Poltico: Herman Cain accused of "inappropriate behavior

Post Reply New Topic

Let's play the irrelevance game!

Say, people have provided evidence and specific. Deny they ever happened!
Can't seem to convince anyone? Make an off-subject tirade against 'the media'!

Who says I had to deal with the accusation itself? So far, it hasn't warranted my attention, so I haven't looked into it. I don't have the time to chase down every story I hear. Gingrich has had affairs, and has admitted it -- yet no one is saying he's out of the running, and many people still like him for president.

Aha, so you play a part in discrediting a claim that you haven't falsified and for which there is evidence!

Fantastic job!

So far, he has only been accused of eating pizza, as far as I know. I like watermelon myself.

But, this just in: he apparently dresses in women's clothing.

I'm not going to bother debunking every witch hunt someone feels like starting.

Okay, fine. Which "gesture" did he allegedly make years ago?
I also heard that, while having stage-four cancer back in 2006, he was late on his state taxes!

Well, what with an alleged gesture he once made, AND a missing tax payment while on his deathbed, this is simply too much.
I renounce Herman Cain!

(Oh... he paid the taxes the following year, and the investigation of the alleged incident showed he was innocent.)

There is just nothing like a black conservative to anger the libs.

Their is a big difference of being accused and getting caught like Bill Clinton

I'm sure that the allegations made by those women were so completely unfounded that the cash payments made to them to shut up and go away were really meant as an insult.

Obviously the stress of his patriotism led him to these unfortunate actions

Cain has pretty much confirmed that something happened when he said he had a "vague recollection" of the incidents. When it comes down to it, the women received cash settlements or they didn't and that should tell us everything we need to know.

I think this speaks well of Cain's leadership abilities, because now we know that if there is any impropriety in his administration, every effort will be made to cover it up!

Arnold was already, or leaving, out of office, when the "admitted" became know. Before his gaining office, individuals claiming inappropriate behaviour were silenced by well bank-rolled legal challenges on any and all technicalities (plus the claim everyone were treated as "robots", and it is not illegal to drown robots in toilets). "The Exorcist" would probably have to have been mixed with "Rosemary's Baby" for Arnold's final possible Orrin strategy, then instead of a Satanic double-cross, a Satanic quadrupple-cross. But with Cain, stacking any Gold Tablets with Orrin's help is probably limited by what Orrin wishes the hatch to be, and I don't believe it's 999.

Tadzio

AMEN!

People need to realize that the accusation of "sexual harassment" is dangerous. There are employers who WILL NOT HIRE someone who is just accused of it...even if it's not proven.

Not to paint all women the same, but it is a fact that "sexual harassment" claims are filed largely as a retaliation tactic by disgruntled female workers. As "sexual harassment" is not a black and white action defined in law, it can be whatever the complainer wants to think it is. The EEOC may side with the complainer or not, but every accusation has to be looked at seriously.

As I said before, settlements do not mean the accused is guilty...it simply means that the legal team assigned to the case found a way to make it go away by offering the complaint filer money to drop the issue. Often, that is all the complainer wanted in the first place.

Bill Clinton, in contrast, had an established reputation since the time he was Governor of Arkansas for his infidelity and carousing. In addition, he got caught when one of his skanks decided to brag about it and save incriminating evidence.

The move against Cain amounts to nothing of substance. Until you get an Anita Hill who will go public over the alleged incident, you have nothing of substance...just the media trying to create the news.

Just a character witness -- one of the many people Politico, MSNBC, etc, apparently just couldn't track down for a statement or interview. (Well, they don't demonize Cain, so why would these organizations talk with them?)

Interview yesterday with Carol Markowitz, Herman Cain's Assistant Press Secretary during his 2004 Senate campaign:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930
Click on "10/31 The Mark Levin Show" for the audio, and scan forward to time index 31:10 - 34:30.

I know, I know, this doesn't demonize Cain, so why am I even mentioning it? After all, you're only supposed to tell one side of the story when you're doing a media hit job. Oh, right, I'm not a left-wing media organization, so I'm not bound by their character assisination code.

Maybe Herman Cain is a total letch like the Horny Hick Bill Clinton, who knows? Just listen to the above audio, and see how this lady sounds regarding Cain.

Witch hunts don't tend to have evidence. The assault against Assange is a witch hunt that is based on emotion and has been proven to have been based on the claims of a woman who has been proven to be interested in revenge over anything else. Cain's little escapade isn't based on women who have been shown to be liars at all.


Allusion to speculation fallacy that Liberals are simply angry at a black conservative whilst trying to detour from the actual point at hand.

They haven't been shown to be anything; they won't come forward! And, there are no specific allegations. They're able to snipe at Cain completely from the shadows, with the media holding him guilty until he proves himself innocent. And the impossible -- the proof of a negative -- is what proving him innocent would take, as with the vast majority of sex harrassment claims.

Speaking of women who have not "been shown to be liars", as you worded it, did you listen to the clip in my last post? Can you show her to be a liar? She worked with Cain very closely, so she knew him very well. Explain to me why she is not to be believed, if, in your view, these annonymous women who refuse to get specific are to be believed. Again, certain false accusations -- those which involve proving negatives, as this one does -- cannot be easily defended against even when the accused is innocent, because negatives cannot be proven.

Companies usually settle out of court because they don't want the publicity, and the legal fees, bad press, etc. actually make it cost more to fight the suit than it does to simply settle it.

Seriously, considering how murky the politico story was, and the lack of details, it actually looks more like a hit piece, similar to the incident in 2008 where New York Times ended up getting sued by the woman that they claimed was having an affair with Senator John McCain.