Posted on 11/30/2011 7:48:10 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The smear campaign against Herman Cain is the exact same kind of smear campaign the media ran against Jack Ryan. Had Jack Ryan not been taken out, we would never have had a Senator Obama, and without a Senator Obama we would never have had a President Obama.
Ryan married actress Jeri Ryan in 1991; together they have a son, Alex Ryan. They divorced in 1999 in California, and the records of the divorce were sealed at their mutual request. Five years later, when Ryan's Senate campaign began, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have the records released. On March 3, 2004, several of Ryan's GOP primary opponents urged release of the records.[5] Both Ryan and his wife agreed to make their divorce records public, but not make the custody records public, claiming that the custody records could be harmful to their son if released. On March 16, 2004, Ryan won the GOP primary with 36 percent to 23 percent against Jim Oberweis who came in second.[6] Obama won the Democratic primary, with 53 percent to 23 percent against Dan Hynes, who came in second.
On March 29, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ruled that several of the Ryans' divorce records should be opened to the public, and ruled that a court-appointed referee would later decide which custody files should remain sealed to protect the interests of Ryan's young child.[7] The following week, on April 2, 2004, Barack Obama formally established his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats not to inject them into the campaign.[8] The Ryan campaign characterized Obama's stance as hypocritical, because Obama's alleged backers had been emailing reports about the divorce records prior to Judge Schnider's decision.[8]
In May 2004, two polls were conducted statewide where the Chicago Tribune poll found Ryan trailing Obama 52% to 30% [9] while the Sun Times reported that he was trailing Obama 48 percent to 40 percent in the U.S. Senate race, according to a new Daily Southtown poll of 500 likely Illinois voters [10] [11] On June 22, 2004, after receiving a report from the referee, Judge Schnider released the files that were deemed consistent with the interests of Ryan's young child. In those files, Jeri Ryan alleged that Jack Ryan had asked her to perform sexual acts with him in public in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris. Jeri Ryan described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[12][1]
The decision to release these files generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request, and because it reversed the earlier decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. Jim Oberweis, Ryan's defeated GOP opponent, commented that "these are allegations made in a divorce hearing, and we all know people tend to say things that aren't necessarily true in divorce proceedings when there is money involved and custody of children involved."[1]
Prior to release of the documents, Ryan claimed he had told leading Republicans that the divorce file could cause problems for his campaign.[13] After the documents were released, GOP Chair Judy Baar Topinka said of Ryan's comment "It may have been somewhat misleading."[14] Topinka said after the June 25 withdrawal that Ryan's "decision was a personal one" and that the state GOP had not pressured Ryan to drop out.[15][16] Ryan's campaign ended less than a week after the custody records were opened, and Ryan officially filed the documentation to withdraw on July 29, 2004. The same party leaders who called for Ryan's resignation chose Alan Keyes as Ryan's replacement in the race; Keyes lost to Obama, 27% to 70%.
You’ve never said anything positive about Perry or Newt? Only that Cain could fit the VP slot? I thought you said you were first for Perry, and now you’re considering Newt? Does criticizing Cain take so much of your time, you’re unable to generate a single pro-Perry or pr-Newt post?
Nope, just not going to waste time since I know you won’t follow through. You can’t, because I haven’t smeared Cain, I’ve rightly criticized him. Now, you asked for something positive, and you got it. Are you now changing the goalpost to require it to be something positive about a specific candidate other than your own?
It’s popular on this site, if you’re going to get on a lot of Candidate-X’s threads and criticize him/her, to concomitantly sell your candidate of choice in a positive way. We have liberals in the MSM and all over the Net attacking our candidates relentlessly day in and day out. These same attack dogs leave Obama and the other Dems alone. Despite all that, some conservatives feel the need to pile on and add to the chorus.
It’s come to the point where people have asked—and rightly so—that people do less demolition (or attempted demolition) of other people’s candidates and more promo for their own. I asked you if you’d ever done that. I.e.: did you say anything good about Perry when he was your choice? Have you said anything more recently pro-Newt? The damning by faint praise thing you said about Cain [it was really just another way of saying he’s not fit to be president] isn’t what I asked for. No moving of the goal posts, so you needn’t go into your default attack mode Yet Again. I said, ‘Have you said anything good about the candidate of your choice?’
I’m beginning to think the answer is no.
Welcome to the United Soviet States of America..where the Pravda State Media “vet” the candidates to the pleasure and needs of the RinoCrat UniParty.
This “election” will be a non-election...featuring the state approved “candidates”-whose only distinction is whether they are black or white.
BWAHAHA! So I called it exactly right, you had no intention of ever trying to back of your claim. So now, even after I did what you asked, you won’t back up your claim. I now know not only how strong your “logic skills and reasoning” are, I know how much your word is worth.
“Cain put out his statement saying that his “private sex life” was no one’s business”
Cain has put out a statement saying that? Can you provide a link? Thanks.
Sincere question. Is it that you didn’t read my last post, or that you cannot read it? Do you just cycle through canned responses no matter what I write? How can you complain when I cut and paste the same answer in multiple posts, if you either don’t or can’t read what I write the first time?
Where’s the smear? If I have to keep asking, it’s because you refuse to point it out. I do enjoy it, though. The irony of me being accused of something when the accuser won’t back it up is awesome on a Herman Cain thread.
You have confirmed what I long suspected. Cain haters are almost universally nasty, and irrational by nearly the same percentage.
In the amount of time you’ve wasted with me, you could have easily gone to the thread YESTERDAY AND THIS MORNING and shown everyone here how I smeared Cain. Why can’t you do that simple task? Why the attempts to change the subject? Why the attempts to move the goalpost? Just point to the post. I did earlier to one of my own posts. Surely it would be simple to prove to everyone you’re right.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/ginger-white-claims-affair-herman-cain-20111127-es
Last part of Page 2
On this very thread I’ve written several replies to you that I put some very real time and thought into. There’s no evidence you read any one of them. You certainly never responded to them in an engaged, intelligent way. Yet you demand that I read and respond to you regardless. There is a word for that: hypocrite.
I’ll check it out. Thanks for posting the link.
See posts 145, 149, and 154.
YOU are not the topic of this thread. Why argue about your intentions with people whose only intention is to argue? They make no valid points or arguments. They just wish to stop you from making any sense. They do not want you to post facts or to make valid arguments, they want you to spend your time defending yourself.
Don’t fall for it anymore.
Is this the statement, or am I missing it?
“Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.”
If so, it sounds like basic lawyer-speak to me and not a direct statement from Cain himself. I want to see the content of the texting and the ‘to’ and/or ‘from’. If Cain is innocent in this, he should fire his attorney.
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.