Poltico: Herman Cain accused of "inappropriate behavior

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, if Herman Cain was guilty, they probably would have forced him to step down as head of the National Restaurant Association.

Also your statement is only half-true, only Democrat men can get away with sexual harassment.

For most men, especially Republicans, you get demonized and the left tries to destroy your life even if you are innocent.

So the lawyer of one of the women has said that Herman Cain has broke the confidentiality agreement signed between the two by commenting about the incident and will now be coming forward publicly to clear the air.

lol owned. This just keeps getting better.

Herman needs to drop out now, the charade is over on his joke candidacy. He has accomplished his goal of selling a lot of books and how knows maybe his radio school could be nationally syndicated or better yet make the leap to Fox News!

There are plenty of cases where sexual misconduct is overlooked by the old boy's network, which I imagine the National Restaurant Association may not be immune to.

And as far as only Democratic men get away with sexual harassment, here in Washington, we had had a Democratic governor years ago named Mike Lowery who had to resign over allegations that he couldn't keep his hands off of female staffers.

As for Republicans being hounded by the charge of sexual misconduct whether it's true or not, there's that family values hypocrite in Louisiana (his name escapes me) who turned out to be a frequent customer of prostitutes. He still has his job.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

He's damned for both having done and having not done at the same time. This is the stuff of quantum physics and perhaps we have parallel universes colliding today.

Describe the incidents. We have to say "these incidents" because no one knows what the incidents are. Showing a woman how tall his wife is? Ummmmm, that's not harrassment. Go ahead, enlighten us: What is it that Herman Cain is accused of doing, specifically?

Well lets wait and see what the victim in question has to say now that she may no longer be legally bound to a confidentiality agreement.

Going on what Herman Cain says certainly doesn't seem logical when he can't keep his story straight on anything, scandal or otherwise. He'll straight up lie to your face and say he didn't say something that he said minutes earlier.

Why wait? You guys already know he's guilty. Who needs evidence? I wondered why Politico would release such a nebulous, badly-sourced smear and call it a story, and expect it to convince. But seeing how easily you guys believe it, I get it now: they knew people like you would fall for it.

Is is hilarious how skeptical you are if the target is not a Democrat.
I am withholding judgement and I would like Herman to be the Republican Candidate.
His poll numbers have not gone down a bit his lead over Romney has actually increased.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1452.html

but intrade still has him at 6.4% chance of wining the nomination.
Mitt is trading at 69.5% I have a small bet on Cain but the smart money is on the Mormon.

What is with people and not being objective about people who aren't of their own political persuasion? It only leads to your political platform being more easy to criticize. It's like kicking someone so hard that you dislocate your own joints

Mr. Cain's victims each got a year of severance pay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/po ... s&emc=tha2

The old coot had to have been guilty, or the restaurant association wouldn't have paid them anything to keep their mouths shut.

And, no, he would not have been asked to step down as head of the National Restaurant Association. Part of the pay-off means that the victims have to sign an agreement absolving the guilty party of all guilt.

Nonsense.

Someone (likely the woman) leaked the claims to the media who started grilling Cain over it. His replies DO NOT violate the confidentiality agreements because HE HAS NOT NAMED NAMES. This is a contrast to whomever leaked the information to the press naming Cain as the accused.

If she tries to go public, she is on weak ground at best. Cain did not name her nor give sufficient specifics of the situation to identify her. She, however, is prepared to utterly ignore a binding contract to spill the beans and tell all.

This is a smear campaign.

NOT TRUE.

A year's pay each may have been cheaper than the cost of fighting it in court...even for a baseless claim.

People tend to have little to no comprehension on the cost of litigation to both sides of a dispute.

The guy from politico claimed to have spoken with over a dozen people with first-hand knowledge, but nobody willing to go on record.

Of course it's a smear campaign. Cain has admitted that he was accused of sexual harassment, and that he believes there "may have been a settlement".

So we know he was accused, and we have no reason to believe that the accusers weren't paid off.

I have some doubts about whether those accusations were made for no reason at all. Some people just have no concept of appropriate workplace behavior.

I would like everyone to notice and take to heart the OP is a Ron Paul supporter.
(Just so I don't have to hear liberal media bias canards)

The hints at whatever Cain may or may not have done amount to less than this, which Obama did on video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJot99hFfY[/youtube]

But let's say Cain did something as bad as what you've just witnessed in the video above. And let's say the lady signed a confidentiality agreement over it, and got paid. What would be her motivation in bringing the issue up 20 years later? The agreement says, essentially: this is over and done with. She signs it. She collects the money. Then, 20 years later, she says, "No, I changed my mind. I want to tell the world about what -- in the world of my mind, at least -- was harrassment."

Back to my main point: Are you who say Cain is guilty equally upset that Obama touched the woman's shoulder and called her "sweetie"? If not, explain why.