Posted on 11/03/2011 4:36:29 AM PDT by RobinMasters
Herman Cain supporters have accepted his narrative that he is an American success story. The question is, just how much of that "success" did he earn on his own? And is it really the Horatio Alger story we are led to believe?
During the late '70s and the '80s, Herman Cain was an employee of big consumer product corporations, starting with Coca Cola. He was not an entrepreneur. He didn't take any risks with his own capital. Cain went from an entry-level analyst position to top management in one decade. He was made what would normally be called a regional manager by Burger King. He was then made manager of a small subsidiary by Pillsbury. It is distasteful to ask, but would Cain's rocket to the top have happened without the special treatment and considerations given him as a result of affirmative action? Many conservatives are convinced that Barack Obama's rise was fueled by racial preferences, so they cannot blink in the face of the same possibility working in Herman Cain's favor.
Affirmative action had recently become the law of the land. Big corporations were under pressure to prove they were complying. True conservatives have never accepted the premise of affirmative action -- that you can reach equality by suppressing the rights of others by government edict. Yet Herman Cain defended affirmative action in debates and on his campaign website in his 2004 campaign for senator.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The money and support is pouring in for Herman Cain, but we cannot slow down now. Please help him by donating at http://www.hermancain.com/
Also to help join the buzz about Herman go to facebook.com and like him. In just the last week he has jumped 16% or 45000 with an impressive 12,000 in the last 24 hours. Make no mistake Karl Rove is watching Hermans likes and so is Romney. THIS is the way to stick it to the GOP establishment! Please tell your family and friends to like Herman as well.
What does Bill Clinton have to do with today's election cycle? NOTHING! It's like Obama blaming Bush.
Herman Cain is finished. Accept it now or wait until later, but the result will be the same. He's GONE.
Ah, another mature response jam-packed with wisdom.
Yes, they can.
What is our alternative?
Romney or Obama. Ignore the charges unless you have a Cain 2.0 waiting to be released.
Dems get their chosen candidate. We need the b@lls to choose ours without influence from these pundits..
ROFLOL! I was wondering that myself.
Didn't the person who said that call somebody else an idiot?
What amazes me is that so many of these "Blame Anybody but Cain" people have become what they claim to hate...and they do hate!!
Hatred seems to have over taken their ability to reason.
Before Cain, it was Palin who could do no wrong.
Cain lost me with his 999 - this nonsense doesn’t help.
I did, among other things the author makes a point of Cain not putting his own money i8nto his success, iow not having his own business. My comment was ad remains what has it to do with anything? Success is success.
I did not address the insinuation affirmative action may have played a part in his success. My response is affirmative action can get you in the door but that’s all it does. Once in you still have to perform. I actually have no idea if Cain was an affirmative action choice or not and neither does anyone else who has spoken of this.
I hope one day to enjoy the same kind of non-success that Cain has had in his life.
With all due respect, this question is flat-out backwards. There needs to be a due diligence investigation of the allegations (there are no "charges" to date) before the allegations are used to try and discredit the candidate. Right now we have no identified accusers. We have no papertrail. We have no facts, but we are long on innuendo.
Unless the allegations can be made credibly, using identified sources and actual evidence - and I understand "credibly" is a subjective term - it shouldn't be made. Cain is being required to "answer" vague, unsourced and unsubstantiated innuendo that he did something, somewhere, at some point in the past, that made an unidentified woman or women "uncomfortable", in some unspecified manner. Yet HE must be specific, answering unasked questions, anticipating his opponents' next moves in a whisper campaign.
Remember - these are allegations that were reported or (worse) went unreported some twelve to twenty years ago.
THAT, I believe, is the reason why so many Cain supprters are so ticked off over this. It's so very reminiscent of Clarence Thomas. At least Palin could confront her accusers, who usually were at least publically identified. Cain doesn't even have that luxury.
You really are dumb aren’t you? “Own the group?” Yikes!
Stephens sounds like the same people who said Palin didn't know anything about world affairs or geography. He's just as dishonest as the people who minimize Cain's negatives.
You wrote that Cain bought Godfather's Pizza, which he did not. Then you corrected your statement to say his 'group' did...not at all the same thing.
Now you show a total lack of understanding about my question -- of course he couldn't own the group -- that's the point.
If I ever engage you again, which is unlikely, I will remember to spell everything out in the simplest terms that I can.
Have a nice day.
He was part of the group that bought Godfather.
If you knew anything about business you wouldn’t ask such stupid questions. You asked “did he own the group?” Duh!
He owned Godfather. Just like his business partners owned Godfather. They ALL owned Godfather.
You don't have any evidence that he was elevated to his position based on race. You believe it anyway. Thus proving my point, no matter how high a black person rises people will roll there eyes and say "oh, well they just put him there as a token" regardless of their record or performance.
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.