"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" ~ Matthew 7:3
To all you Liberals who are jumping on the "attack Herman Cain" bandwagon, I am hereby serving notice:
When (or if) Herman Cain's alleged sexual indiscretions rise (or sink, depending on your perspective) to the level of Democrats Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, John Young, Mel Reynolds, Gary Studds, Barney Frank, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, and especially Bill (BJ) Clinton's, you may smirk and make all manner of offensive derogatory comments.
But, until such time as the allegations are given status of "proven beyond a doubt", by reputable, unbiased news outlets, kindly keep your asinine opinions and comments to yourself.
If you are willing to give all of the above miscreants a pass, but stoop to condemning Herman Cain without a shred of evidence beyond some anonymous source's word, you are doing nothing but demonstrating your hypocrisy.
Or, have you forgotten about BJ's affair with Gennifer Flowers, exposing himself to Paula Jones, raping Juanita Broaderick, receiving fellatio from Monica Lewinsky, groping Kathleen Willey, and the more recent revelations that he habitually sexually harassed numerous female White House staffers?
If you attack Herman Cain on the basis of unfounded, unsourced, suspect, and overblown innuendo and rumors, while continuing to defend your favorite Liberal Democrats, I will call you a hypocrite.
And, taking a page from the Democrat's own playbook, if you attack him for anything else, I will call you a racist.
Two can play that game.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
As noted on FB, I don't really see the problem with what he did almost 20 years ago - IF he really did it - to offend someone; what does it have to do with now?
To all you Liberals who are jumping on the "attack Herman Cain" bandwagon, I am hereby serving notice
We're shaking in our boots.
Anyway...
Who is attacking him? Seems like a Political website, Politico, has somehow learned about this, has several sources, and has asked Cain to comment. I don't think that anybody has ruled out that Cain may have inadvertently said or gestured in a way that someone found offensive. It may be something really minimal. Nobody knows yet except the actual people involved.
And remember, Cain is currently running against seven other Republican candidates and leading ALL OF THEM in the polls, and if anyone has a vested interest in attacking him, it would be any one of them. I doubt that Democrats would want to shoot down Cain at this point since he seems to be beating Romney.
If there IS an attack on Cain by the "left" or the so-called liberal media, it would be due to Cain's inability to come right out and say what happened, how it happened, how it was resolved and move on.
Instead it's "I never did anything" and "I've never been accused of anything" and "Nobody has ever been paid off for anything I've done". But then it's, "Well, yeah a payment was made but I didn't do anything" and "well I did do something but it wasn't sexual in nature" and "My meaning was taken the wrong way" and "Can't anybody take a joke anymore."
As always, it's the coverup, not the act.
But as far as who is to blame beyond Cain's own political naivete, look at Romney or Perry or Bachmann or Paul or Huntsman or Santorum or Gingrich.
From Steve Kornacki, Salon's news editor:
In the case of Cain, there was probably an incentive for any of his rivals to have leaked the sexual harassment story. But as Kennedy notes, that’s also true for just about anyone in the Republican establishment, even those who aren’t aligned with a particular campaign, who have plenty of reason to believe that Cain would be a disaster for their party as its nominee. So there’s no shortage of suspects.
Jim, I never assigned blame. I only said it is a page right out of the Democrat playbook. Perhaps you forgot about the Democrat's hatchet job on Clarence Thomas? This whole thing mirrors that sordid bit of history. And, it came from Democrats.
I did say, "When (or if) Herman Cain's alleged sexual indiscretions rise (or sink, depending on your perspective) to the level of Democrats Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, John Young, Mel Reynolds, Gary Studds, Barney Frank, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, and especially Bill (BJ) Clinton's, you may smirk and make all manner of offensive derogatory comments."
But you, like all Liberals, prefer to jump on the bandwagon with little to no evidence at all. All these others get a pass because their Democrats, right?.
Anonymous sources? Pffft.
You're a hypocrite.
Wednesday, the third day of this supposed scandal, and now the (usual suspects) women who want to get rich by destroying a good man are crawling out of the woodwork, and Democrats are only too happy to accommodate them.
Jim, I never assigned blame. I only said it is a page right out of the Democrat playbook.
So you must have meant then that Rove is using the Democrat [sic] playbook?
Perhaps you forgot about the Democrat's hatchet job on Clarence Thomas?
No, and I vividly remember the terrible hatchet job the Republicans did on Anita Hill.
But you, like all Liberals, prefer to jump on the bandwagon with little to no evidence at all.
The hypocrite is the one who whines about being accused of something they say they didn't do, and then rags on another person for doing something THAT person didn't do.
I HAVE NOT jumped on any bandwagon. Inappropriate behavior happens. Any modern organization handles it with quick action and warnings to the perpetrator.
I haven't really been concerned at all with what Cain allegedly did. The problem I have is that he has handled the issue like a rank amateur. It's never the "crime"; it's the coverup.
My neighbor lady told me Herman Cain told dirty jokes in her presence and she was offended, in 1987.
My sources tell me that the liberals who haunt this board are all card-carrying members of NAMBLA.
Of course, my sources must remain anonymous for their own protection.
Calling liberals hypocrites is like:
*calling Michael Moore fat.
*saying that Shaq is tall.
*noticing that Ussain Bolt is fast.
*calling Nancy Pelosi shrill.
Gentlemen, you are all missing the point.
1. It isn't the liberals. Cain is now attacking Perry for generating the leak, just as I called it.
2. Cain was never prepared to manage this accusation if it came to light. He has backtracked, contradicted himself and made a general mess of the whole matter demonstrating he can't handle even a minor crisis.
Frankly this demonstrates he was never really any more serious about this campaign than he was about his running in 2000. He hasn't been able to handle himself and from here he's going to be torn apart.
Blame Herman, have him take personal responsibility for his failure.
Today, I heard on the morning news that one of Cain's accusers is seeking a way to talk about the settlement. Never mind that she signed off on ever telling the amount settled for!
I don't know the truth about the accusations being hurled. But I do know this: back in the 1990s, the criteria for sexual harassment were quite different from today's criteria.
In my view, Cain has made several mistakes in his handling of the accusations.
Also in my view, all the major GOP POTUS candidates except for Romney are going to be knocked off, largely because the mainstream media have determined that such is their mission.
I believe that the Dems have determined that Romney cannot defeat Obama because so many conservatives simply will not vote for Romney (a similar scenario to that of the 2008 election).
"Romney cannot defeat Obama because so many conservatives simply will not vote for Romney"
Nope, not true at all. Every conservative in the USA would vote for the devil himself to get O'Bama out of office...
When the Dems offer the accuser enough money to talk, she will; it might have to be more than the $35K she got for promising to be quiet because it might be she needs to repay it if she comes forward.
IF any of this really did happen.
Amazing that anybody thinks Cain would run for president with skeletons like that in his closet.
Fourth woman just came forward and Gloria Allred's her lawyer. Herman's in the poo now.
Yes Ducky. As I predicted, the women are coming out of the woodwork to jump on the gravy train. The presence of the unscrupulous Gloria Allred confirms that all the accusations made thus far are lies. All this latest woman and Gloria want are to make money and get famous by destroying a good man.
There is no evidence that Herman Cain even knew this woman, much less harassed her. So far all accusations are just that: Accusations with no proof or substance to them.
But, Ducky, I'll bet you think Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrrick, and Kathleen Willey were all lying. Even after it was proven that BJ molested and lied, you defended him, didn't you?
You are an idiot, a hypocrite, and a racist. Go away.
Here's some interesting info on the latest woman to slink out from under her rock to accuse Herman Cain:
She is a liar. It's plain to see. She slips and falls for a living so to speak. She sues everybody for Money. Why would this be any different!? Oh I see book deals in her future. Susan Bialek was fired from the NRA because she falsely accused someone of sexual harassment. She has initiated at least three lawsuits trying to get money by destroying others.
This is no surprise. We all know there are unscrupulous people out there who will stop at nothing for money and fame.
She is a liar. It's plain to see.
By who? What are the lies, and what is your source of proof?
She sues everybody for Money.
She has sued whom?
Susan Bialek was fired from the NRA because she falsely accused someone of sexual harassment.
You have a source for this?
She has initiated at least three lawsuits trying to get money by destroying others.
You have a source for this?
I don't believe you have a credible source for ANY of these accusations. I even checked Free Republic and the Daily Mail. Even THEY don't assert any of the above.
So let's have a source.
Wait. As this case unfolds, all your questions will be answered.
Oh, I bet. Are you keeping score?
"For Every Person Who Says I Harassed Them, There Are ‘Thousands’ Who Say I Didn’t" - Herman Cain
Leaves a lot of wiggle room.
OK. Here's one source. Keep in mind that, although you hate Ann Coulter, it is nevertheless accurate information easily checked from her sources, primarily, the New York Times, which is, as we all know, an incredibly Liberally biased news organization. So, anytime they admit that any Liberal Democrat was ever corrupt, they are most certainly right.
I'm sure I will find a lot more as we go along.
Here's one source.
OK, so I read Coulter's column (actually read it earlier and now again) and it does not back up a single assertion that you've made here. Except that one person said she's a gold-digger.
So you still have no source to back up your accusations.
For AOW,
If it's true the Dems think conservatives won't vote for Romney should he win the nomination, they are more stupid that I thought. Conservatives will flock to the polls to vote Obama out of office and Romney is not too offensive to support in order to achieve that goal. Though I don't think he has an ice cube's chance in hell of winning the nomination, I'd say the same would hold for even Ron Paul.
Just sayin'.
As for Cain's misfortunes, I don't really care at this point. I am content to wait until the situation plays itself out and as many facts as possible can be had until I do care enough to decide whether or not to include him as a viable choice for my primary vote. I tend to hold to the innocent until proven guilty concept. What makes this story seem a scam is the fact that the accusers waited so long to act. As soon as he threw his hat into the ring, these women should have been coming forward if their stories are as serious as they want us to believe they are. It's not like he just began campaigning last week. Too curious at this point.
If it's true the Dems think conservatives won't vote for Romney should he win the nomination, they are more stupid that I thought.
I think Romney is the only one that Democrats fear since whatever hard right votes he doesn't get, Romney is more likely to garner independent votes than any other (outside of Huntsman).
As soon as he threw his hat into the ring, these women should have been coming forward if their stories are as serious as they want us to believe they are.
Nobody came forward until Politico broke the story. The women who settled years ago were bound by confidentiality agreements so they couldn't come forward. And the others didn't come forward until after Politico broke the story on the first two. So that pretty much shoots down your suspicions.
Post a Comment