Goodbye Mr. Cain. It was fun while it lasted.

[dks13827 3]

A total smear campaign is entirely possible here. Whenever a repeat accuser is involved, watch out !! And look what they did to Clarence Thomas, who, at the most, told a joke or two to a personal friend of his ( so he thought ).

Like Cain, Mr Thomas didnt even have sex ! ( however you might define sex ). And the Thomas accuser, who merely reported a joke ( maybe ) is regarded now as some kind of national hero and role model.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Quote

Quote

more to come I am sure but, this looks more and more like a hatchet job

So you're suggesting that the women who filed these complaints knew, 10 to 15 years ago, that Cain would one day run for President, and they filed complaints against him just so they could do a "hatchet job" on him a decade or more in the future? Don't you think people who have that kind of a crystal ball might have better uses for it than plotting against potential future presidential candidates?

Like the lady on TV, who was all smiles and hugging on Cain a month ago?

You mean the one Cain claims he never saw or heard of in his life? Odd how a mere month can erase his memory to where he will swear he never saw the woman in his life. This is Presidential material? Anyway, despite your effort at misdirection I'm quite sure you're aware I was referring to the three women who actually filed complaints against him when the incidents in question allegedly happened. It seems ludicrous to anyone capable of rational thought (i.e. not totally enslaved by the right-wing blogosphere) to suggest these charges were made a decade ago only to facilitate a hatchet job today.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

Was Paula Jones a hatchet job? Or was she a lucky circumstance for the GOP?

It's hardly a stretch to think that someone on the DNC side investigated Cain's past as he rocketed past Jesse Jackson status and saw the settlements, and then tracked down the women to make it into an issue now, more than a decade past. Can even pay them to do so.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Like Cain, he didnt even have sex ! ( however you might define sex ). And the Thomas accuser, who merely reported a joke ( maybe ) is regarded now as some kind of national hero and role model.

sticking his hand under a women's skirt and reaching for goodies, as alleged, is a bit more than telling an off color joke.

[dks13827 3]

"sticking his hand under a women's skirt and reaching for goodies, as alleged, is a bit more than telling an off color joke. "

That's the allegation. Any man who did that, or does that, with a more or less unacquainted woman, is out of his mind !! I would have to say that it might not be true as the man could easily be arrested for that !!!

[billvon 3,080]

>It's hardly a stretch to think that someone on the DNC side investigated Cain's past as
>he rocketed past Jesse Jackson status and saw the settlements, and then tracked
>down the women to make it into an issue now, more than a decade past. Can even
>pay them to do so.

Yep. Or you could try to pay off the women to keep their mouths shut - which is, apparently, what Cain did. (More accurately, what the National Restaurant Association did, where Cain was president and CED.)

[dks13827 3]

Yep, a payoff for telling a woman she is the same height as the man's wife. And.. oh my God, oh my God, this was offensive !!!! Give me a break.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

It's hardly a stretch to think that someone on the DNC side investigated Cain's past as he rocketed past Jesse Jackson status and saw the settlements, and then tracked down the women to make it into an issue now, more than a decade past. Can even pay them to do so.

Sure, someone on the DNC side, or on the side of one of the other RNC contenders, could have dug into Cain's past. It seems more likely to me that it was one of the other RNC candidates, as (so it seems to me) if the DNC had the information it would have been more useful to hold onto it in case Cain got the nod as the Republican candidate to run against Obama. Nevertheless, rushmc's contention that the whole thing is a hatchet job implies that there is a conspiracy to smear Cain that goes back more than a decade. Otherwise, the "hatchet job" is revealing truthful information about a candidate's past that they would rather have kept quiet. Some of the recent developments of women coming forward who didn't complain years ago when the incidents allegedly happened may or may not be using the situation for publicity or whatever, there is no way to know so I personally don't give their claims much weight.

Quote

...and then tracked down the women to make it into an issue now...

Maybe you have seen something that I have not, because I haven't seen anything to indicate that it was the women who complained years ago, and who are now bound by confidentiality agreements, who released this information. Indeed the one woman who has been named seems quite unhappy about that, and has released only a very tepid statement, through her lawyer and only after obtaining clearance from the restaurant association. I surmise that it is some 3rd party who knew of the incidents and settlements who spilled the beans. Now we have the spectacle of Cain smearing the reputations of these women, calling them liars and gold diggers, and they cannot even respond because of the confidentiality agreements. Why can he call them liars, is he not also bound by the agreements?

It would be interesting to know if earlier and more recent leaders of the Restaurant Association have had sexual harassment claims filed against them and similarly settled. If just being head of such an organization makes one a target for nuisance claims, filed by people who are just looking to cash in, then everyone who has the job should attract such claims. On the other hand if Cain is the only one women have complained about, or if many more claims were filed against him and then settled for large amounts, that could be evidence of a real problem.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Yep, a payoff for telling a woman she is the same height as the man's wife. And.. oh my God, oh my God, this was offensive !!!! Give me a break.

Well, you are taking Cain's "explanation" at face value, and of course we can't even hear the other side of it because the women are bound by confidentiality agreements.

Imagine, if you will, Cain telling the women the old joke about the ideal woman (three feet tall, no teeth, long tongue, flat head you can put your drink down on). She might well be highly offended at least, or if the "joke" was made in the context of a discussion about layoffs or raises or "performance bonuses" she could well take it as a thinly veiled demand for a blowjob. He could say, "hey, my wife is short and that's all I was talking about". If she can't even tell her side of the story, how are we to judge what actually happened?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>It's hardly a stretch to think that someone on the DNC side investigated Cain's past as
>he rocketed past Jesse Jackson status and saw the settlements, and then tracked
>down the women to make it into an issue now, more than a decade past. Can even
>pay them to do so.

Yep. Or you could try to pay off the women to keep their mouths shut - which is, apparently, what Cain did. (More accurately, what the National Restaurant Association did, where Cain was president and CED.)

There you go again, turning settlements to avoid litigation into proof of guilt. Now if the N-R-A really thought they were paying off women to cover up his misdeeds, wouldn't they have fired him? 1 incident maybe, but 3 would show a clear pattern and threat to the organization. That strongly suggests that there were business decisions to avoid litigation, and treated as cost of doing business. I doubt he was such a rock star as the lead that it was worth paying for his bad behavior.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, you are taking Cain's "explanation" at face value, and of course we can't even hear the other side of it because the women are bound by confidentiality agreements.

those are generally two way - if he can talk about it, she can too.

[billvon 3,080]

>There you go again, turning settlements to avoid litigation into proof of guilt.

?? They are nothing like "proof of guilt." I was responding to your post in which you claimed that someone might be paying these women to speak up. If that is morally bad, surely paying them to keep their mouths shut is just as bad.

Or are republican payoffs evil and democratic payoffs good? You didn't strike me as that kind of partisan.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>There you go again, turning settlements to avoid litigation into proof of guilt.

?? They are nothing like "proof of guilt." I was responding to your post in which you claimed that someone might be paying these women to speak up. If that is morally bad, surely paying them to keep their mouths shut is just as bad.

I proposed it as a plausible scenario to explain the limited facts at hand. Your's was concluded with "apparently this is what he did," which is a different thing altogether.

[billvon 3,080]

>I proposed it as a plausible scenario to explain the limited facts at hand. Your's was
>concluded with "apparently this is what he did,"

He did pay them off. That does not mean he's guilty. It just means he paid them off to keep their mouths shut.

[rushmc 23]

It just means he paid them off to keep their mouths shut.

[muff528 3]

Quote

.....It just means he paid them off to keep their mouths shut.

So ...have they made arrangements for returning the "payola".

[billvon 3,080]

>No, it just means money was paid to ovoid the cost of going to court.

The money got him a gag order to prevent two of the victims from talking to the media. Which is another benefit of paying them off.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

The final decision on whether to grant those settlements was clearly Cain's. And given his uncompromising stance on practically everything, it's very difficult to accept a scenario where he wouldn't fight it out if both of those claims were without merit.

Actually, I suspect the choice was not his. As head of the Restaurant Association (whatever it was called) and with the suits against it, not him personally, their counsel is making the decisions to limit exposure.

Well, now I know you're just grasping at straws. Those allegations go to the core of his reputation and his standing within the community. I would think that if they were false, he would absolutely want to fight them unless he was legally enjoined in some way not to do so.

And if that were true, i.e. that Cain really felt these charges were completely false and he wanted to fight them but the big bad Restaurant Association forced him into accepting the settlement, why wouldn't he be saying just that? It would be a huge mitigation of the PR mess he's found himself in - he should be starting every statement he's ever made on the subject with that claim.

No, I suspect that he's not saying it because it isn't true and he would get caught in a lie.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The final decision on whether to grant those settlements was clearly Cain's. And given his uncompromising stance on practically everything, it's very difficult to accept a scenario where he wouldn't fight it out if both of those claims were without merit.

Actually, I suspect the choice was not his. As head of the Restaurant Association (whatever it was called) and with the suits against it, not him personally, their counsel is making the decisions to limit exposure.

Well, now I know you're just grasping at straws. Those allegations go to the core of his reputation and his standing within the community. I would think that if they were false, he would absolutely want to fight them unless he was legally enjoined in some way not to do so.

And if that were true, i.e. that Cain really felt these charges were completely false and he wanted to fight them but the big bad Restaurant Association forced him into accepting the settlement, why wouldn't he be saying just that? It would be a huge mitigation of the PR mess he's found himself in - he should be starting every statement he's ever made on the subject with that claim.

No, I suspect that he's not saying it because it isn't true and he would get caught in a lie.

Well, who do you think was named as the defendant in these charges? And who do you think paid? That is who makes the call.

You've been in the skydiving world a long time - by now you must be familiar with the common practice of settling litigation to avoid prolonged pain.

It's clear that you've made your conclusion, same one as Bill.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The final decision on whether to grant those settlements was clearly Cain's. And given his uncompromising stance on practically everything, it's very difficult to accept a scenario where he wouldn't fight it out if both of those claims were without merit.

Actually, I suspect the choice was not his. As head of the Restaurant Association (whatever it was called) and with the suits against it, not him personally, their counsel is making the decisions to limit exposure.

Well, now I know you're just grasping at straws. Those allegations go to the core of his reputation and his standing within the community. I would think that if they were false, he would absolutely want to fight them unless he was legally enjoined in some way not to do so.

And if that were true, i.e. that Cain really felt these charges were completely false and he wanted to fight them but the big bad Restaurant Association forced him into accepting the settlement, why wouldn't he be saying just that? It would be a huge mitigation of the PR mess he's found himself in - he should be starting every statement he's ever made on the subject with that claim.

No, I suspect that he's not saying it because it isn't true and he would get caught in a lie.

Well, who do you think was named as the defendant in these charges? And who do you think paid? That is who makes the call.

It doesn't matter who is defendant and who paid, it was Cain's reputation and good name that is at stake. If the claims were as baseless as some seem to believe, I would expect him at least to make some action to show he was wronged - why not a counter-suit for example?

And again, I repeat, if he had really wanted to fight the two allegations, why did he never say just that?

Quote

You've been in the skydiving world a long time - by now you must be familiar with the common practice of settling litigation to avoid prolonged pain.

There's a difference where a man's good name is at stake. Or don't you see that?

[kallend 2,108]

Cain clueless about Libya:
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57324556-503544/herman-cain-stumbles-badly-on-libya-question/?tag=re1.channel

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

Cain clueless about Libya:
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57324556-503544/herman-cain-stumbles-badly-on-libya-question/?tag=re1.channel

It ain't just Libya. He doesn't know where he stands on unions, and think that the federal employees have the right to collectively bargain.

[hwt 0]

LOL good bye is right.
http://youtu.be/WW_nDFKAmCo

[billvon 3,080]

>He doesn't know where he stands on unions, and think that the federal
>employees have the right to collectively bargain.

On the plus side, he just revealed that God told him to run for president. So he's got a good endorsement there.

[wmw999 2,548]

Quote

On the plus side, he just revealed that God told him to run for president. So he's got a good endorsement there

No -- God also told Perry to run. He just wants the entertainment.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)