Skip to comments.Here's Hoping Herman Cain Will Stay In the Race
Posted on 12/03/2011 6:16:49 AM PST by NautiNurse
In the 15th Century, Lady Justice was introduced wearing a blindfold. Her sightlessness was meant to represent objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power or weakness. Blind justice and impartiality should be the goal.
Suddenly, while Mr. Cain is soaring at the top of the polls, proposing to scrap our three million word tax code for a simpler, fairer, pro-growth 9-9-9 plan (getting rid of the tax code would arguably be the largest transfer of power from the government to the people since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. No wonder the establishment resists such an agent of change) he is besieged by the media, suffering death of a thousand cuts, as described by Cain Senior Adviser, Niger Innis.
For six unrelenting weeks, Mr. Cain has been the target of attacks on his character. His accusers have yet to prove anything, yet the man has been judged guilty in the court of public opinion without even a semblance of a fair trial.
We the people must demand a more just political process. If someone is going to talk about another persons character, they must have irrefutable proof and not just their word. The people should demand this and so should the media. A political campaign should address the many troubling issues facing the nation and not have to waste its resources defending meaningless allegations.
We must demand that the media reports on the issues, and let us see the platforms of the candidates. In the face of these attacks, on Mr. Cain and other presidential hopefuls, Im inclined to find that Tabloid Justice is indeed blind, but far from objective.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
When you pay for something, you get something in return. What did Cain receive for alleged 'payment'?
He has admitted he never told his wife about the money given to Ms. White.
These are not large amounts of money and I don't care if he does it or not.
If he had done this back when we were a young, struggling married couple, I would definitely have a problem with him giving money when we could ill afford it. I think that's the key here. The wealthy think and live differently than we. what appears to be a huge financial decision to us is but a drop in the bucket to them. Nothing more than tossing change in the Salvation Army kettle. JMO....
At my house we discuss anything we regard as "big ticket" before we just buy something, but I know many people where the wife leaves that to the husband and a couple of instances where the wife makes those decisions.
We don't know how the Cains chose to do it, but we do know that Mrs. Cain was a homemaker and that Mr. Cain had a very large income. What is the lower level of "big ticket" at my house probably wouldn't even register at the Cain's.
We also don't know the amount of money he gave her (both parties refusing to disclose). If it was a hundred or couple hundred to help her avoid eviction or buy groceries and happened a couple times, no big deal to me. If he gave her 10s of thousands on a regular basis, that's another story--for me at least.
But whatever he gave her, she is a known liar and defamer proven in court and her own apology for having done so and getting caught at it. Her own accusations don't make sense and I don't believe her. Period.
Better yet, YOU prove why God is wrong.
1 Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
2 When therefore thou doest alms, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.
I don’t have to prove a negative.
Spare me. He doesn't have to seek accolades, he simply needs to be open with her as to what he is doing. The amount of spin to try to defend this is quite telling.
Not "alleged," but "documented." And am I to infer from your question that, because Cain received nothing in return, the payments qualify as "alms?"
Absolutely. I’ve been supporting Cain for about two months now and will still think highly of him even if he leaves the race.
Exactly. There are some though that are being deliberately obtuse. Either that or they are tremendous control freaks in their real lives and I pity their spouses.
Reality left a long time ago, back when the small gathering of “bash everyone else” groupies jumped from Palin or Bachmann or Paul to Cain.
Don’t remember 2008 per-primaries being this nutty and nasty.
A truly bizzare effort on your part that denies the inherent problems with doing such. It might work for you in your marriage. But I doubt one woman in one hundred would accept such unflinchingly.
And, once again, I am looking at a man who lies by omission to his own wife, and it makes me wonder what he is not telling GOP voters.
So who is your candidate? And if you answer "Newt", you know what that makes you.
It still escapes many of these blind Cain supporters, that it was just that one certain woman, who he gave money to and frequently visited for 13 years that “charity” was his only reward and motive.
By the way, Bridge for sale!.....
Innocent until proven guilty is a standard that’s only used in criminal court. In civil court, Cain would be the plaintiff, and he’d have to prove that the defendant (pick one) was guilty of fabricating the allegation against him, which not-so coincidentally would also affirm his innocence.
You forgot one possibiltiy: they slip under-the-counter payments to random women, and fail to tell their wife.
I'm thinking if he had given money to one woman (not a campaign, not a friend you know) for some thirteen years without you knowing it, that might be different.
I think it was a huge mistake.
I also think he can overcome this, but it will be very difficult. It will take a very persistent and almost perfectly run campaign from here on in (if he actually stays in).
agree! I see that the real sticking point with them is not telling his wife. They need to step outside of their own financial world and into the world of wealthy. It’s totally different!
You only get into trouble if you itemize it on your Schedule A, Form 1040!
If he quits the other side wins. I say he needs to stay in and file defamation suits against these gold diggers.
So we’re supposed to believe he was fooling around when he was going through chemo?