• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supporting Cain, GOP base evokes Thomas hearings

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ATLANTA (AP) — Conservatives rallied around Herman Cain as he battles sexual harassment allegations, likening the attacks on the Republican presidential contender to what they describe as the "high-tech lynching" of another prominent black Republican: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The forceful early reaction to the Cain firestorm — fueled by racially charged rhetoric — suggests the Georgia businessman's attempt to cast himself as a victim of the media and liberals is, so far, paying dividends among his conservative Republican base, who will hold considerable sway in selecting the party's nominee. But the accusations against Cain, an untested newcomer on the political scene, may give more moderate GOP voters pause and could cause would-be donors to shy away even as Cain works to capitalize on his rising poll numbers.
With the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus less than three months away, the harassment allegations — and Cain's response to them — have the potential to reshuffle the GOP race.

Supporting Cain, GOP base evokes Thomas hearings - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

Well, here we go...Congrats Politico for once again showing your slant in attacking a Presidential candidate simply because he is a republican. And for unmasking the utter gaul in saying that sexual matters, even ones that are 20 years old, matter but only if they are republicans under the scrutiny.

Think arguments made for Clinton, and now libs bring it!

j-mac
 
If they're true, then he's of questionable character, imo. I'm tired of having people of questionable character in the White House.

I've been harrassed by these smarmy superiors who inuendo everything they hear, invade my personal space, and make my skin crawl. There's something wrong with them.
 
MaggieD said:
If they're true, then he's of questionable character, imo. I'm tired of having people of questionable character in the White House.

I've been harrassed by these smarmy superiors who inuendo everything they hear, invade my personal space, and make my skin crawl. There's something wrong with them.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but this is pure smear op-research done to dig dirt no matter how old, or how unsubstantiated it is, based on the slimmest of accusation by nameless, faceless accusers. I smell something fishy about all of this.

Allen from Politico was on Morning Joe yesterday, and when asked to give some background on the story and all he could point to was how popular it was on twitter? Really?!!!!!

"This is the biggest single Twitter controversy of the campaign. 48,000 mentions!"

That was Mike Allen doing his best "look--a squirrel!" dodge on today's Morning Joe. Pressed by Joe Scarborough as to whether Politico had any more details beyond its story's vague allegation that Herman Cain had made gestures "that were not overtly sexual but that made women uncomfortable," Allen's telling first instinct was to point to the story's popularity on a social networking site. Video after the jump

Read more: Unable To Produce More Cain Evidence, Politico's Allen Brags Of Big Number of 'Twitter Mentions' | NewsBusters.org
Click to expand...

Now, it does disturb me that Cain is not getting in front of this with a clear, strong, consistent explanation, but he's not a politician, and that for the moment is helping him more than the smear is hurting him I think.

j-mac
 
I understand what you are saying, but this is pure smear op-research done to dig dirt no matter how old, or how unsubstantiated it is, based on the slimmest of accusation by nameless, faceless accusers. I smell something fishy about all of this.
Click to expand...

The CEO of Politico is a former Reagan Staffer and Johnathan Martin, the guy that broke the story is a former writer for National Review. If there's anything fishy or dirty going on it's probably one of Cains primary opponents that provided the sources.
 
Why do Republicans always play the race card?

"High-tech lynching." What, because he's black that means they MUST be attacking him because he's black?
 
iliveonramen said:
The CEO of Politico is a former Reagan Staffer and Johnathan Martin, the guy that broke the story is a former writer for National Review.
Click to expand...

Oh so what! That means nothing....Of the Young Turks, one of those guy's is a former republican operative, that switched sides and is now one of the most vitriolic members of the Alenski left that there are on the airwaves....

Politico is in bed with MSNBC, and you are trying to feed garbage to me that because decades ago he was a republican? Give me a break.

If there's anything fishy or dirty going on it's probably one of Cains primary opponents that provided the sources.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know who the source is, and that is bothersome isn't it? I mean, if I am correct one of the defenses for the current crop of demo's/progressives is that we can't take seriously any charge against a liberal progressive unless we see, and scrutinize the sources, and people making the claim....Too bad that only works for some in one direction eh?

j-mac
 
Deuce said:
Why do Republicans always play the race card?

"High-tech lynching." What, because he's black that means they MUST be attacking him because he's black?
Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo Que the Twilight Zone theme! :lamo:lamo


j-mac
 
If it makes the GOP faithful feel at home. That they have the utter gall to whine at treatment they inflicted on a sitting President for years is unsurprising. Would you like cheeze with that?
 
Oh so what! That means nothing....Of the Young Turks, one of those guy's is a former republican operative, that switched sides and is now one of the most vitriolic members of the Alenski left that there are on the airwaves....
Click to expand...
The CEO is on the Reagan Presidential Foundation Board. He's still a Republican.
Politico is in bed with MSNBC, and you are trying to feed garbage to me that because decades ago he was a republican? Give me a break.
Click to expand...
This sounds like paranioa. Everybody is out to get Republicans.....except for Fox News. They are the only unbaised news source...they even say it!

Yeah, I don't know who the source is, and that is bothersome isn't it? I mean, if I am correct one of the defenses for the current crop of demo's/progressives is that we can't take seriously any charge against a liberal progressive unless we see, and scrutinize the sources, and people making the claim....Too bad that only works for some in one direction eh?
Click to expand...

Sure, don't hold judgement until it's been properly vetted.
 
Why would they invoke the Thomas hearings when we now know that Anita Hill was not lying? After all, the guy that wrote the hit piece on her has since said he was laying, and she passed a polygraph (Thomas refused to take on).
 
Enjoyed Stewart on this:

However, Stewart did find some fault with Cain's method of denial in the matter involving two female employees of the National Restaurant Assn. He rolled a clip in which a Fox News anchor asked Cain if he'd ever paid off anyone who'd accused him of sexual harassment. "At the restaurant association," he replied. "Now outside the restaurant association, absolutely not."

"You can't just go 'Well, other than that, no,'" Stewart said. He drew an analogy: "Have you ever kidnapped a baby? Well, other than the Lindbergh boy, no."

Late Night: Jon Stewart on Herman Cain's sexual-harassment woes - latimes.com
 
Oh please, I thought that Clinton taught us that claims of indiscretion are meaningless due to the fact that 1. a Presidential level person should not have their personal life taken against them. 2. The women making the charge always have to be outed and labeled. So as long as Cain doesn't lie to a Federal Judge he should be in the clear, right?

j-mac
 
Yet nary a word....ever....about Clinton, Edwards, Ted Kennedy, etc.

The women claim sexual harassment, even though they were never directly addressed, touched, or spoken to. And they won't step forward (even though the media is begging them to). Expect MSNBC to offer these women millions to come forward and tell of the "gesture" that Cain made.

Good gawd, on that basis we could take down the whole Democratic party in an afternoon.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
The CEO of Politico is a former Reagan Staffer and Johnathan Martin, the guy that broke the story is a former writer for National Review. If there's anything fishy or dirty going on it's probably one of Cains primary opponents that provided the sources.
Click to expand...

thank you for the 411
 
Deuce said:
Why do Republicans always play the race card?

"High-tech lynching." What, because he's black that means they MUST be attacking him because he's black?
Click to expand...

"high-tech lynching" was from the news story. You should ask the author which conservatives made those statements instead of indicating that all republicans chose the phrase.
 
If you have ever been wrongly accused of something serious, you don't forget it. It's a very personal attack against you. I doubt Cain initially failed to recall the details.
Again, it's the cover-up that gets you.

If he had come out and told his side of the story to start once the story broke, this would have all gone away by now. But he didn't. It makes him look shady and dodgy.

all imho
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If you have ever been wrongly accused of something serious, you don't forget it. It's a very personal attack against you. I doubt Cain initially failed to recall the details.
Again, it's the cover-up that gets you.

If he had come out and told his side of the story to start once the story broke, this would have all gone away by now. But he didn't. It makes him look shady and dodgy.

all imho
Click to expand...

But it's all a matter of perspective. If he's innocent orguilty, it could be that he never took it seriously. It could be either that he knew he was innocent and didn't worry hismelf with it, or it could be that he was guilty but felt he did nothing worth worrying over. There are plenty of times I've been put on the hot seat for something and I couldn't give you exact details. I vaguely remember an incident when I thought a former employer would be sued over my actions, but I couldn't tell you exact details...and that incident was only about 6 years ago, not 20.

Information will come out, and hopefully in a timely manner. When it does, I'll judge. Until then I don't want to cast aspersions against him or make Chicken Little claims.
 
Manc Skipper said:
If it makes the GOP faithful feel at home. That they have the utter gall to whine at treatment they inflicted on a sitting President for years is unsurprising. Would you like cheeze with that?
Click to expand...

And what 'sitting' President was that?
 
tessaesque said:
But it's all a matter of perspective. If he's innocent orguilty, it could be that he never took it seriously. It could be either that he knew he was innocent and didn't worry hismelf with it, or it could be that he was guilty but felt he did nothing worth worrying over.
Click to expand...
It's a serious accusation. If he didn't take it seriously, that's just a different character flaw, imho.

tessaesque said:
There are plenty of times I've been put on the hot seat for something and I couldn't give you exact details. I vaguely remember an incident when I thought a former employer would be sued over my actions, but I couldn't tell you exact details...and that incident was only about 6 years ago, not 20.
Click to expand...
Yet you remember it happened.

tessaesque said:
Information will come out, and hopefully in a timely manner. When it does, I'll judge. Until then I don't want to cast aspersions against him or make Chicken Little claims.
Click to expand...
I am not making any judgment about whether or not he did what he was accused of--I don't have to. The fact that he's been funny about it is enough with no need to go further.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's a serious accusation. If he didn't take it seriously, that's just a different character flaw, imho.
Click to expand...

If I accused you of being an idiot would you take it seriously? Of course you wouldn't, nor should you. The fact is that we should just dismiss ridiculous gossip like this, especially during an election cycle. The country is mored in debt and people are worried that Herman Cain MAY have done something somewhat inappropriate a dozen years ago?

This is a time when the country needs adults, not juvenile gossip mongers.
 
Grant said:
If I accused you of being an idiot would you take it seriously? Of course you wouldn't, nor should you.
Click to expand...
Your accusation has about zero chance of having meaningful repercussions.
An accusation of sexual harassment has the potential for actual real-world repercussions. For example, the NRA settled with the ladies. That money came from somewhere.

One is an opinion, (the calling someone an idiot), and the other is a matter of facts. They would not have settled with you for accusing Cain of being an idiot.

There are more differences than these two. Since there are these major differences, I don't find your analogy to be compelling at all.

Grant said:
The country is mored in debt and people are worried that Herman Cain MAY have done something somewhat inappropriate a dozen years ago?
Click to expand...
It was earlier this year when he acted dodgy about it. And, to be fair, he is asking us, the electorate to make a judgment about his fitness for the presidency.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Your accusation has about zero chance of having meaningful repercussions.
An accusation of sexual harassment has the potential for actual real-world repercussions. For example, the NRA settled with the ladies. That money came from somewhere.

One is an opinion, (the calling someone an idiot), and the other is a matter of facts. They would not have settled with you for accusing Cain of being an idiot.

There are more differences than these two. Since there are these major differences, I don't find your analogy to be compelling at all.

It was earlier this year when he acted dodgy about it. And, to be fair, he is asking us, the electorate to make a judgment about his fitness for the presidency.
Click to expand...


Using that set of parameters, was Clinton fit?


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom