Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 16, 2014, 04:48:50 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82454 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 125646 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4064


« Reply #900 on: October 25, 2011, 04:27:03 PM »

The problem with the debate format is we get snippets and sound bites.  I have no idea what Romney is proposing.  So I look it up and here is some.   I need to review his website and I would assume it gives more details.

Romney has 59 point economic plan.  Here is some:

****Mitt Romney in 2012?
Would you support Mitt Romney for president? Vote in poll.
www.newsmax.com


Romney follows former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman in presenting a comprehensive vision for promoting economic growth — but his plan offers few surprises beyond its trueness to GOP talking points, and may be seen as falling short of the "bold, sweeping and specific" plan he promised.

Romney's plan goes out of its way to make space for a potential general election campaign, careful to qualify any potentially damaging statements to lessen their impact. He plays to the tea party, but doesn't wholeheartedly embrace their politics.

For instance, he only wants to eliminate the capital gains tax for middle-income earners, and limits his calls for promoting domestic energy production to "everywhere it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns."

Romney will formally announce his plan today in a 12:30 PDT speech in Nevada.

Via USA Today, here are the basics to Mitt Romney's jobs plan:

Lower marginal tax rates; Elimination of interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for middle-income earners.
Lower the corporate tax rate. "I will press for a total overhaul of our overly complex and inefficient system of taxation," he writes.
Cut government regulations, including ObamaCare. Creating a net-zero cap to the cost of new regulations.
More free trade agreements — including the creation of the  "Reagan Economic Zone"
Tougher stance on China: "I will not stand by while China pursues an economic development policy that relies on the unfair treatment of U.S. companies and the theft of their intellectual property. I have no interest in starting a trade war with China, but I cannot accept our current trade surrender."
More domestic energy production "everywhere it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns"
Lessening the influence of unions — including the safeguard of the secret ballot and pushback against the NLRB.
Federal balanced budget amendment
Cutting the size of the federal workforce: "While the private sector shed 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office, the federal workforce grew by 142,500, or almost 7%. A rollback is urgently required."***
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #901 on: October 26, 2011, 12:29:35 AM »

Thank you CCP.  Point 1 in the 59 point plan is "Lower marginal tax rates" and then he doesn't say how much.  I read, posted and forgot the Romney Plan already I think because I don't see that he is committed to it.  I agree that he has shown an awareness that his words will follow him into the general election as well, but I don't like that he believes that he needs to do that in an Obama-esque sort of way with vague platitudes.

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg53953#msg53953

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/Romney%20for%20president%20jobs%20plan.pdf

I predict he will have to dip his pen in the ink one more time and write specifics rather than face two serious challengers with very specific plans in a Perry-esque sort of way in a debate with no real plan of his own. 

The 'trust me to get it right' line takes him straight into his biggest weakness, bringing some other pretty serious changes of positions (cf. cap trade, govt healthcare) back into new relevance.

I don't like that because he is rich he has to be especially tough on the rich who are 'doing just fine'.  The rich being idle in our economy is not fine; their resources still sitting on the sidelines is killing employment, national income, government revenues, deficits, debt, the dollar and everything else.  He is showing no greater understanding or ability to articulate an incentive based economy than either of the silver spoon Bush presidents.

I don't care about the rich keeping or not keeping more of their own money.  I care about getting the American economy up on plane.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4064


« Reply #902 on: October 26, 2011, 11:57:00 AM »

Doug,

Agreed 100%.

Romney cannot get above 25% of the Republican party to believe in him because he is playing the fork tongue thing trying to be too damn cute and coy.

I, like you do not really trust he is a real Republican.  I fear he could easily sell us all out.

His half assedness (a word?) makes me wonder if he is just playing the right as fools or he is playing this only to appeal to the independents after which if and when he gets into power he will turn right.

So the question is we do not no if he will turn right when in office or left.  I think many of us the right, after reviewing his record suspect he will turn left and f* us over.

I've learned the hard way never to trust anything anyone says about their intentions.  Though far from perfect as a way to guide ones ability to know how one will really behave is to go back and study how they lived their lives.  This is the best though surely not a perfect way to know how they will behave in the future.  Once a liar and crook always a liar and a crook.

Mitt has clearly been an establishment guy in the past.  If this was nihilistic approach to being a Republican in a socialistic like State is possible.  Same goes for Cristy in NJ.  On the other hand maybe this is the real Romney.

If we applied the principle to Brobrock - that is go by his associations, his liberal voting record, we would have know he was going to govern as the most marxist pres we ever had.  We on this board knew what was coming.  Many others were foolishly duped.  Do not go by what he says.  Go by how he lived his life. 

I don't know enough about Mitt personally to be sure what his true beliefs are.   He is certainly not as Herman Cain is - says what he believes and believes what he says.  And that is a big problem with someone who wants to be President.

 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4064


« Reply #903 on: October 26, 2011, 12:04:49 PM »

I see on Drudge that Carville calls Cain a "salesman" and he will not be elected.  I agree it would extremely remote he could or even should be elected.  His lack of knowledge of too many important subjects does scare me about him I admit. 

That said one thing I admire about Cain is he is an HONEST salesman.  He is selling a product he believes in.

Unlike the present WH occupant who has been dishonest and deceptive about himself and HIS core beliefs all along.

I prefer an honest to a dishonest salesman anyday.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #904 on: October 26, 2011, 04:43:53 PM »

Dear Marc,
With great fanfare, Gov. Perry released an optional flat tax proposal that is similar to the proposal outlined in the 21st Century Contract With America. Both proposals implement an optional flat tax as a vehicle towards a simplified tax code. Both plans give American taxpayers the option to do their taxes on a paper the size of a postcard. The plans do, however, have significant differences, and since Rick Perry promised to “bump plans” at the last debate in Las Vegas, our campaign outlined the major differences in an easy to read point by point format. Our plan has a significantly lower flat tax rate - 15% compared to Perry’s 20%. Our plan also does a better job of unlocking job creation with a lower corporate tax of 12.5%. Perry’s 20% is a significant improvement over the current 35% top rate, but it fails to give the United States a significant advantage over other nations. The plan that Speaker Gingrich laid out in the 21st Century Contract With America has many other important differences that spur job creation and make the proposal far more likely to pass.

We welcome a robust policy debate with all the candidates who have the courage to release real policy proposals. The American people deserve more than just platitudes and campaign slogans, and that is why this campaign has always been built around ideas. It was a lack of this kind of in-depth policy discussions that resulted in the election of the woefully unprepared Barack Obama. Speaker Gingrich has the knowledge and experience to speak at length on specific policies, which is why we have also gratefully accepted an invitation to a one-on-one policy debate with Herman Cain.

The debate is being sponsored by the Texas Tea Party Patriots and will feature conservative Congressman and Iowa icon Steve King as emcee. The debate will be held in Houston on November 5, and we will be bringing you details about where you can watch this historic exchange.

Our campaign is experiencing a resurgence as the American people take a hard look at all the candidates. For the month of October, we now stand only about $200,000 from raising a million dollars! The media has tried to use the last quarter fundraising numbers to write off anyone that isn’t one of their chosen candidates. If we can issue a press release that we surpassed $1 million in October, it will simply reinforce how ludicrous that media narrative is! We can do it, but we need your help! We need to raise at least $200,000 before Monday at midnight! Support the reemergence of this campaign by helping us reach this important goal by making a contribution today!

Thank You,

Michael Krull
Newt 2012
Campaign Manager
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #905 on: October 27, 2011, 10:57:33 AM »



CAIN SOUNDS ANTI-WALL STREET
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 25, 2011

Printer-Friendly Version
Liberals often fail to understand the fault lines that run through the Republican Party. But when those fault lines mirror their own, you would think they'd get it.

Even as President Obama rakes in $35,000 per couple at lavish fundraisers after relying on Goldman Sachs to be his largest single donor in 2008, the left sits in a park in Manhattan decrying Wall Street excesses. The Dodd-Frank bill, sold as a measure to crack down on Wall Street, is killing community and small banks throughout the nation, hastening the day when Wall Street will be the only source of corporate or personal lending.
 
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, voters have clearly opted for a candidate who came from the private sector rather than one who lived his life in politics, as the continuing collapse of Rick Perry and the ongoing ascendancy of Mitt Romney and Herman Cain attest. But which private sector? Wall street and big business, or small business? Between Romney and Cain, a new chasm is emerging. As Cain put it: "Mitt generated jobs on Wall Street. I did it on Main Street."

The same discontent that is brewing over in Lower Manhattan among the extreme left is also raging on the right as small businessmen rally to Cain, emphatically making it clear that the needs of big business are not only not their needs, but often are a direct contradiction.

In a sense, the fault lines the Romney/Cain contest is exposing are very similar to those that first made their appearance when Arizona's Barry Goldwater defeated New York's Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican nomination for president in 1964. The split in the GOP has only grown wider. The evangelical, small-business, economic-freedom, anti-tax and anti-regulation Tea Party vote is lining up behind Cain. The economic-growth conservatives, corporate executives, free-market economists and GOP establishment are backing Romney.

The emerging contest will not be so much the right versus the center as it will be big versus small, the establishment versus insurgents, libertarian Republicans against social conservatives and, yes, Wall Street versus Main Street.

We are going to be treated to a presidential campaign in which both parties' candidates will have to cope with increasing animosity toward the greed and self-serving refusal to be accountable that have characterized Wall Street and the financial industry.

But it is particularly intriguing to compare the impetus for the Cain candidacy with that of the Occupy Wall Street group. Both decry the tendency toward bigness and each disapproves of massive corporate bailouts that choose winners and losers. Both are opposed to crony capitalism and do not want the federal government to be a servant of the financial industry.

And both find themselves in opposition to the mainstream of their political parties. The world is indeed round, with apologies to Thomas Friedman. The far left and the far right unite in their opposition to big business and to the centrist establishments of both parties that maintain cozy and symbiotic relationships with Wall Street.

Can Obama continue to run on Wall Street money while backed by Occupy Wall Street foot soldiers? It seems unlikely. Can Cain tap into the resentment against Wall Street that rises from the demonstrators in Lower Manhattan? Perhaps he can.

The real criticism of Obama is not that he is a socialist -- advocating government ownership and control of business. It is that he is a corporatist -- advocating government control while keeping ownership in private hands. He wants a few big companies and a handful of major banks, the big labor unions and the federal government to work together to divide the pie and deal the cards. He wants to establish here a corporatism reminiscent of de Gaulle's France and modern-day Germany. Soon the left will realize what the right is already coming to know -- that the mainstream of each party is hopelessly in bed with Wall Street.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #906 on: October 27, 2011, 01:27:12 PM »

WSJ:

A friend of ours quipped recently that Mitt Romney could do his Presidential candidacy a lot of good if he took even a single position that is unpopular in the polls. Well, we can report that he has done that on housing policy, that he's being pummeled for it, and that it may be his finest campaign hour. It also contrasts favorably with the latest temporary, ad hoc and futile housing effort from President Obama.

Campaigning last week in Nevada, the epicenter of the housing bust, Mr. Romney was asked by the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board what he would do about housing and foreclosures. His reply:

"One is, don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up. Let it turn around and come back up. The Obama Administration has slow-walked the foreclosure processes that have long existed, and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang."

Enlarge Image

Close...How's that for refreshing? After five years of politicians trying without success to postpone disclosures and levitate the housing market, Mr. Romney dared to tell the truth. Parts of the U.S., including Nevada, still have too many homes, and that supply needs to be sold off and fixed up so the market can find a bottom before home prices can start to rise again. The faster that process proceeds, the faster the recovery will take hold.

For this apostasy, Mr. Romney is getting whacked by the Democratic National Committee in a 30-second TV ad that first aired Tuesday in Arizona: "Almost half of Arizona homeowners underwater. Foreclosures everywhere. And what's Mitt Romney's plan?" the ad intones. Then it quotes Mr. Romney: "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.'"

The attack ad doesn't quote the second part of Mr. Romney's Las Vegas answer, which spoke another truth: "Number two, the credit [that] was given to first time homebuyers was insufficient and inadequate to turn around the housing market. I think it was an ineffective idea. It was a little bit like the cash-for-clunkers program, throwing government money at something which was not market-oriented, did not staunch the decline in home values anymore than it encouraged the auto industry to take off."

While he was at it, Mr. Romney might have added to his list of "ineffective" housing ideas the Bush Administration's Hope Now program, the Barney Frank-George W. Bush Hope for Homeowners plan, the Obama Administration Home Affordable Modification Program, the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program, and, this week, an expanded version of the March 2009 Home Affordable Refinance Program (Harp).

All of these government plans used taxpayer cash to forestall foreclosures in an attempt to stop housing prices from falling from their manic heights. How's that working out? Five years into the housing bust, the U.S. still has 10.9 million "underwater" borrowers, whose homes are worth less than the original purchase price. States like Florida, Nevada and New Jersey have long foreclosure backlogs, and home prices still haven't begun to recover in much of the country.

Related Video
 Mary Kissel of the editorial board says Mitt Romney has the right answer on housing.
..Mr. Romney's advice to let the foreclosure and resale process take its course as rapidly as possible until the market finds a "bottom" couldn't possibly do any worse than the Obama Administration and its frenetic attempts to "save" homeowners have done. To the extent that it encourages a faster recovery it is also more compassionate. As the nearby chart shows, while the fall in home prices has been painful for current owners, it has also made housing far more affordable for new buyers.

Which brings us to the latest White House housing gesture, Harp II, to make it easier to refinance mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Harp I was supposed to help four to five million borrowers refinance, but only around 894,000 have used it so far.

So why not double down on lack of success? Harp II will remove many of the restrictions on banks and borrowers that were contained in Harp I to protect taxpayers. These include removing the 125% loan-to-value ceiling for underwater borrowers, dealing with bank litigation concerns, and eliminating the need for a new appraisal. It also extends the end of the program to December 31, 2013, from next June 30.

No doubt this will help some homeowners refinance, especially with the Federal Reserve continuing to push long-bond rates even lower. But it is not a free lunch, especially for investors who hold mortgage-backed securities. Those securities will fall in value as borrowers prepay their old loans, and sure enough the MBS market fell out of bed after the White House announcement on Monday.

The Congressional Budget Office tested an economic model of the mock refinancing plan in September and estimated that while government enterprises like Fannie and Freddie would save $3.9 billion from refinancing, they'd also lose $4.5 billion from the reduced value of their mortgage-backed securities. Pension funds, banks and others would lose as much as $15 billion. Such investors don't get any sympathy these days, but don't be surprised if they're skittish about re-entering America's politicized housing market in the future.

As for Mr. Romney, in his Vegas interview he did add briefly that "the idea of helping people refinance homes to stay in them is one that's worth further consideration," subject to more information. That's the poll-driven candidate talking, but for today let's congratulate the truth-teller.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #907 on: October 28, 2011, 10:58:09 AM »

Continuing my Rubio reply here:

I actually believe Rubio that he won't take the VP nomination, even though they all say that.  He wants to be a successful senator and keep his promise to do that, unlike others before him.  Also it would risk his career in a couple of ways, tying his future to one of our not so perfect possible nominees while cutting his own experience short.  He doesn't need to be the VP slot to be seriously considered for the top slot in 4 or 8 years if he wants it.  He can be a strong supporter of the ticket from the outside and the top of the ticket needs to be strong enough to stand on his own.  If the nominee is an outsider, and really all of them are, then maybe need a sharp, shrewd, experienced professional insider with gravitas, at least as strong as Biden wink to balance the ticket.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #908 on: October 28, 2011, 11:35:35 AM »

Conservative commentator Marc Levin assesses the Perry tax plan:

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-rick-perry-has-come-up-with-one-hell-of-a-proposal/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4064


« Reply #909 on: October 28, 2011, 12:09:57 PM »

Doug,
If only there was a Republican candidate who was half as articulate and able to think and speak on his feet as Mark Levin (or Rush for that matter).

These two guys can articulate positions a hundred times better than any of our candidates except for probably Newt.

I wish Newt could gain more traction.

It looks like we are stuck with Romney. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #910 on: October 28, 2011, 12:33:04 PM »

Given Cain's cancer history, should he be nominated Rubio's (lack of) experience would get a lot of attention.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #911 on: October 28, 2011, 01:13:37 PM »

CCP,  Levin can be abrasive but he makes his points fearlessly and persuasively.  I like the Perry plan, but not the candidate at this point.  I believe Romney will be the nominee but Cain is staying in there so far. Bachmann for one should drop and join with Cain it seems to me if this is about direction of the country more than personal career.  She made a name for herself and could still get out before becoming irrelevant.  I would like to pick and choose traits from each to assemble my own candidate but it doesn't work that way.  

A good friend and non-conservative asked me in earnest this week what I thought of the Republican contest knowing I would be following it closely. After all these readings and posts I was pretty much speechless to summarize anything.  Interestingly, she thought the country wasn't ready for a Mormon. Maybe I am naive, but I already forgot about that.  People thought it risky that JFK was Catholic (as if he lived that life).  Joe Liebermann broke ground as the first Jewish candidate on a ticket; that didn't become any focus. Obama being half black was only a plus.  The issues are so big for something invisible to matter much it seems to me.  If he was alleged to have more wives, that would be another different.

Newt is the one with the too many wives problem.

I like a lot about Newt, but we can't have a candidate that pushes voters like Mrs. Crafty away for having good moral sense.  Not just Newt but his first lady was also a home wrecker, any chance that will come up on Oprah? He shouldn't have run, just my opinion.  Republicans are held to a higher standard, he knows it and didn't abide by it.  Now he won't quit because his support is swinging up.  But if he was out, where would that support go?  Perry isn't leaving either because he has money at this point.  He will quit after he fails in a key primary unless he turns things around.  If Newt, Bachmann and Perry were out, and it was down to Romney vs one top challenger Herman Cain, this contest would become very, very interesting.  With no challenge on the Dem side, swing voters would likely show up.  Some say that favors Romney, but I would not be so sure.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 01:41:00 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #912 on: October 30, 2011, 11:54:22 AM »

Saw Cain on Face the Nation this AM.  Thought he did reasonably well with a fairly hostile Washington insider interview.  Improving answering questions on foreign affairs, but still not at a level that seems presidential.

Saw Ron Paul handle CNN's Candy Crowley VERY well too.  He really has gotten quite good at handling heart string questions such as "Surely you can't be against helping people go to college."   He articulates well things like actually shutting down entire departments such as Energy, Education, Commerce, etc.  Too bad his foreign affairs are what they are.  Too bad he has too many stray crackpot comments, such as the one about a border fence with Mexico being used to keep us in.  On the Bret Baier Report's "hot seat" interview, Charles Krauthammer badly stuffed him to his face with it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #913 on: October 30, 2011, 07:58:08 PM »



http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #914 on: October 30, 2011, 10:59:44 PM »

Herman Cain on Face the Nation:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7386472n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Cain sounds very good in the interview.

Try this link for day by day cartoon tough on Romney: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/10/30/

Much improved Rick Perry with MSM Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/30/rick_perry_on_fox_news_sunday.html

Very sad to see story from Politico that is now the lead story on Drudge:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html - 4 internet pages, starts with this:

Exclusive: Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior

(Politico has done some sourcing on this. They also quote board members who vouch strogly for his behavior.  There is probably some truth in that there were probably two or more complaints made and settled.  That doesn't mean guilt, but it does mean a serious challenge and distraction for the campaign is coming.  I'm surprised there haven't been more twists like this in the campaign.  And I hope it is all proven false. but proving a negative is usually impossible to do.)

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.

POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon told POLITICO the candidate indicated to campaign officials that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the restaurant association’s general counsel had resolved the matter.

The latest statement came from Cain himself. In a tense sidewalk encounter Sunday morning outside the Washington bureau of CBS News — where the Republican contender had just completed an interview on “Face the Nation” — Cain evaded a series of questions about sexual harassment allegations.

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

Cain was president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association from late 1996 to mid-1999. POLITICO learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former board members, current and past staff and others familiar with the workings of the trade group at the time Cain was there.

In one case, POLITICO has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the restaurant association formally resolved the matter. Both women received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.

On the details of Cain’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two women, POLITICO has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — which include the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

Peter Kilgore, who was the association’s general counsel in the 1990s, and remains in that position today, has declined to comment to POLITICO on whether any settlements existed, saying he cannot discuss personnel matters.

But one source closely familiar with Cain’s tenure in Washington confirmed that the claims related to allegations of sexual harassment – behavior that disturbed members of the board who became aware of it, as well as the source, who otherwise liked Cain.

“I happen to know there were sealed settlements reached in the plural. I think that anybody who thinks this was a one-time, one-person transgression would be mistaken,” this source said...
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 11:17:12 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #915 on: October 30, 2011, 11:29:58 PM »

Anonymous sources quoting unnamed people about alleged behavior twenty years ago; is another high tech lynching (see Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill-- who was busted while trying to be anonymous) under way?  Looks like it. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4064


« Reply #916 on: October 31, 2011, 09:35:22 AM »

Yes.  And supposedly these people took five figured money and agreed to a non disclose clause.

Don't now they have to give that money back?

OF course the DNC will gladly reimburse them for time.

And anyway what is the big deal to a Democrat?  Even what he appears to be accused of is not as serious as anything Bill Clinton did.  That was always about his "personal" life not important to his apologists.  It was only a matter between Bill and Hill. rolleyes
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #917 on: October 31, 2011, 12:34:57 PM »

Cain:  "Never have I committed any kind of sexual harassment."... If they paid a settlement, I hope it wasn't for much, because nothing happened.

The lead author at Politico is one who went after Sarah Palin with lies.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l72UAaftnwk  

The author goes from not naming the women to not detailing the accusations.  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/10/31/politicos-martin-dodges-question-cain-details

Note the exculpatory interviews are dropped in at the end of a mulit-page story, after the damage is done.  People who would have known vouch strongly for his character and integrity.

Interesting that these are liberals trying to take down Cain still in the primaries.  If the facts had legs, they should want to let him run and win further and then destroy him a little later in the process.  I would guess that the facts were not leading them any further so they decided not to get beat to press on what they had.  It wasn't just he said -she said, it was that what she said didn't amount to harassment.  I agree with CCP, that certainly someone on the left will give them the money they might have to give back in order to talk about what happened.  Unless something more breaks, I would guess that was already tried and didn't amount to anything.  They say they have been working on this for several weeks.

Example of missing details:  Paula Jones was called white trash for turning Clinton and Juanita Broderick said that Bill Clinton said she oughtta put some ice on that, and Hillary sought her out later and gave her the knowing look.  Not enough to upset any left leaning women's groups.

Redstate.com which at least earlier was in the Perry camp is running a story saying there is no there there.  The allegations if they were true do not amount to sexual harassment.  []

http://www.redstate.com/curt_levey/2011/10/31/cain_allegations/

Cain Allegations: No There There

Posted by Curt Levey

Monday, October 31st at 9:01AM EDT

In light of last night’s Politico story about allegations against Herman Cain, it is important to clarify the legal meaning of the term “sexual harassment.” Specifically, Politico reports allegations that Herman Cain made an “an unwanted sexual advance” and engaged in “innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature.” Politico suggests that this amounts to sexual harassment, using the term at least six times.

The truth is that the reported allegations, even if true, do not constitute sexual harassment under the law unless – as the Supreme Court has stated – they are “sufficiently severe or pervasive” to “create an abusive working environment,” among other requirements. Even the guidance of the decidedly liberal U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cautions that “sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees” and that

    “Sexual flirtation or innuendo, even vulgar language that is trivial or merely annoying, would probably not establish a hostile environment.”

The “severe or pervasive” requirement is not a legal technicality. Trivializing the term “sexual harassment” undermines the seriousness with which cases of severe and pervasive harassment are taken. There is no suggestion in the Politico article that Cain’s alleged behavior was either severe or pervasive, so at least for now, the suggestion of sexual harassment is unsupported.

Politico places a lot of weight on the report that “there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints [against Cain].” In fact, without knowing more about the details of the settlements, it’s impossible to draw any conclusions from them. Corporate America is very risk averse when it comes to negative publicity, and in-house settlements often occur even when the evidence of harassment falls far short of the threshold needed to be taken seriously by a court.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 12:36:40 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #918 on: October 31, 2011, 04:39:42 PM »

I guess the Journolists at Politico feel bad about not vetting the last black guy that ran for president and are trying to make up for it now......   rolleyes

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #919 on: October 31, 2011, 05:47:54 PM »

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/31/i-have-in-my-hand-a-list-of-herman-cain-accusers/

Jornolist-ism, at it's finest.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #920 on: November 02, 2011, 06:26:33 AM »

http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-cain-accuser-wants-allowed-talk-025045050.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #921 on: November 02, 2011, 10:58:19 AM »

Of course.  Think of all the money she can make now!  Furthermore I somehow doubt the request includes an offer to repay the money originally paid plus compound interest.  rolleyes
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #922 on: November 02, 2011, 11:12:42 AM »

Folks bringing the story forward already succeeded.  You cannot google search his experience at the restaurant association and find anything other than this story.  A couple of days ago you might have found the youtube of him eating Pres. Clinton's lunch over healthcare mandates killing private business.

Whether it is truth against Cain or falsehoods escalated, I will guess there will be more developments, even if it is just the same accusers going public and specific.  In the meanwhile we continue the campaign of get to know the candidates.  Here is a local story here of my former neighbor Cain from his days as VP of Mpls based Pillsbury as reported by Mpls StarTribune and Mpls-based Powerline.  It occurred to me earlier in this process that perhaps Cain was chosen as VP of Coca Cola, VP of Pillsbury, CEO of Godfathers, head of the National Restaurants Association and Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank because they all liked the look of having a black man in the picture on their color glossy corporate annual reports.  In fact, he was quite accomplished before his business experience with a very impressive and technical education and quite hands-on and high achieving on the job in these very high level management positions.  I would add that these aren't the types of businesses that tolerate much in terms of loose moral behavior on company paid travel.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/herman-cain-at-pillsbury.php
http://www.startribune.com/business/132823328.html

    Business success has never guaranteed political success. But Cain demonstrated during a tour with Pillsbury Co. in the 1980s that he is a successful, charismatic leader. With flair and hard work, he turned around Pillsbury’s struggling Philadelphia Burger King region and revived a near-dead Godfather’s Pizza.

    “My career spans 38 years and I’ve worked for 26 different managers,” said Frank Taylor, a recently retired Burger King financial executive whom Cain hired as his regional controller in 1983. “Herman was far and away the best I’ve worked for in terms of getting a team together, sharing a vision and accomplishing the goals. And nothing diverted him.”

    Cain also shared the wealth. When Burger King distributed $50,000 apiece to the regional vice presidents as reward for good performance in 1985, most of the regional bosses spent it on a trip to a posh resort for themselves and other managers and spouses. The enlisted troops got a dinner. Cain took everybody in his office, including administrative staff, on the same three-day reward cruise, Taylor recalled. …

    The Philadelphia region of Burger King ranked near the bottom among Burger King’s 12 groups. Cain brought analytical strengths and energy. He fired and hired. He praised and exhorted the survivors. He turned the region into a top performer within two years.

    “I worked with him fairly closely at Burger King,” recalled George Mileusnic, a former Pillsbury executive, now a Twin Cities consultant. “He was good strategically and good with people, including working long hours in Burger King stores to get that bottom-up experience. He had about 500 stores in that Philadelphia region and he did a great job.”

    Impressed, Jeff Campbell, the head of Pillsbury’s restaurant operations, put Cain in charge of Godfather’s Pizza, a then-struggling chain that Pillsbury acquired when it bought an Omaha restaurant consolidator that also was a big franchisee of Burger Kings.

    Godfather’s was started by an entrepreneur in the 1970s but slid after it was acquired by a big Burger King corporate franchisee and waylaid by a tired menu, demoralized employees and lousy results. Campbell gave the 40-year-old Cain a year to right Godfather’s, make a buck, or shut it down.

    At the time, Campbell told Cain that there was a very slim chance Godfather’s could be “a home run for you and the company.”

    “I said, ‘Sounds like my kind of odds,’” Cain recalled in an 1987 interview with the Star Tribune. “That’s how I got to Philadelphia.” …

    Along with his analytical skills, Cain brought an entrepreneurial fervor to the hurried turnaround at Godfather’s in 1986-87. He listened, asked questions and acted, including closing stores, shifting people and even cooking and testing new products in the company’s kitchen.

    “I’m Herman Cain and this ain’t no April Fool’s joke,” he told Godfather’s employees when he arrived on April 1, 1986. “We are not dead. Our objective is to prove to Pillsbury and everybody else that we will survive.”

    An accomplished singer and pianist, Cain occasionally led the headquarters crew in after-hours song, and performed charitable gigs in Omaha, backed by a chorus of managers. He also demanded that senior managers know every employee working for them on a first-name basis and occasionally quizzed executives on that and other personnel issues.

    “That was pretty unique,” Mileusnic said. “Those stories got around Pillsbury. Herman was very quantitative and analytical, but he demanded that everybody be engaged and every employee must be appreciated and respected.”

    By 1987, Cain and longtime executive Ronald Gartlan, now the CEO of Godfather’s, stabilized the company and produced an operating profit.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


#3
« Reply #923 on: November 02, 2011, 09:52:25 PM »

I wonder if we should have listened to Paula Jones?  Of course not, she was just trying to ruin the career of a presidential hopeful...

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-worker-says-cain-harassed-her-205655781.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #924 on: November 02, 2011, 09:56:06 PM »

I wonder if we should have listened to Paula Jones?  Of course not, she was just trying to ruin the career of a presidential hopeful...

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-third-worker-says-cain-harassed-her-205655781.html

No, there is always a different standard when the media ignores dems scandals while inventing republican ones. Remember the MSM's coverup of Silky Pony's love child?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #925 on: November 02, 2011, 10:02:57 PM »

Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
 

By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller   1:15 AM 07/20/2010


It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.
 
The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”
 
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
 
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
 
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
 
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
 
“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
 
(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)
 
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
 
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
 
Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.
 
The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
 
Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.
 
In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.
 
Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.
 
Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”
 
The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.
 
Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.
 
It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.
 
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.
 
The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
 
Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”
 
“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.
 
Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.
 
(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)
 
Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.
 
“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”
 
Ackerman went on:
 

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
 

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
 
Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”
 
Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.
 
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
 
(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)
 
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
 
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #926 on: November 02, 2011, 10:13:12 PM »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458044101389966.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

What's more, supermarket tabloids have been known to break important political stories that the mainstream press shied away from--and in this regard, the Los Angeles Times has an especially embarrassing record. In 2008 Kaus published an email from Tony Pierce, an editor at the L.A. Times, to the paper's online contributors (quoting verbatim):

Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask
Keep rockin,
Tony
As Kaus quipped: "That will certainly calm paranoia about the Mainstream Media (MSM) suppressing the Edwards scandal." Two weeks later, Edwards partially confessed, and Times columnist Tim Rutten weighed in:

When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism.
Rutten acknowledged that "too many newsrooms, including that of The Times," were derelict in ignoring the Edwards story. But his column reflected a telling defeatism. By proclaiming the "end to the era" of traditional media, he seemed to be suggesting that those media, including his own paper, were incapable of applying any lessons from the experience of being shown up by the Enquirer--that they were too hidebound to do anything other than keep rockin.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #927 on: November 02, 2011, 10:20:55 PM »

Good reminders of media bias, but pertaining more to the Media thread.

BTW BD in the Paula Jones case:

a) SHE PUT HER NAME TO IT.
b) Her allegation was that she was summoned to the Governor's presence by a State Trooper
c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers.   I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,
d) Clinton had quite the rep as the ladies man
e) Clinton was married to Hillary

Quite a contrast here!




Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #928 on: November 02, 2011, 10:35:15 PM »

c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers.   I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,


In investigations of sexual assault, a subpeona for non-testimonial evidence can require a medical exam of a suspect to confirm notable physical characteristics, or to gather evidence of the assault.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #929 on: November 02, 2011, 10:49:33 PM »



http://www.mobar.org/journal/1998/janfeb/swingle.htm

Potential Uses of Investigative Subpoenas

The potential uses of investigative subpoenas are limited only by the imagination of the prosecutor and the bounds of reasonableness. As the Supreme Court of Missouri has said, a prosecutor armed with investigative subpoena power "stands in essentially the same position as the grand jury and is governed by similar limitations."90 Like its fraternal twin, the grand jury subpoena, an investigative subpoena might be issued:

(1) For bank records showing whether a bad check suspect has written other bad checks, the balance of the account, the signature card, or the date the account was closed;91

(2) For financial records or books and ledgers of a person or corporation suspected of fraudulent activity, unfair trade practices, or the depositing of large sums of stolen money or drug sale proceeds;92

(3) For medical records pertaining to the blood alcohol level of a suspect in a DWI or involuntary manslaughter case;93

(4) For medical records or testimony pertaining to wounds a murder or rape suspect may have acquired during the attack upon the victim, unless barred by physician-patient privilege;

(5) For telephone records corroborating the placing of certain calls at certain times or to certain places;94

(6) For the testimony of a recalcitrant witness, such as someone who saw a drive-by shooting but refuses to tell police officers what happened;95

(7) For the testimony of a family member or friend who may have heard the suspect make admissions or may have seen the suspect hide or destroy evidence;96

(Cool For the suspect to submit to a taking of fingerprint samples for comparison to those left at the scene of a crime;97

(9) For a suspect to submit to the taking of a photograph, so that it can be put into a lineup to be shown to a victim;98

(10) For a suspect to participate in a physical lineup to be viewed by the victim;99

(11) For a suspect to submit to the taking of a blood sample for DNA or other genetic testing for comparison to samples left at a crime scene;100

(12) For a suspect to give a voice sample for comparison to a voice on tape;101

(13) For a suspect to appear to display a limp, tattoo, or scar described by a victim;

(14) For a suspect in a forgery case to give a handwriting sample;102

(15) For airline or other transportation records pertaining to the travel of the suspect;

(16) For utility records or papers showing occupancy or ownership of a suspected drug house or excessive electrical use showing a marijuana growing operation;103

(17) For sales records pertaining to a weapon thought to have been used in a crime;

(18) For sales records pertaining to materials commonly used to manufacture illegal drugs or weapons;

(19) For motel records showing that the suspect was staying in the area at the time of the crime;

(20) For VISA, Mastercard or other credit card records showing purchases of materials used to commit or cover up a crime;

(21) For a private club's employees to bring books, records and invoices pertaining to a gambling investigation;104

(22) For a library to supply a list of patrons who have checked out a book about bomb-making in a bombing case, or witchcraft in an animal mutilation case.105
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #930 on: November 02, 2011, 11:09:21 PM »

"c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers.   I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,"

"In investigations of sexual assault, a subpeona for non-testimonial evidence can require a medical exam of a suspect to confirm notable physical characteristics, or to gather evidence of the assault."

I was wondering how he would be aroused for the exam , , , and who would do it, , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #931 on: November 02, 2011, 11:22:42 PM »

Depending on the applicable state statute, either an MD or Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, and it's my understanding that Clinton has a disorder that involves calcium deposits that result in the curvature that are present no matter the state of the organ's blood flow.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #932 on: November 03, 2011, 04:51:17 AM »

A)  The point of the article I posted was first was that the woman was willing to and trying to put her name to it.
B) An abuse of power is an abuse of power.  Some have more power, Guro, like the use of a state's police force, but coercion, blackmail, abuse of position, or whatever, is still an abuse.
C) So, dropping trou is the only way to be sexual explotive, abusive, or ....Huh?
D) There are now three women making an accusation.  My point about Clinton and Jones is that some point there MAY be a pattern emerging.  You'll forgive me, I hope, if I want the GOP frontrunner to be vetted.  Maybe we can prevent Clinton 2.0 from taking the Oval Office.
E) I don't understand this point. 

I am not saying that the media aren't biased.  I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three.  I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there.  And, when you run for the POTUS, you should expect that stories like these will break.  Why?  Because they do.  It is 24/7 media driven cycle.  And, I would like to note that Cain blames Perry (http://news.yahoo.com/struggling-cain-accuses-perry-harassment-case-022511386.html).  It is also true that presidential candidates work to discredit, miscredit, or downright blame/attack their opponents.

Good reminders of media bias, but pertaining more to the Media thread.

BTW BD in the Paula Jones case:

a) SHE PUT HER NAME TO IT.
b) Her allegation was that she was summoned to the Governor's presence by a State Trooper
c) and that Slick Willie dropped his drawers.   I gather that she also gave some specifics about the appearance of Clinton's penis (that it curved when erect) though one wonders how verifying evidence would be obtained , , ,
d) Clinton had quite the rep as the ladies man
e) Clinton was married to Hillary

Quite a contrast here!





Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #933 on: November 03, 2011, 07:16:00 AM »

"I am not saying that the media aren't biased.  I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three.  I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there.  And, when you run for the POTUS as a REPUBLICAN, you should expect that stories like these will break."

I think that when it's discovered that he attended a racist church for 20 years, got his house from a shady deal with a convicted felon and had his political career started by an unrepentant terrorist, he's done, right?


 rolleyes
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #934 on: November 03, 2011, 08:14:34 AM »

"I am not saying that the media aren't biased.  I am not saying that there might not be a copy cat effect going on with number three.  I am saying that at some point you have to recognize that there is a possibility that there is something there.  And, when you run for the POTUS as a REPUBLICAN, you should expect that stories like these will break."

I think that when it's discovered that he attended a racist church for 20 years, got his house from a shady deal with a convicted felon and had his political career started by an unrepentant terrorist, he's done, right?


 rolleyes

So, you misquoted me to make a point.  Cool.  Let's get this straight, again.  I did not vote for Obama.  I won't be voting for Obama.  What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog.  They are in this case.

Sex sells, GM.  It is not as if the media turned a blind eye to the Weiner wiener scandal.  It isn't Dem. v. Rep on this front.  It isn't.  And after all the conservative talk about Clinton and Weiner and etc., I am rather frustrated that this issue is seen as a media slant.  Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of.  I would think that his supporters, or those who want the best possible conservative in office, would want the truth to come out.  And, if he emerges from this then he is really battle tested, and likely a stronger candidate for it. 

You guys talk about immorality in the Oval Office all the damn time.  Do you REALLY want to know the truth, or does your fondness for Cain cloud your willingness to learn that he might be less moral than he appears?Huh
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #935 on: November 03, 2011, 08:27:41 AM »

"What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog.  They are in this case."

Pretty selective in their watch-doggery, ain't they?

"Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of. "

And those would be?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #936 on: November 03, 2011, 08:46:06 AM »

"What I am asking for is the media to actually be a watchdog.  They are in this case."

Pretty selective in their watch-doggery, ain't they?

Good dodge.  And it answers my question your level of concern about the GOP candidates.  Morality is optional with you, as long as they are REAL conservatives.

"Cain MIGHT have done the things he is accused of. "

And those would be?

You've read the stories, GM.  Don't play dumb.  You're better than that.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #937 on: November 03, 2011, 09:00:07 AM »

Good dodge.  And it answers my question your level of concern about the GOP candidates.  Morality is optional with you, as long as they are REAL conservatives.

Sounds like you are projecting. You are concerned about morality, as long as they are REAL conservatives.

I've read the Journolist-ism "sources say something might have happened". Did he make a reference to a Seinfeld episode?  shocked
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #938 on: November 03, 2011, 09:15:32 AM »

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=87+Va.+L.+Rev.+381&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=925e6c09fd5020fffb9aaf3cfd3ee8a3

JEROLD Mackenzie had been an employee of Miller Brewing Company for nineteen years when he was accused of sexual harassment by Patricia Best, a co-worker. Best complained that Mackenzie had made her feel terribly uncomfortable when he described a portion of the previous night's episode of the television series Seinfeld to her. 1 As a result of his behavior, Mackenzie was discharged. 2 He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit and was awarded $ 26.6 million by a jury in July of 1997. 3

 The "Seinfeld case" is a good example of how employees accused of sexual harassment sometimes experience particularly harsh discipline, 4 but it does not represent the outcome of most lawsuits by alleged harassers against their employers. In fact, accused harassers are rarely successful in such actions, 5 and the judgment of the court in the "Seinfeld case" was reversed on appeal. 6 While more alleged harassers prevail today than ever before, 7 most courts still tend to favor employers who are zealously attempting to rid their workplaces of sexual harassment. 8
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #939 on: November 03, 2011, 11:01:56 AM »

(hot topic - 'while you were typing 10 new replies were posted')

A close, trusted, mostly non-political friend told me last evening that he paid 20,000 to settle a harassment case against an employee similar to what is known about Cain's case, except that genders were reversed, and that he had no belief whatsoever that the claim was true.  Total BS in his opinion, yet paid.  I share that only as one anecdotal piece of evidence that money paid does not mean the one paying believes something happened.  The business owner is confronted with a menu of costs to choose from: the cost to settle, the cost to go to trial even if you win, or the cost of losing whether your employee is really innocent or guilty.  You make a business decision and choose one of these payments.  It is a very ugly part of doing business in our litigious society. (This also belongs in one of threads to explain one big reason why no one wants to hire anyone anymore.)

My first reaction to this is something like what BD said  We want candidates vetted now so we aren't blindsided during the general election or during the Presidency.  If this guy has or had a problem, more will come out.  But if we pay a $40,000 per person (26 mil in GM's example) to say you felt uncomfortable, what have we learned, about whom?  At this point we didn't find a third victim, we found a third accuser right while the accusing was getting good.  

From the side of the accuser with the settlement, she was faced with the CHOICE of taking a large sum or pursuing a public court record to try to make sure this uncomfortable experience with this executive never happens to anyone else ever again.  She chose the money.  Now it seems she wants a do-over as it looks like there is far more money on the table now.

How much did Anita Hill make on her book and her speaking fees? Was she telling the truth?  Was the money commensurate with her wounds?  She followed him to the next job!

Regarding the third anonymous accuser, whatever happened to statute of limitations and a right to a speedy trial.  

If the the accusers' stories were true about Bill Clinton in 3 cases, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick, the behavior I believe involved criminal sexual conduct, not harassment.  At least 2 of those were Democrats NOT trying to derail his candidacy; the other was 'trailer trash'.  Later he lied under oath and was dis-barred.  Still he is the rock star of the party and the most loved politician of all Democrats, and still loved by feminists and the media.  There IS a double standard, but that is only useful information to a Republican candidate if you are guilty. Herman Cain for sure has a sense of humor.  If (hypothetically) as a 100% faithful and loving husband, his joking or humor had in fact included flirtation and innuendo on more then one occasion, is he still Presidential material?

What I hate most is the diversion at this critical moment away from issues.  No one seems to know what to do with this incomplete information but it has completely absorbed the news cycle.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #940 on: November 03, 2011, 11:06:27 AM »

I think the guns Cain gave to the Mexican drug cartels is a bigger scandal. Why isn't CNN covering that?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #941 on: November 03, 2011, 11:07:57 AM »

BD:

I'm all for vetting across the spectrum.   What I am NOT for is unsourced reports of anonymous accusations.  

Clinton's serial philandering (which included groping a woman in the WH when she came to beg for her husband's job -- no doubt GM will remember the names and facts  cheesy ) was given a pass by the MSM.   The MSM gleefully particpated in cruel politics of personal destruction (e.g. repeating and spreading Carville's description of "trailer park trash", mocking the woman's nose, her use of make up, etc) where, as I noted, she was brought to the governor by a trooper and the governor dropped his pants.  She put her name to the accusations! and offered supporting details  -- his curved penis.  

Here there is a firestorm over unsourced reports of anonymous accusations of alleged events (none of which involved state troopers, dropping pants, or any other such thing) some 15 years ago.

I don't think GM is playing dumb here.  I think, like me, he is saying that essentially nothing is known of the accusations or the accusers.  In that an agreement was signed to STFU and go away, that is the way it should be.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #942 on: November 03, 2011, 12:17:09 PM »


http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/dan-rather-has-documents/

Dan Rather has documents

Posted by William A. Jacobson   Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 9:20am

which prove that George W. Bush lied about his military service.
 
History No. 1:  Dan cannot let you see the documents which he obtained from an anonymous source he cannot reveal.  But the documents, in Dan’s estimation, reflect “inappropriate” conduct the exact nature of which cannot be disclosed.  You can trust Dan. George W. Bush must drop out of the presidential race.
 
History No. 2:  Dan lets you see the documents and identifies the source.  The documents and the accuser are subjected to vigorous scrutiny by guys in pajamas sitting in their parents’ basements.  George W. Bush is elected President.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #943 on: November 03, 2011, 12:35:50 PM »

This would be better in Media Matters.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #944 on: November 03, 2011, 07:08:28 PM »


http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/45561

That was then. This is N.O.W.
November 3, 2011 by Don Surber
 


I am going to keep this simple. What was said by National Organization President Patricia Ireland about Paula Jones on April 2, 1998, and what NOW is saying now about Herman Cain.
 
From April 2, 1998:
 


Judge Susan Webber Wright’s ruling dismissing Paula Jones’ complaint against Bill Clinton certainly gives lie to the right-wing charge that anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. And it shoots down the tired complaint that a man can’t even compliment a woman at work anymore.
 
Jones alleges that Clinton ran his hand up her thigh, exposed himself to her, asked for oral sex and pointedly reminded her of his friendship with her immediate boss. No woman should have to put up with such behavior at work. But according to the judge, even if then-Governor Bill Clinton propositioned and pawed then-state employee Paula Jones — certainly misconduct for any employer or supervisor, Jones does not have a valid harassment claim because she could not prove that the overall result was a hostile work environment.
 
This ruling does not mean it’s open season on women in the workforce.
 
Women who face unwelcome sexual behavior at work can still win in court if the harassment is so pervasive or so severe that it interferes with their jobs. When it does, lewd bosses and crude co-workers can and will be held accountable.
 
From Erin Matson, NOW Action Vice President on Monday:
 
Revelations that presidential candidate Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment while heading the National Restaurant Association, as well as suggestions that financial settlements bought silence, are deeply troubling.
 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. Unfortunately that has not stopped the widespread practice of unwelcome sexual advances, innuendos and jokes in the workplace being leveraged by men against women.
 
Last night, Mr. Cain’s campaign responded to news reports of the allegations with a statement that the press were “Spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts.” And yet this morning, Mr. Cain acknowledged that he was accused of sexual harassment while he was at the National Restaurant Association.
 
Setting the Cain campaign’s utter disregard for the facts aside, it’s outrageous for anyone to suggest that sexual harassment allegations represent political smears to be dismissed rather than the bravery and dignity of women simply trying to go to work.
 
This morning, Mr. Cain made a statement saying: “Yes, I do have a sense of humor. Some people have a problem with that. Herman is going to stay Herman. Thank you very much.” Feminists will continue to closely follow this story with the seriousness it deserves.
 
From Wikipedia: “On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal.”
 
This case that NOW kissed off as dismissed was settled for every dime she demanded 6 months later.
 
According to press accounts, Herman Cain’s accuser received $35,000 — 4 cents for every $1 Miss Jones received.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5929


« Reply #945 on: November 04, 2011, 12:10:45 PM »

Separate from the debating skills problem and attacking fellow Republicans over the wrong issues, I agree strongly with these points of the Perry agenda.

PERRY: When I am president …

By Gov. Rick Perry

The Washington Times

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Washington is broken and must be completely overhauled to get America working again.

The tinkering technocrats think Washington can be fixed with a pair of tweezers. I, on the other hand, think it will require a president with the courage to take a sledgehammer to the three pillars of big government: overspending, overtaxation and overregulation.

Upon taking the oath of office, I will take immediate executive action to begin dismantling the Washington establishment so we can rebuild the American economy from the foundation up.

First, I will issue an executive order prohibiting the Department of Health and Human Services from any further implementation of Obamacare until we can fully repeal this unconstitutional government mandate, which, if it stands, will diminish our health care and kill jobs.

Second, I will order federal agencies to begin opening American energy fields for exploration and development, which will kick-start economic growth, reduce our dependence on energy from hostile foreign sources and eventually create 1.2 million jobs across every sector of the economy. I also will work with Congress to ensure that new revenue generated from energy production on federal lands is used to pay down the national debt.

Third, I will impose an immediate moratorium on all pending federal regulations, during which government agencies must audit every measure passed since 2008 to determine its necessity and impact on job creation. Those measures that kill jobs will be repealed.

And fourth, I will deploy thousands of National Guard personnel to secure our southern border until we can provide the permanent increase in manpower, technology and fencing needed to protect the American homeland in the long run. If I am elected, Washington will no longer abdicate its constitutional responsibility to secure the border or force states to fend for themselves.

In addition to exercising executive authority during the first 100 days of my presidency, I also will lay out a sweeping legislative agenda that will fundamentally change the way Washington works.

My Cut, Balance and Grow plan will jolt our economy back to life by cutting taxes and spending, balancing the budget by 2020 and growing private-sector jobs.

With a 20 percent flat tax that will enable Americans to file their tax returns on a postcard, we will end the Internal Revenue Service as we know it.

My-flat tax proposal will derail the gravy train of lobbyists and lawyers feeding at the government trough by eliminating the loopholes and carve-outs that the biggest companies with the most lobbyists exploit to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. My plan not only will level the playing field for small businesses, it will cut the corporate tax to make American employers of all sizes more competitive in the global marketplace and encourage job growth at home.

My plan also will force government to live within its means by cutting billions of dollars from discretionary spending, capping spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product and putting Congress on track to balance the budget by 2020.

Despite all the promises of reform, earmarks remain a congressional addiction. My plan will make Congress kick the habit cold turkey. Throughout my presidency, I will veto any budget that contains earmarks. The same goes for bailouts.

I am confident we can make progress on all of these reforms in the first 100 days. But ultimately, the status quo will never change until voters take back Washington.

As the federal government grows and grows, the ruling elites in Washington are insulated from the economic mess they created. Consider just two examples: While home prices have continued to slump in virtually every other region of the country over the past year, Washington bureaucrats have seen their homes increase in value, thanks in part to a surge in government spending.

And according to a Bloomberg analysis, Washington is now America’s richest metropolitan area on a per capita basis, surpassing even Silicon Valley. While millions of Americans have lost jobs since 2009, the average federal worker in our nation’s capital has seen his pay increase to more than $126,000 per year, including benefits.

This is simply obscene. As president, I will fight for an across-the-board pay freeze for Congress and all federal employees, excluding the military and public-safety workers, until the budget gets balanced.

There is a massive reality gap between the American people and the ruling elites in Washington. Our next president must have the courage to close it.

America cannot afford four more years of a president who continues on the course to economic ruin or a Republican alternative who simply tinkers with the status quo while the Washington establishment brazenly continues its spendthrift ways.

If I am elected, I will take a wrecking ball to the Washington establishment so we can get America working again.

Gov. Rick Perry is a Texas Republican and candidate for president.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #946 on: November 04, 2011, 03:12:01 PM »



By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney waded into the hot-button issue of Medicare, proposing to offer future seniors a choice between the current fee-for-service health plan or a voucher to purchase health insurance plans offered by private insurance companies.

 
The proposal, offered to conservative activists Friday afternoon, would be similar to one proposed by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin earlier this year, but with one big difference. Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, said he would keep the current system as an option, while Mr. Ryan and House Republicans voted to drop traditional Medicare altogether, except for those now 55 and older.

Still, the overall impact of the Romney and Ryan plans might not be that different over time. Under Mr. Romney's proposal, if competition from private plans drove down the cost of those options, premiums would rise on the traditional fee-for-service option, coaxing seniors away from the government-run plan, the Romney campaign said.

"These ideas will give tomorrow's seniors the same kinds of choices that most Americans have in their health care today. The future of Medicare should be marked by competition, choice, and innovation—rather than bureaucracy, stagnation, and bankruptcy," Mr. Romney said.

The Romney Medicare plan could become a hallmark of the 2012 presidential campaign should he win the Republican nomination. Democrats had already planned to make the Ryan plan a centerpiece of their efforts to unseat Republicans in Congress. Now, Mr. Romney has thrust Medicare privatization into the presidential race.

Mr. Romney did not say how much money he believes his proposal would save the government. He cautioned that he would make no changes to the system for current Medicare beneficiaries or those approaching retirement, meaning that any savings from his plan would be slow in coming.

But by turning the federal role in seniors' health care into a voucher – or "premium support – Mr. Romney would give the government considerably more latitude to lower its costs. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Ryan plan suggested that a voucher system would shift costs from the taxpayers to seniors, as the rising cost of health care outstrips the value of the voucher.

The Romney campaign, however, is putting its faith in the ability of a competitive market place to maintain health-care quality at lower costs and greater efficiency. He said the private plans would be required to offer coverage at least as good as Medicare's. Seniors could choose more generous plans but would have to pay more out of pocket. Seniors who choose less expensive plans would be able to keep leftover cash from their vouchers to pay other medical expenses such as co-payments and deductibles.

Ironically, the plan Mr. Romney laid out parallels President Barack Obama's health-care law, which the former governor has vowed to repeal. In both cases, taxpayers would subsidize the purchase of private health plans, with larger subsidies going to poorer consumers.

A campaign fact sheet stated that Mr. Romney's "goal is for Medicare to offer every senior affordable options that provide coverage and service at least as good as what today's seniors receive. Lower income seniors in the future will receive the most generous benefits to ensure that they are able to get care every bit as good as that provided in the current Medicare program."

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31214


« Reply #947 on: November 04, 2011, 03:27:57 PM »

The Left’s Racist Witch Hunt
Posted By Ann Coulter On November 4, 2011

By spending the last three decades leveling accusations of “racism” every 10 seconds, liberals have made it virtually impossible for Americans to recognize real racism — for example, the racism constantly spewed at black conservatives.
In the last year alone, a short list of the things liberals have labeled “racist” include:
– Being a Republican;
– Joining the tea party;
– The word “the” (Donald Trump’s statement that he has a “great relationship with the blacks”);
– References to Barack Obama’s playing basketball (Trump again);
– Using Obama’s middle name;
– Scott Brown’s pickup truck;
– Opposing Obamacare;
– Opposing Obama’s stimulus bill;
– Opposing Obama’s jobs bill.
The surge in conservative support for Herman Cain confuses the Democrats’ story line, which is that Republicans hate Obama because he’s black.
Cain is twice as black as Obama. (Possible Obama campaign slogan: “Too Black!”)
This is why the liberal website Politico ran with a story on Cain that had everything — a powerful black man, a Republican presidential candidate, the hint of sexuality — except facts.
All we learned was: About a decade ago, as many as two anonymous women accused Cain of making unspecified “inappropriate” remarks and one “inappropriate” gesture in the workplace. (We had more than that on John Edwards’ mistress a year into the media’s refusal to report that story.)
If the details helped liberals, we’d have the details.
To have been accused of sexual harassment in the 1990s is like having been accused of molesting children at preschools in the 1980s or accused of being a witch in Massachusetts in the 1690s.
In the 1990s, one plaintiff won a $50 million jury verdict against Wal-Mart on the grounds that a “hostile environment” was created by her supervisor’s yelling at both male and female employees. In another case, a plaintiff won a $250,000 award for sexual harassment based on her complaint that a male colleague had reached for a pastry saying, “Nothing I like more in the morning than sticky buns,” while “wriggl(ing)” his eyebrows.
It got so crazy that a 6-year-old boy was suspended from class for a day for kissing a classmate on the cheek, and a Goya painting had to be removed from a Penn State classroom because a professor complained that it constituted sexual harassment.
With no standard other than the subjective offense taken by the accuser, absolutely anyone could be called a witch, i.e., a sexual harasser. So it’s striking that the only two conservative public figures accused of being witches both happened to be conservative blacks: Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain.
Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.
The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia “a brilliant and compelling extremist” — while dismissing Thomas as “Scalia’s puppet.”
More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia “one smart guy.” In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court,” adding, “I think that his opinions are poorly written.”
When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: “Who’s that black woman always standing with George Bush?” Never mind! He’s probably arresting her.
In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.
Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice “doesn’t bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position.” (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel — who ran Walter Mondale’s 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states — said of Rice, “I don’t think she’s up to the job.”
When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report — something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.
Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of “racism” with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting.
It’s a neat trick, rather as if the Nazis had called everything “genocide” right before launching the Holocaust, and then admonished resisters not to “play the genocide card.”
Liberals step on black conservatives early and often because they can’t have black children thinking, “Hmmm, the Republicans have some good ideas; maybe I’m a Republican.”
The basic setup is:
Step 1: Spend 30 years telling blacks that Republicans are racist and viciously attacking all black Republicans.
Step 2: Laugh maliciously at Republicans for not having more blacks in their party.
It is beyond insane that Herman Cain would have considered running for president if he had the tiniest skeleton in his closet. To be an out-of-the-closet black Republican, you had better be a combination rocket scientist/Baptist preacher. Which, as it happens, Cain is.
Meanwhile, MSNBC is cutting into its prime-time programming to announce updates in the fact-free hit on Cain. That’s not because anyone there thinks he’ll be the nominee. Everyone knows it’s going to be Mitt Romney.
But liberals are determined to make sure that, six months from now, everyone has forgotten Herman Cain so they can go back to claiming Republicans oppose Obama because they hate blacks.
Logged
Cranewings
Guest
« Reply #948 on: November 05, 2011, 02:52:58 PM »

So, do you guys still think Herman Cain is serious?

9/9/9 plan from Sim City: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/herman-cain-999-plan-simcity_n_1011933.html

Herman Cain quotes Pokemon as a great poet: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/herman-cain-pok-mon

How ironic, he settled on 9/99: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67627.html

Herman Cain sings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/herman-cain-sings-national-press-club_n_1067783.html

Really? At least we know who needs the tax breaks... his brothers from another mother: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/herman-cain-i-koch-brothers-brother-mother-article-1.972623

He did take a month off to tour his book when he first took the lead in the polls. Is he begging to get knocked down? This whole thing seems like a joke.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12033


« Reply #949 on: November 05, 2011, 03:08:36 PM »




So, do you guys still think Herman Cain is serious?

9/9/9 plan from Sim City: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/herman-cain-999-plan-simcity_n_1011933.html


Do you think Huffpo is serious? I'd be willing to bet Cain had never even heard of Sim City before. He's not exactly in a videogame playing demographic group. I wish the current president didn't get his taxation plan from Karl Marx......
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!