This could be really bad for Cain.

If the corporations are more on the ball about sexual harassment, it would keep it from happening in the first place. It would only go to the level of HR within the company.

Let's see, two of them that I am aware of were given settlements and haven't come forward publicly, so I don't see how they are dragging him through the mud.

One other has come forward to make allegations but never reported it originally.

The Cain campaign still calls the first two "anonymous allegations" regarding the first two -- even though they had court settlements and Cain knows who they are. His defense is, "for each one there are literally hundreds who weren't harassed." Great defense.

"So, yeah, I killed these two people but look at the hundreds I didn't kill."

I'm inclined to let the third one go since it's a she said/he said. In that case, I would have just said, it didn't happen and I have no idea why she's making these accusations. I might bring up witnesses from the time to back up my claim I didn't do it. I wouldn't set up a website devoted to smearing the accusers entire adult life. Of course, the hotel upgrade to a palatial suite might be investigated, if there are still records going back then. 'd dig those up if I were Cain to prove it didn't happened.

If I had never sexually harassed anyone I wouldn't send my lawyer out to make veiled threats against any future accusers. It almost sounds as if he knows there are more victims out there.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Arlen wrote: That is a lot of assumption and "perhaps". The fact is there is only one source of accusers.
The accusers are dragging Cain "through the mud". Why is self defense against false accusations viewed as "dragging the accuser through the mud"?

Because he's an conservative. When liberal do it... it's ok...

On Sept. 20, 2010, right after Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell became the GOP’s U.S. senatorial nominee in Delaware, a political watchdog group filed two ethics complaints against her. Miss O'Donnell subsequently was dragged through the mud by the liberal press for weeks before the election, accompanied by red-hot rhetoric such as this from Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which filed the complaints:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... isan-crew/

Come on... you know how the game is played.

I was merely trying to get the hyperbole toned down a bit concerning this topic. Hyperbole contributes nothing to determining the facts but is only used to emphasize a prejudiced point of view.

I agree with you there. Another debate tonight, I think. Should be interesting.

Conservation Voice wrote: If the corporations are more on the ball about sexual harassment, it would keep it from happening in the first place. It would only go to the level of HR within the company.

Let's see, two of them that I am aware of were given settlements and haven't come forward publicly, so I don't see how they are dragging him through the mud.

One other has come forward to make allegations but never reported it originally.

The Cain campaign still calls the first two "anonymous allegations" regarding the first two -- even though they had court settlements and Cain knows who they are. His defense is, "for each one there are literally hundreds who weren't harassed." Great defense.

"So, yeah, I killed these two people but look at the hundreds I didn't kill."

I'm inclined to let the third one go since it's a she said/he said. In that case, I would have just said, it didn't happen and I have no idea why she's making these accusations. I might bring up witnesses from the time to back up my claim I didn't do it. I wouldn't set up a website devoted to smearing the accusers entire adult life. Of course, the hotel upgrade to a palatial suite might be investigated, if there are still records going back then. 'd dig those up if I were Cain to prove it didn't happened.

If I had never sexually harassed anyone I wouldn't send my lawyer out to make veiled threats against any future accusers. It almost sounds as if he knows there are more victims out there.

The gist of these arguments totally ignore the fact that all of the accusations come from one company or source. Until it can be shown that Herman Cain's behavioral pattern includes preying on women then he must be given the benefit of the doubt.

Until these accusations can be shown to be a beharioral pattern in Cain's career, then the accusers must be suspect. The only evidence that would be better is "film at 11pm".

Conservation Voice wrote: I agree with you there. Another debate tonight, I think. Should be interesting.

Another campaign commercial for Obama...

LadyJazzer wrote:

Conservation Voice wrote: I agree with you there. Another debate tonight, I think. Should be interesting.

Another campaign commercial for Obama...

Remember when this thing broke, Cain said he had no recollection of the settlements and then, over a period of days, it slowly came back to him?

On Fox, Neil Cavuto had to contend with Cain’s claim that there is some big, nebulous conspiracy out there to take him down, “but we don’t have any facts so I’m not gonna accuse anybody.” (even though they previously accused both Perry and the "Democratic Machine")

Then there was his latest confusing “explanation” of the sexual harassment scandal.

Cain told Cavuto that he and his campaign were prepared for the sexual harassment scandal. “We did opposition research on myself… I told them about this Restaurant Association incident,” Cain said.

Uh. Which is it? Cain told his staff about the Restaurant Association incident when he started his campaign or he didn't remember anything about it during his campaign?

Here is my thinking on this:
Cain did not expect to be blindsided by a reporter. He expected a more general, indirect broaching of the subject which would be answered by his team. (His response caused me quite a bit of unease.) He had not been rehearsed in a response. If they did opposition research on Cain, then they did not follow up with the results. I imagine that Cain's assurance to his staff about the "non-issue" caused them to think that it could be handled with ease. Mistake! Cain's campaign staff is composed of people who are not as driven as Cain.

They were living with a baby porcupine in the house. It grew up!

We know that Cain is a sexual predator because he wears double-breasted suits...

The frontrunner’s double-breasted suits are sending the wrong message as he goes on the offensive against allegations of sexual harassment.

What he has not done is make any evident attempt to consistently telegraph trustworthy, innocent, presidential or future-well-paid-pundit as cameras scrutinize his every glance and gesture.

But now, when it’s alleged that Cain wielded his executive power in a sexual and inappropriate way, that in-your-face, sartorial swagger reads in damning ways.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ssage.html

You can spot them a mile away.

Herman Cain tells the Republicans what they want to hear about blacks, and in turn, they embrace him and say, see, that proves we aren't racist. He's even willing to be a minstrel for them.