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?
At this point, I am looking around wondering how we got to this point of having such sorry choices for the nomination - I thought 2008 was bad, we are outdoing such this year. The only saving grace is Obama has a horrible record now that he didn't have in 2008 and whoever is nominated for the GOP should be able to beat him by running against Obama's record. That, however, does not make me enthusiastic for what the new GOP presidency would bring, other than a modicum of relief from Obama's insane policies.
To me Cain is showing he either did not understand what he needed to do to run for the GOP nomination or simply did not care that he didn't do such.
It will take a much more than perfect campaign. It will take a series of miracles the equivalent of the Resurrection.
I've never seen anything that said he gave her a steady income for 13 years.
I've seen where he's known her for 13 years and helped her with rent and food money on occasion. We have no idea if he gave her money twice or 50 times during the course of 13 years. To say otherwise is just speculation.
That's right. What do you think alms are?
1) mercy, pity
a) esp. as exhibited in giving alms, charity
2) the benefaction itself, a donation to the poor, alms
It is not just in criminal court, it’s a timeless principle of our civilization. If you don’t see that, if you think Cain can somehow prove a negative, then, as you wrote so powerfully elsewhere, “We’re so far apart in our thinking here that it’s not even worth discussing.”
Sometimes we forget what Newt did for our cause in the ‘90’s and also why the GOP threw him under the bus.
Here are a few reminders for you; Let me know what you think after you refresh your memory. I don’t see him as being all that bad then, and I know he will live up to his current promise to us. Newt loves his country!
Like I said, I would take him over Romney. But I don't see a consummate Beltway insider as being the best choice to change how DC is run.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
I've always appreciated your posts, I just disagree with your take. I think it was a huge mistake on his part, and unfortunately it gives enough of an edge to the rest of the smears to make it almost impossible for him to climb out of the tar bucket.
There ya’ go! Cain should just announce a press conference and declare that he took pity on the woman, and saw himself as engaging in an act of charity. Problem solved.
Everyone should watch this -
VIDEO: Why Herman Cain shoudn’t quit & why his accusers are easily discredited! (1/2)
Did not know of that website.
Yes, I know there's a difference between the red bucket and a person and also the amounts involved. The thing is that Cain is wealthy enough that the amounts may correlate and he helps enough people (of both sexes) that he didn't feel compelled to "confess" to charity.
I think I've read enough of your posts over the many years I've been here to think you're not a jerk or a dope. And you may be right that Mrs. Cain will see it your way. I just think there's a very good likelihood that this was innocent charity on a level he can afford and I can't. Also, we don't know what the level was.
Not "documented" but "acknowledged."
Nothing is a done deal at this point.
It is time CONSERVATIVES rally to Hermain Cain's side - and tell the RINOs in the Republican Party and the State run media to get the HELL OUT!!
I cannot believe the level of silliness I am seeing on this thread. You are HONESTLY trying to compare dropping a twenty into a red bucket at Christmas to giving money to a woman over the course of many years and not telling your wife?
Didn't see your reply, so I'll assume you are married. So, you tell your wife every time you give money to someone or some organization with charitable intentions? Do you also tell her when you stop to have a beer with your friends?
Hey brother, spare a dime for a cup of coffee?
Sorry, I have to check with my wife.
Fantastic, I love word games. If one “acknowledges” an “allegation” of payments it is no longer permissible to refer to them as “alleged” payments. (And you are permitted to infer that some form of “documentation” exists).
Which leads to the next question. How many cups of coffee did Cain buy for this woman?
I hate to see what was done to Palin, being done to Cain and then to anyone else until we have only Romney. We are almost to that point now. I had such high hopes for this election. Now, I'm not even sure our country will survive...
The silliness continues. You are comparing that to someone giving money to another woman over the course of years and not telling his wife?
Amen, NautiNurse! Excellent article by Dr. Alveda King... thanks for posting it.
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!.....
I'm so glad that there are so many here who automatically think the worst of people. (/sarc)
I'm of the opinion that Herman Cain, in many moments of Christian charity, gave money to lots of people in need, this woman being one. This act, being so frequent and ordinary to him, occupies a place in his memory that is not associated with guilt, so does not register as something to admit to when running for public office.
He now is in the position of having to remember the names, places, and dates of all of the people he may have helped out in the past. It is truly a sad comment on our society that true acts of charity can be twisted into veiled accusations of wrongdoing. Think of the Gary Cooper character in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town.
I agree with completely!
I want to make a specific point of NOT voting for this person when the primaries roll around to my state--just on the meritis of the way you have shoddily treated my and others' candidate here, Herman Cain, on this thread incessantly and elsewhere on Free Republic, under the ruse of "objectivity". The bottom line is that his candidacy offends some personal interest of yours in some way and I assume that is your support of another person and that perhaps your candidate cannot win on issues alone, but needs supporters like you to stoke the RINO fire of controversy and character asassination against candidate Cain. Please hurry and indicate your supported candidate so I can make note of that. Thanks again for your cooperation.
Thank you for that quick reply.
By the way, this bridge was only used on Sundays by little old ladies on the way to Church, was freshly painted and inspected every month and kept out of the rain. There is not even one speck of rust anywhere on it either.....Take my word for it......NOT ONE SPECK! (You can have it for the low, low price of $9,900,900.99!)
I’ll freely admit that I would vote for Cain in a heartbeat, and it doesn’t make what he did any less of a bonehead maneuver . . . and watching folks here dancing on the head of a pin is just plain amusing.
News flash, bucko - I was leaning towards Cain. Not sure who I lean towards now, I am in serious wait and see mode now.
And I am not quite sure how forming an opinion over an admission by Cain is treating him shoddily.
But go ahead, persist in your denial that this does not speak well of Cain and starts to allow doubt to creep in about his veracity.
(And you are permitted to infer that some form of documentation exists).
Most certainly an acknowledgement of an allegation can exist without any documentation of said allegation, so no, you cannot infer that documentation exists based solely on its acknowledgement, unless you are, in this case, considering the reporting of that acknowledgement by the media as the documentation, but I do not believe that is what you were trying to say.