The fall of Citizen Cain?

A woman, Sharon Bialek, has come forward with details about how  Herman Cain, currently running for president, groped her.  She is not even one of the three women who filed sexual harassment claims against him and won settlements from the National Restaurant Association that he headed at the time. Here are the sordid details.

Some conservatives are skeptical about the charges, while others think they ring true.  Here is what the conservative blogger the Ace of Spades had to say:

Sorry, I’m now kind of convinced of his guilt. He’s trying to change the subject.

Not reassuring.

While he attempts to hoodwink you into thinking this is some principled stance, what I see is a guy who does not want to deny specific details (did he meet with Bialek? Did he upgrade her hotel room? Did the meeting end on a positive note or a negative one and if negative, why? ), because I see a guy who is worried that his specific denials will be proven false in turn.

So he keeps to the general. The vague. Even while he says he will not refer to his accusers’ “vague” or “nonspecific” allegations, he ignores the specific and very un-vague ones, and will only offer “vague” and “nonspecific” demurrals in turn.

And what he’s counting on is that the conservative movement is so dumb that it will elect him as a nominee without every figuring out what the damage and downside here will be, and you know what? There’s a good chance he’s right.

We have become pretty dumb. We’re so damned eager to believe we seem to have forgotten that skepticism is pretty useful.

And yes, skepticism on both sides, not skepticism only towards his four accusers, while taking a completely unskeptical, believer-ish posture to whatever Cain says.

Guy can’t even bother to tell me what Bialek said was false. He won’t even say that. He writes a general slam of the media and expects the reader to conveniently read a denial in between the lines, despite it never actually being offered up.

We have a live, on-the-record accuser, who says Cain groped her vagina.

On the other hand, we have Cain, who… refuses to say whether he touched her inappropriately or not. . . .

So, it’s not a he said/she said anymore; it’s a she said/he refuses to say and changes the topic.

via Ace of Spades HQ.

Is Cain finished?

Isn’t it at least encouraging that for all of our culture’s sexual permissiveness that charges like this one are still damaging?

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.

  • Dan Kempin

    Who is “Ace of Spades” that we should follow his (her?) lead on this? Is he (she?) a conservative counterpart to “Ketchup” of OWS? And who is the Walrus, again?

  • Dan Kempin

    Who is “Ace of Spades” that we should follow his (her?) lead on this? Is he (she?) a conservative counterpart to “Ketchup” of OWS? And who is the Walrus, again?

  • Mike

    I don’t understand how he is refusing to say whether or not he touched anyone inappropriately. He is saying the allegations are not true. Why is all of this coming out now when he is on top? Did these women not know he was running six months ago? I wonder what the media will harp on when Romney (unfortunately) is back on top.

  • Mike

    I don’t understand how he is refusing to say whether or not he touched anyone inappropriately. He is saying the allegations are not true. Why is all of this coming out now when he is on top? Did these women not know he was running six months ago? I wonder what the media will harp on when Romney (unfortunately) is back on top.

  • larry

    While many are picking on Mr. Cain wondering why he is having trouble answering in a yes/no fashion basically a question framed like, “have you stopped beating your wife”, few are really bothering to identify the almost cartoon like accusations.

    We (my wife and I) watched that theatric production last night to see what the “new news” was all about, and it was so obviously faked. It was like a very very bad B level movie with D level commercial actors. I recall every traumatic or distressing moment in my life time even 30+ years back and I would never even to this day need cue cards to recall them, or the emotions behind them, in order to express them to someone or an audience. She was reading every single sentence from cue cards and constantly looking down, in fact looking up at the camera/audience was exceedingly fleeting. This is not the kind of communication of someone attempting to confess a “heart felt” deeply traumatic event to and “get across to” an audience. A point my wife picked up on & I missed was in one of her cue card responses to the so called recalled from memory incident was when this lady said, “…Mr. Cain you know I have a boy friend”. My wife picked up instantly on that part telling me as a woman you would not say that in that situation if it was happening (a number of reactions to such an offense might occur from slapping, to stunned silence, to running out). Furthermore, my wife pointed out, “What’s the implication of it?” If I didn’t have a boyfriend I’d consider your proposal here, as if he were asking her out on a date.

    Add to it the supporting cast role of the perennial political ambulance chaser Gloria Allred, I give this fictional movie two thumbs down.

  • larry

    While many are picking on Mr. Cain wondering why he is having trouble answering in a yes/no fashion basically a question framed like, “have you stopped beating your wife”, few are really bothering to identify the almost cartoon like accusations.

    We (my wife and I) watched that theatric production last night to see what the “new news” was all about, and it was so obviously faked. It was like a very very bad B level movie with D level commercial actors. I recall every traumatic or distressing moment in my life time even 30+ years back and I would never even to this day need cue cards to recall them, or the emotions behind them, in order to express them to someone or an audience. She was reading every single sentence from cue cards and constantly looking down, in fact looking up at the camera/audience was exceedingly fleeting. This is not the kind of communication of someone attempting to confess a “heart felt” deeply traumatic event to and “get across to” an audience. A point my wife picked up on & I missed was in one of her cue card responses to the so called recalled from memory incident was when this lady said, “…Mr. Cain you know I have a boy friend”. My wife picked up instantly on that part telling me as a woman you would not say that in that situation if it was happening (a number of reactions to such an offense might occur from slapping, to stunned silence, to running out). Furthermore, my wife pointed out, “What’s the implication of it?” If I didn’t have a boyfriend I’d consider your proposal here, as if he were asking her out on a date.

    Add to it the supporting cast role of the perennial political ambulance chaser Gloria Allred, I give this fictional movie two thumbs down.

  • Joe

    I don’t know what happened, but it is getting hard to ignore it when we are up to three (or is it four?) women who claim to have been harassed. I do believe some people would lie about such things, but I am not sure you can get multiple women to take their past public in such a high profile setting.

  • Joe

    I don’t know what happened, but it is getting hard to ignore it when we are up to three (or is it four?) women who claim to have been harassed. I do believe some people would lie about such things, but I am not sure you can get multiple women to take their past public in such a high profile setting.

  • Tom Hering

    Mike @ 2, I imagine no woman wants to relive a harassment – the shame of being degraded by a powerful man. I also imagine there must first be the probability her harasser will become even more powerful (e.g., the President) before she decides she has to relive it. For the sake of other women.

  • Tom Hering

    Mike @ 2, I imagine no woman wants to relive a harassment – the shame of being degraded by a powerful man. I also imagine there must first be the probability her harasser will become even more powerful (e.g., the President) before she decides she has to relive it. For the sake of other women.

  • Tom Hering

    Larry @ 3, if I was going to speak in public about something (1.) emotionally distressing to me that (2.) would damage another person’s reputation, I wouldn’t want to do it off the cuff – I’d want to read from a carefully written statement.

  • Tom Hering

    Larry @ 3, if I was going to speak in public about something (1.) emotionally distressing to me that (2.) would damage another person’s reputation, I wouldn’t want to do it off the cuff – I’d want to read from a carefully written statement.

  • larry

    It’s not at all hard to imagine, there’s agenda all over the place. This is why we have legitimate vocational courts. Trial by media is at best a de facto kangaroo court (no matter which side one favors). A “media court” is just as illigetimate of a vocation or office as is a “vocation” or “office” of pimp, thief and hit man.

  • larry

    It’s not at all hard to imagine, there’s agenda all over the place. This is why we have legitimate vocational courts. Trial by media is at best a de facto kangaroo court (no matter which side one favors). A “media court” is just as illigetimate of a vocation or office as is a “vocation” or “office” of pimp, thief and hit man.

  • larry

    I disagree Tom, because rehersed comment cards have just as much a tendancy to “re-write” in language the case in hand in the favorable direction of the author. In fact there very purpose is to “perfect” the “ideal” (true or false).

    And still, at the end of the day, “Mr. Cain you know I have a boy friend” is completely ridiculous.

  • larry

    I disagree Tom, because rehersed comment cards have just as much a tendancy to “re-write” in language the case in hand in the favorable direction of the author. In fact there very purpose is to “perfect” the “ideal” (true or false).

    And still, at the end of the day, “Mr. Cain you know I have a boy friend” is completely ridiculous.

  • Michael

    “Isn’t it at least encouraging that for all of our culture’s sexual permissiveness that charges like this one are still damaging”

    It’s a question of whether it’s consensual sexual contact. It’s okay if a man and another man want to be together. It’s not okay if a man wants to force himself on a woman.

  • Michael

    “Isn’t it at least encouraging that for all of our culture’s sexual permissiveness that charges like this one are still damaging”

    It’s a question of whether it’s consensual sexual contact. It’s okay if a man and another man want to be together. It’s not okay if a man wants to force himself on a woman.

  • Tom Hering

    “And still, at the end of the day, ‘Mr. Cain you know I have a boy friend’ is completely ridiculous.” – Larry @ 8.

    No more ridiculous than refusing advances by saying, “You know I’m married.” Both are appeals to the conscience of the offender.

  • Tom Hering

    “And still, at the end of the day, ‘Mr. Cain you know I have a boy friend’ is completely ridiculous.” – Larry @ 8.

    No more ridiculous than refusing advances by saying, “You know I’m married.” Both are appeals to the conscience of the offender.

  • MarkB

    As of yet, I don’t know what to think. However, if it is as this new woman contends, she was not sexually harassed in the workplace. She would have been approached in a very offensive and crude manner which she declined and he backed off. Even so this would be unsettling for me, if it did happen as she says, since he is and was a married man and it would be a sin against his wife and God.

  • MarkB

    As of yet, I don’t know what to think. However, if it is as this new woman contends, she was not sexually harassed in the workplace. She would have been approached in a very offensive and crude manner which she declined and he backed off. Even so this would be unsettling for me, if it did happen as she says, since he is and was a married man and it would be a sin against his wife and God.

  • larry

    In reality its only possible that either one is true, but not both. So it comes down, sans hard evidence, to credibility. But one can discredit, due to the agendas in hand the false one (whichever that actually is).

    Numbers are not necessariy credible, unless your of Puritan descent and easily follow accusations of witchcraft “just because so many come forward”. Numbers of charismatics come forward and “testify” to the truth of their false doctrine, but it doesn’t make it true. The “devil has his numerous martyrs too”.

    So it comes down to credibility but credibility cannot be reliable due to the agendas that the false on this issue is using. Most of us don’t know any of these folks, Cain or the women personally so we cannot resolve it due to years of friendship.

    Without hard evidence and due to credibility always having to be in question both sides will have to live with the stain of “what if they are not telling the truth and the truth is the opposite of what they claim”. I.e. “Did he do it?” or equally “Are they just lying?”

  • larry

    In reality its only possible that either one is true, but not both. So it comes down, sans hard evidence, to credibility. But one can discredit, due to the agendas in hand the false one (whichever that actually is).

    Numbers are not necessariy credible, unless your of Puritan descent and easily follow accusations of witchcraft “just because so many come forward”. Numbers of charismatics come forward and “testify” to the truth of their false doctrine, but it doesn’t make it true. The “devil has his numerous martyrs too”.

    So it comes down to credibility but credibility cannot be reliable due to the agendas that the false on this issue is using. Most of us don’t know any of these folks, Cain or the women personally so we cannot resolve it due to years of friendship.

    Without hard evidence and due to credibility always having to be in question both sides will have to live with the stain of “what if they are not telling the truth and the truth is the opposite of what they claim”. I.e. “Did he do it?” or equally “Are they just lying?”

  • larry

    No Tom, not quiet. Both are utterly ridiculous in context of teh story, “you know I have a boyfriend, you know I’m married”. This was not some kind of date getting “advance” as you propose, at least not the way the “recollection stated it”, but a blunt “if you want the job” predatory manuevre.

    That appeal to the conscience would work if it were an inappropriate or even foolish advance for such but not a predatory thing as this has explicitly been stated that it was.

    Big difference!

  • larry

    No Tom, not quiet. Both are utterly ridiculous in context of teh story, “you know I have a boyfriend, you know I’m married”. This was not some kind of date getting “advance” as you propose, at least not the way the “recollection stated it”, but a blunt “if you want the job” predatory manuevre.

    That appeal to the conscience would work if it were an inappropriate or even foolish advance for such but not a predatory thing as this has explicitly been stated that it was.

    Big difference!

  • larry

    Yes it would be very disturbing if true, but equally disturbing if not because it would be “bearing false witness against your neighbor”. In fact that commandment exists to show that there are PLENTY of people willing to “bear false witness against their neighbor” (including ourselves).

    I think, in an earthly sense, what is most disturbing about this (and even solid left leaning folks like Lanny Davis have pointed this out) is the de facto inversion of our established system or sense of the system of justice of presumed innocence UNTIL PROVEN guilty. And that would go for ANY US citizen politician, left or right or otherwise.

  • larry

    Yes it would be very disturbing if true, but equally disturbing if not because it would be “bearing false witness against your neighbor”. In fact that commandment exists to show that there are PLENTY of people willing to “bear false witness against their neighbor” (including ourselves).

    I think, in an earthly sense, what is most disturbing about this (and even solid left leaning folks like Lanny Davis have pointed this out) is the de facto inversion of our established system or sense of the system of justice of presumed innocence UNTIL PROVEN guilty. And that would go for ANY US citizen politician, left or right or otherwise.

  • Cincinnatus

    Wait, so there are people who actually are defending Cain here? I mean, sure: “innocent until proven guilty” and all that. But as a Republican, are you really willing to throw in your lot with someone embroiled in a scandal of this magnitude? And what does it say about Cain’s judgment that he even thought about running for office with such skeletons in his closet (yes, some of this is fact: he settled out of court for $45,000 back in the ’90′s–i.e., paid hush money–to keep one accusation from going public, so something actually happened)?

    Move on. Cain is damaged goods.

  • Cincinnatus

    Wait, so there are people who actually are defending Cain here? I mean, sure: “innocent until proven guilty” and all that. But as a Republican, are you really willing to throw in your lot with someone embroiled in a scandal of this magnitude? And what does it say about Cain’s judgment that he even thought about running for office with such skeletons in his closet (yes, some of this is fact: he settled out of court for $45,000 back in the ’90′s–i.e., paid hush money–to keep one accusation from going public, so something actually happened)?

    Move on. Cain is damaged goods.

  • Joe

    Cincy – I agree with your over all sentiment. At some point in this political arena you have cut your loses. it might not be fair, but that is the reality of electoral politics.

    But I do have point out that settling a claim in no way demonstrates that something actually happened. I settle claims all the time and often neither side has budged from their firm positions of what they say happened. The reality is litigation is expensive and a business decision must be made. Add in the flavor of these accusations and there becomes a PR reason to just make it go away. Also, Cain didn’t settle the case – the National Restaurant Association did. As the actual employee of the NRA accused, based on my experience, Cain would not have been privy to the details of the settlement and in fact would have been told by the company to get his own lawyer because the interests of the NRA and Cain are not in line.

  • Joe

    Cincy – I agree with your over all sentiment. At some point in this political arena you have cut your loses. it might not be fair, but that is the reality of electoral politics.

    But I do have point out that settling a claim in no way demonstrates that something actually happened. I settle claims all the time and often neither side has budged from their firm positions of what they say happened. The reality is litigation is expensive and a business decision must be made. Add in the flavor of these accusations and there becomes a PR reason to just make it go away. Also, Cain didn’t settle the case – the National Restaurant Association did. As the actual employee of the NRA accused, based on my experience, Cain would not have been privy to the details of the settlement and in fact would have been told by the company to get his own lawyer because the interests of the NRA and Cain are not in line.

  • steve

    I guess we should thank Allred for this one. Now that she’s outed Cain as a letch, we don’t have to wonder if we’re racist for voting for or against Cain. We can go back to voting for the least offensive candidate, as usual.

  • steve

    I guess we should thank Allred for this one. Now that she’s outed Cain as a letch, we don’t have to wonder if we’re racist for voting for or against Cain. We can go back to voting for the least offensive candidate, as usual.

  • Bob

    Creep:

    1. Nixon’s old Committee to Relect the President.
    2. Herman Cain.

    Herman’s done.

    Say b-bye, Herman.

  • Bob

    Creep:

    1. Nixon’s old Committee to Relect the President.
    2. Herman Cain.

    Herman’s done.

    Say b-bye, Herman.

  • michael henry

    No sir, it is not encouraging in the least. Not when the mere saying “he……”, and filling in the blanks is enough to elicit “Sorry, I’m now kind of convinced of his guilt…”, and this only after the inevitable accusations bandwagon simmers for some time.
    It is also not encouraging because of the reverse sexism,( a word 50 years in the overworked category), in that it’s a 1 way street, the so-called (and I use this word with a foul taste) accusers are barely questioned or (gasp!) doubted. Combined with the presumption of guilt, the ambiguity of what IS harassment anyway, I find no encouragement at all.
    Even in this blog the comments run to “It doesn’t matter if he didn’t do anything”. As a fine example I give you the comment: “I mean, sure: “innocent until proven guilty” and all that. But….”. But let him hang anyway, pragmatically he is no good to us now could be my reading of that comment, and since we are in the realm of the post-modern “perception is reality” fallacy, would fit nicely.
    Folks who I am sure are usually even minded get sucked into the “well if enough people say it it must be true” bandwagon. I give you “I don’t know what happened, but it is getting hard to ignore it when we are up to three (or is it four?)…” as an example. As if sheer numbers meant anything here when measured against truth or veracity.
    To answer your first question, yes he is finished. That’s my prediction. And it will not just because of the predictable witch hunt, but because the “other” side, and anyone who believes in truth will not have the numbers to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes.

  • michael henry

    No sir, it is not encouraging in the least. Not when the mere saying “he……”, and filling in the blanks is enough to elicit “Sorry, I’m now kind of convinced of his guilt…”, and this only after the inevitable accusations bandwagon simmers for some time.
    It is also not encouraging because of the reverse sexism,( a word 50 years in the overworked category), in that it’s a 1 way street, the so-called (and I use this word with a foul taste) accusers are barely questioned or (gasp!) doubted. Combined with the presumption of guilt, the ambiguity of what IS harassment anyway, I find no encouragement at all.
    Even in this blog the comments run to “It doesn’t matter if he didn’t do anything”. As a fine example I give you the comment: “I mean, sure: “innocent until proven guilty” and all that. But….”. But let him hang anyway, pragmatically he is no good to us now could be my reading of that comment, and since we are in the realm of the post-modern “perception is reality” fallacy, would fit nicely.
    Folks who I am sure are usually even minded get sucked into the “well if enough people say it it must be true” bandwagon. I give you “I don’t know what happened, but it is getting hard to ignore it when we are up to three (or is it four?)…” as an example. As if sheer numbers meant anything here when measured against truth or veracity.
    To answer your first question, yes he is finished. That’s my prediction. And it will not just because of the predictable witch hunt, but because the “other” side, and anyone who believes in truth will not have the numbers to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes.

  • DonS

    This whole thing is disturbing, on many levels. Apparently now there are reports of a fifth woman saying she is going to come forward. As for the fourth woman, Bialek, I don’t actually find her story to be very credible. First of all, anyone who uses Gloria Allred in any way to advance their story has lost all credibility in my eyes. Allred is a caricature, and a committed Democrat who has proven time and again that her only objective is to destroy Republicans, as she did with Meg Whitman in the last CA gubernatorial election with a vicious late-campaign hit regarding a housekeeper making wild accusations that never went anywhere ultimately. Bialek has a very checkered past, with two bankruptcies, tax liens, and numerous other financial issues that may have caused her to see if she could extract 15 minutes of fame from her story. According to a radio host at WIND in Chicago, she gave Herman Cain a big hug and was extremely friendly to him only one month ago when they met at a campaign event that WIND hosted. Odd behavior by one so allegedly wronged by a lecherous creep.

    My biggest issue with Cain, to date, has been the horrific way in which he has dealt with these multiple accusations. The accusations themselves are unknown and/or unsubstantiated. That being said, there is no question that he is damaged goods, as Cincinnatus said above.

  • DonS

    This whole thing is disturbing, on many levels. Apparently now there are reports of a fifth woman saying she is going to come forward. As for the fourth woman, Bialek, I don’t actually find her story to be very credible. First of all, anyone who uses Gloria Allred in any way to advance their story has lost all credibility in my eyes. Allred is a caricature, and a committed Democrat who has proven time and again that her only objective is to destroy Republicans, as she did with Meg Whitman in the last CA gubernatorial election with a vicious late-campaign hit regarding a housekeeper making wild accusations that never went anywhere ultimately. Bialek has a very checkered past, with two bankruptcies, tax liens, and numerous other financial issues that may have caused her to see if she could extract 15 minutes of fame from her story. According to a radio host at WIND in Chicago, she gave Herman Cain a big hug and was extremely friendly to him only one month ago when they met at a campaign event that WIND hosted. Odd behavior by one so allegedly wronged by a lecherous creep.

    My biggest issue with Cain, to date, has been the horrific way in which he has dealt with these multiple accusations. The accusations themselves are unknown and/or unsubstantiated. That being said, there is no question that he is damaged goods, as Cincinnatus said above.

  • Spiced Parrot

    Ace is a huge Perry supporter and has constantly gone after Cain at every opportunity, often unfairly. That doesn’t have anything to do with the veracity of the current allegations…but anything from Ace (and Red State, and Hot Air) should be taken with a healthy grain of salt.

  • Spiced Parrot

    Ace is a huge Perry supporter and has constantly gone after Cain at every opportunity, often unfairly. That doesn’t have anything to do with the veracity of the current allegations…but anything from Ace (and Red State, and Hot Air) should be taken with a healthy grain of salt.

  • Kirk

    Cain should look on the bright side: at least he hasn’t had to answer any foreign policy questions during the last few weeks.

  • Kirk

    Cain should look on the bright side: at least he hasn’t had to answer any foreign policy questions during the last few weeks.

  • Tom Hering

    “My biggest issue with Cain, to date, has been the horrific way in which he has dealt with these multiple accusations.” – DonS @ 20.

    But you’re parroting the contents of an email Cain sent out as a counterattack today?

  • Tom Hering

    “My biggest issue with Cain, to date, has been the horrific way in which he has dealt with these multiple accusations.” – DonS @ 20.

    But you’re parroting the contents of an email Cain sent out as a counterattack today?

  • Dust

    Remember Bill Clinton survived a very similar scandal…so there’s at least a precedent that others can maybe do it too….why not?

    Somebody get the popcorn going, eh gentle bloggers :)

  • Dust

    Remember Bill Clinton survived a very similar scandal…so there’s at least a precedent that others can maybe do it too….why not?

    Somebody get the popcorn going, eh gentle bloggers :)

  • DonS

    Tom @ 23: I don’t get emails from Herman Cain, do you? I also seldom “parrot”.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 23: I don’t get emails from Herman Cain, do you? I also seldom “parrot”.

  • Tom Hering

    A fifth woman has come forward today with a story about Cain’s dating style.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/fifth-woman-raises-questions-about-cains-behavior

  • Tom Hering

    A fifth woman has come forward today with a story about Cain’s dating style.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/fifth-woman-raises-questions-about-cains-behavior

  • steve

    Dust, #24, yes, there’s plenty of precedent here, unfortunately. One of which is, if Cain is ever elected to the office once occupied by Clinton, Ms Bialek should expect the IRS to come knocking.

  • steve

    Dust, #24, yes, there’s plenty of precedent here, unfortunately. One of which is, if Cain is ever elected to the office once occupied by Clinton, Ms Bialek should expect the IRS to come knocking.

  • Joe

    Michael Henry – I don’t have any idea if Cain is guilty and I will give him the 8th commandment benefit of the doubt. But that does not mean that I will vote for him or that I have to pretend that this “stuff” is not a legitimate reason to not vote for him. We are voting on whether he should be the candidate for the presidency not on whether he committed certain sins against the 6th commandment.

    True or not (fair or not) this stuff will stick around for a general election and many people will not vote for Cain because of it. I am interesting in finding the best candidate that I think can win. Unless all of this stuff goes away somehow (refuted, the women recant or Cain comes up with something that puts people at ease) he is done.

  • Joe

    Michael Henry – I don’t have any idea if Cain is guilty and I will give him the 8th commandment benefit of the doubt. But that does not mean that I will vote for him or that I have to pretend that this “stuff” is not a legitimate reason to not vote for him. We are voting on whether he should be the candidate for the presidency not on whether he committed certain sins against the 6th commandment.

    True or not (fair or not) this stuff will stick around for a general election and many people will not vote for Cain because of it. I am interesting in finding the best candidate that I think can win. Unless all of this stuff goes away somehow (refuted, the women recant or Cain comes up with something that puts people at ease) he is done.

  • boaz

    What spiced parrot says. ace, redstate, and other loggers seem to have been bought and paid for by the Perry campaign. the tone of those places changed completely, and many longstanding members were banned for pointing that out. watch them go after Newt next.

    that being said. where there is smoke there usually is fire. and I won’t vote for Cain. romney or Newt.

  • boaz

    What spiced parrot says. ace, redstate, and other loggers seem to have been bought and paid for by the Perry campaign. the tone of those places changed completely, and many longstanding members were banned for pointing that out. watch them go after Newt next.

    that being said. where there is smoke there usually is fire. and I won’t vote for Cain. romney or Newt.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Given the known tactics of some leftists (Rules for Radicals, etc.), I think it is quite reasonable to be skeptical of all these accusations, no matter how many women come forth. How do we know any of these accusations are actually true? It seems just as likely to me that these are all just flat out violations of the 8th Commandment for political purposes.

    Let’s see some evidence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Given the known tactics of some leftists (Rules for Radicals, etc.), I think it is quite reasonable to be skeptical of all these accusations, no matter how many women come forth. How do we know any of these accusations are actually true? It seems just as likely to me that these are all just flat out violations of the 8th Commandment for political purposes.

    Let’s see some evidence.

  • Tom Hering

    Mike @ 30, what do you want in the way of evidence?

  • Tom Hering

    Mike @ 30, what do you want in the way of evidence?

  • DonS

    I’m trying to figure out why the accusations of the fifth woman even got reported. Nothing happened.

  • DonS

    I’m trying to figure out why the accusations of the fifth woman even got reported. Nothing happened.

  • Tom Hering

    Character witness.

  • Tom Hering

    Character witness.

  • Jonathan

    Bialek gets let go from one NRA job, then comes to Cain seeking a job, presuamably at NRA, and doesn’t get one. Did she hold Cain responsible for losing her NRA job in the first place?

    Sounds like motive to me.

    Still, there’s got to be more to the story that Cain needs to tell. Did he put her up in a hotel room? Have drinks with her in a hotel bar? Take her out to dinner?

    Why would the head of NRA do that for a low level staffer? Was he sorry for her losing her NRA job? Was this a consolation parting gift? Again, why would he do this for a low-level staffer in such a large organization?

    I think his response to this barrage is quite refreshingly natural for a change, in that he doesn’t have the canned, sophisticated media machine out there spinning this. His is a reaction of a real person caught by surprise in an ambush.

    I look forward to his answer.

  • Jonathan

    Bialek gets let go from one NRA job, then comes to Cain seeking a job, presuamably at NRA, and doesn’t get one. Did she hold Cain responsible for losing her NRA job in the first place?

    Sounds like motive to me.

    Still, there’s got to be more to the story that Cain needs to tell. Did he put her up in a hotel room? Have drinks with her in a hotel bar? Take her out to dinner?

    Why would the head of NRA do that for a low level staffer? Was he sorry for her losing her NRA job? Was this a consolation parting gift? Again, why would he do this for a low-level staffer in such a large organization?

    I think his response to this barrage is quite refreshingly natural for a change, in that he doesn’t have the canned, sophisticated media machine out there spinning this. His is a reaction of a real person caught by surprise in an ambush.

    I look forward to his answer.

  • DonS

    Uh-huh.

  • DonS

    Uh-huh.

  • DonS

    My comment @ 35 was directed to Tom @ 33, by the way.

  • DonS

    My comment @ 35 was directed to Tom @ 33, by the way.

  • Tom Hering

    USA Today

    “I am honestly telling you, I don’t even recall knowing her [Bialek] at that time,” Cain said moments ago in an interview with ABC News and Yahoo.

  • Tom Hering

    USA Today

    “I am honestly telling you, I don’t even recall knowing her [Bialek] at that time,” Cain said moments ago in an interview with ABC News and Yahoo.

  • Dust

    Tom at 26, thanks for the link….in my opinion (and that’s all any of us can go on with these reports), this doesn’t sound authentic.

    Not that it could not be true, but I find it hard to believe that a prominent and supposedly successful executive would be so brazenly stupid to ask those kinds of questions and in that way. It just lacks a certain authenticity to satisfy me. Again, it could be true, but it seems more to me like a very badly written scrip, by some pretty stupid people, sorry! Of course, you and others may feel otherwise and want to believe it. That’s how it works….

    Are there any lawyers here? Also it seems to me just that fact that these women didn’t like his tone (or something) or demeanor and/or thought it was suggestive, sounds pretty subjective to me and doesn’t rise to the level of credible evidence. Could something like that be admitted as a character witness in a court of law? Hope not, that sounds like a scary and unfair way to conduct a trial to me?

    Finally, could be wrong, but can’t tell you how many times, friends of mine thought women were coming on to them only to find out they were embarrassingly wrong. Happens to a lot of stupid guys, right? You know, they say stuff like “the way she looked at me and the way she answered my questions, you know she was very interested in me, right?” They were sure of it, and would swear the women were just mesmerized with them, with their intelligence and their handsome looks, but generally they never got a date 99.99% of the time.

    Those kind of similar statements in that article remind me of those good ol’ boys and their vain and incorrect imaginations too?

    In other words, just because YOU think someone may be flirting with you, or has other ideas in mind, does NOT make it true…it’s a sad lesson one learns growing up, well, hopefully they learn!

  • Dust

    Tom at 26, thanks for the link….in my opinion (and that’s all any of us can go on with these reports), this doesn’t sound authentic.

    Not that it could not be true, but I find it hard to believe that a prominent and supposedly successful executive would be so brazenly stupid to ask those kinds of questions and in that way. It just lacks a certain authenticity to satisfy me. Again, it could be true, but it seems more to me like a very badly written scrip, by some pretty stupid people, sorry! Of course, you and others may feel otherwise and want to believe it. That’s how it works….

    Are there any lawyers here? Also it seems to me just that fact that these women didn’t like his tone (or something) or demeanor and/or thought it was suggestive, sounds pretty subjective to me and doesn’t rise to the level of credible evidence. Could something like that be admitted as a character witness in a court of law? Hope not, that sounds like a scary and unfair way to conduct a trial to me?

    Finally, could be wrong, but can’t tell you how many times, friends of mine thought women were coming on to them only to find out they were embarrassingly wrong. Happens to a lot of stupid guys, right? You know, they say stuff like “the way she looked at me and the way she answered my questions, you know she was very interested in me, right?” They were sure of it, and would swear the women were just mesmerized with them, with their intelligence and their handsome looks, but generally they never got a date 99.99% of the time.

    Those kind of similar statements in that article remind me of those good ol’ boys and their vain and incorrect imaginations too?

    In other words, just because YOU think someone may be flirting with you, or has other ideas in mind, does NOT make it true…it’s a sad lesson one learns growing up, well, hopefully they learn!

  • Tom Hering

    ” … I find it hard to believe that a prominent and supposedly successful executive would be so brazenly stupid to ask those kinds of questions and in that way.”

    Dust, I’m not sure if I believe it or disbelieve it. But it supposedly happened far from home, in Egypt. Executives letting their hair down while they’re overseas isn’t unheard of.

  • Tom Hering

    ” … I find it hard to believe that a prominent and supposedly successful executive would be so brazenly stupid to ask those kinds of questions and in that way.”

    Dust, I’m not sure if I believe it or disbelieve it. But it supposedly happened far from home, in Egypt. Executives letting their hair down while they’re overseas isn’t unheard of.

  • Dust

    Tom at 39….that’s fine, thanks! Yes, would agree SOME executives do let their hair down when overseas, but would think that is more likely to occur in a private setting? Whatever, we could argue about this and other OPINIONS all day and it would prove NOTHING :(

    So for me, it seems to be more fair not to traffic in these kind of unsubstantiated claims, if you don’t know whether or not they are true?

    In my opinion, these kinds of things aren’t really designed to put the best construction on events, or the person….best not to participate in those circles or associate oneself with their flaky reports and destructive tactics!

  • Dust

    Tom at 39….that’s fine, thanks! Yes, would agree SOME executives do let their hair down when overseas, but would think that is more likely to occur in a private setting? Whatever, we could argue about this and other OPINIONS all day and it would prove NOTHING :(

    So for me, it seems to be more fair not to traffic in these kind of unsubstantiated claims, if you don’t know whether or not they are true?

    In my opinion, these kinds of things aren’t really designed to put the best construction on events, or the person….best not to participate in those circles or associate oneself with their flaky reports and destructive tactics!

  • Tom Hering

    Dust @ 40, we’re discussing reports in the news. I don’t think such discussion equals the spreading of false accusations.

  • Tom Hering

    Dust @ 40, we’re discussing reports in the news. I don’t think such discussion equals the spreading of false accusations.

  • Dust

    Tom…are you serious? Well, ok perhaps discussion is not equal, at least not ours on a small blog site, but don’t you think that’s the game modern media loves to play, as well as commentators on the national stage? If not, that’s ok, just asking :)

  • Dust

    Tom…are you serious? Well, ok perhaps discussion is not equal, at least not ours on a small blog site, but don’t you think that’s the game modern media loves to play, as well as commentators on the national stage? If not, that’s ok, just asking :)

  • Grace

    Newt is right!

    Nov 8, 2011 3:57pm
    Newt Gingrich Urges Herman Cain to “Answer the Charges”
    By Arlette Saenz

    “Newt Gingrich, who has stayed out of commenting directly on the sexual harassment allegations facing Herman Cain, urged the businessman to respond to the claims against him and to make sure he’s accurate and forthcoming with the truth because he “owes the American people.””

    “I think when you move from anonymity to a person standing up in that setting and saying something, so now there’s a real – there’s a person. It’s not just some anonymous tip. Clearly Herman Cain has to answer the charges . He has to explain what happened. He has to do so in a way that’s convincing ,and I think that that’s unavoidable,””

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/newt-gingrich-urges-herman-cain-to-answer-the-charges/

  • Grace

    Newt is right!

    Nov 8, 2011 3:57pm
    Newt Gingrich Urges Herman Cain to “Answer the Charges”
    By Arlette Saenz

    “Newt Gingrich, who has stayed out of commenting directly on the sexual harassment allegations facing Herman Cain, urged the businessman to respond to the claims against him and to make sure he’s accurate and forthcoming with the truth because he “owes the American people.””

    “I think when you move from anonymity to a person standing up in that setting and saying something, so now there’s a real – there’s a person. It’s not just some anonymous tip. Clearly Herman Cain has to answer the charges . He has to explain what happened. He has to do so in a way that’s convincing ,and I think that that’s unavoidable,””

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/newt-gingrich-urges-herman-cain-to-answer-the-charges/

  • Bob

    That’s a good one — made my day —

    Newtie asking Cain to act moral!

    He had an extramarital affair with his current wife while married to his second wife.

    Using a tax-exempt college course for political purposes, reprimanded by the House and fined $300,000.

    There are lots more.

    But he is like Cain in this: they’re both ornery, polarizing pains in the asses!
    :)

  • Bob

    That’s a good one — made my day —

    Newtie asking Cain to act moral!

    He had an extramarital affair with his current wife while married to his second wife.

    Using a tax-exempt college course for political purposes, reprimanded by the House and fined $300,000.

    There are lots more.

    But he is like Cain in this: they’re both ornery, polarizing pains in the asses!
    :)

  • Joe

    Bob – we talking about Cain’s actions. Whether Newt is being hypocritical has nothing to do with what Cain needs to do. Being a hypocrite does not mean your wrong.

  • Joe

    Bob – we talking about Cain’s actions. Whether Newt is being hypocritical has nothing to do with what Cain needs to do. Being a hypocrite does not mean your wrong.

  • Tom Hering

    Highlights of Cain’s press conference at 5 PM ET today are here:

    herehttp://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/11/herman-cain-sex-harassment-news-conference-/1?csp=34news

  • Tom Hering

    Highlights of Cain’s press conference at 5 PM ET today are here:

    herehttp://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/11/herman-cain-sex-harassment-news-conference-/1?csp=34news

  • Tom Hering
  • Tom Hering
  • Tom Hering

    CBS News, 5:58 PM ET:

    Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Tuesday that he would be willing to take a lie detector test to rebut multiple claims that he engaged in sexual harassment in the 1990s, though he seemed to stop short of promising to do so.

    “Yes. I absolutely would,” Cain said when asked about taking a test. “But I’m not going to do that unless I have a good reason to do that. Of course I would be willing to do a lie detector test.

    Would he? Yes. Will he? Not unless … unless … something or other.

    Doesn’t exactly lay it to rest for me.

  • Tom Hering

    CBS News, 5:58 PM ET:

    Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Tuesday that he would be willing to take a lie detector test to rebut multiple claims that he engaged in sexual harassment in the 1990s, though he seemed to stop short of promising to do so.

    “Yes. I absolutely would,” Cain said when asked about taking a test. “But I’m not going to do that unless I have a good reason to do that. Of course I would be willing to do a lie detector test.

    Would he? Yes. Will he? Not unless … unless … something or other.

    Doesn’t exactly lay it to rest for me.

  • Tom Hering

    What would have laid it to rest for me? If Cain had said something like, “I will take a lie detector test on such-and-such a date, and I challenge my accusers to do the same.” Now, he might not want to commit to a test, knowing they’re not entirely reliable. But then why bring up the possibility in the first place? Unless he’s hoping that just expressing his willingness to take a test is enough to make his poll numbers bounce back. That’s the best construction I can put on his “would/won’t/would” statement.

  • Tom Hering

    What would have laid it to rest for me? If Cain had said something like, “I will take a lie detector test on such-and-such a date, and I challenge my accusers to do the same.” Now, he might not want to commit to a test, knowing they’re not entirely reliable. But then why bring up the possibility in the first place? Unless he’s hoping that just expressing his willingness to take a test is enough to make his poll numbers bounce back. That’s the best construction I can put on his “would/won’t/would” statement.

  • Deborah

    Legendary Chicago TV & radio news man Bill Kurtis stated on the air that the woman in question used to work with him at CBS and that there is much more to her character than Gloria Allred revealed. She has a history of histrionics and accusing men. I will continue to give Mr. Cain the benefit of the doubt until and unless I am convinced otherwise.

  • Deborah

    Legendary Chicago TV & radio news man Bill Kurtis stated on the air that the woman in question used to work with him at CBS and that there is much more to her character than Gloria Allred revealed. She has a history of histrionics and accusing men. I will continue to give Mr. Cain the benefit of the doubt until and unless I am convinced otherwise.

  • Dust

    Tom…how about this for best construction:

    He’s not a lawyer and may not be well aware of how unreliable lie detector tests can be, but mistakenly and honestly believes they get to the truth, like a lot of regular people do. So he answers like an innocent person would answer, thinking the test would prove their innocence. That is, yes I would take the test!

    However, on the other hand, he is lucky enough and well off enough to have fine counsel, who have advised him as to the unreliability of these tests and told him to not submit to the exam. So against his better instincts and let’s assume purer motives, is taking the suggestions and advice of who seem to be very fine and accomplished lawyers, who are quite savvy to the wicked ways and corrupt motives of certain groups of folks, so ultimately, against the voice of his better angels, he will not take the test.

    Can you see the difference between one wanting to take the test, in the hope and naive belief it would honestly exonerate him, but will not take it because of receiving other more seasoned advice from folks better acquainted with the unreliability of these tests and the potential for abuse and misuse when things go wrong, as the slick lawyers know is always a possibility?

    Maybe not the best construction here either, but in my opinion, much less cynical than another one out there :)

  • Dust

    Tom…how about this for best construction:

    He’s not a lawyer and may not be well aware of how unreliable lie detector tests can be, but mistakenly and honestly believes they get to the truth, like a lot of regular people do. So he answers like an innocent person would answer, thinking the test would prove their innocence. That is, yes I would take the test!

    However, on the other hand, he is lucky enough and well off enough to have fine counsel, who have advised him as to the unreliability of these tests and told him to not submit to the exam. So against his better instincts and let’s assume purer motives, is taking the suggestions and advice of who seem to be very fine and accomplished lawyers, who are quite savvy to the wicked ways and corrupt motives of certain groups of folks, so ultimately, against the voice of his better angels, he will not take the test.

    Can you see the difference between one wanting to take the test, in the hope and naive belief it would honestly exonerate him, but will not take it because of receiving other more seasoned advice from folks better acquainted with the unreliability of these tests and the potential for abuse and misuse when things go wrong, as the slick lawyers know is always a possibility?

    Maybe not the best construction here either, but in my opinion, much less cynical than another one out there :)

  • Tom Hering

    So, Dust, all this back-and-forth between his advisers and his better angels happened while he was speaking? He didn’t have the chance to prepare a clear position beforehand?

  • Tom Hering

    So, Dust, all this back-and-forth between his advisers and his better angels happened while he was speaking? He didn’t have the chance to prepare a clear position beforehand?

  • Dust

    Tom…maybe, maybe not…it could be spun either way and still not change the main thesis of my construction, in my humble opinion.

  • Dust

    Tom…maybe, maybe not…it could be spun either way and still not change the main thesis of my construction, in my humble opinion.

  • Dust

    oops…should have ended:

    “in my opinion, and that’s why it’s the best construction :)

  • Dust

    oops…should have ended:

    “in my opinion, and that’s why it’s the best construction :)

  • Dust

    Deborah at 50….yes, thanks! Am hopeful if the mainstream media picks this up, that it gets traction and changes the course and tone of this high tech lynching!

    Get your popcorn ready gang :)

  • Dust

    Deborah at 50….yes, thanks! Am hopeful if the mainstream media picks this up, that it gets traction and changes the course and tone of this high tech lynching!

    Get your popcorn ready gang :)

  • Kirk

    Oh wait, wait, I’ve got another one: Cain now has a ready name for his economic growth plan. He can call it “You Want a Job, Right?”

  • Kirk

    Oh wait, wait, I’ve got another one: Cain now has a ready name for his economic growth plan. He can call it “You Want a Job, Right?”

  • Bob

    ‘Bob – we talking about Cain’s actions. Whether Newt is being hypocritical has nothing to do with what Cain needs to do. Being a hypocrite does not mean your wrong.’

    Joe,

    Really?

    Cain’s actions have nothing do with the type of person he is?

    Most Americans, Christians or not would disagree with that.

    Being a hypocrite doesn’t mean you’re right, either.

  • Bob

    ‘Bob – we talking about Cain’s actions. Whether Newt is being hypocritical has nothing to do with what Cain needs to do. Being a hypocrite does not mean your wrong.’

    Joe,

    Really?

    Cain’s actions have nothing do with the type of person he is?

    Most Americans, Christians or not would disagree with that.

    Being a hypocrite doesn’t mean you’re right, either.

  • Dust

    Bob….of course Cain’s actions have something to do with the type of person he is….that is true of all of us!

    But these are “accusations” and aren’t those different from actions?

    Most Americans, Christians or not would agree with that…

    Finally, while we are at it, wouldn’t you agree, that being a hypocrite doesn’t mean you are wrong either?

    Thank you!

  • Dust

    Bob….of course Cain’s actions have something to do with the type of person he is….that is true of all of us!

    But these are “accusations” and aren’t those different from actions?

    Most Americans, Christians or not would agree with that…

    Finally, while we are at it, wouldn’t you agree, that being a hypocrite doesn’t mean you are wrong either?

    Thank you!

  • Bob

    Dust,

    Well, there’s an old adage — “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

    I guess you’re totally dismissing the woman who came out publicly and said Cain groped her? Is that fair to her?

    Either way, Cain is toast. There’s no way he’ll be the Republican nominee. He can obfuscate and hold press conferences into the next century. He’s damaged goods. He’s done. Time to move on.

  • Bob

    Dust,

    Well, there’s an old adage — “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

    I guess you’re totally dismissing the woman who came out publicly and said Cain groped her? Is that fair to her?

    Either way, Cain is toast. There’s no way he’ll be the Republican nominee. He can obfuscate and hold press conferences into the next century. He’s damaged goods. He’s done. Time to move on.

  • Grace

    Bob @ 59
    “Either way, Cain is toast. There’s no way he’ll be the Republican nominee. He can obfuscate and hold press conferences into the next century. He’s damaged goods. He’s done. Time to move on.”

    You nor I, or anyone else knows the truth regarding Herman Cain. Anyone can say anything about another person, and others can chime in, but that doesn’t make it truth.

    No one is “toast” as you boast? – who are you to jury/judge/ and proclaim Cain’s fate? You have heard a few stories from the press, then bingo, you’ve chosen to believe the worst. Make no mistake, I do not believe Cain would be a good choice for president, but to trash the mans reputation? NO, that’s wrong without proof.

    Why has this not come out before? – why is this nasty gossip been held behind closed doors? — oh, I know, they aren’t allowed to discuss the financial agreements, but that was then, and this is now – so in essence it’s OK to demolish the mans reputation because it’s 2011? That’s garbage!

  • Grace

    Bob @ 59
    “Either way, Cain is toast. There’s no way he’ll be the Republican nominee. He can obfuscate and hold press conferences into the next century. He’s damaged goods. He’s done. Time to move on.”

    You nor I, or anyone else knows the truth regarding Herman Cain. Anyone can say anything about another person, and others can chime in, but that doesn’t make it truth.

    No one is “toast” as you boast? – who are you to jury/judge/ and proclaim Cain’s fate? You have heard a few stories from the press, then bingo, you’ve chosen to believe the worst. Make no mistake, I do not believe Cain would be a good choice for president, but to trash the mans reputation? NO, that’s wrong without proof.

    Why has this not come out before? – why is this nasty gossip been held behind closed doors? — oh, I know, they aren’t allowed to discuss the financial agreements, but that was then, and this is now – so in essence it’s OK to demolish the mans reputation because it’s 2011? That’s garbage!

  • Dust

    Bob…thanks for your reply! Yes, there is that adage, that’s fair…but one also must beware of smoke….and mirrors! In politics especially, with so much power and money on the line, it gets very nasty, smokey and hot, indeed…ouch!

    Did you believe all the bimbo eruptions in the Clinton years and give those women the benefit of the doubt? If you did, bully for you! Who was right and what was the truth in the final analysis, in your opinion?

    Please note, am not totally dismissing the women who came out publicly, but would imagine in a court of law, where she would be under cross examination and her character and intent called into question (all fair game in these circumstances, to verify the veracity of her claims and differentiate them from hearsay or innuendo, in other words, find out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth….a courtroom is set up with special rules to get to the bottom of those things) she may not hold up so well, is also fair game, wouldn’t you agree? Well, time will tell…

    In the meantime, am not willing to throw the other person under the bus either in a he-said, she-said scenario. I guess it would be fair to could ask you…are you totally dismissing Herman Cain’s explanations? Is that fair to him? Who is telling the truth? How do you know? How does anyone know?

    Well, we will see if Cain is toast…am betting he survives and actually thrives, if over time the public sees this for what it is and rejects it.

    Grab your popcorn and enjoy….politics, american style, it’s a smoking hot show!

  • Dust

    Bob…thanks for your reply! Yes, there is that adage, that’s fair…but one also must beware of smoke….and mirrors! In politics especially, with so much power and money on the line, it gets very nasty, smokey and hot, indeed…ouch!

    Did you believe all the bimbo eruptions in the Clinton years and give those women the benefit of the doubt? If you did, bully for you! Who was right and what was the truth in the final analysis, in your opinion?

    Please note, am not totally dismissing the women who came out publicly, but would imagine in a court of law, where she would be under cross examination and her character and intent called into question (all fair game in these circumstances, to verify the veracity of her claims and differentiate them from hearsay or innuendo, in other words, find out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth….a courtroom is set up with special rules to get to the bottom of those things) she may not hold up so well, is also fair game, wouldn’t you agree? Well, time will tell…

    In the meantime, am not willing to throw the other person under the bus either in a he-said, she-said scenario. I guess it would be fair to could ask you…are you totally dismissing Herman Cain’s explanations? Is that fair to him? Who is telling the truth? How do you know? How does anyone know?

    Well, we will see if Cain is toast…am betting he survives and actually thrives, if over time the public sees this for what it is and rejects it.

    Grab your popcorn and enjoy….politics, american style, it’s a smoking hot show!

  • Bob

    Actually, Dust, yes I did believe the Clinton bimbos.

    Yes, this next year should be fun…hard to argue that!

    Good discussing with you.

  • Bob

    Actually, Dust, yes I did believe the Clinton bimbos.

    Yes, this next year should be fun…hard to argue that!

    Good discussing with you.

  • Grace

    I disagree, it’s not a “hot smoking” anything, it’s disgraceful. No pop-corn needed, unless one needs to be entertained by the press, and all the nitwits who take delight in this drama – sucking on salted buttered corn as a substitute for a solid remedy says much of what the average individual believes to be their baby blanket mentality.

    If it were not for this scenario (scandal) with Cain, he still would not be the man for the Oval Office. He’s been a good business man, he’s done well as a pizza boss, but that is no match for the POTUS. Pizza pies vs. foreign affairs, military, health issues, health insurance, ….. the list goes on. Cain has no experience, he’s done a good job being a ‘Pizza CEO’ but that does not elevate him to the oval office. The man over-estimates his capabilities. Without addressing Cain’s inability to pilot this country, you’ve avoided the most important issue. Instead many of you are focused on what then less of a handful of women have chosen to intimate, regarding this mans demeanor towards them.

    Cain’s ridiculous idea of a 999 plan has not one shred of truth, it’s nothing but a flippant answer to a complex tax situation, one which Cain has never dealt with as a governor, … someone who has experience within all aspects of government, industry, employment, private business, and that of commercial enterprise … Cain is a novice in this area, he has no experience – as we’ve witnessed with Obama, we need not try another nonsensical solution AGAIN, only to shove this nation into a whirlwind of despair.

  • Grace

    I disagree, it’s not a “hot smoking” anything, it’s disgraceful. No pop-corn needed, unless one needs to be entertained by the press, and all the nitwits who take delight in this drama – sucking on salted buttered corn as a substitute for a solid remedy says much of what the average individual believes to be their baby blanket mentality.

    If it were not for this scenario (scandal) with Cain, he still would not be the man for the Oval Office. He’s been a good business man, he’s done well as a pizza boss, but that is no match for the POTUS. Pizza pies vs. foreign affairs, military, health issues, health insurance, ….. the list goes on. Cain has no experience, he’s done a good job being a ‘Pizza CEO’ but that does not elevate him to the oval office. The man over-estimates his capabilities. Without addressing Cain’s inability to pilot this country, you’ve avoided the most important issue. Instead many of you are focused on what then less of a handful of women have chosen to intimate, regarding this mans demeanor towards them.

    Cain’s ridiculous idea of a 999 plan has not one shred of truth, it’s nothing but a flippant answer to a complex tax situation, one which Cain has never dealt with as a governor, … someone who has experience within all aspects of government, industry, employment, private business, and that of commercial enterprise … Cain is a novice in this area, he has no experience – as we’ve witnessed with Obama, we need not try another nonsensical solution AGAIN, only to shove this nation into a whirlwind of despair.

  • Grace

    bob @ 62

    “Actually, Dust, yes I did believe the Clinton bimbos.

    Yes, this next year should be fun…hard to argue that!”

    Bob, did you believe Clinton the REAL ‘bimbo’ – he was the ‘BIMBO’ of that era, he won the prize.

    If you think it’s fun, for the next year, you must be hard up for ‘fun’ as you call it. Just your ‘easy chair’ and a bag of …..

  • Grace

    bob @ 62

    “Actually, Dust, yes I did believe the Clinton bimbos.

    Yes, this next year should be fun…hard to argue that!”

    Bob, did you believe Clinton the REAL ‘bimbo’ – he was the ‘BIMBO’ of that era, he won the prize.

    If you think it’s fun, for the next year, you must be hard up for ‘fun’ as you call it. Just your ‘easy chair’ and a bag of …..

  • larry

    The point of defending Cain is that it is assumed by this mob/heard mentality that he is guilty, either explicitly or implicitly. And we saw this exact kind of “court” 2000+ years ago too in which the “greater numbers” accused and it was assumed =truth. This is the very definition of a kangaroo court or summary impromptu lynching courts of the old west. This point should be made if one exchanged the name Cain for a liberal as well. It’s not about left or right. If folks disagree with any candidate for X of their proposed policy that’s legitimate but what may amount to false witness, no.

    The very notion of declaring him “damaged goods” (whether he would win or not is relevant) is in itself a judgment and in fact a form of bearing false witness against him. It is assumed that X number of individuals = truth. And negatively assumed that X number of individuals cannot be false. The (ill)logic here is if more than one person says X, ergo it must be true or at least suspicious (which is really a crafty and gutless way of saying ‘is guilty’). In other words truth is determined by majority report. However, reality is often the opposite and “group mentality” is often nothing more the emotional transcendental flights into fantasy and speculation (which is precisely what we have in this case). History is wrought with these kinds of facades of “justice”.

    This is why there is no answer the man can give to satisfy the “have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no only” question. Because the question given to the man is under this context: “Now we know that 3, 4 or 5 people absolutely and of unquestionable logical necessity means this is true are you guilty “yes or no” only.” So if answer yes, he’s guilty of course. If he answers “no”, then he’s lying because the “logic” dictates that a number of more than one persons saying a thing makes it an absolute universal truth.

    Even Cin. not so clever “genius” statement is wrought with inserted false language and assumptions:

    “And what does it say about Cain’s judgment that he even thought about running for office with such skeletons in his closet (this assumes the premise under question – manufacturing the skeletons that don’t exist then saying, “look he has skeletons”)…”

    “(yes, some of this is fact: he settled out of court for $45,000 back in the ’90′s–i.e., paid hush money (the term “hush money” is not FACT but subjectively made commentary again based on the assumed premise being true in the first place)–to keep one accusation from going public (this assumes the false dilemma and not other explanations given), so something actually happened (again, this assumes the premise under question)?”

    Putting the word “fact” in front of inserted assumptions drawn upon conclusions made by the assumptions under question, putting the word “fact” in front of false dilemmas, putting the word “fact” in front of what boils down to massive circular reasoning, putting the word “fact” in front of a logic that says if more than one person says X = an undeniable truth (truth by majority) does not make any of these “facts” whatsoever.

    One can label a pile of dung “chocolate pudding” but I doubt anyone will stick their spoon in it and sample it.

  • larry

    The point of defending Cain is that it is assumed by this mob/heard mentality that he is guilty, either explicitly or implicitly. And we saw this exact kind of “court” 2000+ years ago too in which the “greater numbers” accused and it was assumed =truth. This is the very definition of a kangaroo court or summary impromptu lynching courts of the old west. This point should be made if one exchanged the name Cain for a liberal as well. It’s not about left or right. If folks disagree with any candidate for X of their proposed policy that’s legitimate but what may amount to false witness, no.

    The very notion of declaring him “damaged goods” (whether he would win or not is relevant) is in itself a judgment and in fact a form of bearing false witness against him. It is assumed that X number of individuals = truth. And negatively assumed that X number of individuals cannot be false. The (ill)logic here is if more than one person says X, ergo it must be true or at least suspicious (which is really a crafty and gutless way of saying ‘is guilty’). In other words truth is determined by majority report. However, reality is often the opposite and “group mentality” is often nothing more the emotional transcendental flights into fantasy and speculation (which is precisely what we have in this case). History is wrought with these kinds of facades of “justice”.

    This is why there is no answer the man can give to satisfy the “have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no only” question. Because the question given to the man is under this context: “Now we know that 3, 4 or 5 people absolutely and of unquestionable logical necessity means this is true are you guilty “yes or no” only.” So if answer yes, he’s guilty of course. If he answers “no”, then he’s lying because the “logic” dictates that a number of more than one persons saying a thing makes it an absolute universal truth.

    Even Cin. not so clever “genius” statement is wrought with inserted false language and assumptions:

    “And what does it say about Cain’s judgment that he even thought about running for office with such skeletons in his closet (this assumes the premise under question – manufacturing the skeletons that don’t exist then saying, “look he has skeletons”)…”

    “(yes, some of this is fact: he settled out of court for $45,000 back in the ’90′s–i.e., paid hush money (the term “hush money” is not FACT but subjectively made commentary again based on the assumed premise being true in the first place)–to keep one accusation from going public (this assumes the false dilemma and not other explanations given), so something actually happened (again, this assumes the premise under question)?”

    Putting the word “fact” in front of inserted assumptions drawn upon conclusions made by the assumptions under question, putting the word “fact” in front of false dilemmas, putting the word “fact” in front of what boils down to massive circular reasoning, putting the word “fact” in front of a logic that says if more than one person says X = an undeniable truth (truth by majority) does not make any of these “facts” whatsoever.

    One can label a pile of dung “chocolate pudding” but I doubt anyone will stick their spoon in it and sample it.

  • Joe

    Bob – I think you misunderstand what I was saying (or attempting to say) My point was Newt’s status as a hypocritical does not make Newt wrong about his assessment of what Cain needs to do.

    You seemed to dismiss Newt’s opinion of what Cain needed to do solely because Newt has his own problems – my point was only that just because Newt is a lech does not make his opinion on how Cain should handle these accusations wrong. If you want to claim Newt has it all wrong wrt how Cain should come clean with the public you will need to answer with substance not a comment on Newt’s past.

  • Joe

    Bob – I think you misunderstand what I was saying (or attempting to say) My point was Newt’s status as a hypocritical does not make Newt wrong about his assessment of what Cain needs to do.

    You seemed to dismiss Newt’s opinion of what Cain needed to do solely because Newt has his own problems – my point was only that just because Newt is a lech does not make his opinion on how Cain should handle these accusations wrong. If you want to claim Newt has it all wrong wrt how Cain should come clean with the public you will need to answer with substance not a comment on Newt’s past.

  • Joe

    Bob – btw if you look at the being of the thread, you will see that I agree with you that Cain is done.

  • Joe

    Bob – btw if you look at the being of the thread, you will see that I agree with you that Cain is done.

  • Cincinnatus

    This “discussion” is amusing. Yes, the story is sensational. Yes, the media should probably be focusing on other things–for example, Cain’s utter lack of credentials and ignorance of foreign policy in particular. Yes, an accusation is not the same as a conviction.

    But why oh why are any of you so invested in defending this guy? He’s a national public figure with millions of dollars. He can take care of himself. Meanwhile, what do you hope to prove or gain by defending someone embroiled in a sex scandal? Things aren’t looking good for Cain, and he deserves it partly because his answers to the media have been ridiculous and atrocious (e.g., “Mr. Cain, have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?” Cain: “…have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?” Seriously. What is that.).

    And yes, Grace, these are skeletons in the closet. Whether Cain has actually harassed anyone in the past, he has been so accused in the past (i.e., these aren’t simply magical accusations that appeared yesterday) and he has paid legal hush money in the past to silence such accusations. Again, whether or not any indiscretion actually occurred, these are things that will become public when one runs for the Presidency, and they will become scandals. What was Cain thinking?

  • Cincinnatus

    This “discussion” is amusing. Yes, the story is sensational. Yes, the media should probably be focusing on other things–for example, Cain’s utter lack of credentials and ignorance of foreign policy in particular. Yes, an accusation is not the same as a conviction.

    But why oh why are any of you so invested in defending this guy? He’s a national public figure with millions of dollars. He can take care of himself. Meanwhile, what do you hope to prove or gain by defending someone embroiled in a sex scandal? Things aren’t looking good for Cain, and he deserves it partly because his answers to the media have been ridiculous and atrocious (e.g., “Mr. Cain, have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?” Cain: “…have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?” Seriously. What is that.).

    And yes, Grace, these are skeletons in the closet. Whether Cain has actually harassed anyone in the past, he has been so accused in the past (i.e., these aren’t simply magical accusations that appeared yesterday) and he has paid legal hush money in the past to silence such accusations. Again, whether or not any indiscretion actually occurred, these are things that will become public when one runs for the Presidency, and they will become scandals. What was Cain thinking?

  • larry

    It’s not about “defending the guy” but a legitimate honest system of justice against an illigitimate court, and this both conservatives and liberals, honest ones would agree upon 100%. A liberal candidate that finds themselves in no less a situation than Mr. Cains would deserve NO LESS a vigorous defense.

    Once again a loaded illogical thesis whereby Cin. loads the thesis and crafts the skeleton by not so subtle words, a false accusation, if false, does not constitute a “skeleton in ones closet”. This is true whether the illusionary skeleton began its genesus 15 years ago in the form of an accusation (determined to be baseless, i.e. false) or today by Cin. resurrecting the accusation (i.e. the original ‘out of thin air’):

    “Whether Cain has actually harassed anyone in the past, he has been so accused in the past (i.e., these aren’t simply magical accusations that appeared yesterday) (Cin. assumes they were not false “magical then in the past” that appeared for other reasons. Cin. also conveniently refuses to identify that they were dealt with under due process and identified as “baseless”.) and he has paid legal hush money in the past to silence such accusations (the term “hush money” is not FACT but subjective commentary again based on the assumed premise being true in the first place. The not so clever implication behind the word “silence” assumes a guilt)–.

    Thus, reality for Cincinnatus entire argument comes out of thin air based solely on accusation. Thus, if one accuses Cincinnatus of being a thief though in reality he was not, one could say of him using his words and “logic” to conclude thus:

    “Whether Cincinnatus has “actually” stolen anything or not in the past, he “has” been so accused (i.e., these aren’t simply magical accusations that appeared yesterday) and if money is paid to avoid costly litigation through another mechanism Cincinnatus will de facto have paid legal hush money in the past to silence such accusations.”

    Cin. entire thesis is nothing less than this:

    The sky is blue but because someone asserted it to be gold 15 years ago we must function and believe as if it is gold, thus hush all this nonesense that it is blue.

  • larry

    It’s not about “defending the guy” but a legitimate honest system of justice against an illigitimate court, and this both conservatives and liberals, honest ones would agree upon 100%. A liberal candidate that finds themselves in no less a situation than Mr. Cains would deserve NO LESS a vigorous defense.

    Once again a loaded illogical thesis whereby Cin. loads the thesis and crafts the skeleton by not so subtle words, a false accusation, if false, does not constitute a “skeleton in ones closet”. This is true whether the illusionary skeleton began its genesus 15 years ago in the form of an accusation (determined to be baseless, i.e. false) or today by Cin. resurrecting the accusation (i.e. the original ‘out of thin air’):

    “Whether Cain has actually harassed anyone in the past, he has been so accused in the past (i.e., these aren’t simply magical accusations that appeared yesterday) (Cin. assumes they were not false “magical then in the past” that appeared for other reasons. Cin. also conveniently refuses to identify that they were dealt with under due process and identified as “baseless”.) and he has paid legal hush money in the past to silence such accusations (the term “hush money” is not FACT but subjective commentary again based on the assumed premise being true in the first place. The not so clever implication behind the word “silence” assumes a guilt)–.

    Thus, reality for Cincinnatus entire argument comes out of thin air based solely on accusation. Thus, if one accuses Cincinnatus of being a thief though in reality he was not, one could say of him using his words and “logic” to conclude thus:

    “Whether Cincinnatus has “actually” stolen anything or not in the past, he “has” been so accused (i.e., these aren’t simply magical accusations that appeared yesterday) and if money is paid to avoid costly litigation through another mechanism Cincinnatus will de facto have paid legal hush money in the past to silence such accusations.”

    Cin. entire thesis is nothing less than this:

    The sky is blue but because someone asserted it to be gold 15 years ago we must function and believe as if it is gold, thus hush all this nonesense that it is blue.

  • Cincinnatus

    larry:

    I’m not accusing Cain of anything except stupidity. I neither know nor care whether he has harassed anyone, as I would never have voted for him anyway.

    But if your real issue is “justice” and the “court of public opinion,” where were you, say, when Strauss-Kahn was being tried by opinion a couple of months ago? Too liberal/socialist to warrant your concern?

  • Cincinnatus

    larry:

    I’m not accusing Cain of anything except stupidity. I neither know nor care whether he has harassed anyone, as I would never have voted for him anyway.

    But if your real issue is “justice” and the “court of public opinion,” where were you, say, when Strauss-Kahn was being tried by opinion a couple of months ago? Too liberal/socialist to warrant your concern?

  • Cincinnatus

    Or, yeah, you could just make this about me instead of Cain. That always works too.

    But then again, I’ve never paid $45,000 to anyone to convince them not to say something bad about me, and if you asked me to my face if I have stolen in the past, my response wouldn’t be, “*long pause* Have you ever stolen, Larry?”

    Accusations are suspicious whether they are true or not. The original accusations occurred long before Cain was a public figure. He deserved (probably no longer deserves) the benefit of the doubt, but doesn’t it make you wonder? Not in the slightest?

  • Cincinnatus

    Or, yeah, you could just make this about me instead of Cain. That always works too.

    But then again, I’ve never paid $45,000 to anyone to convince them not to say something bad about me, and if you asked me to my face if I have stolen in the past, my response wouldn’t be, “*long pause* Have you ever stolen, Larry?”

    Accusations are suspicious whether they are true or not. The original accusations occurred long before Cain was a public figure. He deserved (probably no longer deserves) the benefit of the doubt, but doesn’t it make you wonder? Not in the slightest?

  • larry

    “Or, yeah, you could just make this about me instead of Cain. That always works too.

    But then again, I’ve never paid $45,000 to anyone to convince them not to say something bad about me, and if you asked me to my face if I have stolen in the past, my response wouldn’t be, “*long pause* Have you ever stolen, Larry?”

    Accusations are suspicious whether they are true or not. The original accusations occurred long before Cain was a public figure. He deserved (probably no longer deserves) the benefit of the doubt, but doesn’t it make you wonder? Not in the slightest?’

    -End Quote

    Which makes the point entirely about accusations. Accusations are not suspicious whether they are true or not, only to someone always entertaining a false accusation. You speak double tongued on this constantly, “deserves benefit of the doubt, BUT (there’s always a but) it makes you wonder”. Wrather than acctually give the benefit of the doubt, you role play an accusatory fantasy around in your mind “makes you wonder”.

    And as I already said, I’d apply the same thing to any one liberal, middle, conservative even if I otherwise where in direct opposition with them on a subject. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Otherwise, entertaining the accusations is nothing but bearing false witness and gossiping.

  • larry

    “Or, yeah, you could just make this about me instead of Cain. That always works too.

    But then again, I’ve never paid $45,000 to anyone to convince them not to say something bad about me, and if you asked me to my face if I have stolen in the past, my response wouldn’t be, “*long pause* Have you ever stolen, Larry?”

    Accusations are suspicious whether they are true or not. The original accusations occurred long before Cain was a public figure. He deserved (probably no longer deserves) the benefit of the doubt, but doesn’t it make you wonder? Not in the slightest?’

    -End Quote

    Which makes the point entirely about accusations. Accusations are not suspicious whether they are true or not, only to someone always entertaining a false accusation. You speak double tongued on this constantly, “deserves benefit of the doubt, BUT (there’s always a but) it makes you wonder”. Wrather than acctually give the benefit of the doubt, you role play an accusatory fantasy around in your mind “makes you wonder”.

    And as I already said, I’d apply the same thing to any one liberal, middle, conservative even if I otherwise where in direct opposition with them on a subject. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Otherwise, entertaining the accusations is nothing but bearing false witness and gossiping.

  • Cincinnatus

    larry,

    If I were running for national public office on a conservative platform–family values, etc.–and someone publicly accused me of visiting prostitutes and, moreover, there were events in my history that might lend some credibility to these charges, wouldn’t you, as a potential conservative voter, be the least bit concerned? You claim you’re not defending Cain and that you’re more concerned about media integrity, fair hearings, and due process. If that is the case, I’ll repeat my two earlier questions:

    1) Why are you then spending so much time insisting that accusations–precisely because they are accusations–are spurious and should be silenced, disregarded, or at the very least unreported? Thought experiment: Would you prefer the following scenario? Cain is accused of harassment, but the media, eager to appear “just,” don’t report the accusations. The investigation isn’t concluded until after we have all elected Cain. Then the media decide to report that the accusations were true, based upon the results of this investigation. While the media are being sensationalistic in this case–when haven’t they?–isn’t it also their job to ensure information like this about important candidates is publicly available? The voters can then decide for themselves whether they care that Cain is an accused sexual deviant. Thought Experiment #2: You’re looking for a baby-sitter. Would you hire an accused child molester, even if these accusations haven’t (yet) been proven or properly investigated? Accusations mean something in themselves–certainly not as much as convictions, of course, but they still mean something. Maybe it’s not fair, but the public generally prefers to cut its losses: it’s safer, as a general rule, to reject those who have been accused of indiscretions even if some of those people never actually committed any wrongdoing.

    2) Again, if you care so much about media integrity and due process, were you this upset during the Strauss-Kahn incident, for example? What about the Michael Jackson child-molestation brouhaha?

  • Cincinnatus

    larry,

    If I were running for national public office on a conservative platform–family values, etc.–and someone publicly accused me of visiting prostitutes and, moreover, there were events in my history that might lend some credibility to these charges, wouldn’t you, as a potential conservative voter, be the least bit concerned? You claim you’re not defending Cain and that you’re more concerned about media integrity, fair hearings, and due process. If that is the case, I’ll repeat my two earlier questions:

    1) Why are you then spending so much time insisting that accusations–precisely because they are accusations–are spurious and should be silenced, disregarded, or at the very least unreported? Thought experiment: Would you prefer the following scenario? Cain is accused of harassment, but the media, eager to appear “just,” don’t report the accusations. The investigation isn’t concluded until after we have all elected Cain. Then the media decide to report that the accusations were true, based upon the results of this investigation. While the media are being sensationalistic in this case–when haven’t they?–isn’t it also their job to ensure information like this about important candidates is publicly available? The voters can then decide for themselves whether they care that Cain is an accused sexual deviant. Thought Experiment #2: You’re looking for a baby-sitter. Would you hire an accused child molester, even if these accusations haven’t (yet) been proven or properly investigated? Accusations mean something in themselves–certainly not as much as convictions, of course, but they still mean something. Maybe it’s not fair, but the public generally prefers to cut its losses: it’s safer, as a general rule, to reject those who have been accused of indiscretions even if some of those people never actually committed any wrongdoing.

    2) Again, if you care so much about media integrity and due process, were you this upset during the Strauss-Kahn incident, for example? What about the Michael Jackson child-molestation brouhaha?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Larry (@72), I’m used to reading posts from you that strongly uphold the Lutheran position. However, I do not believe you’re doing that in this thread.

    If I may summarize your position here by picking a couple of your sentences:

    Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Otherwise, entertaining the accusations is nothing but bearing false witness and gossiping.

    Obviously, this is a good standard. The problem is that you’re only applying it here to Herman Cain. Unfortunately, in your rush to defend Cain, you’ve completely abandoned your stated principles when it comes to his female accusers. Let’s review:

    We (my wife and I) watched that theatric production last night to see what the “new news” was all about, and it was so obviously faked. … Add to it the supporting cast role of the perennial political ambulance chaser Gloria Allred, I give this fictional movie two thumbs down. (@3)

    There’s agenda all over the place. (@7)

    Rehersed [sic] comment cards have just as much a tendancy to “re-write” in language the case in hand in the favorable direction of the author. In fact there [sic] very purpose is to “perfect” the “ideal” (true or false). (@8)

    In summary, you are bearing false witness against the female accusers here. You rail against this “trial” in the court of public opinion, and yet subject these women to that same sort of farce.

    In a he-said, she-said situation like this, the best construction is typically not to draw any conclusions at all. Defending one party as innocent necessarily involves defaming the other, and this at a time when we simply don’t have any facts.

    This doesn’t preclude our talking about the issue entirely. Obviously, we can discuss how Cain is handling the matter, as we have those facts at hand. And, come the primary/caucus season, some of us will have to make a decision as to how this matter affects our opinion of his ability to be President.

    But defaming the women involved here, as you have Larry, is not the best construction on the whole situation.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Larry (@72), I’m used to reading posts from you that strongly uphold the Lutheran position. However, I do not believe you’re doing that in this thread.

    If I may summarize your position here by picking a couple of your sentences:

    Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Otherwise, entertaining the accusations is nothing but bearing false witness and gossiping.

    Obviously, this is a good standard. The problem is that you’re only applying it here to Herman Cain. Unfortunately, in your rush to defend Cain, you’ve completely abandoned your stated principles when it comes to his female accusers. Let’s review:

    We (my wife and I) watched that theatric production last night to see what the “new news” was all about, and it was so obviously faked. … Add to it the supporting cast role of the perennial political ambulance chaser Gloria Allred, I give this fictional movie two thumbs down. (@3)

    There’s agenda all over the place. (@7)

    Rehersed [sic] comment cards have just as much a tendancy to “re-write” in language the case in hand in the favorable direction of the author. In fact there [sic] very purpose is to “perfect” the “ideal” (true or false). (@8)

    In summary, you are bearing false witness against the female accusers here. You rail against this “trial” in the court of public opinion, and yet subject these women to that same sort of farce.

    In a he-said, she-said situation like this, the best construction is typically not to draw any conclusions at all. Defending one party as innocent necessarily involves defaming the other, and this at a time when we simply don’t have any facts.

    This doesn’t preclude our talking about the issue entirely. Obviously, we can discuss how Cain is handling the matter, as we have those facts at hand. And, come the primary/caucus season, some of us will have to make a decision as to how this matter affects our opinion of his ability to be President.

    But defaming the women involved here, as you have Larry, is not the best construction on the whole situation.

  • Cincinnatus

    Also, we’re all missing the point.

    As I’ve noted, when Cain was initially asked, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment,” he responded with the god-awful statement I’ve appended above: “…have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

    There are literally only two conclusions the observer/reader can draw from this event:

    1) Cain has been so accused–perhaps even validly–and is trying to cover it up.

    2) Cain is tremendously stupid (when it comes to public relations and comporting oneself professionally in public, as befits a President of the United States).

    Either way, would you really want to vote for this guy?

  • Cincinnatus

    Also, we’re all missing the point.

    As I’ve noted, when Cain was initially asked, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment,” he responded with the god-awful statement I’ve appended above: “…have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

    There are literally only two conclusions the observer/reader can draw from this event:

    1) Cain has been so accused–perhaps even validly–and is trying to cover it up.

    2) Cain is tremendously stupid (when it comes to public relations and comporting oneself professionally in public, as befits a President of the United States).

    Either way, would you really want to vote for this guy?

  • Cincinnatus

    I mean, how hard would it have been for Cain to respond, “Yes, I have been so accused, but legal proceedings demonstrated that the charges were false.”

    Seriously.

  • Cincinnatus

    I mean, how hard would it have been for Cain to respond, “Yes, I have been so accused, but legal proceedings demonstrated that the charges were false.”

    Seriously.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@75), right. Without having to draw a conclusion about the man’s innocence vis-a-vis the sexual allegations, one can argue that Cain’s responses have simply been troubling, even or especially assuming that the man is innocent!

    Would a President Cain use the same tactics to deal with the media once in office?

    Media: Mr. President, is it true that you ordered the attack on Iran even though you knew that the evidence was faked?
    Cain: … Have you ever ordered an attack on Iran even though you knew that the evidence was faked?

    Presumably, Cain’s campaign manager was also off on a smoke break while he was talking to that reporter.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@75), right. Without having to draw a conclusion about the man’s innocence vis-a-vis the sexual allegations, one can argue that Cain’s responses have simply been troubling, even or especially assuming that the man is innocent!

    Would a President Cain use the same tactics to deal with the media once in office?

    Media: Mr. President, is it true that you ordered the attack on Iran even though you knew that the evidence was faked?
    Cain: … Have you ever ordered an attack on Iran even though you knew that the evidence was faked?

    Presumably, Cain’s campaign manager was also off on a smoke break while he was talking to that reporter.

  • Grace

    Whatever lame excuses Cain uses to excuse himself from answering questions regarding sexual abuse, ….. is exactly the answers we would receive IF this man were to be president, when questioned about foreign affairs, military, taxes, etc, if he didn’t think we deserved to know.

    It’s bad enough now, with the president IN office, who prances about when asked a straight question.

  • Grace

    Whatever lame excuses Cain uses to excuse himself from answering questions regarding sexual abuse, ….. is exactly the answers we would receive IF this man were to be president, when questioned about foreign affairs, military, taxes, etc, if he didn’t think we deserved to know.

    It’s bad enough now, with the president IN office, who prances about when asked a straight question.

  • Tom Hering

    Cain generally comes across as defensive. If he were a pizza, he’d be thin crust. Maybe “hold the sausage” too, but I’m not going there. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Cain generally comes across as defensive. If he were a pizza, he’d be thin crust. Maybe “hold the sausage” too, but I’m not going there. :-D

  • larry

    Todd,

    Not at all, I admit and knew exactly what I was doing and what I was doing was to not demonstrate the Lutheran position (which I would have clearly stated if that is what I had meant to do, which I ABUNDANTLY do when I do) but to demonstrate that in the realm of argumentation one ad homenem may be answered equally with another ad homenem. Both really mean nothing more. I.e. if WE are going to argue ridiculous ad homenem, then let’s equally argue ad homenem and let’s not pretend one side has more truth exerted than the other (which is what is assumed that Cain does not).

    If you will recall Todd, I did say as to bearing false witness this includes ourselves, and that ‘our’ of ‘ourselves’ includes myself. I never excluded myself from this. In fact every time I recall any mention of Law on this blog I go out of my way to include myself among the guilty. Let’s review:

    from 14, “In fact that commandment exists to show that there are PLENTY of people willing to “bear false witness against their neighbor” (including OURselves).”

    You are correct in saying that the best construction on this is to await the evidence which has not been forth coming.

  • larry

    Todd,

    Not at all, I admit and knew exactly what I was doing and what I was doing was to not demonstrate the Lutheran position (which I would have clearly stated if that is what I had meant to do, which I ABUNDANTLY do when I do) but to demonstrate that in the realm of argumentation one ad homenem may be answered equally with another ad homenem. Both really mean nothing more. I.e. if WE are going to argue ridiculous ad homenem, then let’s equally argue ad homenem and let’s not pretend one side has more truth exerted than the other (which is what is assumed that Cain does not).

    If you will recall Todd, I did say as to bearing false witness this includes ourselves, and that ‘our’ of ‘ourselves’ includes myself. I never excluded myself from this. In fact every time I recall any mention of Law on this blog I go out of my way to include myself among the guilty. Let’s review:

    from 14, “In fact that commandment exists to show that there are PLENTY of people willing to “bear false witness against their neighbor” (including OURselves).”

    You are correct in saying that the best construction on this is to await the evidence which has not been forth coming.

  • Cincinnatus

    Wait, so Christ’s teaching is that one ad hominem deserves another in return? Huh.

  • Cincinnatus

    Wait, so Christ’s teaching is that one ad hominem deserves another in return? Huh.

  • larry

    I suppose I must engage temporarily this little side bar which has nothing to do with the post at hand. Seriously Cin. do you honestly delude yourself that you are going to back me up with works righteousness? That would work if I were wishfully working my way to heaven and inverting the entire Christian religion into Satan’s religion. As Luther said there is nothing more dangerous to kind and polite fallen religion than a free man. And that’s true for any Lutheran/Christian. For you forget Paul’s fundamental point in Romans that God’s wrath is not in reaction to the Law, the wrath of God is beyond the Law and the Law is the reaction to wrath. God’s wrath is not a “reaction to sin” but the conclusion to it. This is what Luther was getting at in BOW against Erasmus, God’s wrath is above the Law, Erasmus saw the Law as implying “if should, then can”, Luther was pointing out no, “wrath is ALREADY revealed, hence the law is ONLY accusing and pointing out the reality for you. Put another way wrath is not reacting to and vindicating the law, the law is reacting to and vindicating the wrath of God, hence the wrath of God is above and beyond the law (utterly offensive to reason).

    In this sense a one can exude the Lutheran reality and freedom, the two kingdoms not confused as Cin. does, if you will and vigorously debate according to normative debating techniques and argumentation and that includes the use of rhetoric which Luther was quite fond of. I’m not baptizing logical debating techniques as did medieval Rome did Aristotle (who is useful in one realm and eternally deadly in another).

    The point is on this particular blog or topic I was not intending to go “theological”, nor was the blog’s discussion, and if you are going to accuse me of sin and these in specific then like the devil you’ve missed a WHOLE BUNCH more as to me and my ever present palpable sinful nature. To start with I don’t have a palpable heartbeat that is not idolatrous, no sentence I’ve ever uttered or written yesterday, today nor tomorrow is or will be without sinful nature gaining upon it.

    So as Luther once said to when it was addressed as to his “harshness” and such, I believe it was Erasmus (paraphrasing from memory), “we’ll just have to over look our sinful natures that can never be over come even in debate and proceed”. Or as he said to Melancthon on this very issue, “sin boldly but believe all the more boldly”. Because if we must wait until you or I or anyone else cannot sin as we dialog, then we shall never be able to dialog or utter the first syllable. Otherwise spare me the heterodox protestant purgatory where one is backed up in conscience so ever fearful of the mere rustling of a leaf that one dare not be able to move, speak or think.

  • larry

    I suppose I must engage temporarily this little side bar which has nothing to do with the post at hand. Seriously Cin. do you honestly delude yourself that you are going to back me up with works righteousness? That would work if I were wishfully working my way to heaven and inverting the entire Christian religion into Satan’s religion. As Luther said there is nothing more dangerous to kind and polite fallen religion than a free man. And that’s true for any Lutheran/Christian. For you forget Paul’s fundamental point in Romans that God’s wrath is not in reaction to the Law, the wrath of God is beyond the Law and the Law is the reaction to wrath. God’s wrath is not a “reaction to sin” but the conclusion to it. This is what Luther was getting at in BOW against Erasmus, God’s wrath is above the Law, Erasmus saw the Law as implying “if should, then can”, Luther was pointing out no, “wrath is ALREADY revealed, hence the law is ONLY accusing and pointing out the reality for you. Put another way wrath is not reacting to and vindicating the law, the law is reacting to and vindicating the wrath of God, hence the wrath of God is above and beyond the law (utterly offensive to reason).

    In this sense a one can exude the Lutheran reality and freedom, the two kingdoms not confused as Cin. does, if you will and vigorously debate according to normative debating techniques and argumentation and that includes the use of rhetoric which Luther was quite fond of. I’m not baptizing logical debating techniques as did medieval Rome did Aristotle (who is useful in one realm and eternally deadly in another).

    The point is on this particular blog or topic I was not intending to go “theological”, nor was the blog’s discussion, and if you are going to accuse me of sin and these in specific then like the devil you’ve missed a WHOLE BUNCH more as to me and my ever present palpable sinful nature. To start with I don’t have a palpable heartbeat that is not idolatrous, no sentence I’ve ever uttered or written yesterday, today nor tomorrow is or will be without sinful nature gaining upon it.

    So as Luther once said to when it was addressed as to his “harshness” and such, I believe it was Erasmus (paraphrasing from memory), “we’ll just have to over look our sinful natures that can never be over come even in debate and proceed”. Or as he said to Melancthon on this very issue, “sin boldly but believe all the more boldly”. Because if we must wait until you or I or anyone else cannot sin as we dialog, then we shall never be able to dialog or utter the first syllable. Otherwise spare me the heterodox protestant purgatory where one is backed up in conscience so ever fearful of the mere rustling of a leaf that one dare not be able to move, speak or think.

  • Cincinnatus

    Larry,

    This is silly. I haven’t accused you of any moral failings or sinful transgressions. tODD was merely pointing out your mild hypocrisy in insisting that eighth commandment charity be extended to Cain, while doing your utmost to impugn the character of the women who have accused him.

    Honestly, I agree with you: these women are probably not the most discreet women on the planet, and it is quite possible that one or more of them are exaggerating or lying altogether to derive as much advantage from the situation as possible.

    But you can’t spend at least half of this stupid thread insisting over and over again that the media are treating Cain unfairly, that we can make no judgments whatsoever about his character, that he’s being framed, etc.–because this is the sort of thing Christ commands, according to you–while simultaneously insinuating (or even explicitly asserting) that these women are “probably” loose, self-interested, fame-craving, and otherwise people of ill-repute. In other words, you’ve been condemning folks like me because we’re pre-judging Cain’s character and are willing to evaluate these accusations at face value–all while presuming that these women, due to their characters, can’t possibly be telling the truth. This is the very definition of inconsistency. It does not compute.

    Put it to rest.

    How about answering my questions to you? Would you hire an accused (but not convicted) child molester to babysit your children? And do you think Strauss-Kahn and Michael Jackson–for just two out of dozens of recent examples–were also treated unfairly by the media and public opinion?

  • Cincinnatus

    Larry,

    This is silly. I haven’t accused you of any moral failings or sinful transgressions. tODD was merely pointing out your mild hypocrisy in insisting that eighth commandment charity be extended to Cain, while doing your utmost to impugn the character of the women who have accused him.

    Honestly, I agree with you: these women are probably not the most discreet women on the planet, and it is quite possible that one or more of them are exaggerating or lying altogether to derive as much advantage from the situation as possible.

    But you can’t spend at least half of this stupid thread insisting over and over again that the media are treating Cain unfairly, that we can make no judgments whatsoever about his character, that he’s being framed, etc.–because this is the sort of thing Christ commands, according to you–while simultaneously insinuating (or even explicitly asserting) that these women are “probably” loose, self-interested, fame-craving, and otherwise people of ill-repute. In other words, you’ve been condemning folks like me because we’re pre-judging Cain’s character and are willing to evaluate these accusations at face value–all while presuming that these women, due to their characters, can’t possibly be telling the truth. This is the very definition of inconsistency. It does not compute.

    Put it to rest.

    How about answering my questions to you? Would you hire an accused (but not convicted) child molester to babysit your children? And do you think Strauss-Kahn and Michael Jackson–for just two out of dozens of recent examples–were also treated unfairly by the media and public opinion?

  • larry

    Cin,

    We don’t totally disagree, but that was the point, it was MEANT to be hypocrisy. I see the same things you do too, Cain’s responses. The silence on the side of not pointing out the other sides hypocrisy/ad homenems was deafening. My only reason for “heavy weighting” Cain’s defense was to counter weight what was only being said in the reverse. The whole of the debate was basically ‘what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ and vice versa (which I stated).

    Thus, for example when it is implied that if Cain’s lying its a violation of the sixth commandment, sure, and it is also true if they are lying its a violation of the eighth commandment. The hypocrisy in both is drawing the conclusion as if true by implication in the present with no more than we’ve been given. Thus, the hypocrisy is on purpose to make the point very pointedly.

    E.g. Sure Cain’s initial responses (if he’s telling the truth) were completely asinine, but kind of make since if he’s not telling the truth. But the reverse is also true of the initial responses (if they are telling the truth) they’ve been completely asinine, but kind of make since if they are not telling the truth.

    The summary is this: Somebody is telling the truth and somebody is lying. Whoever is telling the truth, their initial public ‘output’ shows pretty much an inane ability, but to the one who happens to be fabricating, then the same answers “make sense”.

    Put another way whatever one says of Cain’s and his teams efforts, especially early on can be said of the opposite side given the press conferences we’ve seen thus far. The whole thing, regardless of who has been lying and who has been telling the truth has been nothing but cartoon.

    That’s all.

  • larry

    Cin,

    We don’t totally disagree, but that was the point, it was MEANT to be hypocrisy. I see the same things you do too, Cain’s responses. The silence on the side of not pointing out the other sides hypocrisy/ad homenems was deafening. My only reason for “heavy weighting” Cain’s defense was to counter weight what was only being said in the reverse. The whole of the debate was basically ‘what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ and vice versa (which I stated).

    Thus, for example when it is implied that if Cain’s lying its a violation of the sixth commandment, sure, and it is also true if they are lying its a violation of the eighth commandment. The hypocrisy in both is drawing the conclusion as if true by implication in the present with no more than we’ve been given. Thus, the hypocrisy is on purpose to make the point very pointedly.

    E.g. Sure Cain’s initial responses (if he’s telling the truth) were completely asinine, but kind of make since if he’s not telling the truth. But the reverse is also true of the initial responses (if they are telling the truth) they’ve been completely asinine, but kind of make since if they are not telling the truth.

    The summary is this: Somebody is telling the truth and somebody is lying. Whoever is telling the truth, their initial public ‘output’ shows pretty much an inane ability, but to the one who happens to be fabricating, then the same answers “make sense”.

    Put another way whatever one says of Cain’s and his teams efforts, especially early on can be said of the opposite side given the press conferences we’ve seen thus far. The whole thing, regardless of who has been lying and who has been telling the truth has been nothing but cartoon.

    That’s all.

  • larry

    Sorry I didn’t see your questions at the end.

    I’ve already answer the second part, yes (And do you think Strauss-Kahn and Michael Jackson–for just two out of dozens of recent examples–were also treated unfairly by the media and public opinion?). And just to make it clear for cheap seats in your head that don’t seem to be hearing me on this that I’ve stated very clearly not once but twice already, I think its already an unfair jump on the green ‘scandal’ (solyndra, et. al.), innocent until proven guilty.

    “How about answering my questions to you? Would you hire an accused (but not convicted) child molester to babysit your children?”

    Again because you seem to not be listening at all, no I would not. I’ve not been and am not arguing Cain should continue running or not, that I’ve stated too, nor advocating for him if he does (as said politics aside). But I won’t hire ANYONE, even if it was a little old lady with thousands of references, not even you, that I don’t personally know and for many years very very very close to me to babysit my children, never have and never will. And that is a fact we decided upon a long time ago. I was raised the same way. I’m very protective in this day and age of my children.

    So your little false dilemmas make no point whatsoever.

  • larry

    Sorry I didn’t see your questions at the end.

    I’ve already answer the second part, yes (And do you think Strauss-Kahn and Michael Jackson–for just two out of dozens of recent examples–were also treated unfairly by the media and public opinion?). And just to make it clear for cheap seats in your head that don’t seem to be hearing me on this that I’ve stated very clearly not once but twice already, I think its already an unfair jump on the green ‘scandal’ (solyndra, et. al.), innocent until proven guilty.

    “How about answering my questions to you? Would you hire an accused (but not convicted) child molester to babysit your children?”

    Again because you seem to not be listening at all, no I would not. I’ve not been and am not arguing Cain should continue running or not, that I’ve stated too, nor advocating for him if he does (as said politics aside). But I won’t hire ANYONE, even if it was a little old lady with thousands of references, not even you, that I don’t personally know and for many years very very very close to me to babysit my children, never have and never will. And that is a fact we decided upon a long time ago. I was raised the same way. I’m very protective in this day and age of my children.

    So your little false dilemmas make no point whatsoever.

  • Dust

    OMG….

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438

    Lord have mercy indeed!

  • Dust

    OMG….

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438

    Lord have mercy indeed!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X