Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote:Doesn't matter whether or not it's a big deal to you, it does to those who are on the fence or just don't like him to begin with. Just as the Lewinsky issue wasn't a big deal to HIS supporters but was to those who hated him already.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

True but what you and all to many political samurai fail to note is one is a married guy getting a blowjob in his office from an employee while the other is a guy making some kind of hand gesture that someone felt uncomfortable with. Do I really need to point out the difference?

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:Doesn't matter whether or not it's a big deal to you, it does to those who are on the fence or just don't like him to begin with. Just as the Lewinsky issue wasn't a big deal to HIS supporters but was to those who hated him already.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

True but what you and all to many political samurai fail to note is one is a married guy getting a blowjob in his office from an employee while the other is a guy making some kind of hand gesture that someone felt uncomfortable with. Do I really need to point out the difference?

You were there? In Cain's office when the incidents happened? If not, you're just giving him the benefit of the doubt because you're biased. According to at least one of the women's attorneys, Cain's lying about the superficiality of it.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:Doesn't matter whether or not it's a big deal to you, it does to those who are on the fence or just don't like him to begin with. Just as the Lewinsky issue wasn't a big deal to HIS supporters but was to those who hated him already.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

True but what you and all to many political samurai fail to note is one is a married guy getting a blowjob in his office from an employee while the other is a guy making some kind of hand gesture that someone felt uncomfortable with. Do I really need to point out the difference?

You were there? In Cain's office when the incidents happened? If not, you're just giving him the benefit of the doubt because you're biased. According to at least one of the women's attorneys, Cain's lying about the superficiality of it.

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt because that is what we do not because I am biased. I always assume someone is innocent. I didn't know it was a fault.

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:Doesn't matter whether or not it's a big deal to you, it does to those who are on the fence or just don't like him to begin with. Just as the Lewinsky issue wasn't a big deal to HIS supporters but was to those who hated him already.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

True but what you and all to many political samurai fail to note is one is a married guy getting a blowjob in his office from an employee while the other is a guy making some kind of hand gesture that someone felt uncomfortable with. Do I really need to point out the difference?

You were there? In Cain's office when the incidents happened? If not, you're just giving him the benefit of the doubt because you're biased. According to at least one of the women's attorneys, Cain's lying about the superficiality of it.

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt because that is what we do not because I am biased. I always assume someone is innocent. I didn't know it was a fault.

Giving someone you have expressed admiration for the benefit of the doubt when there are two sides with differing versions is actually a pretty good example of being biased.

I never said it was a failing in character, it's just that you're biased in believing him in the face of conflicting versions coming from his lips and warning signs that his version is inaccurate. You like him, you want to believe him. Nothing wrong with that. I think there's too many warning flags going off through the conflicting stories he's told and the new reports that he's playing down what happened to the point of actually lying to do so...of course, I'm not a fan of his to begin with due to his politics and am biased against him. Nothing wrong with that either. That's politics.

Well, apparently there was a confidentiality agreement in place between Cain and at least one of the women, and her lawyer is alleging he has broken it in his statements, so it may all come out:

Attorney Joel Bennett told CBS’s "The Early Show" on Wednesday that his client hasn’t spoken publicly because of the confidentiality agreement, but that Cain’s comments might have cleared a path.

“There was more than one incident that my client received sexual harassment,” Bennett said. “She would like to speak out for the record, only because Mr. Cain has stated that he didn’t sexually harass anyone, that there wasn’t any substance to the allegations, and basically made it look like she was some type of frivolous claimant looking for money.”

According to Bennett, one of the stipulations of the confidentiality agreement was that neither party could make disparaging remarks about the other. Bennett said Cain violated that agreement on Fox News on Monday when he said that he had been told that the accuser’s performance in the workplace “was not up to par.”

Also, it appears as if Politico (who I guess broke the story), gave the Cain campaign almost 2 weeks notice regarding the story, which doesn't say much for their preparation:

But for insiders — donors, Republican strategists and others among the political establishment — the episode could raise further doubts about Cain as well as concerns about the wherewithal of his seat-of-its-pants campaign operation.

According to Politico, campaign operatives knew the article was coming for 10 days. And yet in its initial statement — which was widely circulated — the campaign did not deny the harassment allegations. That was left, many hours later, to Cain.

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:Yup. I don't recall that Clinton was a Baptist minister running on a moral rectitude platform and fond of breaking into Gospel Hymns at campaign events.

But the troubling thing is that Cain's immediate response to the eruption was to lie about it, then retreat to a series of subsequent lies as each collapsed.

I must have missed the lie part. Please point it out.

He changed his story several times, so obviously so that several different video compilations are going around.

If I were a Cain supporter, I'd be concerned about how poorly he handles a scandal. Nothing fully incriminating has even come out, but already he's jumping to the Nixonian "My enemies are out to get me!" It's way more Palin than Reagan, and it indicates a serious Teflon deficiency.

So what is the holdup? I don't want to hear how they may now disclose what she says. Just spit it out already. The fact that they haven't and continue you get every bit of publicity they can without doing so makes me think it is nothing.

At least it sounds like we will soon find out who is wrong.

Pyperkub wrote:Well, apparently there was a confidentiality agreement in place between Cain and at least one of the women, and her lawyer is alleging he has broken it in his statements, so it may all come out:

Attorney Joel Bennett told CBS’s "The Early Show" on Wednesday that his client hasn’t spoken publicly because of the confidentiality agreement, but that Cain’s comments might have cleared a path.

“There was more than one incident that my client received sexual harassment,” Bennett said. “She would like to speak out for the record, only because Mr. Cain has stated that he didn’t sexually harass anyone, that there wasn’t any substance to the allegations, and basically made it look like she was some type of frivolous claimant looking for money.”

According to Bennett, one of the stipulations of the confidentiality agreement was that neither party could make disparaging remarks about the other. Bennett said Cain violated that agreement on Fox News on Monday when he said that he had been told that the accuser’s performance in the workplace “was not up to par.”

Also, it appears as if Politico (who I guess broke the story), gave the Cain campaign almost 2 weeks notice regarding the story, which doesn't say much for their preparation:

But for insiders — donors, Republican strategists and others among the political establishment — the episode could raise further doubts about Cain as well as concerns about the wherewithal of his seat-of-its-pants campaign operation.

According to Politico, campaign operatives knew the article was coming for 10 days. And yet in its initial statement — which was widely circulated — the campaign did not deny the harassment allegations. That was left, many hours later, to Cain.

My guess would be that it will ultimately boil down to some fairly simple math: whatever the highest bidders are willing to pay for an interview with the alleged victim(s), minus the cost for them to violate the confidentiality agreement(s).

I have to admit I don't take Cain very seriously. He strikes me as superficial, crowd-pleasing, empty-applause-line uttering. He seems unable to talk about rights coherently. He may or may not have grave deficits in basic knowledge of international affairs (see, e.g., China attempting to develop nukes).

But as to the substance of the sex harassment allegations I suspend judgment. Allegations, both true and false, are made all the time. Claims are settled all the time as a business decision without regard to whether they are true. The fact that the allegations were made doesn't make them true.

However, the Cain team response has been bumbling. This concerns me as it is further proof that Cain is not capable of surrounding himself with capable people, which is absolutely necessary to competent leadership.

There were allegedly witnesses:

Oklahoma political consultant Chris Wilson says if the woman behind the reported sexual harassment complaint against GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain is allowed to speak publicly, it'll be the end of Cain's run for the White House.

Interviewed today on KTOK's Mullins in the Morning, Wilson, of Wilson-Perkins-Allen Opinion Research headquartered in Washington, D.C. explained he was a witness to the incident. "I was the pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Herman Cain was head of it and I was around a couple of times when this happened and anyone who was involved with the NRA at the time, knew that this was gonna come up."

Rip wrote:So what is the holdup? I don't want to hear how they may now disclose what she says. Just spit it out already. The fact that they haven't and continue you get every bit of publicity they can without doing so makes me think it is nothing.

Or...you know...the women (plural) are legally unable to because of that little clause in the settlement preventing them from doing so, as has been mentioned repeatedly.

But yeah, I'm hoping it comes out now. Dude's changed his story so many times at this point he's got me seriously curious.

Pyperkub wrote:There were allegedly witnesses:

Oklahoma political consultant Chris Wilson says if the woman behind the reported sexual harassment complaint against GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain is allowed to speak publicly, it'll be the end of Cain's run for the White House.

Interviewed today on KTOK's Mullins in the Morning, Wilson, of Wilson-Perkins-Allen Opinion Research headquartered in Washington, D.C. explained he was a witness to the incident. "I was the pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Herman Cain was head of it and I was around a couple of times when this happened and anyone who was involved with the NRA at the time, knew that this was gonna come up."

What came up? Are the witnesses under some confidentiality agreement? Why is it covered as it with an assumption it is some mega bad thing? Why doesn't this Wilson guy just spit out whatever it is?

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:So what is the holdup? I don't want to hear how they may now disclose what she says. Just spit it out already. The fact that they haven't and continue you get every bit of publicity they can without doing so makes me think it is nothing.

Or...you know...the women (plural) are legally unable to because of that little clause in the settlement preventing them from doing so, as has been mentioned repeatedly.

But yeah, I'm hoping it comes out now. Dude's changed his story so many times at this point he's got me seriously curious.

Well if there are apparently all these witnesses what keeps them from talking. Assuming they are no friends of Cain I would expect them to do whatever damages Cain the most. Apparently that is not saying what it is. If it were major just the opposite would be true and we would already know more details about it.

Rip wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:There were allegedly witnesses:

Oklahoma political consultant Chris Wilson says if the woman behind the reported sexual harassment complaint against GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain is allowed to speak publicly, it'll be the end of Cain's run for the White House.

Interviewed today on KTOK's Mullins in the Morning, Wilson, of Wilson-Perkins-Allen Opinion Research headquartered in Washington, D.C. explained he was a witness to the incident. "I was the pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Herman Cain was head of it and I was around a couple of times when this happened and anyone who was involved with the NRA at the time, knew that this was gonna come up."

What came up? Are the witnesses under some confidentiality agreement? Why is it covered as it with an assumption it is some mega bad thing? Why doesn't this Wilson guy just spit out whatever it is?

Ohh and Wilson is more than just a political consultant. He is a former Cain consultant who now works for Perry, but I am sure he isn't being biased like me. Or maybe it was Anderson, one of them is suspected of leaking the story.

Rip wrote:Well if there are apparently all these witnesses what keeps them from talking. Assuming they are no friends of Cain I would expect them to do whatever damages Cain the most. Apparently that is not saying what it is. If it were major just the opposite would be true and we would already know more details about it.

The women aren't coming forward because the 1990s settlement included a gag rule. This story broke just half a week ago, and they haven't yet had time to get all lawyered up and determine whether they would be breaking a judge's order by speaking.

It's obvious from Cain's own admissions that he did things on different occasions that several women thought were harassment (even if Cain didn't believe so), and that his company paid off the women to drop it and keep quiet. It's likely that Perry's people dug it up and brought it out, but it's not a fabrication. The real story, and the one that's illuminating this potential leader's character, is how Cain is responding to the developing embarrassment now.

At least it distracts from this week's foreign policy gaffe where Cain rattled his sabre and warned against the possibility of China someday developing nuclear capability.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote:Well if there are apparently all these witnesses what keeps them from talking. Assuming they are no friends of Cain I would expect them to do whatever damages Cain the most. Apparently that is not saying what it is. If it were major just the opposite would be true and we would already know more details about it.

The women aren't coming forward because the 1990s settlement included a gag rule. This story broke just half a week ago, and they haven't yet had time to get all lawyered up and determine whether they would be breaking a judge's order by speaking.

It's obvious from Cain's own admissions that he did things on different occasions that several women thought were harassment (even if Cain didn't believe so), and that his company paid off the women to drop it and keep quiet. It's likely that Perry's people dug it up and brought it out, but it's not a fabrication. The real story, and the one that's illuminating this potential leader's character, is how Cain is responding to the developing embarrassment now.

At least it distracts from this week's foreign policy gaffe where Cain rattled his sabre and warned against the possibility of China someday developing nuclear capability.

What about the numerous witnesses? Are they under a gag order as well?

Cain is finally being treated as a serious candidate, and he's facing the heat that comes with it. Even if brought up with malicious intent, these allegations are nothing compared to what Obama has faced. Cain doesn't have his story straight, and he hasn't been very Presidential in answering these questions. If any substance develops and Cain knew about this issue, he's probably done because it hits his likeability.

Even if Cain can get past these titillating headlines, he's still facing the issue about using charitable money for his campaign and not reporting it. So Cain will still be doing damage control. While it's helpful that the media headlines don't involve Perry's incoherent speeches, I think Romney benefits the most.

I, for one, agree that a nuclear-armed China would be worrisome. If Cain has a plan to prevent that I'm all ears.

@Rip
Do you see the distinction between publicly saying that the woman's claims are valid and sharing the actual details when she has not yet done so? The previously linked article does say that Wilson can't discuss it for legal reasons, but there's a bit more info here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67473.html" target="_blank

I also saw a statement that this women will continue to speak through her lawyer because she "doesn't want to become another Anita Hill". Can't say as I blame her.

A third woman emerges.

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain faces accusations from a third woman, who considered filing a complaint against him over sexually suggestive remarks and gestures.

The allegations are similar to accusations of unwanted behavior that led to separate settlements in the late 1990s with two other women who went on to pursue successful careers after leaving the organization Cain once headed.

The latest allegations come from a woman who said in interviews with The Associated Press that Cain was aggressive and inappropriate with her, even extending a private invitation to his corporate apartment when she worked with him at the National Restaurant Association. The woman said Cain's behavior occurred at the same time two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against him while he was leading the association.

Cain with more on foreign policy:

Bill O'Reilly: "Do you really want war with Iran?"

Herman Cain: "Well, I don't want that, Bill. But if they fire first, we're going to defend ourselves and defend our enemies. And they are no match for our warships."

I dunno. I like his proposal to travel back in time and prevent China from developing nuclear weapons, but I'm uncertain about his proposal re: defending our enemies.

Kraken wrote:I, for one, agree that a nuclear-armed China would be worrisome. If Cain has a plan to prevent that I'm all ears.

It may involve time travel, possibly dinosaurs.

El Guapo wrote:Cain with more on foreign policy:

Bill O'Reilly: "Do you really want war with Iran?"

Herman Cain: "Well, I don't want that, Bill. But if they fire first, we're going to defend ourselves and defend our enemies. And they are no match for our warships."

I dunno. I like his proposal to travel back in time and prevent China from developing nuclear weapons, but I'm uncertain about his proposal re: defending our enemies.

Deep down, I've always known that Popeye really likes Bluto.

El Guapo wrote:Cain with more on foreign policy:

Bill O'Reilly: "Do you really want war with Iran?"

Herman Cain: "Well, I don't want that, Bill. But if they fire first, we're going to defend ourselves and defend our enemies. And they are no match for our warships."

I dunno. I like his proposal to travel back in time and prevent China from developing nuclear weapons, but I'm uncertain about his proposal re: defending our enemies.

Now see, I can fully wash over/forgive the "defend our enemies" comment as that is obviously just a verbal gaffe from an overtired brain...no problem there. But his little quips like "and they are no match for our warships" (how the fuck would pizza man know anything about that?!) and the comments about (non) nuclear China and other indications, where they weren't slips of the tongue, but obvious...how can I put it...naivete...is not forgivable (for someone running for pres).

Sorry Herman Cain...YOU'RE FIRED. As important and pressing as our domestic problems are right now, we are also in a shit storm of extremely important foreign affairs events that directly affect the US, that don't look to abate any time soon.

We need someone that is strong on both fronts, maybe in 2012 more than any other time in recent voting history (my voting history...you probably don't have to go back TOO far to get some other good comparisons).

Herman Cain will not be the Republican nominee, and was never going to be the Republican nominee.

Fireball1244 wrote:Herman Cain will not be the Republican nominee, and was never going to be the Republican nominee.

Oh I agree completely, just as I was sure neither Bachmann nor Perry would get it, even when they were front running the polls. Just putting the proverbial nail in the coffin from my perspective I guess. With Cain, there's enough....ammo if you will, to sink him solely on the basis of his lack of substance, without even having to go to the current allegations against him (which he is apparently trying to give a master class on how NOT to respond to scandals when running for office)

Bloomberg states that candidates who don't believe in Science, including Evolution and Global Warming aren't qualified. Gawker has the best paraphrasing:

He wouldn't name names, but by his own definition, that would mean Bloomberg considers Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney (partially — he hedges), and Ron Paul all to be staggering imbeciles who would drive this country into ruin should they ever get their greedy, stupid little fingers anywhere near the presidency. That leaves only Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, the only contender to unequivocally back both of these proven scientific theories, as the only remaining candidate not to be a cross-eyed, paste-eating ignoramus of the highest order.

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

Don't you feel stupid now?

Canuck wrote: Don't you feel stupid now?

That's not how it works.

Fireball1244 wrote:Herman Cain will not be the Republican nominee, and was never going to be the Republican nominee.

Correct.

Canuck wrote:

msduncan wrote:I'm getting closer to deciding that this guy is the one I'm pulling the lever (scratching the bubble?) for:

Don't you feel stupid now?

msduncan always goes through twenty flavors-of-the-week before landing on whomever the real determinants have already singled out.

Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

Nothing new under the sun.

The Meal wrote:Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

Nothing new under the sun.

Funny you should say that....I saw a pin once during the 04 primaries that read " I dated Dean but married Kerry". Kind of annoyed me at the time (as a Dean supporter). But now in hindsight i find it an amusing alliteration.

The Meal wrote:Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

Nothing new under the sun.

That's bizzare. There were plenty of Hillary supporters that fell in line behind Obama.

And I don't know that there's many people that still love him, yet he'll get more votes next time that last time.

I can't imagine anyone loving Kerry, but there's still plenty of love for Reagan, and GWB got into office on love though it obviously deteriorated quickly.

There's a lot more love for Reagan now than there was at the time. Funny, that.

Holman wrote:There's a lot more love for Reagan now than there was at the time. Funny, that.

There was an awful lot in 1984. A 49 state and 18.8% popular vote win shows something besides 'falling in line.'

Just listened to Sharon Bialek give a live interview regarding Herman Cain's sexual harasment against her in the 90s.

He's totally finished.

Unagi wrote:Just listened to Sharon Bialek give a live interview regarding Herman Cain's sexual harasment against her in the 90s.

He's totally finished.

Any chance you could re-cap it for those of us that missed it?

BAM!

Sharon Bialek, the first woman to publicly accuse Cain of inappropriate behavior, said Cain was "sexually inappropriate" with her in 1997, saying he put his hand under her skirt and pushed her head toward his crotch after a dinner together. She said he backed away after she asked him to stop.

"You want a job, right?"

That's the most damning line, though I wonder if it still fits under the heading of sexual harassment since she technically was not employed at the time of the incident. Either way, it's a vivid and disturbing picture she painted, and I can't see how he avoids addressing the specifics of the allegations. It's going to take Clinton-levels of political savvy to get past this now that the accusations are no longer anonymous and unsourced.

That being said, Gloria Allred is still insufferable. The stimulus package line was really classy.

Captain Caveman wrote:That's the most damning line, though I wonder if it still fits under the heading of sexual harassment since she technically was not employed at the time of the incident.

Eh? Not all sexual harassment is workplace sexual harassment.