I don't think so....I'm hearing reports Perry was pissed on stage the other day
He behaves really bizarrely, but he doesn't slur his words...
I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
He behaves really bizarrely, but he doesn't slur his words...
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Ah, now I understand him. It's one of those brit things, drunk, not mad.I don't think so....
He behaves really bizarrely, but he doesn't slur his words...
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way. Mark Twain
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
He's arseholed!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
From Herman Cain last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxBPaGF ... r_embedded
I am the Koch brothers's brother from another mother."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxBPaGF ... r_embedded
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Stinks of political muck raking...A woman who made a sexual harassment complaint against Herman Cain in the 1990s will not discuss the issue or her financial settlement, her lawyer says.
Joel Bennett said that his client "sees no value in revisiting the case".
Mr Bennett said that his client stood by her sexual harassment claim against Mr Cain, now bidding to be the Republican presidential nominee.
The National Restaurant Association, which Mr Cain headed in the 1990s, confirmed that a claim had been filed.
The association said in a statement that it had agreed to waive the confidentially agreement made as part of the settlement.
She filed a formal internal complaint alleging multiple instances of sexual harassment in July 1999.
"As indicated in Mr Bennett's statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision," the association said.
The group specified that Mr Cain was not a party to the eventual settlement between the NRA and Mr Bennett's client.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15603034
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Well, that's pretty peculiar...
The woman goes to all the trouble to hire a lawyer, and get the confidentiality clause lifted, just so she have the attorney hold a press conference to reveal that she has nothing to say?
If she really didn't want to say anything, why not just...uh...not say anything?
To me, there's only one way that what she did makes sense....
She wants to tell her story but doesn't want to tell it for free; she's shopping an interview....
BTW, anyone care to make a wager on how many days it will be before Gloria Allred pops up representing one of the ladies involved?
The woman goes to all the trouble to hire a lawyer, and get the confidentiality clause lifted, just so she have the attorney hold a press conference to reveal that she has nothing to say?
If she really didn't want to say anything, why not just...uh...not say anything?
To me, there's only one way that what she did makes sense....
She wants to tell her story but doesn't want to tell it for free; she's shopping an interview....
BTW, anyone care to make a wager on how many days it will be before Gloria Allred pops up representing one of the ladies involved?
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
If the Republicans were smart they would back Huntsman. The only candidate who is not unfit or corrupt.
Fortunately for us, they aren't.
yrs,
rubato
Fortunately for us, they aren't.
yrs,
rubato
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
There have been a couple of polls that have come out this week that have shown that thus far this has had no impact on Cain's support...
And another one came out asking Republicans if this brouhaha made them "more likely" less likely" or "no difference" in terms of their willingness to support Cain for the nomination and "no difference" got 67%....(Of course that's a little misleading; you can't translate that automatically into support for Cain. If I had been asked that question, I would have said it made no difference....but that's because there was a zero percent chance I would support Cain for the nomination before this story broke, and you can't go any lower than zero...)
But I have to say if were a Cain supporter, looking at the substance of what's come forward, I would see nothing so far that would dissuade me, based solely on this, from supporting him.
Except of course for the horrendous way he handled it, regardless of the substance.... that would make me feel that he was less qualified and electable...(But then, if qualifications and electability were major considerations, one wouldn't be a Cain supporter in the first place, so it's not surprising that his numbers haven't yet dropped....those folks supporting him didn't care about those things to begin with)
But strictly on the "substance" at this point anyway, there is nothing in the public record about this that should dissuade someone inclined to support him from doing so....
At this point, it ain't even "He-said, She-said" ...
It's "He-said" (and he's saying that the accusations were trivial and non-meritorious) versus, "She(s)-Won't-Say: won't identify herself, won't give the specific accusations, won't say if there were any corroborating witnesses, won't submit to questions about it, won't say if she told anyone else about it at the time it allegedly took place....
A whole lotta won'ts....
Given that total lack of information, and complete unwillingness to provide anything of substance, it would be grossly unfair to conclude that Cain (or anyone in the same situation for that matter) had done anything seriously wrong....
On my personal list of reasons not to support Herman Cain, based on what's known at now, this one wouldn't make the top hundred....
And another one came out asking Republicans if this brouhaha made them "more likely" less likely" or "no difference" in terms of their willingness to support Cain for the nomination and "no difference" got 67%....(Of course that's a little misleading; you can't translate that automatically into support for Cain. If I had been asked that question, I would have said it made no difference....but that's because there was a zero percent chance I would support Cain for the nomination before this story broke, and you can't go any lower than zero...)
But I have to say if were a Cain supporter, looking at the substance of what's come forward, I would see nothing so far that would dissuade me, based solely on this, from supporting him.
Except of course for the horrendous way he handled it, regardless of the substance.... that would make me feel that he was less qualified and electable...(But then, if qualifications and electability were major considerations, one wouldn't be a Cain supporter in the first place, so it's not surprising that his numbers haven't yet dropped....those folks supporting him didn't care about those things to begin with)
But strictly on the "substance" at this point anyway, there is nothing in the public record about this that should dissuade someone inclined to support him from doing so....
At this point, it ain't even "He-said, She-said" ...
It's "He-said" (and he's saying that the accusations were trivial and non-meritorious) versus, "She(s)-Won't-Say: won't identify herself, won't give the specific accusations, won't say if there were any corroborating witnesses, won't submit to questions about it, won't say if she told anyone else about it at the time it allegedly took place....
A whole lotta won'ts....
Given that total lack of information, and complete unwillingness to provide anything of substance, it would be grossly unfair to conclude that Cain (or anyone in the same situation for that matter) had done anything seriously wrong....
On my personal list of reasons not to support Herman Cain, based on what's known at now, this one wouldn't make the top hundred....
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
The parallels with Clarence Thomas are too significant to ignore. A conservative black man is subjected to charges that are borderline bizarre - charges that are much, much less serious than have been credibly made against prominent white politicians (Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton), and yet the media simply won't give it up.
"Sexual harrassment" in the 90's encompassed a broad range of conduct from sexual propositions - coupled with the implicit threat of retaliation if not accepted - to boorish jokes. Indeed, the accusations against Thomas were nothing more than tasteless comments, if accepted on their face.
I will say, however, if the one story about a proposition at a trade convention were true, I would consider it a serious matter.
But Cain is just the "flavor of the week," in any event.
My personal choices, Newt and Santorum, are nothing but ground clutter at this point.
"Sexual harrassment" in the 90's encompassed a broad range of conduct from sexual propositions - coupled with the implicit threat of retaliation if not accepted - to boorish jokes. Indeed, the accusations against Thomas were nothing more than tasteless comments, if accepted on their face.
I will say, however, if the one story about a proposition at a trade convention were true, I would consider it a serious matter.
But Cain is just the "flavor of the week," in any event.
My personal choices, Newt and Santorum, are nothing but ground clutter at this point.
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Thanks for that reminder. I'd forgotten to read "Savage Love" this week.dgs49 wrote:. . . My personal choices, Newt and Santorum, are nothing but ground clutter at this point.
Be excellent to each other--and, party on, dudes!
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
It's possible to make too much of the Thomas analogy...
It seemed at least at the outset that this had the potential to be considerably more substantive than the Thomas travesty....
In the case of Clarence Thomas (in addition to accusations that we know for a fact amounted to no more than making a couple of off color remarks) we had a single accuser, who never made any complaint verbal or written, who never told anyone about the incident at the time it happened, who had no corroborating witnesses, (she did tell one person years later, shortly before she went public) and who, (and to me this was always the most damning thing) was so "offended" by Thomas' behavior that after these "incidents" supposedly happened, asked to remain as his assistant when he was transferred to another division.
In this case we know that there were at least two accusers, they filed complaints at the time the incidents happened, they received some sort of settlements, and they left the organization.
Those are, on their face, significant differences, but absent details about exactly what happened, it is impossible to judge the seriousness.
Cain is now taking the tact that while he continues to campaign he will simply not answer any more questions about this.
He will continue to get questions, but if he maintains a discipline about not answering them, (and thus not keeping the story going himself, ) and if none of the accusers comes forward, after a relatively short period of time, the story will die out.
It seemed at least at the outset that this had the potential to be considerably more substantive than the Thomas travesty....
In the case of Clarence Thomas (in addition to accusations that we know for a fact amounted to no more than making a couple of off color remarks) we had a single accuser, who never made any complaint verbal or written, who never told anyone about the incident at the time it happened, who had no corroborating witnesses, (she did tell one person years later, shortly before she went public) and who, (and to me this was always the most damning thing) was so "offended" by Thomas' behavior that after these "incidents" supposedly happened, asked to remain as his assistant when he was transferred to another division.
In this case we know that there were at least two accusers, they filed complaints at the time the incidents happened, they received some sort of settlements, and they left the organization.
Those are, on their face, significant differences, but absent details about exactly what happened, it is impossible to judge the seriousness.
Cain is now taking the tact that while he continues to campaign he will simply not answer any more questions about this.
He will continue to get questions, but if he maintains a discipline about not answering them, (and thus not keeping the story going himself, ) and if none of the accusers comes forward, after a relatively short period of time, the story will die out.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Anita Hill made her accusations to the FBI during Thomas' vetting before the hearing. She never made it public, that was a reporter who leaked her FBI interview (Nina Totenberg, IIR).Lord Jim wrote:"...
In the case of Clarence Thomas (in addition to accusations that we know for a fact amounted to know more than making a couple of off color remarks) we had a single accuser, who never made any complaint verbal or written, who never told anyone about the incident at the time it happened, who had no corroborating witnesses, (she did tell one person years later, shortly before she went public) and who, (and to me this was always the most damning thing) was so "offended" by Thomas' behavior that after these "incidents" supposedly happened, asked to remain as his assistant when he was transferred to another division.
... "
Thomas has been the worst appointment to the SC in memory. Intellectually weak, and personally whiny and self-justifying.
yrs,
rubato
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
I don't think she wants her life to become a media circus especially over a flavor of the moment also ran, as well as exposing herself to 999 nutcases. Really, I think she got what she wanted by getting the confidentiality clause lifted which is: Getting Cain to shut the fuck up. In reality I think the charges are relatively minor, hard or impossible to prove and most importantly bear little to no resemblance to the picture Cain was painting. Really She probably Did Cain a favor by forcing him to shut up about it.Lord Jim wrote:Well, that's pretty peculiar...
The woman goes to all the trouble to hire a lawyer, and get the confidentiality clause lifted, just so she have the attorney hold a press conference to reveal that she has nothing to say?
If she really didn't want to say anything, why not just...uh...not say anything?
To me, there's only one way that what she did makes sense....
She wants to tell her story but doesn't want to tell it for free; she's shopping an interview....
BTW, anyone care to make a wager on how many days it will be before Gloria Allred pops up representing one of the ladies involved?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9098
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
So Jim, if Herman Cain were to get the GOP nomination, would you:Lord Jim wrote:And another one came out asking Republicans if this brouhaha made them "more likely" less likely" or "no difference" in terms of their willingness to support Cain for the nomination and "no difference" got 67%....(Of course that's a little misleading; you can't translate that automatically into support for Cain. If I had been asked that question, I would have said it made no difference....but that's because there was a zero percent chance I would support Cain for the nomination before this story broke, and you can't go any lower than zero...)
***
On my personal list of reasons not to support Herman Cain, based on what's known at now, this one wouldn't make the top hundred....
(a) vote for him out of blind party loyalty;
(b) vote for Obama for the good of the country;
(c) write in "Corpse of Ronald Reagan;" or
(d) stay home?
GAH!
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Rube, thank you for your idiotic remarks about C. Thomas.
History pretty clearly shows that only the purest of partisans still maintains that he anything other than an exemplary jurist. His only "quirk" - not participating actively in the oral discussions, reflects neither well nor ill on him, as it reflects a common view that oral argument is more for show than anything else.
As for H. Cain, there are forms of sexual harrassment that are worthy of severe condemnation, but there is no credible evidence (yet) that this occurred here. At worst, a couple employees were made to feel uncomfortable and went someplace else with a little bonus in their pockets.
There are many more valid reasons for his candidacy to die than this. Not that he's not an interesting character, there's simply nothing in his background that makes one think he could be a good President.
Of course, the same could have been said about Barry, and that skepticism has proven valid.
History pretty clearly shows that only the purest of partisans still maintains that he anything other than an exemplary jurist. His only "quirk" - not participating actively in the oral discussions, reflects neither well nor ill on him, as it reflects a common view that oral argument is more for show than anything else.
As for H. Cain, there are forms of sexual harrassment that are worthy of severe condemnation, but there is no credible evidence (yet) that this occurred here. At worst, a couple employees were made to feel uncomfortable and went someplace else with a little bonus in their pockets.
There are many more valid reasons for his candidacy to die than this. Not that he's not an interesting character, there's simply nothing in his background that makes one think he could be a good President.
Of course, the same could have been said about Barry, and that skepticism has proven valid.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9098
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
It has been my professional experience that employers do not pay out a year's salary in settlement of frivolous or unsubstantiated claims. You can draw whatever conclusions you like.dgs49 wrote:As for H. Cain, there are forms of sexual harrassment that are worthy of severe condemnation, but there is no credible evidence (yet) that this occurred here. At worst, a couple employees were made to feel uncomfortable and went someplace else with a little bonus in their pockets.
GAH!
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
This just in...
MSNBC is now also carrying this story:
BTW, anyone care to make a wager on how many days it will be before Gloria Allred pops up representing one of the ladies involved?
Kreskin, ya got nothin'!
MSNBC is now also carrying this story:
Ahem...Report: Allred to appear with Cain accuser
A new woman alleging sexual harassment by presidential hopeful Herman Cain will break her silence at a news conference with her powerhouse attorney Gloria Allred Monday afternoon in New York City, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/11 ... z1d26VVPFA
BTW, anyone care to make a wager on how many days it will be before Gloria Allred pops up representing one of the ladies involved?
Kreskin, ya got nothin'!
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Good one, Jim 
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Ok, who is this Gloria woman?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: I'm Just Not Getting This Herman Cain Thing...
Allred is a high profile camera chasing self promoting attorney who always manages to turn up representing some woman in major publicity cases...
At this point women probably seek her out because she's got a (well deserved) reputation for being well connected and experienced in getting them some bucks for their 15 minutes of fame....She uses them to draw publicity to herself, and she in turn get's them interview fees and book deals....
She's become really more of a publicist/agent than she is a lawyer....
She's probably best know for "representing" Amber Fry, "the girl friend" in the notorious Scott/ Lacy Peterson murder case a few years ago...
At this point women probably seek her out because she's got a (well deserved) reputation for being well connected and experienced in getting them some bucks for their 15 minutes of fame....She uses them to draw publicity to herself, and she in turn get's them interview fees and book deals....
She's become really more of a publicist/agent than she is a lawyer....
She's probably best know for "representing" Amber Fry, "the girl friend" in the notorious Scott/ Lacy Peterson murder case a few years ago...