Cain’s non-denial denial

Here is Herman Cain’s initial statement about an Atlanta woman’s contention that she has had an ongoing affair with him:

“Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault – which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.

Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”

via The PJ Tatler » Atlanta Woman Alleges 13-Year Affair with Herman Cain (Update: Cain Issues Second Statement).

What is missing in this statement?  (Hint:  Does he say it isn’t true?)

In subsequent statements, Cain has come closer to a denial, referring to “events that never happened” and “I did nothing wrong.”  But I’m not sure those are out-and-out denials either.

One might argue that consensual relationships should be private and have nothing to do with a person’s fitness to hold public office.  But Cain is a married man.

Some of you Cainites  (Cainanites?) rejected the earlier accusations of sexual harassment against him.  Is this any different?  Are you still supporting him?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://brbible.org Rich Shipe

    Or: Cain makes the libertarian argument. Consent is all that matters to the libertarian. In fact he’s making the libertarian argument better than Ron Paul who said we should just ignore the previous accusations to Cain and yet those accusations involved assault, no consent.

  • http://brbible.org Rich Shipe

    Or: Cain makes the libertarian argument. Consent is all that matters to the libertarian. In fact he’s making the libertarian argument better than Ron Paul who said we should just ignore the previous accusations to Cain and yet those accusations involved assault, no consent.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.

    …Unless they’re gay, right? Because it’s one thing to cheat on your wife, all straight-like. But being gay

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.

    …Unless they’re gay, right? Because it’s one thing to cheat on your wife, all straight-like. But being gay

  • Carl Vehse

    “One might argue that consensual relationships should be private and have nothing to do with a person’s fitness to hold public office.”

    That only applies to traitorous Demonrats (or RINOs), who get a pass from the fifth column MSM for having consensual (or not) relationships with any sex, age, or species (or drowning them). For them and their ilk (living or dead), moral fitness is as irrelevant as fitness for office.

    Conservative GOP candidates are (and should be) held to actual moral standards and fitness for office expected for humans.

  • Carl Vehse

    “One might argue that consensual relationships should be private and have nothing to do with a person’s fitness to hold public office.”

    That only applies to traitorous Demonrats (or RINOs), who get a pass from the fifth column MSM for having consensual (or not) relationships with any sex, age, or species (or drowning them). For them and their ilk (living or dead), moral fitness is as irrelevant as fitness for office.

    Conservative GOP candidates are (and should be) held to actual moral standards and fitness for office expected for humans.

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Go Newt!!!!

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Go Newt!!!!

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain
  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain
  • Carl Vehse

    “Here is Herman Cain’s initial statement…”

    Actually it was a statement from Cain’s (soon to be former?) lawyer, who sounds like he was trained by a lawyer of Monica’s ex-boyfriend.

  • Carl Vehse

    “Here is Herman Cain’s initial statement…”

    Actually it was a statement from Cain’s (soon to be former?) lawyer, who sounds like he was trained by a lawyer of Monica’s ex-boyfriend.

  • Carl Vehse

    Recent kind words by Slick Willie about Newt have raised the question of whether in a 1998 meeting between the two, the mention of his then-paramour-now-3rd-wife, Callista Bisek, cause Newt to back off his hard impeachment rhetoric against Monica’s ex.

  • Carl Vehse

    Recent kind words by Slick Willie about Newt have raised the question of whether in a 1998 meeting between the two, the mention of his then-paramour-now-3rd-wife, Callista Bisek, cause Newt to back off his hard impeachment rhetoric against Monica’s ex.

  • Tom Hering

    Following … with much amusement. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Following … with much amusement. :-D

  • Jon

    Still. Reserving. Judgment.

  • Jon

    Still. Reserving. Judgment.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I don’t think this is the intention, but from outside the US, it really looks as if the voting public over there has sex-on-the-brain. Unless the exploits of your leader ventures into the realms of the ridiculous/illegal while he/she is in office, thereby bringing the officce (and be extension, the country) into disrepute, like our friend Silvio, then who the devil cares? Is it because people have this uunatural obsession with transgressions of this kind?

    Btw, I think Cain is a terrible choice, not because of possible infidelity, but because he is an unmitigated ignoramus.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I don’t think this is the intention, but from outside the US, it really looks as if the voting public over there has sex-on-the-brain. Unless the exploits of your leader ventures into the realms of the ridiculous/illegal while he/she is in office, thereby bringing the officce (and be extension, the country) into disrepute, like our friend Silvio, then who the devil cares? Is it because people have this uunatural obsession with transgressions of this kind?

    Btw, I think Cain is a terrible choice, not because of possible infidelity, but because he is an unmitigated ignoramus.

  • Kirk

    Herman Cain is officially irrelevant, as are his sexual misdeeds.

  • Kirk

    Herman Cain is officially irrelevant, as are his sexual misdeeds.

  • Carl Vehse

    If Herman Cain has been flying on business trips around the country with her and sharing hotel rooms with Ginger White, a single mother of two children, since the late ’90s, that should not be hard to verify.

    Oh, wait… why bother with proof, let’s just gossip instead.

  • Carl Vehse

    If Herman Cain has been flying on business trips around the country with her and sharing hotel rooms with Ginger White, a single mother of two children, since the late ’90s, that should not be hard to verify.

    Oh, wait… why bother with proof, let’s just gossip instead.

  • Jonathan B.

    Cain should turn a lemon into lemonade by simply announcing he’s divorcing his wife to marry the woman with whom he’s been having the affair. Newt did this twice and is now wildly popular in the family values party. (Better for Cain, of course, if he can simultaneously announce that his wife is gravely ill.)

  • Jonathan B.

    Cain should turn a lemon into lemonade by simply announcing he’s divorcing his wife to marry the woman with whom he’s been having the affair. Newt did this twice and is now wildly popular in the family values party. (Better for Cain, of course, if he can simultaneously announce that his wife is gravely ill.)

  • DonS

    Serial womanizing is a horrible character trait not fitting for a man we are considering trusting with the presidency, a position which should require superior character. It’s unfortunate that so many Americans these days don’t see the connection between faithfulness to one’s marital vows, supposedly among the most solemn vows we make in life, and one’s likelihood of being faithful to one’s oath of office. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans, despite the fact that the media only seems to like to dwell on the peccadilloes of Republican candidates, apparently assuming that it’s OK for Democrats to be values-free because they don’t claim to adhere to any standard of absolute morality. (That double standard is, in itself, distressing).

    More distressing, however, is Cain’s complete denial of any wrongdoing, until now, with this latest accusation, where he seems to be playing the “off limits” card, and isn’t issuing a clear denial. Regardless of one’s sense of conspiracy, clearly there is a problem here, with this many different and credible accusations, and he should have gotten in front of it from the beginning and detailed the truth, whatever it is, as well as explain why he doesn’t think it’s disqualifying to his candidacy.

    This is the major difference between Gingrich and Cain. Gingrich’s sins are well in the past, and he has expressed atonement for them. Cain is in complete denial of allegedly current sins.

    The rumors are that Cain is “reassessing” his campaign today. Let’s hope he pulls the plug and ends the misery. He needs to return home, repent, and restore his relationship with his faithful wife of 43 years.

  • DonS

    Serial womanizing is a horrible character trait not fitting for a man we are considering trusting with the presidency, a position which should require superior character. It’s unfortunate that so many Americans these days don’t see the connection between faithfulness to one’s marital vows, supposedly among the most solemn vows we make in life, and one’s likelihood of being faithful to one’s oath of office. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans, despite the fact that the media only seems to like to dwell on the peccadilloes of Republican candidates, apparently assuming that it’s OK for Democrats to be values-free because they don’t claim to adhere to any standard of absolute morality. (That double standard is, in itself, distressing).

    More distressing, however, is Cain’s complete denial of any wrongdoing, until now, with this latest accusation, where he seems to be playing the “off limits” card, and isn’t issuing a clear denial. Regardless of one’s sense of conspiracy, clearly there is a problem here, with this many different and credible accusations, and he should have gotten in front of it from the beginning and detailed the truth, whatever it is, as well as explain why he doesn’t think it’s disqualifying to his candidacy.

    This is the major difference between Gingrich and Cain. Gingrich’s sins are well in the past, and he has expressed atonement for them. Cain is in complete denial of allegedly current sins.

    The rumors are that Cain is “reassessing” his campaign today. Let’s hope he pulls the plug and ends the misery. He needs to return home, repent, and restore his relationship with his faithful wife of 43 years.

  • Carl Vehse

    Which is it – “isn’t issuing a clear denial” or “is in complete denial of allegedly current sins”?

    Maybe Cain should be asked if he has stopped beating his wife?

  • Carl Vehse

    Which is it – “isn’t issuing a clear denial” or “is in complete denial of allegedly current sins”?

    Maybe Cain should be asked if he has stopped beating his wife?

  • Carl Vehse

    As usual with GOP candidates, despite denials of “serial womanizing”, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent and even then with a wink.

    In the meantime, Ginger White publicly claims that for years she had sexual relations with a married man and she accepted financial benefits from him. This suggests that her kids could be played by child actors in some TV network’s new sitcom, “My Slut-Mother, the Whore” (not to be confused with other current TV sitcoms featuring similar behavior).

  • Carl Vehse

    As usual with GOP candidates, despite denials of “serial womanizing”, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent and even then with a wink.

    In the meantime, Ginger White publicly claims that for years she had sexual relations with a married man and she accepted financial benefits from him. This suggests that her kids could be played by child actors in some TV network’s new sitcom, “My Slut-Mother, the Whore” (not to be confused with other current TV sitcoms featuring similar behavior).

  • Jonathan B.

    Odd that Cain’s popularity among the family values party actually improved when women came forth to accuse him of crudely forcing himself on them. But when a woman says she and Cain had consenual relations, said values voters (e.g., @5) lecture Cain on his lack of character.

  • Jonathan B.

    Odd that Cain’s popularity among the family values party actually improved when women came forth to accuse him of crudely forcing himself on them. But when a woman says she and Cain had consenual relations, said values voters (e.g., @5) lecture Cain on his lack of character.

  • Carl Vehse

    Not so “odd” when there was no proof of Cain (even crudely) forcing himself on the women. Imagine such a “family values party” (your parents never belonged to any family values party, did they Jonathan?) not being pursuaded without supporting evidence.

    As for #5, Albert Mohler’s complaint is more about what Cain’s lawyer said than what Cain said himself.

    Given Time Magazine reporter Nina Burleigh’s “presidential kneepads” statement back in the 90s, I’m surprised there haven’t been more women (or ‘men’) claiming to have had an affair with Cain, or whoever is the current GOP frontrunner of the moment against Steve Dunham.

  • Carl Vehse

    Not so “odd” when there was no proof of Cain (even crudely) forcing himself on the women. Imagine such a “family values party” (your parents never belonged to any family values party, did they Jonathan?) not being pursuaded without supporting evidence.

    As for #5, Albert Mohler’s complaint is more about what Cain’s lawyer said than what Cain said himself.

    Given Time Magazine reporter Nina Burleigh’s “presidential kneepads” statement back in the 90s, I’m surprised there haven’t been more women (or ‘men’) claiming to have had an affair with Cain, or whoever is the current GOP frontrunner of the moment against Steve Dunham.

  • Cincinnatus

    This thread is hilarious.

  • Cincinnatus

    This thread is hilarious.

  • Carl Vehse

    Herman Cain and other GOP presidential hopefuls should be happy with this news:

    “President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history… On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama’s job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter’s 51 percent.”

    The bad news is that not all the people in today’s 43 percent Obama-approval rating are currently registered voters in prisons, looney bins, or cemeteries. Some probably fly airplanes, fill your prescriptions, prepare your food, fix your cars, report the evening news… or post on Cranach.

  • Carl Vehse

    Herman Cain and other GOP presidential hopefuls should be happy with this news:

    “President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history… On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama’s job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter’s 51 percent.”

    The bad news is that not all the people in today’s 43 percent Obama-approval rating are currently registered voters in prisons, looney bins, or cemeteries. Some probably fly airplanes, fill your prescriptions, prepare your food, fix your cars, report the evening news… or post on Cranach.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Serial womanizing is a horrible character trait not fitting for a man …

    With you so far.

    … we are considering trusting with the presidency

    But this doesn’t really follow for me. Yes, womanizing is a bad trait, but what, particularly, does it have to do with the office of the President?

    Is it likewise true that womanizing precludes a man from other positions — in fact, any other position? Has your boss ever had an affair, Don? Do you know? Do you care? Or does it just matter that he (or she) is a good boss?

    Compartmentalization isn’t always a good thing, but it is a human thing. Do we really believe that, because a man is unfaithful to his wife, that he is likely to be unfaithful in some other way? Do we really believe that the temptations of lust are equivalent to the temptations to be … a bad President? That makes no sense. Those are different thoughts, different emotions.

    It’s unfortunate that so many Americans these days don’t see the connection between faithfulness to one’s marital vows … and one’s likelihood of being faithful to one’s oath of office.

    Frankly, I think the burden of proof is on you, with regard to this claim. We’ve had several Presidents we know were unfaithful to their spouses (and who knows how many we don’t know about). Are you saying they were all unfaithful to the oath of office? What does the actual data say?

    Are you saying Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, and Clinton were all unfaithful to their oaths of office? Can you explain how?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Serial womanizing is a horrible character trait not fitting for a man …

    With you so far.

    … we are considering trusting with the presidency

    But this doesn’t really follow for me. Yes, womanizing is a bad trait, but what, particularly, does it have to do with the office of the President?

    Is it likewise true that womanizing precludes a man from other positions — in fact, any other position? Has your boss ever had an affair, Don? Do you know? Do you care? Or does it just matter that he (or she) is a good boss?

    Compartmentalization isn’t always a good thing, but it is a human thing. Do we really believe that, because a man is unfaithful to his wife, that he is likely to be unfaithful in some other way? Do we really believe that the temptations of lust are equivalent to the temptations to be … a bad President? That makes no sense. Those are different thoughts, different emotions.

    It’s unfortunate that so many Americans these days don’t see the connection between faithfulness to one’s marital vows … and one’s likelihood of being faithful to one’s oath of office.

    Frankly, I think the burden of proof is on you, with regard to this claim. We’ve had several Presidents we know were unfaithful to their spouses (and who knows how many we don’t know about). Are you saying they were all unfaithful to the oath of office? What does the actual data say?

    Are you saying Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, and Clinton were all unfaithful to their oaths of office? Can you explain how?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, Don (and Carl, if you have a coherent point to contribute here), I’m wondering who you voted for in 2008? The guy who’s only had one wife, with a picture-perfect family-values family, or the guy who cheated on his wife and subsequently divorced her?

    How did your Family Values! radar tell you to vote in 2008? Did character count back then? Was McCain disqualified for his unfaithfulness to his (ex-)wife?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, Don (and Carl, if you have a coherent point to contribute here), I’m wondering who you voted for in 2008? The guy who’s only had one wife, with a picture-perfect family-values family, or the guy who cheated on his wife and subsequently divorced her?

    How did your Family Values! radar tell you to vote in 2008? Did character count back then? Was McCain disqualified for his unfaithfulness to his (ex-)wife?

  • Grace

    Cain’s problems are not just the accusations women have made against him. When he stumbled, and bumbled, knew nothing of the question asked recently, it became clear, the man doesn’t have the ability to be the next president of the U.S.

    Cain talks big, but there is no substance. His 999 idea is nothing but nonsense.

  • Grace

    Cain’s problems are not just the accusations women have made against him. When he stumbled, and bumbled, knew nothing of the question asked recently, it became clear, the man doesn’t have the ability to be the next president of the U.S.

    Cain talks big, but there is no substance. His 999 idea is nothing but nonsense.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD,

    I agree that compartmentalization is occasionally “meet and right,” but I have a few concerns:

    First of all, Clinton is just a horrible example. While it might be a bit much to claim the he violated his oath to the Constitution, he certainly brought ignominy to his office. And, of course, there’s the whole thing about perjury and impeachment. In short, he’s not exactly a sterling exemplar demonstrating that the divide between personal and public actually exists. In fact, wouldn’t you agree that one who is highly indiscreet and unscrupulous in his private affairs is more likely than an upstanding individual to bring ignominy to his/her office? That in itself is, I think, a legitimate concern, though it doesn’t necessarily implicate one’s faithfulness to the oath, etc.

    But DonS and others of the sort who would have been for impeachment in 1998 raise a valid point, I think. My boss is not in a position of public trust. I can leave if I find him distasteful, and, depending upon the job, his fidelity in “private” life may or may not pertain to his capacity to accomplish his responsibilities. That is between him and his boss, not him and me. The President, however, is not my boss. But he is in a position of public trust: we entrust him with certain duties and responsibilities. If one is not to be trusted in small matters, can we trust him with great matters? If he cannot uphold “private” vows and agreements, why should we expect him to uphold weighty public vows and agreements? If he is so good at lying to those closest to him, why should I expect that he won’t lie to me? These are valid questions–so valid, in fact, that I think the burden of proof is rather upon you to demonstrate that I ought not be concerned, for instance, that Cain is sexually indiscreet (at best), that Newt is a serial polygamist, that [x] cheated on his taxes, and that [y] attends a racist church, that [z] had an affair (and then lied about it), for example. I don’t know: maybe private indiscretions aren’t correlated with public faults (with the exception of my concern in the first paragraph), but the common-sense answer would gravitate to the other alternative. It is generally up to the one who challenges common sense to prove his case.

    The attempt to divorce private and public life–as if we are fundamentally different persons, even, in our private lives–is deeply American but, I think, deeply problematic.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD,

    I agree that compartmentalization is occasionally “meet and right,” but I have a few concerns:

    First of all, Clinton is just a horrible example. While it might be a bit much to claim the he violated his oath to the Constitution, he certainly brought ignominy to his office. And, of course, there’s the whole thing about perjury and impeachment. In short, he’s not exactly a sterling exemplar demonstrating that the divide between personal and public actually exists. In fact, wouldn’t you agree that one who is highly indiscreet and unscrupulous in his private affairs is more likely than an upstanding individual to bring ignominy to his/her office? That in itself is, I think, a legitimate concern, though it doesn’t necessarily implicate one’s faithfulness to the oath, etc.

    But DonS and others of the sort who would have been for impeachment in 1998 raise a valid point, I think. My boss is not in a position of public trust. I can leave if I find him distasteful, and, depending upon the job, his fidelity in “private” life may or may not pertain to his capacity to accomplish his responsibilities. That is between him and his boss, not him and me. The President, however, is not my boss. But he is in a position of public trust: we entrust him with certain duties and responsibilities. If one is not to be trusted in small matters, can we trust him with great matters? If he cannot uphold “private” vows and agreements, why should we expect him to uphold weighty public vows and agreements? If he is so good at lying to those closest to him, why should I expect that he won’t lie to me? These are valid questions–so valid, in fact, that I think the burden of proof is rather upon you to demonstrate that I ought not be concerned, for instance, that Cain is sexually indiscreet (at best), that Newt is a serial polygamist, that [x] cheated on his taxes, and that [y] attends a racist church, that [z] had an affair (and then lied about it), for example. I don’t know: maybe private indiscretions aren’t correlated with public faults (with the exception of my concern in the first paragraph), but the common-sense answer would gravitate to the other alternative. It is generally up to the one who challenges common sense to prove his case.

    The attempt to divorce private and public life–as if we are fundamentally different persons, even, in our private lives–is deeply American but, I think, deeply problematic.

  • Helen K.

    following …. with fatigue..

  • Helen K.

    following …. with fatigue..

  • Cincinnatus

    Addendum to tODD: With the exceptions of Clinton and JFK (a fraud, in general, and a result of crony “democracy”), the men you have listed are examples of “great men.” Great men are not always–in fact, I would venture, are seldom–good men. American voters love to elect great men. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate that preference.

  • Cincinnatus

    Addendum to tODD: With the exceptions of Clinton and JFK (a fraud, in general, and a result of crony “democracy”), the men you have listed are examples of “great men.” Great men are not always–in fact, I would venture, are seldom–good men. American voters love to elect great men. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate that preference.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    The difference between McCain is this, he owned up to his mistakes, he didn’t try and hide.

    Commanding officer, liaison to Senate, and second marriage

    McCain’s return to the United States reunited him with his family. His wife Carol had suffered her own crippling ordeal due to an automobile accident in December 1969. McCain became a celebrity of sorts, as a returned POW.

    McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy, and attended the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974. Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated, and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida. He improved the unit’s flight readiness and safety records, and won the squadron its first-ever Meritorious Unit Commendation. During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, and the McCains’ marriage began to falter, for which he later would accept blame

    There is a big difference between McCain, ….. Clinton and others – McCain admitted his affairs!

  • Grace

    tODD,

    The difference between McCain is this, he owned up to his mistakes, he didn’t try and hide.

    Commanding officer, liaison to Senate, and second marriage

    McCain’s return to the United States reunited him with his family. His wife Carol had suffered her own crippling ordeal due to an automobile accident in December 1969. McCain became a celebrity of sorts, as a returned POW.

    McCain underwent treatment for his injuries, including months of grueling physical therapy, and attended the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. during 1973–1974. Having been rehabilitated, by late 1974, McCain had his flight status reinstated, and in 1976 he became commanding officer of a training squadron stationed in Florida. He improved the unit’s flight readiness and safety records, and won the squadron its first-ever Meritorious Unit Commendation. During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, and the McCains’ marriage began to falter, for which he later would accept blame

    There is a big difference between McCain, ….. Clinton and others – McCain admitted his affairs!

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 26

    “American voters love to elect great men. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate that preference.”

    Morals, admitting one is wrong are most important Cincinnatus. Would you prefer a liar, a man who cannot admit he’s wrong? A liar cannot be trusted.

    “Reevaluate” ? – I see, so you would exchange an honest man for a liar – that is the value you put on truth?

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @ 26

    “American voters love to elect great men. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate that preference.”

    Morals, admitting one is wrong are most important Cincinnatus. Would you prefer a liar, a man who cannot admit he’s wrong? A liar cannot be trusted.

    “Reevaluate” ? – I see, so you would exchange an honest man for a liar – that is the value you put on truth?

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace@28:

    I see, so you entirely misread my comment?

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace@28:

    I see, so you entirely misread my comment?

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – I believe Cincinnatus is saying we should maybe consider voting for good men, not great. Or, maybe great men who can also be good men. We Americans seem to love greatness, and conflate it with goodness, and then we’re shocked by the poor, boorish behavior of men (and women) of people who view themselves as worthy of greatness.

    And, I believe that Gingrich also admitted his affairs.

    Finally, the evidence against Jefferson is decidedly mixed and probably more the result of early 19th century mudslinging than actual fact.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – I believe Cincinnatus is saying we should maybe consider voting for good men, not great. Or, maybe great men who can also be good men. We Americans seem to love greatness, and conflate it with goodness, and then we’re shocked by the poor, boorish behavior of men (and women) of people who view themselves as worthy of greatness.

    And, I believe that Gingrich also admitted his affairs.

    Finally, the evidence against Jefferson is decidedly mixed and probably more the result of early 19th century mudslinging than actual fact.

  • Grace

    A man and woman who take vows at the time of their marriage to be faithful to another, and then breaks those vows.. then lies about it, cannot be trusted. Couple that with the desire to run for president of the United States, .. who can trust such a man or woman? – who can trust the man who hasn’t the backbone to admit he broke a trust of faithfulness?

    Do you expect a man to be faithful to this country, who cannot admit he was unfaithful to his wife?

    John McCain and Newt Gingrich have both admitted their affairs. It takes real men to admit such things, only a wimp, and a coward hide like a child under the porch.

  • Grace

    A man and woman who take vows at the time of their marriage to be faithful to another, and then breaks those vows.. then lies about it, cannot be trusted. Couple that with the desire to run for president of the United States, .. who can trust such a man or woman? – who can trust the man who hasn’t the backbone to admit he broke a trust of faithfulness?

    Do you expect a man to be faithful to this country, who cannot admit he was unfaithful to his wife?

    John McCain and Newt Gingrich have both admitted their affairs. It takes real men to admit such things, only a wimp, and a coward hide like a child under the porch.

  • Carl Vehse

    Grace @23: “it became clear, the man doesn’t have the ability to be the next president of the U.S.
    Cain talks big, but there is no substance.”

    At least Cain does not think we have 57 states, sign a guestbook this year with a date of “2008,” claim the language in Austria is Austrian, refer to the U.S.-built Intercontinental Railroad, refer to Navy ‘Corpseman,” claim, “The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries,” or say he’s speaking from St. Louis when he is speaking from Kansas City, or has so thoroughly demonstrated in many other ways that he completely lacks any ability to act like a president, has no substance as one, and has appointed an array of despicable thugs and political scum in key government positions.

  • Carl Vehse

    Grace @23: “it became clear, the man doesn’t have the ability to be the next president of the U.S.
    Cain talks big, but there is no substance.”

    At least Cain does not think we have 57 states, sign a guestbook this year with a date of “2008,” claim the language in Austria is Austrian, refer to the U.S.-built Intercontinental Railroad, refer to Navy ‘Corpseman,” claim, “The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries,” or say he’s speaking from St. Louis when he is speaking from Kansas City, or has so thoroughly demonstrated in many other ways that he completely lacks any ability to act like a president, has no substance as one, and has appointed an array of despicable thugs and political scum in key government positions.

  • Grace

    Carl,

    Obama didn’t know what he was talking about, the same can be said for Cain.

  • Grace

    Carl,

    Obama didn’t know what he was talking about, the same can be said for Cain.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Now I don’t get a whole lot of “good choices” in politics (e.g. McCain’s adultery with repentance vs. Obama’s membership in TUCC without figuring out his pastor was an anti-semitic nutcase), but I still do care about the morality of those in leadership, including those in corporate management.

    To put it bluntly, a lot of the worst bosses I’ve had have been those on their second and third marriage, or who have never married at all. If I were running a company with employees, I’d be very tempted to risk nasty lawsuits by weeding out men who are single or repeatedly divorced from the pool of prospective managers; if they can’t work with those closest to them, how are they going to work with subordinates? I’d also work to weed out those who are working 70-80 hours per week–if they’re willing to abandon family for work, they’re going to abandon subordinates to climb the corporate ladder.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Now I don’t get a whole lot of “good choices” in politics (e.g. McCain’s adultery with repentance vs. Obama’s membership in TUCC without figuring out his pastor was an anti-semitic nutcase), but I still do care about the morality of those in leadership, including those in corporate management.

    To put it bluntly, a lot of the worst bosses I’ve had have been those on their second and third marriage, or who have never married at all. If I were running a company with employees, I’d be very tempted to risk nasty lawsuits by weeding out men who are single or repeatedly divorced from the pool of prospective managers; if they can’t work with those closest to them, how are they going to work with subordinates? I’d also work to weed out those who are working 70-80 hours per week–if they’re willing to abandon family for work, they’re going to abandon subordinates to climb the corporate ladder.

  • Grace

    bike bubba @ 34

    There are a whole lot of liars who have stayed married, just look at past presidents,….. you’ll get the idea.

  • Grace

    bike bubba @ 34

    There are a whole lot of liars who have stayed married, just look at past presidents,….. you’ll get the idea.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@24):

    First of all, Clinton is just a horrible example.

    Okay. And had he been my only example, I likely wouldn’t have replied — Don’s point would appear to have held up to all the empirical data there was. But as you noted, Clinton wasn’t my only example. And the empirical data do not bear out Don’s point. But I didn’t want to leave out Clinton, lest I be accused of cherry-picking my data. For what it’s worth, LBJ should probably have been on my list of Presidents, according to the articles on Presidential affairs I found.

    While it might be a bit much to claim the he violated his oath to the Constitution

    Which was the main point to which I was replying. But even if you could argue that Clinton definitely violated his oath, I still don’t see that the rest of them did. That’s my point. The data do not bear out Don’s assertion.

    If one is not to be trusted in small matters, can we trust him with great matters?

    Okay, but you haven’t explained why you seemingly only apply this maxim to the President, and not others in positions of power and leadership. Should we therefore be suspicious of all people in any leadership position who can be labeled as failing in “small matters”?

    I mean, Steve Jobs fathered a child out of wedlock and wouldn’t even admit it was his child, such that she was raised on welfare while Apple was doing well. Do such “small matters” therefore teach us that Jobs was a bad CEO? Sorry, but the data show otherwise. Even you have admitted he was a horrible person to other people — surely more “small matters” to hold against him. But, again, this doesn’t appear to have negatively affected his ability to lead a corporation. Quite the opposite.

    I get that we want to believe that somehow being a “good” person makes one more qualified to occupy important positions. It seems moral to think so. It just doesn’t seem to work out in real life.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@24):

    First of all, Clinton is just a horrible example.

    Okay. And had he been my only example, I likely wouldn’t have replied — Don’s point would appear to have held up to all the empirical data there was. But as you noted, Clinton wasn’t my only example. And the empirical data do not bear out Don’s point. But I didn’t want to leave out Clinton, lest I be accused of cherry-picking my data. For what it’s worth, LBJ should probably have been on my list of Presidents, according to the articles on Presidential affairs I found.

    While it might be a bit much to claim the he violated his oath to the Constitution

    Which was the main point to which I was replying. But even if you could argue that Clinton definitely violated his oath, I still don’t see that the rest of them did. That’s my point. The data do not bear out Don’s assertion.

    If one is not to be trusted in small matters, can we trust him with great matters?

    Okay, but you haven’t explained why you seemingly only apply this maxim to the President, and not others in positions of power and leadership. Should we therefore be suspicious of all people in any leadership position who can be labeled as failing in “small matters”?

    I mean, Steve Jobs fathered a child out of wedlock and wouldn’t even admit it was his child, such that she was raised on welfare while Apple was doing well. Do such “small matters” therefore teach us that Jobs was a bad CEO? Sorry, but the data show otherwise. Even you have admitted he was a horrible person to other people — surely more “small matters” to hold against him. But, again, this doesn’t appear to have negatively affected his ability to lead a corporation. Quite the opposite.

    I get that we want to believe that somehow being a “good” person makes one more qualified to occupy important positions. It seems moral to think so. It just doesn’t seem to work out in real life.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@27), yes Mccain “owned up to his mistakes” … eventually. You seem to miss that point. But he also went through several extramarital affairs for years while with his first wife.

    There is a big difference between McCain, ….. Clinton and others – McCain admitted his affairs!

    Um, Clinton also admitted to his affair with Lewinsky. Did you forget that?

    Meanwhile, if, as the “conservatives” here are telling me, Character Counts, then if the Republicans nominate Newt or Cain, we should all definitely vote for the married-once, family-values candidate: Obama.

    Except that none of the “conservatives” here will do that. Because they don’t really believe that Character Counts. It’s just a convenient cudgel when you need it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@27), yes Mccain “owned up to his mistakes” … eventually. You seem to miss that point. But he also went through several extramarital affairs for years while with his first wife.

    There is a big difference between McCain, ….. Clinton and others – McCain admitted his affairs!

    Um, Clinton also admitted to his affair with Lewinsky. Did you forget that?

    Meanwhile, if, as the “conservatives” here are telling me, Character Counts, then if the Republicans nominate Newt or Cain, we should all definitely vote for the married-once, family-values candidate: Obama.

    Except that none of the “conservatives” here will do that. Because they don’t really believe that Character Counts. It’s just a convenient cudgel when you need it.

  • steve

    I don’t care anymore. Cain has demonstrated a lack of depth of understand what the job is all about. He talks more like a politician than a politician. And he can’t seem to be completely honest, which is not so different than other politicians but, then, why not just elect a dishonest competent politician?

    What he does from here on out is of little concern to me.

  • steve

    I don’t care anymore. Cain has demonstrated a lack of depth of understand what the job is all about. He talks more like a politician than a politician. And he can’t seem to be completely honest, which is not so different than other politicians but, then, why not just elect a dishonest competent politician?

    What he does from here on out is of little concern to me.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 37

    “Um, Clinton also admitted to his affair with Lewinsky. Did you forget that?”

    LOL, no – I doubt anyone has forgotten,…… that Clinton after being proven a liar finally admitted his affair.

    Obama? :lol: ya like him tODD, is he your man? Or are you passing the time playing ‘devils advocate, when you’re bored with whatever you do?

  • Grace

    tODD @ 37

    “Um, Clinton also admitted to his affair with Lewinsky. Did you forget that?”

    LOL, no – I doubt anyone has forgotten,…… that Clinton after being proven a liar finally admitted his affair.

    Obama? :lol: ya like him tODD, is he your man? Or are you passing the time playing ‘devils advocate, when you’re bored with whatever you do?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 22 and following: My comment earlier in this thread needs to be taken in context; i.e. deciding between candidates that you could potentially vote for, given their policy positions and promises. Of course, I would never vote for Obama, because his policies are abominable. I’m glad that he appears to be a faithful husband and father — that’s great. But, I still think he is a terrible president and is damaging our country in many ways. Remember, what I said was that if the candidate isn’t trustworthy in his personal life, to keep his marriage vows, for example, why should we trust him to keep his campaign promises? In the case of Obama, I don’t want him to keep them! See the difference?

    So, ultimately, I’m forced to hold my nose and vote for the candidate with policy positions closest to my own. But, in the primaries, it’s a far different story.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 22 and following: My comment earlier in this thread needs to be taken in context; i.e. deciding between candidates that you could potentially vote for, given their policy positions and promises. Of course, I would never vote for Obama, because his policies are abominable. I’m glad that he appears to be a faithful husband and father — that’s great. But, I still think he is a terrible president and is damaging our country in many ways. Remember, what I said was that if the candidate isn’t trustworthy in his personal life, to keep his marriage vows, for example, why should we trust him to keep his campaign promises? In the case of Obama, I don’t want him to keep them! See the difference?

    So, ultimately, I’m forced to hold my nose and vote for the candidate with policy positions closest to my own. But, in the primaries, it’s a far different story.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Klasie Kraalogies, #10

    “Btw, I think Cain is a terrible choice, not because of possible infidelity, but because he is an unmitigated ignoramus.”
    ——————

    I personally do think one’s record of private integrity is a significant matter with regard to it being a sign of personal character, and hence, of how one potentially could behave in the “privacy” of the Oval Office, where one develops a god complex and thinks he is above the law. As I hope we learned from Bill Clinton, when at least a signicant portion if not majority of his focus on the job as president became centered around chasing/having adulterous affairs with interns much younger than yourself, not to mention then the matter of trying to keep such things secret, then I think this can affect one’s job performance. It also potentially can become a national security risk in terms of liability to blackmail.

    While Gingrich, like Clinton, has a bad record on that score (e.g., Gingrich’s 2 divorces/remarriages resultant from two affairs, starting/having one of those with a woman who was a SEVENTEEN year old intern/congressional page at the time, for which he is lucky the age of consent in DC at that time was Sixteen!) and Cain ‘might’ (hard to believe him now–as if all those text messages at all times day and night, gifts, hotel rooms were all just for a “friendship”). For sure, one of the differences you point out is that Gingrich has demonstrated a sufficient level of intelligence and skills in articulate communication of his ideas while some of us think that Cain has not. (e.g., some of us voters want to hear more about Cain’s perspectives on issues than his “Just fix it”, “9-9-9″ mantras constantly repeated.) I mean, has the candidate demonstrated enough intelligence, knowledge and understanding of the issues to not always completely rely on what his advisors tell him? Not with Cain. So you’re right. Still, I think character does matter–and I think Newt’s record shows questionable character. By record, I do not merely mean his affairs, but also his flip-flopping on issues arguably opportustic/expedient grounds, and one more recent issue–his “consulting”/”promoter” gig with Fannie Mae through 2006 (!) which I’m shocked isn’t getting more attention.

    To “social conservatives”, I can’t help but ask: How come Gingrich gets a pass, but Cain does not? Or put the opposite, how come Cain doesn’t get a pass, but Gingrich does? Is it that character matters, that is, except when it comes down to picking a viable “anti-Romney”??? (who, if they’d study the guy, might wonder if in some ways he’s actually “another Romney”).

    For “Flip” & “Flop” (i.e., Romney & Gingrich), here’s a video for you regarding them:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1RKPfMqGOg&feature=youtu.be

    (To all our Rick Perry fans, yes, I am an “RP” supporter. Don’t knock it until you actually read him for yourself. Check out his latest book, “End the Fed”, before your dollar completely collapses.)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Klasie Kraalogies, #10

    “Btw, I think Cain is a terrible choice, not because of possible infidelity, but because he is an unmitigated ignoramus.”
    ——————

    I personally do think one’s record of private integrity is a significant matter with regard to it being a sign of personal character, and hence, of how one potentially could behave in the “privacy” of the Oval Office, where one develops a god complex and thinks he is above the law. As I hope we learned from Bill Clinton, when at least a signicant portion if not majority of his focus on the job as president became centered around chasing/having adulterous affairs with interns much younger than yourself, not to mention then the matter of trying to keep such things secret, then I think this can affect one’s job performance. It also potentially can become a national security risk in terms of liability to blackmail.

    While Gingrich, like Clinton, has a bad record on that score (e.g., Gingrich’s 2 divorces/remarriages resultant from two affairs, starting/having one of those with a woman who was a SEVENTEEN year old intern/congressional page at the time, for which he is lucky the age of consent in DC at that time was Sixteen!) and Cain ‘might’ (hard to believe him now–as if all those text messages at all times day and night, gifts, hotel rooms were all just for a “friendship”). For sure, one of the differences you point out is that Gingrich has demonstrated a sufficient level of intelligence and skills in articulate communication of his ideas while some of us think that Cain has not. (e.g., some of us voters want to hear more about Cain’s perspectives on issues than his “Just fix it”, “9-9-9″ mantras constantly repeated.) I mean, has the candidate demonstrated enough intelligence, knowledge and understanding of the issues to not always completely rely on what his advisors tell him? Not with Cain. So you’re right. Still, I think character does matter–and I think Newt’s record shows questionable character. By record, I do not merely mean his affairs, but also his flip-flopping on issues arguably opportustic/expedient grounds, and one more recent issue–his “consulting”/”promoter” gig with Fannie Mae through 2006 (!) which I’m shocked isn’t getting more attention.

    To “social conservatives”, I can’t help but ask: How come Gingrich gets a pass, but Cain does not? Or put the opposite, how come Cain doesn’t get a pass, but Gingrich does? Is it that character matters, that is, except when it comes down to picking a viable “anti-Romney”??? (who, if they’d study the guy, might wonder if in some ways he’s actually “another Romney”).

    For “Flip” & “Flop” (i.e., Romney & Gingrich), here’s a video for you regarding them:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1RKPfMqGOg&feature=youtu.be

    (To all our Rick Perry fans, yes, I am an “RP” supporter. Don’t knock it until you actually read him for yourself. Check out his latest book, “End the Fed”, before your dollar completely collapses.)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    JG: Perry – please no. The world doesn’t need a gun-totin cowboy in the White House. Not again.

    I’m not a Gingrich fan either, though he has a lot more brains. If I’m forced to pick from the crop of candidates, Id probably go with Huntsman. But don’t quote me on that… :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    JG: Perry – please no. The world doesn’t need a gun-totin cowboy in the White House. Not again.

    I’m not a Gingrich fan either, though he has a lot more brains. If I’m forced to pick from the crop of candidates, Id probably go with Huntsman. But don’t quote me on that… :)

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD: I actually specifically disclaimed the idea that private virtue will be indicative of success in any position of authority. In the case of Steve Jobs, for example, it appears that his massive ego, loose commitment to promises, and abrasive attitude were conducive to success in a highly competitive environment. For the record, I didn’t trust Steve Jobs. Should I have? The fact that the American business environment attracts and rewards the unscrupulous is itself, I think, a systemic problem, but not one that directly pertains to presidential/political ethics. More to the point, Steve Jobs is not my problem. I don’t buy Apple products. He doesn’t (didn’t) govern the particularities of my life as an American citizen. He didn’t collect my taxes, send my friends to war, carry a nuclear football, or steward public funds. On the other hand, many of us are concerned by the unscrupulous behavior of certain bank C.E.O.s, precisely because they do, in fact, exercise some kind of authority over everyday American life. I care that certain bankers may or may not demonstrate fidelity and consideration to the people closest to them in their personal lives.

    Meanwhile, you probably wouldn’t appreciate it if your clergyman was an unscrupulous, unethical character. I generally wouldn’t hire a contractor to remodel my kitchen if I knew he abused drugs or beat his wife–I don’t want this person in my house, probably unattended, around my possessions and family–but I really couldn’t care less if my postman is thrice-divorced with seven simultaneous mistresses. In other words, I’m saying that personal ethics matter more in politics than they might in business or elsewhere, just as they do in the ministry as opposed to other private vocations. I’m not excusing Steve Jobs or my postman for his general badness, for example, and if I were on Apple’s Board (or that of the USPS), I would be skeptical of any candidate for executive officership whose personal life was a shambles. But, as I said earlier, the presidency (or congressional office, etc.) is a position of public trust specifically and exclusively. A CEO signs a contract; he doesn’t swear an oath. The President does, and that oath is the only assurance we have that he will fulfill the duties of his office. He can’t be fired easily (this is why executive political figures are more often targets of assassination than business figures, who can be fired, ignored, boycotted, etc.). Please demonstrate to me an inability to keep promises in private life is “compartmentalized” from, bracketed, and irrelevant to our assessment of one’s fitness for high public office. I simply don’t see it. It matters. And honestly, you’re kidding yourself if you think the only metric of a “good” President is whether he upheld the bare essentials of the oath of office: “Yeah, I raised taxes, led us into several useless wars, cheated on my wife in office, perjured myself before Congress, etc., but at least I didn’t violate the Constitution!”

    That said, however, your early potshot at the alleged hypocrisy of “Values Voters” is misguided and unfair. Would some so-called values voters choose Newt over Obama in an election? Probably. Is this evidence of grave hypocrisy or a shallow commitment to virtue? Maybe. But more likely is the case that these folks recognize that one’s personal scruples are not the only metric when evaluating suitable candidates. Maybe they are willing to gamble on Newt’s personal infidelities believing that Obama’s demonstrated political record would be worse either way given their ideological and political preferences. Politics, even at the individual level, is compromise. Otherwise, you’re asserting that no values voter really “means” it unless they write in Jesus Christ on every ballot they cast.

    I don’t know if I’m a values voter, but I certainly a) deny that public and private conduct are completely separable and b) believe that personal misconduct is a valid consideration when evaluating a candidate for public office.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD: I actually specifically disclaimed the idea that private virtue will be indicative of success in any position of authority. In the case of Steve Jobs, for example, it appears that his massive ego, loose commitment to promises, and abrasive attitude were conducive to success in a highly competitive environment. For the record, I didn’t trust Steve Jobs. Should I have? The fact that the American business environment attracts and rewards the unscrupulous is itself, I think, a systemic problem, but not one that directly pertains to presidential/political ethics. More to the point, Steve Jobs is not my problem. I don’t buy Apple products. He doesn’t (didn’t) govern the particularities of my life as an American citizen. He didn’t collect my taxes, send my friends to war, carry a nuclear football, or steward public funds. On the other hand, many of us are concerned by the unscrupulous behavior of certain bank C.E.O.s, precisely because they do, in fact, exercise some kind of authority over everyday American life. I care that certain bankers may or may not demonstrate fidelity and consideration to the people closest to them in their personal lives.

    Meanwhile, you probably wouldn’t appreciate it if your clergyman was an unscrupulous, unethical character. I generally wouldn’t hire a contractor to remodel my kitchen if I knew he abused drugs or beat his wife–I don’t want this person in my house, probably unattended, around my possessions and family–but I really couldn’t care less if my postman is thrice-divorced with seven simultaneous mistresses. In other words, I’m saying that personal ethics matter more in politics than they might in business or elsewhere, just as they do in the ministry as opposed to other private vocations. I’m not excusing Steve Jobs or my postman for his general badness, for example, and if I were on Apple’s Board (or that of the USPS), I would be skeptical of any candidate for executive officership whose personal life was a shambles. But, as I said earlier, the presidency (or congressional office, etc.) is a position of public trust specifically and exclusively. A CEO signs a contract; he doesn’t swear an oath. The President does, and that oath is the only assurance we have that he will fulfill the duties of his office. He can’t be fired easily (this is why executive political figures are more often targets of assassination than business figures, who can be fired, ignored, boycotted, etc.). Please demonstrate to me an inability to keep promises in private life is “compartmentalized” from, bracketed, and irrelevant to our assessment of one’s fitness for high public office. I simply don’t see it. It matters. And honestly, you’re kidding yourself if you think the only metric of a “good” President is whether he upheld the bare essentials of the oath of office: “Yeah, I raised taxes, led us into several useless wars, cheated on my wife in office, perjured myself before Congress, etc., but at least I didn’t violate the Constitution!”

    That said, however, your early potshot at the alleged hypocrisy of “Values Voters” is misguided and unfair. Would some so-called values voters choose Newt over Obama in an election? Probably. Is this evidence of grave hypocrisy or a shallow commitment to virtue? Maybe. But more likely is the case that these folks recognize that one’s personal scruples are not the only metric when evaluating suitable candidates. Maybe they are willing to gamble on Newt’s personal infidelities believing that Obama’s demonstrated political record would be worse either way given their ideological and political preferences. Politics, even at the individual level, is compromise. Otherwise, you’re asserting that no values voter really “means” it unless they write in Jesus Christ on every ballot they cast.

    I don’t know if I’m a values voter, but I certainly a) deny that public and private conduct are completely separable and b) believe that personal misconduct is a valid consideration when evaluating a candidate for public office.

  • Carl Vehse

    No one has mention the fact that while the supposed affair Ginger White alleges was going on, Herman Cain developed Stage IV colon and liver cancer .

    In 2006 Cain went through four rounds of chemotherapy and a portal vein embolization before he underwent a six-and-a-half hour surgery that removed 30 percent of his colon, 70 percent of his liver, and about 48 lymph nodes. Later he received additional chemotherapy treatments.

    So have Ginger try and describe the scars.

  • Carl Vehse

    No one has mention the fact that while the supposed affair Ginger White alleges was going on, Herman Cain developed Stage IV colon and liver cancer .

    In 2006 Cain went through four rounds of chemotherapy and a portal vein embolization before he underwent a six-and-a-half hour surgery that removed 30 percent of his colon, 70 percent of his liver, and about 48 lymph nodes. Later he received additional chemotherapy treatments.

    So have Ginger try and describe the scars.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@40) said:

    …deciding between candidates that you could potentially vote for, given their policy positions and promises. Of course, I would never vote for Obama, because his policies are abominable.

    Exactly.

    I don’t believe that anyone ever actually uses this Character Counts! rubric to make a decision. Because I have yet to see anyone vote against their preferred party or candidate on the basis of it. If the choice comes down to a Democrat with an exemplary family life and a Republican with infidelities and divorces under his belt, well, go with the Republican, anyhow. Oh, but if it were the Democrat with the horrible family life, well, you wouldn’t hear the end of how Character Counts! See? It’s just a cudgel you use to back up the decision you were going to go with.

    Or are you seriously trying to tell me that Cain was otherwise an equal to the other candidates? Come on. He wasn’t. His answer about Libya, on video, made it clear he’s not ready for any level of national politics. Among other things.

    Sure, “all other things being equal”, you (and others) would use the Character Counts! rubric to choose the more maritally faithful of two otherwise identical candidates. But all things are never equal. And, I submit, Character Counts! is never a deciding factor. It’s just a really easy excuse.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@40) said:

    …deciding between candidates that you could potentially vote for, given their policy positions and promises. Of course, I would never vote for Obama, because his policies are abominable.

    Exactly.

    I don’t believe that anyone ever actually uses this Character Counts! rubric to make a decision. Because I have yet to see anyone vote against their preferred party or candidate on the basis of it. If the choice comes down to a Democrat with an exemplary family life and a Republican with infidelities and divorces under his belt, well, go with the Republican, anyhow. Oh, but if it were the Democrat with the horrible family life, well, you wouldn’t hear the end of how Character Counts! See? It’s just a cudgel you use to back up the decision you were going to go with.

    Or are you seriously trying to tell me that Cain was otherwise an equal to the other candidates? Come on. He wasn’t. His answer about Libya, on video, made it clear he’s not ready for any level of national politics. Among other things.

    Sure, “all other things being equal”, you (and others) would use the Character Counts! rubric to choose the more maritally faithful of two otherwise identical candidates. But all things are never equal. And, I submit, Character Counts! is never a deciding factor. It’s just a really easy excuse.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD: I think it very much is a factor in primary elections, at least. And local elections. For instance, last mayoral election in Madison featured two leftist, progressive, registered Democrats whose policy proposals were virtually identical. I simply voted for the one who didn’t come across as a dishonest jerk. And one of them did, I’ll add.

    In the primary, given the choice between, say, Newt and Romney–who, to the average voter, are mostly similar when it comes to policies–I think Newt’s past indiscretions are or will be a factor.

    But at least you’ve moved on from the claim that character doesn’t even count in the first place…

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD: I think it very much is a factor in primary elections, at least. And local elections. For instance, last mayoral election in Madison featured two leftist, progressive, registered Democrats whose policy proposals were virtually identical. I simply voted for the one who didn’t come across as a dishonest jerk. And one of them did, I’ll add.

    In the primary, given the choice between, say, Newt and Romney–who, to the average voter, are mostly similar when it comes to policies–I think Newt’s past indiscretions are or will be a factor.

    But at least you’ve moved on from the claim that character doesn’t even count in the first place…

  • DonS

    tODD @ 45: You seem to have ignored my comment that the character issue is particularly important in primary elections, where policy positions are generally much more similar, and where your preferred party is selecting the best candidate to run in the general election. Once you’re in the general election, the policy choice is typically too stark for character issues to sway it.

    Cincinnatus states this rebuttal well @ 46.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 45: You seem to have ignored my comment that the character issue is particularly important in primary elections, where policy positions are generally much more similar, and where your preferred party is selecting the best candidate to run in the general election. Once you’re in the general election, the policy choice is typically too stark for character issues to sway it.

    Cincinnatus states this rebuttal well @ 46.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    I don’t know that its accurate to say that character is never the deciding factor. At least at the primary level, I think there are times when the people with character issues are rejected in favor of those who have smaller or fewer such issues. But I grant you that, by the time of a general election its about issues way more than character.

    Cincinnatus:

    Jimmie Carter was a comparitively “good” man. You could argue that George W. Bush was too (Oliver Stone portrayed Chaney as evil, while W was portrayed as well intended). Are you sure that giving great authority to a man who is merely “good” is really such a great plan. I think that a certain level of “greatness” is needed to be a good president.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    I don’t know that its accurate to say that character is never the deciding factor. At least at the primary level, I think there are times when the people with character issues are rejected in favor of those who have smaller or fewer such issues. But I grant you that, by the time of a general election its about issues way more than character.

    Cincinnatus:

    Jimmie Carter was a comparitively “good” man. You could argue that George W. Bush was too (Oliver Stone portrayed Chaney as evil, while W was portrayed as well intended). Are you sure that giving great authority to a man who is merely “good” is really such a great plan. I think that a certain level of “greatness” is needed to be a good president.

  • DonS

    To expound upon my comment @ 47, it is conceivable that a character issue could arise that was so serious as to cause a voter, including myself, not to vote for the candidate I otherwise would choose, even in a general election. But such an eventuality wouldn’t cause me to choose a candidate having opposite policy views, like Obama. Rather, it might cause me to vote third party or abstain.

    It would have to be a very serious character issue.

  • DonS

    To expound upon my comment @ 47, it is conceivable that a character issue could arise that was so serious as to cause a voter, including myself, not to vote for the candidate I otherwise would choose, even in a general election. But such an eventuality wouldn’t cause me to choose a candidate having opposite policy views, like Obama. Rather, it might cause me to vote third party or abstain.

    It would have to be a very serious character issue.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Grace; you are correct that many despicable men do somehow remain married. That said, in a business environment, those are the ones who often confuse time in office with effectiveness, too.

    (nothing perfect, but perhaps better than we might think)

    And regarding LBJ, let’s keep in mind that it’s his innovations that most directly threaten the future of the republic–the Medicare unfunded liabilities dwarf those of Socialist Insecurity.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Grace; you are correct that many despicable men do somehow remain married. That said, in a business environment, those are the ones who often confuse time in office with effectiveness, too.

    (nothing perfect, but perhaps better than we might think)

    And regarding LBJ, let’s keep in mind that it’s his innovations that most directly threaten the future of the republic–the Medicare unfunded liabilities dwarf those of Socialist Insecurity.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BB – it is not ss, or medicare, that “threaten the future of your republic”. After all Canada has both, and our debt to GDP ratio is much, much lower than. Yours, only 34.9%. Sweden has a robust economy, and is virtually a soccial. Democratic state. No, the problem is the inability of your boys in Washington, to balance baudgets,n and to practice sound accounting. The actual policies matter much less than these simple facts. Forget ideology, try and balance what comes beforre the equals sign with what comes after it. It is as simple as that.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    BB – it is not ss, or medicare, that “threaten the future of your republic”. After all Canada has both, and our debt to GDP ratio is much, much lower than. Yours, only 34.9%. Sweden has a robust economy, and is virtually a soccial. Democratic state. No, the problem is the inability of your boys in Washington, to balance baudgets,n and to practice sound accounting. The actual policies matter much less than these simple facts. Forget ideology, try and balance what comes beforre the equals sign with what comes after it. It is as simple as that.

  • Cincinnatus

    KK: The problem, however, is also one of scale. While the fixes for SS would be “easy,” if politically unpopular, the problems of Medicare are potentially impervious to obvious solutions. Particularly as the ratio between workers and retirees grows, it will become increasingly difficult–perhaps impossible–to fund comprehensive health coverage for a population of senior citizens, whose healthcare needs generally outstrip those of younger citizens by orders of magnitude, greater than the entire population of Canada. At the very least, deep structural, systemic changes in the way healthcare is delivered, taxes are collected, and professions are ordered in the United States would be necessary to “save” Medicare. The repercussions would also be global, as part of the reason American healthcare is expensive in the first place is rooted in R&D that happens here and not elsewhere, etc. As a general rule, I am against “deep structural, systemic changes” to anything unless it involves a return to simpler/better arrangements.

    tl;dr: Canada’s prowess can’t necessarily be scaled to a nation of 300 million people. Stop advancing the stereotype of Canadian smugness. (Though I completely agree that America’s federal politicians are completely devoid of basic actuarial skills; but you paint the picture as if solving our problems would be easier if politicians would just do [x]. But what is “x”? I’ll be damned if I know.)

  • Cincinnatus

    KK: The problem, however, is also one of scale. While the fixes for SS would be “easy,” if politically unpopular, the problems of Medicare are potentially impervious to obvious solutions. Particularly as the ratio between workers and retirees grows, it will become increasingly difficult–perhaps impossible–to fund comprehensive health coverage for a population of senior citizens, whose healthcare needs generally outstrip those of younger citizens by orders of magnitude, greater than the entire population of Canada. At the very least, deep structural, systemic changes in the way healthcare is delivered, taxes are collected, and professions are ordered in the United States would be necessary to “save” Medicare. The repercussions would also be global, as part of the reason American healthcare is expensive in the first place is rooted in R&D that happens here and not elsewhere, etc. As a general rule, I am against “deep structural, systemic changes” to anything unless it involves a return to simpler/better arrangements.

    tl;dr: Canada’s prowess can’t necessarily be scaled to a nation of 300 million people. Stop advancing the stereotype of Canadian smugness. (Though I completely agree that America’s federal politicians are completely devoid of basic actuarial skills; but you paint the picture as if solving our problems would be easier if politicians would just do [x]. But what is “x”? I’ll be damned if I know.)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cin, You are reading smugness where none is intended – maybe the onersensitive national pride needs to be scale down a notch or two?

    Anyway, you ask how? Here’s how – and again, this is just an example. But if you are to high and mighty to learn from another’s struggles, then all the worse for you: http://business.financialpost.com/2011/11/21/lessons-from-canadas-basket-case-moment/

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cin, You are reading smugness where none is intended – maybe the onersensitive national pride needs to be scale down a notch or two?

    Anyway, you ask how? Here’s how – and again, this is just an example. But if you are to high and mighty to learn from another’s struggles, then all the worse for you: http://business.financialpost.com/2011/11/21/lessons-from-canadas-basket-case-moment/

  • Cincinnatus

    KK,

    National pride is not something I’m typically accused of guarding.

    But I’m familiar with Canada’s “moment,” and if any American politicians from any party promised to follow the general plan of action outlined in the FP article. But the article is painfully short on details. While many of America’s problems could be solved by a few “simple” spending cuts and tax increases, that won’t repair the structural problems in Medicare (and Medicaid and a few other problematic monstrosities), whose unfunded liabilities are in the trillions. If you have ideas for that, I’m all ears. And I’m sure Canada didn’t find it too difficult to cut their defense expenditures, since they have virtually none in comparison with ours (you’re welcome; we apparently enjoy subsidizing the defense of the entire developed world). But the defense budget, in America, has become a vast special interest, with private industries, contractors, and local populations dependent upon the game. I.e., the “military-industrial complex.” Every state has at least one base, academy, factory, or installation, and thus every Congressman and Senator has “skin in the game.” Read up on recent attempts at domestic base closings in the United States. It’s easy enough to, say, advocate defense cuts–until it involves closing a R&D establishment in North Carolina, for instance, or shutting down a whole city in New York or South Dakota. It’s easy enough to call for Medicare “reforms”–unless you depend upon the votes of anyone over the age of 50, and every politician in America is so dependent. It’s easy enough to accomplish anything on the agenda, in fact–unless you don’t have a Westminster parliamentarian form of government.

    In other words, while I agree with you in general, saying it is one thing; doing it another.

  • Cincinnatus

    KK,

    National pride is not something I’m typically accused of guarding.

    But I’m familiar with Canada’s “moment,” and if any American politicians from any party promised to follow the general plan of action outlined in the FP article. But the article is painfully short on details. While many of America’s problems could be solved by a few “simple” spending cuts and tax increases, that won’t repair the structural problems in Medicare (and Medicaid and a few other problematic monstrosities), whose unfunded liabilities are in the trillions. If you have ideas for that, I’m all ears. And I’m sure Canada didn’t find it too difficult to cut their defense expenditures, since they have virtually none in comparison with ours (you’re welcome; we apparently enjoy subsidizing the defense of the entire developed world). But the defense budget, in America, has become a vast special interest, with private industries, contractors, and local populations dependent upon the game. I.e., the “military-industrial complex.” Every state has at least one base, academy, factory, or installation, and thus every Congressman and Senator has “skin in the game.” Read up on recent attempts at domestic base closings in the United States. It’s easy enough to, say, advocate defense cuts–until it involves closing a R&D establishment in North Carolina, for instance, or shutting down a whole city in New York or South Dakota. It’s easy enough to call for Medicare “reforms”–unless you depend upon the votes of anyone over the age of 50, and every politician in America is so dependent. It’s easy enough to accomplish anything on the agenda, in fact–unless you don’t have a Westminster parliamentarian form of government.

    In other words, while I agree with you in general, saying it is one thing; doing it another.

  • Cincinnatus

    if any American politician, etc…I WOULD VOTE FOR THEM*

  • Cincinnatus

    if any American politician, etc…I WOULD VOTE FOR THEM*

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    OK: The very first thing to do, is campiagn / political financing. Canada did this as well. There are very, very strict limits on what any politician, or his/her campaign can receive, in strict monetary terms, from any donour, be they a family member, individual, corporation, organisation, lobby group or even a Union. This includes loans. The total is really low.

    This would go a long way to limit politcal control by the special interests. Second, subsidies – see what Huntsman did in Utah. Cut them, destroy them, eliminate them. Third – the governor of Montana is currently looking at using SK medical system as blueprint, but adapting it for Montana’s needs – it would esentially cover more people at half the cost. See what he is proposing.

    Social security – elimate graft – this I have no further suggestions, but will think about it.

    Back to military spending – reduce foreign bases by 75%, pull out of Afghanistan completely, build a pipeline from lberta which would decrease the dependance on MEd oil, thereby decreasing the need for ME military involvement, thereby decreasing the need for Islaimists to target the US as “the enemy”. Cut down support for Israel unless they compromise – no to Netanyahu, yes to the moderates. No more settlements, or no more support. This will quickly cut down o the need for foreign military entanglement over there.

    Simplify the tax code – see Huntsman in Utah.

    No further increaes in departemental budgets unless absolutely critical – see Chretien in Canada. Cut down / consolidate security agencies – too many of them, eating too many $$.

    How’s that for a start?

    Oh, and elect Huntsman :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    OK: The very first thing to do, is campiagn / political financing. Canada did this as well. There are very, very strict limits on what any politician, or his/her campaign can receive, in strict monetary terms, from any donour, be they a family member, individual, corporation, organisation, lobby group or even a Union. This includes loans. The total is really low.

    This would go a long way to limit politcal control by the special interests. Second, subsidies – see what Huntsman did in Utah. Cut them, destroy them, eliminate them. Third – the governor of Montana is currently looking at using SK medical system as blueprint, but adapting it for Montana’s needs – it would esentially cover more people at half the cost. See what he is proposing.

    Social security – elimate graft – this I have no further suggestions, but will think about it.

    Back to military spending – reduce foreign bases by 75%, pull out of Afghanistan completely, build a pipeline from lberta which would decrease the dependance on MEd oil, thereby decreasing the need for ME military involvement, thereby decreasing the need for Islaimists to target the US as “the enemy”. Cut down support for Israel unless they compromise – no to Netanyahu, yes to the moderates. No more settlements, or no more support. This will quickly cut down o the need for foreign military entanglement over there.

    Simplify the tax code – see Huntsman in Utah.

    No further increaes in departemental budgets unless absolutely critical – see Chretien in Canada. Cut down / consolidate security agencies – too many of them, eating too many $$.

    How’s that for a start?

    Oh, and elect Huntsman :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus said (@55):

    if any American politician, etc…I WOULD VOTE FOR THEM*

    Unfortunately, this is a literal transcription of most Americans’ deliberations in voting.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus said (@55):

    if any American politician, etc…I WOULD VOTE FOR THEM*

    Unfortunately, this is a literal transcription of most Americans’ deliberations in voting.

  • Grace

    Isn’t this an interesting turn of events?

    Cain: Wife didn’t know about friendship, ‘financial assistance’ to Ginger White

    By JOHN DiSTASO
    Senior Political Reporter
    Published Dec 1, 2011

    Cain said he did give Ginger White money, although he would not say how much _ on the advice of counsel, he said.

    And, he acknowledged, “My wife did not know about it, and that was the revelation. My wife found out about it when she went public with it.

    “My wife now knows,” Cain said. “My wife and I have talked about it and I have explained it to her. My wife understands that I’m a soft-hearted giving person.”

    He said his wife “is comfortable with the explanation that I told her.”

    He said he told his wife about White only after White went public.

    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111201/NEWS0605/111209989

  • Grace

    Isn’t this an interesting turn of events?

    Cain: Wife didn’t know about friendship, ‘financial assistance’ to Ginger White

    By JOHN DiSTASO
    Senior Political Reporter
    Published Dec 1, 2011

    Cain said he did give Ginger White money, although he would not say how much _ on the advice of counsel, he said.

    And, he acknowledged, “My wife did not know about it, and that was the revelation. My wife found out about it when she went public with it.

    “My wife now knows,” Cain said. “My wife and I have talked about it and I have explained it to her. My wife understands that I’m a soft-hearted giving person.”

    He said his wife “is comfortable with the explanation that I told her.”

    He said he told his wife about White only after White went public.

    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111201/NEWS0605/111209989

  • Carl Vehse

    Sadly, Grace, unless the total amount he gave White over the 13-year period was somewhere in the $20-$50 range for lunch money, Cain’s story is now starting to sound like a modified limited hangout.

  • Carl Vehse

    Sadly, Grace, unless the total amount he gave White over the 13-year period was somewhere in the $20-$50 range for lunch money, Cain’s story is now starting to sound like a modified limited hangout.

  • Grace

    This email from CNN – BREAKING NEWS:

    Herman Cain on Saturday announced he is suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

    “One of the first declarations that I want to make to you today is that I am at peace with my God. I am at peace with my wife, and she is at peace with me,” he said prior to making the announcement.

    Cain said the decision was a result of the “cloud of doubt” that had been cast over his family in light of what he called false allegations.

    Cain’s once-surging bid for the nomination began to falter in recent weeks after allegations of sexual harassment surfaced.

    Most recently, Ginger White of Atlanta claimed that she and Cain, who is married, had carried on a 13-year affair.

    Cain this week told a newspaper he had repeatedly given White money to help her with “month-to-month bills and expenses.” But he denied the relationship was sexual, as White contends. He said the two were friends.

    Cain earlier told staffers he was reassessing his campaign in the wake of the allegation of the affair, and he acknowledged to reporters that her account had led to a drop in contributions to his campaign.

    “Suspending” a campaign allows a candidate to continue raising and spending campaign funds.

    For more on this story, tune in to “CNN Newsroom” on CNN. “

  • Grace

    This email from CNN – BREAKING NEWS:

    Herman Cain on Saturday announced he is suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

    “One of the first declarations that I want to make to you today is that I am at peace with my God. I am at peace with my wife, and she is at peace with me,” he said prior to making the announcement.

    Cain said the decision was a result of the “cloud of doubt” that had been cast over his family in light of what he called false allegations.

    Cain’s once-surging bid for the nomination began to falter in recent weeks after allegations of sexual harassment surfaced.

    Most recently, Ginger White of Atlanta claimed that she and Cain, who is married, had carried on a 13-year affair.

    Cain this week told a newspaper he had repeatedly given White money to help her with “month-to-month bills and expenses.” But he denied the relationship was sexual, as White contends. He said the two were friends.

    Cain earlier told staffers he was reassessing his campaign in the wake of the allegation of the affair, and he acknowledged to reporters that her account had led to a drop in contributions to his campaign.

    “Suspending” a campaign allows a candidate to continue raising and spending campaign funds.

    For more on this story, tune in to “CNN Newsroom” on CNN. “


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X