believe 800 people were polled when in actuality it was- only 395 respondents answering the Republican field questions and the MOE was near- 5%.

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:52 AM (rJVPU)

374 FOX News *leads* you to believe..

Posted by: tasker at October 31, 2011 08:54 AM (rJVPU)

375 Sorry, this seems to be Mitt trying to keep Cain from running away with the nomination. Derailing him now with a debate 10 days away sets up a beat down for Herman on national tv.

Sorry, this has Perry's fingerprints all over it.  A major reason he's almost last place is that most of his support went to Cain.  Cain is leading or tied in most of the early primary states.  Any prayer Perry has of getting back into contender status rests on Cain's support somehow collapsing, and enough of it going back to Perry so as to give him a strong second- or third-place finish in Iowa, which would change the entire game for him.

Romney knows Cain never had the money or organization to be a threat to him.  He needs Cain to block Perry, much the same way McCain needed Huckabee to block Romney in '08 (which succeeded).  It does him no good for Cain to take any damage from this.

Perry has the most to immediately gain by Cain's implosion, the two are none too fond of each other by this point, and it just so happens that Perry added a fresh bunch of hatchet men to his campaign last week.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at October 31, 2011 08:58 AM (Xnw5y)

376

I'm having a hard time buying the "I didn't know about any settlements" issue.  It would be incredibly difficult, maybe not impossible, to create a binding settlement where the person whose issues are at action was unaware of the settlement agreements.  He almost would have to give up some rights as part of a settlement agreement, and he couldn't do so if he was not a party

Furthermore, if he was the CEO at the time, that makes the story that much less credible.  If they have the documents with his signature on them, he's toast.  If not, I still have problems with the story, but there seems to be enough blind faith in the guy that he will probably survive.

I am sure if you want more facts about what actually transpired, Herman Cain can direct you to his website.

Posted by: boone at October 31, 2011 09:05 AM (Jl3Mu)

377

Cain leads Perry by one point in a recent poll.   By one point in .....

TEXAS

http://tinyurl.com/43d4rft

I have no evidence that any candidate had anything to do with the Cain story, so it's only proper to presume them all innocent.  But I think it's obvious which candidate would have the most to gain by doing so.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at October 31, 2011 09:07 AM (b68Df)

378 If you're going to make accusations that put your face behind them.

Posted by: Larry Sinclair at October 31, 2011 09:07 AM (X4NNS)

379

360, 376

So your answer to (formerly) unsubstantiated rumors against Cain is to lauch unsubstantiated rumors against another candidate?

Kettlemingle.com for all of you pots out there in search of a soulmate.

Posted by: boone at October 31, 2011 09:09 AM (Jl3Mu)

380 Coming up I will have eight blog posts on The Washington Post (heard of it?) website from Republican governors and leaders on Capitol Hill with their opinions on why sexual harassment is wrong.  I'll also be writing, as a journalist, about how this plays poorly for Rick Perry.

Posted by: Jenn Rubin at October 31, 2011 09:10 AM (X4NNS)

381 "But I think it's obvious which candidate would have the most to gain by doing so."

Mitt Romney. Cain is beating him nationally.


Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 31, 2011 09:10 AM (8O4/a)

382 I heard something about these sexual harassment charges but I had political aspirations so I just figured I'd run for president without looking into them.  Similarly, when I left the house last Friday for a long weekend, someone mentioned something about my having left several candles burning, the oven on, and the bathtub filling.  I didn't figure it was worth looking into because I had important things to do all weeeknd away from the house. On returning home, if I find my house flooded or burned, I want you to know, allegations of my having burning or flooding it are totally baseless distractions from my campaign. Thanks. 

Posted by: Herman Cain, CEO at October 31, 2011 09:18 AM (BNlV7)

383

"to investigate the claim don't they have to ask Herman Cain for his side of the story"

I would think yes, unless it was determined from other souces that the charges did not amount to anything.  For instance, the accuser says "Amy witnessed this" and Amy denies it happens.  Even then, to investigate means invesigate, not fluff it off, that is a potential claim aginst the company in and of itself.

They might not tell the accused who was making the claim so as to avoid possible retailation claims but they would almost certainly ask him something. 

 

Posted by: Bob from Ohio at October 31, 2011 09:33 AM (ROFkf)

384 Hope all you scumbags having fun while joining in on the high tech lynching of Herman Cain are proud of yourselves. You shouldn't be. And you know who you are.

Posted by: Breaker19 at October 31, 2011 09:41 AM (yRoVn)

385 Suck it up and take Romney. But work your ass off for a Tea Party Congress to dull his lefty positions. This is the way to victory.

Posted by: sexypig at October 31, 2011 09:45 AM (UspyQ)

386

It's pretty simple, morons. This is how an empty suit wins the presidency.  He destroys his opponents and remains the eternal populist.  He hammers a narrative about how he's going to be the opposite of whatever attack du jour he's gotten traction with against his opponent. In the '04 Senate race for Illinois, Obama did it to Jack Ryan who withdrew and Allan Keyes stepped in for an awful very last-minute campaign which Obama easily won.  The point is, you have to be able to either hit back harder then you were initially clubbed or you have to have an impeccable record that cannot be clubbed.  Cain fits into neither category.  In fact, nobody does.  So...either our Republican candidate is going to have to be a master of redistributing beatings or he's going to let four more years of Manchurianism dominate Pennsylvania Ave.

Posted by: A Chicagoan who knows at October 31, 2011 10:08 AM (BNlV7)

387 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 11:21 AM (fyOgS)

388 17 Barack Obama is still a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: Insomniac at October 31, 2011 11:33 AM (DrWcr)

---

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

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 11:35 AM (8y9MW)

----

389 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 04:21 PM (fyOgS)

-----

fuck the corporate media

fuck the corporate media

fuck the corporate media

Posted by: jc at October 31, 2011 12:20 PM (i8c5b)

389 This info is a terrific read. Thanks for the info.I am looking forward for more updates.

Posted by: No Regrets ePub at October 31, 2011 04:02 PM (KCI/1)

390 This is an excellent post. It is very informative. Thank you so much. I'll be a regular viewer.

Posted by: The Next Always iBooks at October 31, 2011 04:45 PM (bYYfj)

391 I have been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this website. Thanks , I will try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your web site?

Posted by: The Fleet Street Murders AudioBook at October 31, 2011 05:03 PM (ZCpyR)

392 Wow this is soo helpful I have been trying to figure this out on my own for a long time now. Hopefully making this change will help encourage discussion on my blog.

Posted by: The Meaning of Marriage ePub at October 31, 2011 06:46 PM (2rmis)

Posted by: christine at October 31, 2011 07:41 PM (9N764)

394 Who does this benefit?

Posted by: Running Hobo at November 02, 2011 05:29 AM (l1oyw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
289kb generated in CPU 0.2, elapsed 0.2322 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0639 seconds, 581 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.