Posted on 11/08/2011 10:09:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Well, it looks like Cain is fighting fire with fire.
And I can understand why the other women don’t want to come forward publicly and even DETAIl the so called inappropriate behavior they accuse Cain of.
Cain will dig up everything they’ve ever done wrong and it will be on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story on every newscast.
Who wants that aggravation?
But then, who started this ball rolling?
I hope Herman points all this out in his press statement this afternoon.
Freegards
Lex
Herman didn't start the fire.
Put another way, "the right of self defense is never denied."
A good question:
“If somebody sexually assaulted you, how long would it take before you could bring yourself to hug him?”
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
White trash lady who has lost the slab under her double wide
Go after the women with all possible efforts!
You can bet your hindmost part that, if this scandal was aimed at a Democrat candidate for President, this would be the only question being asked by the State-Controlled Media. Where is the money coming from? Who's paying the lawyers? It would be the lede of every news story, every top-of-the-hour report on radio, every evening newscast, it would be repeated hundreds of times an hour on every cable channel, every cable chat show. It would be 24-7, nonstop, Where is the money coming from? Are you being paid for your story?
It is all leading back to Obama and Axelrod..The Chicago Way!
Man oh man...hope Cain comes out swinging today and names names.
The DETAILS won’t be on every newscast. Only that Cain is slandering those poor women who only came forward in an effort to save the nation.
On another note, I know someone who went to a Mormon church when he was a kid. He thinks he was harrassed by an older kid. It could have been Romney. And he chooses not to talk about it.
This is like the old trick of saying “Boy, the things I could tell you about that girl.”
I hope he doesn't. If he even gets the slightest error in facts or goes on rumor, the press and the RINOs will eat him alive.
He needs to deny the allegations, call them for the lies that they are and essentially say 'put up or shut up'.
I believe Sharon is the only one who has brought tangible allegations. She is the one he is defensively attacking. The rest merely got “harassment” awards that could have been for something as innacuous as in inapropriat joke in the hall. They are not relevant unless someone makes them so. I suspect that is why those women wish not to speak of the actual claims. They got their money and would like to bow out of this whole thing.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
AMEN
I think every Cain supporter ought to get a hold of Gloria and tell her that Rove, or Kraut, or Shultz or Blitzer, or Medved or Brit etc. gave us “a look” a couple of years ago and we think it was inappropriate. We need to take this to a new level. Use it against them. Im pissed
I keep reading the cliche “Cain responded badly” as the knee-jerk response and narrative among the swells in the media. Its often repeated elsewhere too ( Heck even here in FR)
If this is the case, it begs the question -— has anyone ever figured out a proper way to respond to an organized attack on one’s character, especially when one doesn’t know where the next attacks will come from?
The Marines always train their officers - when ambushed, attack to the center of the ambush. That’s about the only advice I have ever heard on the subject.
If ANYONE have better advice on how Cain “should have responded” I want to hear it.
Although I’m not on the Cain bandwagon, I’m absolutely thrilled and delighted that he’s fighting back against these disgusting attacks. Whether or not there is any truth to him being a womanizer, I despise politics played this way, in the lowest gutter. The pattern of throwing mud at Republicans and seeing the media make sure it sticks vs. how they routinely either ignore or minimize Dem wrongdoing must stop.
I agree with this comment at NRO:
There seem to be three basic camps in the comments at least:
1) “guilty as charged” This group is willing to overlook any and all inconsistencies and weaknesses in the accounts of the women involved and the motivations of the reporters who initially broke the story. This mostly consists of Liberals who voted for and still think John Edwards is a great guy, and Romney/Perry supporters.
2) “What the Frak?” This group looks at what is being reported and being said, and is saying, “Wait a minute, is anything specific going to be said by the people making the accusations?” Many in group 2 are not natural Cain backers, and often say so, but think there ought to be some sort of evidence presented before we crucify the man. This group also has been pointing out the creeping of the storyline which has now progressed (in a week) to sexual assault. The amplitude has gone up, but not the specifics. Having Gloria Allred yell at her client, “Don’t talk!”, as her client is yukking it up with the reporters just adds to group 2 skepticism. This is phony.
3) “It’s a conspiracy” This group, mostly Cain loyalists, through wisdom born of experience know that this is how you kill a candidate. The whole way this has played out is very formulaic...long on innuendo, short on verifiable/falsifiable facts. (such as remembering what suit they both wore, what you had to drink, and the shoes the hotel bartender was wearing at 6:30pm, but only remembering that Cain sexually assaulted you in “mid July” of 1997 and that you did not go to the cops or tell anyone about it) For this group (the ceiling, as you put it) to sway, you’re going to need to produce a love child.
I pretty much consider myself in the 2 camp, and continue to hope that Perry will have a Gingrich-style resurgence. But, I’m leaning 3 now mostly because of the media stunt by Allred yesterday. That story was so full of holes it was absurd. I was laughing as I watched it. Bad acting, over-the-top hyperbole and righteous-anger by Allred, cue quivering voice at just the right moments bookended by laughter and playtime.
It was also a statement written by lawyers, and loaded with even more innuendo. (note how they suggested twice that the accuser had been fired from her job under suspicious circumstances, then linked her firing and lack of re-hire to Cain) “Aha! See! They fired me, and after my BS story, I did not get my job back! He’s guilty!”
But I have not see a single commenter who regularly posts here say “no big deal, he made a pass, she said “no” and that was that”. And the full commentariat came down very hard on one of your contributor’s patently ridiculous “What if it’s true?” blog posts last week. Nobody is giving Cain a pass if he did it. But I think only a small number of people, mostly John Edwards supporters and Romney/Perry voters, are in group 1.
Odd that she was sued over paternity. My guess is she falsely claimed someone was the father of her child.
I hope this isn’t the total plan. I agree that Bialek is shady and not very credible, but Herman Cain really does need to deny the specifics item by item, not just critique her personally. As in: I did not upgrade this woman’s hotel room, did not put my hand up her skirt, etc., etc. “I did not harass anyone” sounds like a Clintonian evasion.
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.