He pulled the race card

[PaulS]

My favorite part was when a reporter started asking him about the 2 woman he harassed and he said "what are their names" as if there were more than 2. One of the woman's lawyer said that she was willing to come forward if she would be released from her confidentiality statement - I'll bet anyone $20 that doesn't happen.

How was he "all of the sudden get hit with a sexual harassment charge"? It seems like that happened many years ago when he actually harassed the 2 woman and his employer thought the charges were valid enough to settle 2 cases.

Did anyone lower the bar further than Nixon?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

My favorite part was when a reporter started asking him about the 2 woman he harassed and he said "what are their names" as if there were more than 2. One of the woman's lawyer said that she was willing to come forward if she would be released from her confidentiality statement - I'll bet anyone $20 that doesn't happen.

How was he "all of the sudden get hit with a sexual harassment charge"? It seems like that happened many years ago when he actually harassed the 2 woman and his employer thought the charges were valid enough to settle 2 cases.

Did anyone lower the bar further than Nixon?

who did Nixon sexually harass?...and did Cain harass anyone? sexually or otherwise?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

One of the woman's lawyer said that she was willing to come forward if she would be released from her confidentiality statement - I'll bet anyone $20 that doesn't happen.

Hasn't she already breached her confidentiality statement? Was she lying when she agreed to confidentiality, or is she lying now?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hasn't she already breached her confidentiality statement? Was she lying when she agreed to confidentiality, or is she lying now?

I don't know if the agreement was a 3 way with Cain a signee. But if it was, couldn't you ask the same question about him? And wouldn't the rest. assoc. be subject to the same provision?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I don't know if the agreement was a 3 way with Cain a signee. But if it was, couldn't you ask the same question about him? And wouldn't the rest. assoc. be subject to the same provision?

Since it occurred 8 minutes before your reply, you probably didn't get a chance to see my retraction. As I said, I misread the Politico story as implying that they got their information directly from the women involved. Politico says merely "unnamed" sources, not specifically the women. And if Herman Cain was a signatory to the agreement he may have breached the confidentiallity agreement by saying that he never sexually harassed anybody. So yes, if he signed the agreement, you're right, the same thing can be said about him. Plus, he's already been caught in the lie about not knowing about the settlement. But we don't know if he was directly involved in the settlement. It may have been a suit against the Association and been between the Association and the plaintiffs. The problem is we don't really know the details so conjecture is pointless. Supposedly, once these agreements are made, that is the end of it. If a third party not involved in the negotiation divulged the information to Politico, legally, it can only be considered hearsay and is more sensational rather than responsible journalism. The fact that it is being brought up now, especially if by an uninvolved party, smells more of political destruction than an attempt to bring justice to the agrieved women. They settled their justice years ago, apparently satisfied with the compensation, and would not want to lose it now by breach of contract. But, Cain's public discussion even though it has been a response to charges, if he signed the agreement, opens the door for a judge to disallow the confidentiality statements and the women may tell their stories. Their may be even more damaging information about Cain to come out. There are "reports" that he wasn't all that competent as an executive before. A lot is going to happen to Cain in the next few days and weeks that may undo him. He invited this by running for President. If he, miraculously, survives, he'll be worthy of the office. Doubtful.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Their may be even more damaging information about Cain to come out. There are "reports" that he wasn't all that competent as an executive before. A lot is going to happen to Cain in the next few days and weeks that may undo him. He invited this by running for President. If he, miraculously, survives, he'll be worthy of the office. Doubtful.

amazing ain't it....

Ted Kennedy killed a woman and was noted drunk and serial harasser of women but still was a serious primary contender for the democrat nomination for president .......and is still celebrated...Patrick did everything but kill a woman...would have been a great dem presidential candidate...might still had aspirations

Bill Clinton had a host of women who accused him of some pretty serious infractions, so much so that his campaign had a bimbo eruption squad dedicated to destroying these women if they wouldn't go away...he was president for 8 years...and is still celebrated

Hillary led the bimbo eruption squad and she was a serious candidate for the democrat nomination, and some would say she still is...and she's still celebrated

John Edwards..... lowest form of life...no?

and as usual this is just the tip of the iceberg if you want to compile a list of nare-do-wells

but......

unnamed sources recounting stories from women who are speaking on conditions of anonymity and offering no details might very well sink the campaign of Herman Cain


makes perfect sense to me

should note that I'm not sure that this will sink him but there are plenty of people ready to jump on him with both feet for something that is not clear at this point and pales in comparison based on what might be known at this point to the precedent that has been set...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

He invited this by running for President. If he, miraculously, survives, he'll be worthy of the office. Doubtful.

Any person running for national office who thinks they can hide an issue from their past is crazy.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Any person running for national office who thinks they can hide an issue from their past is crazy.

it's not a matter of hiding it, it's to what degree you will be held accountable based on your political persuasion....

democrats may engage in nearly any form of transgression and their supporters in the public and press will overlook, excuse and defend pretty much anything...

you mentioned Nixon...he left office

wanna make a list....????

you make your list of republicans that did bad things and note how it ended for them

I'll make my list and you will see that bad behavior by dems is usually defended and then rewarded

mine is going to take a while so many reprobates, so little time

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's not a matter of hiding it, it's to what degree you will be held accountable based on your political persuasion....

democrats may engage in nearly any form of transgression and their supporters in the public and press will overlook, excuse and defend pretty much anything...

you mentioned Nixon...he left office

wanna make a list....????

you make your list of republicans that did bad things and note how it ended for them

I'll make my list and you will see that bad behavior by dems is usually defended and then rewarded

mine is going to take a while so many reprobates, so little time

I'm not a miserable petty ideologue like you who keeps track of things like that. I think both parties are just as bad. I vote for a candidate, not a party. You just thing that I vote all dem. but it is only over the last few years when I think the rep. have swung too far right for me.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Any person running for national office who thinks they can hide an issue from their past is crazy.

Which is why we will never see a solid candidate run for office......nobody with half a brain is going to put themselves and their families through that.

[scottw]

oh..and these "occupy" people are almost exactly just like the Tea Party....right?

and enjoy nearly the same treatment in the press

amazing