Posted on 11/29/2011 4:30:04 PM PST by ken5050
Cain is a solid conservative. This man is what our nation needs. The allegations that continue to come in are impossible to disprove, so we have to use our common sense. These women have baselessly accused other men in the past and there is nothing to prove that this is anything different. Innocent until proven guilty....especially with someone who can restore this nation.
Go to his website and read the things he has written. I, for one, feel waves of relief at his direct, clear positions in so many areas, especially foreign policy.
There is not a soul in the world who can publicly claim understanding of Obama's Libya policy. That is because the said policy appeared to aim for replacement of a neutral dictator of a neutral country (who had things well under control) with a militant gang closely related to AQ. Who can openly say that Obama's Libya policy is to promote Caliphate and Islam, and help AQ to some oil revenue, and to spread some good weapons around? And if you don't say that on TV then what do you say instead?
My basis is simple:
1. The coordinated attack on George Bush regarding his Texas ANG records simultaneous with the Favorite Son story about Kerry on CBS.
2. The DUI release on George Bush just before the election vs. the complete disinterest (and attacking the accusers) of the claims by the Swift Boat veterans towards John Kerry.
3. The daily attacks on George Allen over the nonsense word "macaca" from the Washington Post.
4. The attacks on John McCain's wife vs. no interest in Obama's friends and associates, school records, etc.
5. The attacks on Palin and her family, vs. no interest in Obama's records.
6. The attacks on Rick Perry over a rock in a desert in Texas.
That's why I don't trust a media that throws out its journalistic "standards" when it rushes to cover salacious stories about Republicans, while hiding stories about Democrats that might hurt them in elections (Obama and Rev. Wright, John Edwards).
-PJ
Why listen to this woman? She told horrible stories about someone she used to work with, sent emails to a long list of people only later to recant when it was proven to be a bunch of lies.
If it were her first time I might be cautious, but this is her MO, I ain’t falling for it.
0 LIES. He is a liar.
What ever you have been told is his policy is a LIE.
What's to understand?
At least two of the women made their claims in 1999 or earlier, before Cain ran for public office, and before Obama would have known who Herman Cain was.
I was a Cain supporter. Despite the assumptions treated as Gospel Truths by many Cain supporters, it was not common for a CEO to be accused of two harassment claims in the 1997-1999 era. Harassment claims were not routinely settled; even the EEOC in 1998 was finding no basis for claims in 40% of cases. $35K and $45K were not in the range of settlement amounts for nuisance cases in 1999; a 1998 study I've cited multiple times showed that the average settlement of a sexual harassment claim that went to lawsuit was only $38.5K. That includes those claims of institutional harassment and outrageous behavior where the awards where in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the nuisance suits which were settled for less than $10K each, if settled at all. And nuisance lawsuits are settled for significantly more money than nuisance claims.
So there were two claims (more than would be expected), settled (not normally done with invalid claims not brought to suit), settled for amounts far above what was paid for nuisance claims in the 1998-1999 era.
I lived through that era as an attorney.
Obama and the Chicago way had nothing to do with those two claims against Cain.
Then Cain's campaign mangled the response by identifying the person who leaked the information to Politico by name, a ridiculous claim that we've conveniently flushed down a rabbit hole.
No, we can guess that some of this was Obama and the Chicago way, but not all of it was.
Scoutmaster, thanks for your consistently solid, informative posts. This is the kind of insight I look for on FR.
I've seen one Cain supporter state on FR that the phone records are forgeries. We've come to that point. A woman has phone records; the reporter texts the number and Cain responds from his personal phone (which would show the person texting him), and Cain supporters immediately think: "Those phone records are clearly forged by people with CIA-type expertise."
Not: we should wait to see what comes of this. Instead: "The phone records are forgeries."
Thank you, but I wish I had some insight into a candidate to support now that I'm not supporting Cain. It will never be Romney. Never. At gunpoint it wouldn't be Romney. Voting for Romney is simply voting for a liberal Democrat with an R by his name. As a genetic Texan, I don't trust Perry nor forgive him for his Democrat days. The conservative ranches and towns and churches and old men playing dominos in Texas during those days were already Republicans. I was never a Democrat and I'm a graduate of Sodom in Austin. An Aggie, a member of the Corps who was a Democrat? Brain damage or political convenience. Gingrinch has been on the other side of issues from me too many times. Bachman?
I can't get inspired.
Your cynicism is aimed at a conservative, while the rest of us suspect a setup by liberal opponents.
I know...it’s amazing...we’re not allowed to ask, to question...it makes us EVIL to do so..how we ever manage to win an election...sometimes I wonder..
This latest woman claims she had a long term affair with Cain. She obviously had Cain's number and phone records that indicate a fair bit of communication. She seems like a shady, seedy character. Yet Cain's explanation is they were friends and he wanted to help her financially. Err, why? If he hasn't done anything wrong, Cain could simply explain the details of exactly how he knew her and why he wanted to help her financially. But he doesn't. He basically just denies the charge without any explanation. Naturally the issue is not going to go away if he doesn't explain it.
Just how hard should it be for him to explain how he knew this woman and why he wanted to help her? Provide some context and details along with his categorical denial and she will have to put up or shut up. If she can't bring forward anything more to counter his explanation, it's over. If no one had seen them in hotels and what not, it's over. The problem is Cain handles these things badly. Either he and his campaign are just incompetent, or there is some shade of truth here preventing him from providing a full, detailed response.
That's what I am thinking. The Lawyers comments and his continued remarks about having to wait to hear what her claims will be before he can comment, indicates deception on some level. Sad to say.
Now ABC is reporting that the first accuser; Sharon Bialek; is being evicted from her townhouse...guess the Cain story didn’t bring home the bacon, after all. One liar down...
I am basing my judgments on what Cain says, not what the women are saying or is going on in their lives. Forget about the women, just listen to what he is saying (besides his denials, which anyone who wants to preserve their reputation will naturally continue to do).
Only because he was wreckable.
Obviously I’m somewhat more informed than you.
Cain was PATHETIC at articulating that.
He won’t be the nominee.
I like him but he wasn’t ready for prime time.
That’s reality.
Although not inspiring, consider Huntsman. He is a solid conservative, and although he worked for Obama, his China background is actually pretty damned important and impressive. He’s been pretty successful in the business world, appears to have a solid family life, and has been a governor.
He is my solid 3rd candidate.
As a native Texan, Baylor grad and one who has both sides of his family with counties named for them (Crane and Starr) I don’t get the Perry folks.
While I’m genetically disposed to dislike Aggies, ANY democrat Corp member is highly suspect to me. Don’t care what age they were.
Bachman, like Cain, isn’t ready for prime time. That’s just reality.
Tea Party rally is one thing, this is the big stage.
Gingrich, yes big past and issues, can articulate. Say what you will, but without him, 1994 would not have happened.
Look I haven’t been happy with my choices since ‘88 but I make the best with what’s available.
I wish we had stronger and more articulate folks. This is it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.