Originally Posted by Odin

Republicans for Voldermort!

Or a possible pervert:

NBC confirms one Cain accuser received cash settlement 31 Oct 2011 NBC News has confirmed that one woman received a settlement from the National Restaurant Association after complaining about inappropriate sexual conduct by Herman Cain. NBC News is not disclosing the name of the woman nor characterizing who she is. Despite being the chief executive officer of the National Restaurant Association, he said he was unaware of any settlement with the accusers, though he didn't deny it.

Report: Cain accused of inappropriate behavior by two women 31 Oct 2011 The campaign of presidential candidate Herman Cain has criticized a news report alleging that Cain displayed inappropriate behavior to two female employees in the 1990s, saying the news media has started "to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain." At least two female employees of the National Restaurant Association complained of inappropriate behavior from Cain when he led the organization, POLITICO reportedSunday night.

Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior 31 Oct 2011 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.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Or a possible pervert:

NBC confirms one Cain accuser received cash settlement 31 Oct 2011 NBC News has confirmed that one woman received a settlement from the National Restaurant Association after complaining about inappropriate sexual conduct by Herman Cain. NBC News is not disclosing the name of the woman nor characterizing who she is. Despite being the chief executive officer of the National Restaurant Association, he said he was unaware of any settlement with the accusers, though he didn't deny it.

Report: Cain accused of inappropriate behavior by two women 31 Oct 2011 The campaign of presidential candidate Herman Cain has criticized a news report alleging that Cain displayed inappropriate behavior to two female employees in the 1990s, saying the news media has started "to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain." At least two female employees of the National Restaurant Association complained of inappropriate behavior from Cain when he led the organization, POLITICO reportedSunday night.

Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior 31 Oct 2011 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.

I would be careful about all of this if I were you. We had a President getting blow jobs in the Oval Office not too long ago. You forgave him I am sure. The rap on Cain is pretty thin gruel. I suggest you focus on what he says he will do.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I would be careful about all of this if I were you. We had a President getting blow jobs in the Oval Office not too long ago. You forgave him I am sure. The rap on Cain is pretty thin gruel. I suggest you focus on what he says he will do.

James50

I agree with this statement. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to say that Clinton's sexual escapades were irrelevant and had nothing to do with his ability to lead than you shouldn't jump all over someone when they behave badly. If I remember correctly, Clinton had a few sexual harassment law suits against him too and that was in addition to the Monica scandal.

I have no problem with defenders of Clinton saying Cain is an idiot for other reasons, because he is, but they have lost their validity to criticize Cain on this one. And BTW, I think Clinton is pig for how he behaved and I never supported his behavior.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You may have seen Herman Cain's new problems.

While I believe sexual harassment has been too broadly defined--I do not think, for instance, that what Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of should be actionable--this case is rather different, since Cain's employers (or Cain himself) evidently paid two women off to drop their allegations. I nominate Ann Coulter as the first person to revive the phrase, "high-tech lynching."

From today's New York Times:

"'This is another high-tech lynching,' the conservative commentator Ann Coulter asserted. . ."

Originally Posted by ASB65

I agree with this statement. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to say that Clinton's sexual escapades were irrelevant and had nothing to do with his ability to lead than you shouldn't jump all over someone when they behave badly. If I remember correctly, Clinton had a few sexual harassment law suits against him too and that was in addition to the Monica scandal.

I have no problem with defenders of Clinton saying Cain is an idiot for other reasons, because he is, but they have lost their validity to criticize Cain on this one. And BTW, I think Clinton is pig for how he behaved and I never supported his behavior.

James, the President got one consensual blow job. He was not sued by Ms. Lewinsky for harassment and she would have had no case. In this case, the company paid money to the women. That suggests something very different happened.

But you're right: Herman Cain is a policy lunatic who has no business getting anywhere near the White House. He has made millions selling and promoting addictive substances (fast food, tobacco, and alcohol.) Those are far more important reasons to scratch one's head that the man is now within striking distance of a major party nomination.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, the President got one consensual blow job. He was not sued by Ms. Lewinsky for harassment and she would have had no case. In this case, the company paid money to the women. That suggests something very different happened.

But you're right: Herman Cain is a policy lunatic who has no business getting anywhere near the White House. He has made millions selling and promoting addictive substances (fast food, tobacco, and alcohol.) Those are far more important reasons to scratch one's head that the man is now within striking distance of a major party nomination.

You forget one important fact. She was an intern. Superior to inferior sex is never truly consensual. But, whatever.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

You forget one important fact. She was an intern. Superior to inferior sex is never truly consensual. But, whatever.

James50

I agree with good old common law age of consent provisions. She was over 21. And she wasn't the first young woman who desperately wanted to have sex with an older, powerful man, nor will she be the last. In that sense I am indeed out of step with current pc thinking on these matters.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, the President got one consensual blow job. He was not sued by Ms. Lewinsky for harassment and she would have had no case. In this case, the company paid money to the women. That suggests something very different happened.

But you're right: Herman Cain is a policy lunatic who has no business getting anywhere near the White House. He has made millions selling and promoting addictive substances (fast food, tobacco, and alcohol.) Those are far more important reasons to scratch one's head that the man is now within striking distance of a major party nomination.

There was the Paula Jones sexual harassment scandal before we ever even heard of Monica. And I do think there might have been another woman who accused him of it too. So Clinton had a long line of inappropriate behavior involving women. And I think he is a pig. He obviously had very little respect for women including his wife.

This is a glaring example of just how broken our political system is in our country.

Lawrence Weschler, The Great American Shakedown
Posted by Lawrence Weschler at 7:53am, November 1, 2011.

In the U.S., corruption is seldom “corruption.” Take as an example our president, who has been utterly clear: he will not take money for his electoral campaign from lobbyists. Only problem:according to the New York Times, 15 of his top “bundlers,” who give their own money and solicit that of others -- none registered as federal lobbyists -- are “involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies,” and they are raising millions for him. They also have access to the White House on policy matters. According to a June report from the Center for Public Integrity, “President Obama granted plum jobs and appointments to almost 200 people who raised large sums for his [2008] presidential campaign, and his top fundraisers have won millions of dollars in federal contracts.”


The president’s spokespeople insist, of course, that he’s kept to his promise, as defined by the labyrinthine lobbying legislation written by a Congress filled with future lobbyists. And keep in mind that Obama looks like Little Mary Sunshine compared to the field of Republican presidential candidates who seem determined to campaign cheek to jowl with as many lobbyists as they can corral. More than 100 federal lobbyists have already contributed to Mitt Romney’s campaign, while Rick Perry has evidently risen to candidate status on the shoulders of Mike Toomey, a former gubernatorial chief of staff, friend, and money-raising lobbyist whose clients “have won $2 billion in [Texas] state government contracts since 2008.” And that’s just the tip of the top of the iceberg.


None of this is “corruption,” of course, just a pay-to-play way of life, which extends to the military-industrial complex and a Pentagon that has spent a mere $1 trillion in the last decade purchasing new weapons to “modernize” its arsenal. In the meantime, every top civilian official, general, or admiral there knows that some weapons company awaits him with (so to speak) open arms, whenever he decides to spin through the revolving door into "retirement" and the private sector. The results are stunning. Arms giant Lockheed Martin paid out $12.7 million in lobbying fees in 2010. Its CEO took home $21.89 million that year. And the company just reported third-quarter net earnings of $700 million, beating the expectations of analysts, and predicts more of the same for 2012. Advantage Lockheed.
Similarly, the government's top economic advisors regularly come from (and/or end up in/return to) the arms of banks and giant financial outfits, the very firms which pour money into political campaigns. It’s but another version of the same cozy, well-organized world in which, for example, Robert Rubin spun from Goldman Sachs into the government as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury in the 1990s, then out again to Citigroup, which he then helped run into the ground until it was bailed out on such generous terms in November 2008. In those years, he made an estimated$126 million. Advantage Rubin.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I'd add us in AZ to that math:

Colorado+Nevada+New Mexico+AZ = 31

I don't think campaigning against Congress is a good strategy. It accentuates two things:
- When Obama had Dem control he didn't take advantage and get ahead of current problems
- That he can't work with the Congress, even if they are a miserable lot. Great leaders find a way to bend Congress to their will. Reminding people of his weakness and subordinate role to Mr. Speaker is a bad idea.

The President got much done with the 111th Congress and has gotten practically nothing from the 112th. That is what happens when the other Party acts in lockstep, making all legislation contingent upon the defeat of the current President. The President needs to make clear that conservative Democrats who can vote against him on issues of conscience are far better than people who vote against anything that the President wants solely because of some partisan advantage.

Much better for him to focus message on fixing the economy and offering solutions moderates can buy into. If he wins on this type of message, he can declare a mandate.

For about a year from now the liberals and moderates mean nothing in American politics. The President is already offering the Republicans what America wants but the corporate bosses want stopped indefinitely. Remember -- the GOP in Congress responds only to select constituents in their own districts and to their paymasters. The rest of humanity is just to be fooled, fleeced, or frustrated, at least as the GOP does things.

Hammer Wall Street and Big Business and talk about job creation. First step, and he doesn't seem to be taking my advice (imagine that, he doesn't spend hours a week in mental masturbation on this forum) is to announce an independent bipartisan panel (it needs to have teeth and not be some quasi-governmental bullshit) that will investigate and recommend prosecution for financial sector actions. He'd get -- 75% support from the electorate and at least take a step towards receiving some forgiveness for his accomplice-after-the-crime role. The downside is a loss of backing from Wall St., which in 2012 will be viewed positively. Wall St has already said he is dead (figuratively) to them anyway. He needs to do this before the end of the year. OWS demands it. The American people want it. It seems so obvious. Time to get it done.

No President can satisfy everyone. Corporate America will surely hammer out its message of fear typical of exploiters and abusers (You are nothing without me, you need my stern guidance, I know what is best for you, you would blow anything more on cocaine, and I am the only real ally that you can ever have) for the next year through its usual outlets and remind people that they need lower wages, higher taxes (so that the rich can pay less), privatization of the public sector at fire-sale prices, harsher labor discipline, and the freedom to rig markets.

So the latest I heard is the women who accused Hermain Cain of sexual harassment wants to come forward and give her side of the story. Apparently she is working with her lawyer to be released from her confidentiality clause. So this story isn't going away anytime soon. So if this does end up hurting him in the polls, who do you think will become the next flavor of the month in the primary? The last poll I saw showed Gingrich in third place at 10%. Do you think it will be him or someone else?

Originally Posted by James50

I would be careful about all of this if I were you. We had a President getting blow jobs in the Oval Office not too long ago. You forgave him I am sure. The rap on Cain is pretty thin gruel. I suggest you focus on what he says he will do.

James50

Yes, and Mr BJ got impeached for the fallout from this. Turn-about may be vengence, but it may also be approriate.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Originally Posted by James50

You forget one important fact. She was an intern. Superior to inferior sex is never truly consensual. But, whatever.

James50

I agree with good old common law age of consent provisions. She was over 21. And she wasn't the first young woman who desperately wanted to have sex with an older, powerful man, nor will she be the last. In that sense I am indeed out of step with current pc thinking on these matters.

There is also the issue of just whose idea it was in the first place. I got the impression from interviews given by Monica at the time, that she had been fully engaged at least, and possibly the aggressive party. There appears to have been no coercion.

That doesn't let WJC of the hook for cheating on Hillary and just being generally scummy.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is also the issue of just whose idea it was in the first place. I got the impression from interviews given by Monica at the time, that she had been fully engaged at least, and possibly the aggressive party. There appears to have been no coercion.

That doesn't let WJC of the hook for cheating on Hillary and just being generally scummy.

And don't forget John Edwards and his love child.

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is also the issue of just whose idea it was in the first place. I got the impression from interviews given by Monica at the time, that she had been fully engaged at least, and possibly the aggressive party. There appears to have been no coercion.

That doesn't let WJC of the hook for cheating on Hillary and just being generally scummy.

She was definitely the aggressor.

However. . .well, I don't know what to say. Allow me to ramble.

I have said again and again that consensual sex should not be an issue for political candidates. I have also said, and still believe, that Anita Hill should never have been called to testify, because even if everything she said was true, which I think it almost surely was, it was no reason to vote against Thomas. (There were plenty of much better reasons to vote against him.)

Thus I am tempted to take the same position about Cain, even though I can't stand him. But the trouble is that in his case we really have no idea what he did do, and I do think that trying to extort sexual favors is serious. So I have to reserve judgment, but it is pathetic that, once again, in what some people think is a 4T, we are focusing on some kind of loaded encounter that took place nearly 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by James50

And don't forget John Edwards and his love child.

James50

Yes, but he pretty much got thrown under the bus by his supporters when the affair became public. As someone else should have.

But on the Hermain Cain thing. I was thinking about this. I can't think of one politician who hasn't been accused of sexual misbehavior and it didn't turn out to be true. First they deny it. Then they try and twist exactly what happened and eventually they end up fessing up when the evidence becomes overwhelmingly true, and finally you see them apologizing to the public for what they did. And I've lost count of the times I've seen this scenario play out...Eventually the truth does come out. You would think these politicians would figure that out instead of trying to lie about it in the first place.

And as long as we are talking about politicians and their private lives, this bit of news from Newt Gingrich's daughter I found interesting. Never believe the first story:

Jackie Gingrich Cushman, on the Creators Syndication site:

My mother . . . is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a “Miracle Mom,” as I titled her in a column this week.
As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.
It was the spring of 1980.
I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.
Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.
Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.
It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.
Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.
She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.
The tumor was benign.
As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.
As have many families, we have healed; we have moved on.
We are not a perfect family, but we are knit together through common bonds, commitment and love.
My mother and father are alive and well, and my sister and I are blessed to have a close relationship with them both.
My sister and I feel that it is time to move on, close the book on this event and focus on building a great future. We will not answer additional questions or make additional comments regarding this meaningless incident, which occurred more than three decades ago.
As I said, my mother is a private person. She will not give media interviews. She deserves respect and should be allowed to live in peace.

As Ace says: “So the actual baggage of Gingrich turns out to be divorced twice, had an affair (I’m guessing plural, but I just know of the one).
Which is kind of conventional. Not good, but hardly shocking.”
And all of it occurred decades before he converted to Roman Catholicism. (Not that I’m a denomination-partisan, but people often renew their faith when they switch to a different branch of Christianity, and in a certain sense that makes an ancient divorce even older news.)

James50

I had thought that Cain would survive this because he really isn't in it as a viable candidate but someone trying to raise his income as book writer, motivational speaker and Faux News commentator (think Palin).

Now, I'm thinking if he drags this out to the point that one or more of the now three women (or, additional women) comes forward, it could greatly diminish his income potential. A racial tolerance element could get introduced pretty quickly into the middle of the GOP gestalt of they-too-can-vote-for-a-Black-guy-as-well.

Also, more important here is - where will his supporters gravitate to after they get dismayed? If they don't go to Romney, they will add to the remaining non-Romney alternatives. If they gravitate around Perry, they could cause momentum for many Bachmann and Gingrich supporters to get behind Perry. That would push Perry well ahead of Romney in most polls, with mojo, and he ain't no Cain.

Imagine the panic of the Establishment GOP? Imagine Perry in a debate with Obama? Got to love it!

Originally Posted by playwrite

I had thought that Cain would survive this because he really isn't in it as a viable candidate but someone trying to raise his income as book writer, motivational speaker and Faux News commentator (think Palin).

Now, I'm thinking if he drags this out to the point that one or more of the now three women (or, additional women) comes forward, it could greatly diminish his income potential. A racial tolerance element could get introduced pretty quickly into the middle of the GOP gestalt of they-too-can-vote-for-a-Black-guy-as-well.

Also, more important here is - where will his supporters gravitate to after they get dismayed? If they don't go to Romney, they will add to the remaining non-Romney alternatives. If they gravitate around Perry, they could cause momentum for many Bachmann and Gingrich supporters to get behind Perry. That would push Perry well ahead of Romney in most polls, with mojo, and he ain't no Cain.

Imagine the panic of the Establishment GOP? Imagine Perry in a debate with Obama? Got to love it!

I had heard that analysis of Cain's ambitions as well, but in the last couple of weeks I was beginning to get the feeling that he thought he genuinely might make it. And in fact, his reaction yesterday suggests he was really in it for the nomination now. He could have preserved his potential as a right-wing pundit and speaker by blaming the left, the way Coulter, Hannity and company have been doing, for his troubles, but instead he went after the Perry campaign. By the way, did you see that Coulter actually said, "Our blacks are so much better than their blacks?" Maybe she meant they cost more.

For crying out loud, the definition of a centrist candidate has something to be desired. Maybe the definition is a case in point as to how far right this country's political system has gone. Makes me question who is behind this call for a political alternative.

Nonpartisan group offers US political alternative

]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A nonpartisan group said on Wednesday it has gathered millions of signatures, and millions of dollars, from voters so unhappy with the toxic U.S. political climate that they want a centrist independent to run for president in 2012

The group, Americans Elect, is creating an Internet-based third party in which registered voters will choose someone to run against the Republican nominee and Barack Obama when the Democratic president vies for re-election next year.

So far, Americans Elect has gathered more than 1.9 million signatures in support of its petition to get on the ballot in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and raised almost $22 million.

"There is a huge receptivity across the board to an independent candidate," Douglas Schoen, Americans Elect's chief strategist, a former adviser to politicians including President Bill Clinton and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, told a news conference.

With polls showing that 80 percent of Americans are unhappy with how the country is being governed, there has been a growing support for an alternative to politicians from the two major parties who seem unable to work together.

STARBUCKS CHIEF FOR PRESIDENT?

Backers of the idea have expressed support for everyone from Bloomberg, a former Republican who is now an independent, to Howard Schultz, the chief executive of coffee firm Starbucks, as possible third-party candidates.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/nonpartisan-gr...210336432.html

With polls showing that 80 percent of Americans are unhappy with how the country is being governed, there has been a growing support for an alternative to politicians from the two major parties who seem unable to work together.

How long are the elites going to beat this horse before they realize it's dead?

People aren't angry that the two parties don't work together, they're angry that they don't work for them. I mean if you're looking for a middle-of-the-road, even-handed steward of the system -- what's wrong with the one we have?

Originally Posted by ASB65

Yes, but he pretty much got thrown under the bus by his supporters when the affair became public. As someone else should have.

But on the Hermain Cain thing. I was thinking about this. I can't think of one politician who hasn't been accused of sexual misbehavior and it didn't turn out to be true. First they deny it. Then they try and twist exactly what happened and eventually they end up fessing up when the evidence becomes overwhelmingly true, and finally you see them apologizing to the public for what they did. And I've lost count of the times I've seen this scenario play out...Eventually the truth does come out. You would think these politicians would figure that out instead of trying to lie about it in the first place.

Actually, I would think that some one, particularly with respect to a consensual encounter, would say, "It's none of your business and you can go straight to hell." He or she would definitely get my vote.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Actually, I would think that some one, particularly with respect to a consensual encounter, would say, "It's none of your business and you can go straight to hell." He or she would definitely get my vote.

I agree. Poking under the covers started out stupid and has gone down hill from there.

I just heard something interesting on MSNBC. Republicans hate Mitt Romney so much that if it's between him and Obama, some would rather lose the election to Obama than have Romney win, because they feel he will turn all liberal, the way "Bush did." Hehe.

If Cain manages to win the election, even after all the dirt being pulled up on him, then this country has truly gone insane.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Actually, I would think that some one, particularly with respect to a consensual encounter, would say, "It's none of your business and you can go straight to hell." He or she would definitely get my vote.

They certainly don't do themselves any favors by lying about and trying to cover it up. After the truth is revealed, it only makes them look less trustworthy. I think it's the lying about it that makes them lose even more credibility. I remember during Clinton's initial campaign, the whole Jennifer Flowers thing came up. He admitted it, got past it and went on to win the election. Had he have try to lie about it, he may not have won.