Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    The case (or not) against Herman Cain

    The case (or not) against Herman Cain

    So many are calling Cain a liar or worse for not remembering a second settlement with a woman whom he allegedly “sexually harassed.”  How could he not know of a settlement?

    Details are dribbling out which support the conclusion that Cain was not involved and would not have known about that settlement, just like he has been saying, as reported by CBS News:

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

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

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

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

    And do not expect any facts from this accuser:

    Bennett plans to issue the statement in his name, not in his client’s name. It will not identify her, nor will it detail specific events of sexual harassment or the amount of settlement.

    What a complete journalistic and conservative blogospheric fiasco this has become.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Malonth | November 4, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    We conservatives have some critical things to do this election cycle. Of course we must defeat Obama at all costs. But first we must ensure that Mitt Romney is not the nominee and, instead, that we get an electable conservative candidate as the nominee. At this point, that is Gingrich or Perry. Are they both flawed? Yes. But if we pass them over because of this, we help to elect Romney or Obama.

    Herman Cain is the Tea Party’s Ron Paul. Nominating Herman Cain is the Tea Party giving a big FU to Karl Rove and the establishment Republicans. Does Rove deserve an FU? Is it fun to give him one? Yes to both, but that’s not getting to the goals outlined above.

    After all our criticism of Obama for lacking experience last time, you now want to nominate Cain who has ZERO political experience and has never even made it past a primary before. If Cain wins will we conservatives vote for him? Of course. But how about those independents who pulled the lever for Obama last time?

    And here is the real problem. If Cain gets in there, who the hell knows what he’ll really do. I live in California and remember when the Terminator was running for Governor and how conservative he sounded. Arnold had never been in the crucible of politics before and boy did it show. Arnold was a disaster for the conservative cause in California.

    It’s easy to talk the talk. Newt and Perry have walked the walk. So let’s take a step back from wanting to give an FU to Carl Rove. Let’s get a serious candidate nominated!

    Welcome to the big leagues…honey. You squeezed a few bucks out of the system back fifteen years or so with a little legal blackmail. Everyone did it. Heck, Eliot Spitzer made a handsome living and at it and rode it into the governor’s mansion in Albany.

    Now you’re going to have to earn it.

    There are two issues here (as has been pointed out many times before) that are only related by the fact that one triggered the other.

    The first issue is the substance of the accusations themselves, which is looking weaker and weaker — that is something of a trick given how lame the initial report was. Something very dramatic will have to happen to make this serious, and that seems increasing unlikely.

    One potential silver lining to this attack fiasco is that it might make future smears harder to pull off, against any candidate. If Obama and the MSM try this again next year when things are serious, the candidate can use the “There you go again!” defense with enhanced credibility. So this is beginning to look like a major tactical blunder by whoever pulled it.

    The second issue the way Cain handled this attack — he and his campaign looked like it was amateur hour and committed serious errors. That has not shown up in the polls and no one should expect it to at this point. Right now the polls are registering people’s opinion of the attack more than their opinion of Cain himself.

    Cain might get a pass on his blundering this time, if the voters give him “amateur credit”. (Or they might not as the lessons of this start to sink in in a month or so.) But they almost certainly will not give him that credit twice.

    Cain still has to turn his campaign around and start looking like a serious candidate. He needs to draw the right lessons from this and learn from it. It will very instructive seeing how well he does that.

    I believe many thoughtful commenters here are not seeing the big picture. Something significant happened in 2010 but some of us have already forgotten. If I’m right it will be even more significant in 2012. The “happening” will be real Americans telling whoever is smart enough to listen we are making big changes this coming election, and we are NOT returning regular politicians to office. Regular politicians have broken the system. We would be fools to believe they have the will or ability to fix it. So we are forcing wholesale retirements and sending new people to Washington to begin making real changes. We are choosing those new people on the basis of who you – the elites – seem to fear the most.

    You obviously fear Cain. So whatever he did years ago, or however he stumbles now explaining it, is nothing compared to how badly the current guy is doing and how dishonestly you in the lamestream are covering it up. So ready or not, we are making a change.

    Already, just today, we are hearing Cain’s approval ratings and donations are improving, not falling away, since the lamestream attacks began. We are making a change. Live with it!


       
       0 
       
       0
      Owen J in reply to 49erDweet. | November 4, 2011 at 5:32 pm

      You might want to clarify that “you – elites” who fears Cain. I doubt many of those so-called elites read this blog but many “thoughtful commenters” do, so it’s not clear who this comment is addressd to

      But what you refer to as the “big picture” is that it appears the voters are finally getting serious about “we won’t get fooled again!”

      The point being made by at least some of the commenters here is not just acknowledging that, but pointing out that it must apply to every candidate: no one gets a free pass anymore — period.

      Critically, we should not choose people on the basis of who the elites fear most. We should — we must — chose them on the basis of who is best qualified.

      As long as you are making any choices based on the elites — whether it be who they endorse or who they (appear to) fear — they own you.

      The big picture must show that we will not be owned.

      Absent that, it’s just “meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”

        Fair points but the problem with

        “….pointing out that it must apply to every candidate: no one gets a free pass anymore — period.”

        assumes voters have available a full, free and unbiased knowledge base. And that’s what public media want you and I to think, but we don’t.

        So if we use an OODA loop we “read the opposition” and adjust. They instinctively fear the candidate they feel sure could hurt them most. I don’t believe members of the DNC are emotionally capable of dissembling their fears for more than 90 seconds. If you believe otherwise by all means be wary. But I refuse to be put off a candidate based on “he shoulda’s”. That’s a fools game.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Alan Kellogg | November 4, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    This is what I think…

    http://opines.mythusmage.org/?p=1684

    You’re free to agree, disagree, scoff, or snicker as you wish.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend