Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story

j-mac said:

Nah, it isn't the leak from Rhambo that bothers anyone, it is in how they handle it. And I will agree they stumbled, but hey, they aren't seasoned politicians so I think the country is giving him a pass. Too bad for you though.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...nitial-resilience-in-the-face-of-controversy/


j-mac

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

It's hard to tell from that article which states that most don't see the allegations as "serious." But I don't view them as serious either, especially since no one really knows what they were about. I think Cain's problems will come from how people view how he handled this surprise, which really shouldn't have been a surprise to him. It's gonna take more than a few days to see how the chips fall.

Click to expand...

jimbo said:

In following this newsworthy story, there are some points that I just don't get.

If this woman had a confidentiality agreement, hasn't she already broken the agreement by making known the existence of an agreement? In which case, shouldn't she give the money back and face possible civil action?

Why is this years old charge just now coming up? I think I can answer that one.

Is the charge really that Cain asked some Darlin' to doctor his tea? If that is the case, then I can tell you I have been both the harasser and the harassee so many times, I had better not run for office. These violations often occur in southern restaurants and go something like:

(Waitress_) What can I get you, sugar?
(Me) Could y'all fix my coffee, honey?

Fasten your seat belts, Cain is becoming a viable candidate, and you ain't seen nuthin yet.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

She did not bring up the charges, some one who knew about it did, probably with the Perry campaign last I heard. The media had to research to find out who the 2 women are.

I do love how people are quick to smear the women based on nothing but what they want reality to be, with exactly no evidence. That is just about as low as you can go.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

She did not bring up the charges, some one who knew about it did, probably with the Perry campaign last I heard. The media had to research to find out who the 2 women are.

I do love how people are quick to smear the women based on nothing but what they want reality to be, with exactly no evidence. That is just about as low as you can go.

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

almost as low as starting false and misleading thread titles such as: "Cain accuser wants to tell her side of story" eh? since the media had to research to find out who these women are...hardly seems likely that they were just dying to tell their side of the story now doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Redress said:

She did not bring up the charges, some one who knew about it did, probably with the Perry campaign last I heard. The media had to research to find out who the 2 women are.

I do love how people are quick to smear the women based on nothing but what they want reality to be, with exactly no evidence. That is just about as low as you can go.

Click to expand...

"James Carville, the Cajun cur who will say anything, do anything to help Clinton. He's not in the media, but he is a mean machine. Carville called Paula Jones 'trailer camp trash,' a commodity with which he has had much experience."

John Robert Starr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Yeah, kind of like this....



So I guess its ok if you're a lib....


j-mac

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Yeah, kind of like this....



So I guess its ok if you're a lib....


j-mac

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Wow, make assumptions much?

For the record: I did not approve of attacking Paula Jones. Also, that was simply a diversion since it totally and 100 % did not address the topic in any way.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

She did not bring up the charges, some one who knew about it did, probably with the Perry campaign last I heard. The media had to research to find out who the 2 women are.

If someone from the Perry group, the Obama group, the Romney group, or any other group had information leaked to them, then it follows that someone knowing about the confidentiality agreement had to leak it. Since I see no benefit to Cain to having leaked the agreement, than the most likely conclusion is that the other side did the leaking. I'll concede that there is a possibility that someone else may have leaked the info, but someone violated the agreement.

It frankly never occurred to me that I was blaming a woman, or women. I was addressing the leak. It would have made no difference to me if the leaker was a little green man with pink polka dots who voted Republican. The leaker is the problem.

Click to expand...

jimbo said:

If someone from the Perry group, the Obama group, the Romney group, or any other group had information leaked to them, then it follows that someone knowing about the confidentiality agreement had to leak it. Since I see no benefit to Cain to having leaked the agreement, than the most likely conclusion is that the other side did the leaking. I'll concede that there is a possibility that someone else may have leaked the info, but someone violated the agreement.

It frankly never occurred to me that I was blaming a woman, or women. I was addressing the leak. It would have made no difference to me if the leaker was a little green man with pink polka dots who voted Republican. The leaker is the problem.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

The reference I saw yesterday was that it was some one else who was around the group at the time. I have no way to know if that is true or not however.

Click to expand...

Mustachio said:

In regards to the notion that conservatives are being hypocritical by defending Cain whereas they went after Clinton for similar allegations, let me say this:

the great hypocrisy over conservatives who support Cain is that they look past the fact that he has no political experience whatsoever. How many of these same supporters claimed Obama was unqualified for office because he was merely a junior senator and constitutional scholar?

I'm pleased by the liberal response to this issue on this and other threads. This whole thing is a typical dirty trick no matter what did or didn't happen. We have better things to talk about in this country. I mean, this guy's big issue boils down to raising taxes for the vast majority of the country and cutting taxes for the rich. How he could get elected on that platform boggles my mind.

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Yes, it was a "dirty trick." But dirty tricks are, and always will be, a part of politics. Not being a politician hurt Cain in this regard as he clearly had no way of knowing how to manage this dirty trick once it hit him in the face. That's the part, I believe, which hurts Cain the most.

Click to expand...

... “In 1999, I was retained by a female employee of the National Restaurant Association concerning several instances of sexual harassment by the then-CEO,” attorney Joel Bennett told reporters. “She made a complaint in good faith about a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from the CEO. Those complaints were resolved in an agreement with her acceptance of a monetary settlement. She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now, nor in discussing the matter any further, publicly or privately. In fact, it would be extremely painful to do so. … My client stands by the complaint she made.”

Bennett added that his client believed that this statement refuted the Republican presidential candidate’s claim that no sexual harassment had taken place.

“I don’t remember the exact time period of the incidents, but it was over a period of a month or two as I recall. … We’re not going to get into what was physical and what was verbal. It qualified as sexual harassment in our opinion.” ...

Click to expand...

Mustachio said:

That's a good point. It's interesting that Cain's lack of experience as an issue isn't hurting him, but as a reality still does. I'd prefer that it went both ways. It's inconceivable to me that a man who couldn't even win the Republican nomination for senator in 2004 could win the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012.

Click to expand...

muciti said:

This is the problem with politics. People are more focused on something that may have happened 20 years ago that has absolutely no bearing on anything today than they are what this man may or may not do if elected president. Anyone who is foolish enough to base their vote on an incident 20 years ago rather than Cains (or anyone running for election/reelection) stances on issues, ideas to fix this country ect should have their right to vote immediately revoked.

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

That too is the nature of politics. Kind of like how the GOP picked John McCain in 2008 -- 8 years after they rejected him in favor of Bush, arguably one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. Yet 8 years later, they picked the person who they felt wasn't as qualified in 2000.

Go figger. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:

Yes, it was a "dirty trick." But dirty tricks are, and always will be, a part of politics. Not being a politician hurt Cain in this regard as he clearly had no way of knowing how to manage this dirty trick once it hit him in the face. That's the part, I believe, which hurts Cain the most.

Click to expand...