So here we see the case of another black man who is not a raving liberal... with nasty attacks against him.  OK, fair enough, the political field almost always involves nasty attacks against politicians across the spectrum.

But WTF with all of these "Anonymous" accusers?  Come on ladies, be grown-ups and SHOW YOUR FACES.

At least with Clinton, Gary Hart, and a host of other Dem and Repub polticians accused of getting a little nooky on the side, the accusers presented themselves.  Here with Cain, they lay in the weeds like cowards and throw unsubstantiated charges his way.

If they have a beef and they got the proof... then they should present it.

Problem, Herman?

http://i.imgur.com/JODkh.gif

Seriously, Mr. Cain.  At long last, have you no shame?  A Republican playing the race card?  When I was in college, that was Democratic politics.

(In Mr. Cain's defense, that was back in the day when most of the Republican sex scandals were still heterosexual.  I gotta give respect to Cain for staying true to old-school values and displaying a Clintonesque pimp hand :)

So here we see the case of another black man who is not a raving liberal... with nasty attacks against him.  OK, fair enough, the political field almost always involves nasty attacks against politicians across the spectrum.

But WTF with all of these "Anonymous" accusers?  Come on ladies, be grown-ups and SHOW YOUR FACES.

At least with Clinton, Gary Hart, and a host of other Dem and Repub polticians accused of getting a little nooky on the side, the accusers presented themselves.  Here with Cain, they lay in the weeds like cowards and throw unsubstantiated charges his way.

If they have a beef and they got the proof... then they should present it.


The accusers aren't anonymous, they signed a "non-disclosure" clause.  Herman and the restaurant association can lift the order, but although he feels comfortable trashing the women involved he doesn't seem quite as anxious to allow them a release from the order.  If he has a beef and they have the proof, release them from the conditions so they can present it.

The accusers aren't anonymous, they signed a "non-disclosure" clause.  Herman and the restaurant association can lift the order, but although he feels comfortable trashing the women involved he doesn't seem quite as anxious to allow them a release from the order.  If he has a beef and they have the proof, release them from the conditions so they can present it.


Twood seem they have done a poor job of "non disclosing".

Besides, the latest accuser is under no such restriction as she alleges no settlement was ever pursued.

after the way the right smeared anita hill, i don't blame these women for wanting to remain anonymous. republicans have a long history of abusing women, and then trashing them publicly when they complain. it's called adding insult to injury.

Twood seem they have done a poor job of "non disclosing".

Besides, the latest accuser is under no such restriction as she alleges no settlement was ever pursued.


They weren't the ones who disclosed, word is an aide who switched camps from Cain to Perry is the one who let out the word. 

after the way the right smeared anita hill, i don't blame these women for wanting to remain anonymous. republicans have a long history of abusing women, and then trashing them publicly when they complain. it's called adding insult to injury.


Anita was hardly credible.  She saw Clarence Thomas as so hideous that even after she was done working with him, she'd go out to dinner and whatnot with him.  I know plenty of women who, faced with the alleged behavior of Thomas, would have kicked him square in the 'nads about 3 minutes before they would have also reported him to the authorities.  Hill did neither and decided, years later, to throw a big turd in Thomas' punch bowl because he was a conservative black.  The Congress saw through this and affirmed his appointment.  But at least she had the 'nads or chutzpah to go public, and she can now go through the rest of her life tainted... a taint that would not exist if her accusations had been true and she had pursued them through the appropriate venues.

The Constitution grants us the right to confront our accusers, it is the American way.  These accusers are cowards who want to throw rocks in the schoolyard with impunity and devoid of due process.  Hey, they're not in a court proceeding so thay can do that.

I don't even know Cain's politics to support him or oppose him in the political arena.  But this anonymous-accusation stuff is pure BS.

Whether he harassed them or not, this is much less an issue than his campaign finance violations, which amount to a felony if true

There are rumors of a 4th accuser but she doesn't speak English...

http://tinyurl.com/6o6x26k




Dan

There are rumors of a 4th accuser but she doesn't speak English...

http://tinyurl.com/6o6x26k

Dan

Hey, I once had a secretary who had this weird cousin.  She told me "My cousin, he not right... he do sheep.  He say it is just like a woman!"  :o

Normally I'd be asking all sorts of followup questions with a lead-in line like that, but I recall that at the time I was thinking "I already have heard more than I'll even want to know about your cousin."  ;D

The accusers aren't anonymous, they signed a "non-disclosure" clause.  Herman and the restaurant association can lift the order, but although he feels comfortable trashing the women involved he doesn't seem quite as anxious to allow them a release from the order.  If he has a beef and they have the proof, release them from the conditions so they can present it.




after the way the right smeared anita hill, i don't blame these women for wanting to remain anonymous. republicans have a long history of abusing women, and then trashing them publicly when they complain. it's called adding insult to injury.



Karma and karma.



Cat

Karma and karma.

Cat


The latest anonymous accuser is under no such agreement and is absolutely free to pursue her complaint, unfettered.

This is the same BS where a person may pursue all sorts of heinous sexual assault charges against a man yet remain anonymous whilst his name is plastered all over the newspapers... and when the charges are proven false, the false-accuser's name is rarely published.  It's wrong.

The latest anonymous accuser is under no such agreement and is absolutely free to pursue her complaint, unfettered.

This is the same BS where a person may pursue all sorts of heinous sexual assault charges against a man yet remain anonymous whilst his name is plastered all over the newspapers... and when the charges are proven false, the false-accuser's name is rarely published.  It's wrong.



You didn't read tia's post did you?  ::) A lot of times when a woman comes forward and accuses a man of sexual harassment, the media will blame the victim and smear HER name regardless if the accusations are true or not. 


As for his name being plastered all over the newspapers-THE MAN IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!! Of course his name is going to be plastered all over the newspapers! And the man, himself is making matters worse. He keeps changing his story from hour to hour. 


Cat

You didn't read tia's post did you?  ::) A lot of times when a woman comes forward and accuses a man of sexual harassment, the media will blame the victim and smear HER name regardless if the accusations are true or not.  


Let me address this more to the point, and from a very personal viewpoint.  About 25 years ago, my FATHER was accused of stopping his car at the local school bus stop and propositioning one of the young girls.  Two girls went to the principal's office and reported it.  They properly described my father, his make & model of car, and so on.

So the cops show up at the house (my Dad was about 75 years old at the time) and haul him in.  He was immediately released.  WHY?  Because:

a) The girls said he was alone, when in fact my Mother was in the car with him that day.
b) The local police chief just happened to be right behind my Dad's car and was an unimpeachable witness that nothing happened at all, including not even a conversation of my Dad talking out the car window (it was the dead of winter, by the way)
c) People at my Mother's place of employment similarly vouched that Dad had stayed for a cup of coffee when he dropped Mom off at work, so he could not have hit the bus stop on the way back.

The authorities REFUSED to name the girls who falsely accused my Dad.  And you are damned right.. I personally would have smeared those little bitches' names to high heaven after that incident.  >:(  And if they had been boys I would have personally broken their legs and there would have been no witnesses.

Let me address this more to the point, and from a very personal viewpoint.  About 25 years ago, my FATHER was accused of stopping his car at the local school bus stop and propositioning one of the young girls.  Two girls went to the principal's office and reported it.  They properly described my father, his make & model of car, and so on.

So the cops show up at the house (my Dad was about 75 years old at the time) and haul him in.  He was immediately released.  WHY?  Because:

a) The girls said he was alone, when in fact my Mother was in the car with him that day.
b) The local police chief just happened to be right behind my Dad's car and was an unimpeachable witness that nothing happened at all, including not even a conversation of my Dad talking out the car window (it was the dead of winter, by the way)
c) People at my Mother's place of employment similarly vouched that Dad had stayed for a cup of coffee when he dropped Mom off at work, so he could not have hit the bus stop on the way back.

The authorities REFUSED to name the girls who falsely accused my Dad.  And you are damned right.. I personally would have smeared those little bitches' names to high heaven after that incident.  >:(  And if they had been boys I would have personally broken their legs and there would have been no witnesses.



I am sorry that your dad was falsely accused. I am assuming their names were not released because they were underage. I sincerely hope that they received punishment for their actions.


Cat

Anita was hardly credible.  She saw Clarence Thomas as so hideous that even after she was done working with him, she'd go out to dinner and whatnot with him.  I know plenty of women who, faced with the alleged behavior of Thomas, would have kicked him square in the 'nads about 3 minutes before they would have also reported him to the authorities.  Hill did neither and decided, years later, to throw a big turd in Thomas' punch bowl because he was a conservative black.  if, indeed, her accusations were untrue (an assertion your post declares but does not support), how do you know this was her motivation? this is something i find very curious: how do right-wingers know so much about what everyone else is thinking? you guys know that Obama is a cloward-piven community activist with a socialist agenda, you know Anita Hill was on a racially based libelous crusade, etc., etc.: how do you know this? Do you have obama and anita hill's diaries? It's very odd, these assertions about motivation I always see coming out of the right. The Congress saw through this and affirmed his appointment. maybe they just didn't mind his harassment. After all, congress is still largely an old-boys network. getting appointed by congress is not the same as being acquitted in a court of law. But at least she had the 'nads or chutzpah to go public, and she can now go through the rest of her life tainted... a taint that would not exist if her accusations had been true and she had pursued them through the appropriate venues.well, she's been tainted because she was smeared by the right-wing, and because Thomas, as you say, was appointed by a congress with scarcely any women in it. Looking at the Hill precedent, I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable making my name known if I were a woman who'd been sexually harassed by a right-wing politician.


I don't even know Cain's politics to support him or oppose him in the political arena.  But this anonymous-accusation stuff is pure BS.
Like most candidates on the right at the moment, Cain has no coherent politics. Look up what he's said about abortion, and then tell me if you can figure out what his position is.

if, indeed, her accusations were untrue (an assertion your post declares but does not support), how do you know this was her motivation? 

Because it was more than coincidence that she waited until he was nominated for the SCOTUS to come out with her heinous allegations.  If she had been alleging that Thomas had just done those things a few days prior to the nomination, fine.  If she had accused him of those things at they time they had allegedly happened, fine.  But to come out with unactionable and unsubstantiated allegations years later... does not pass the stink test.  She was out to smear him because she did not like his politics.

And I can say these things for the very same reason that she did... because I can.

Because it was more than coincidence that she waited until he was nominated for the SCOTUS to come out with her heinous allegations.  If she had been alleging that Thomas had just done those things a few days prior to the nomination, fine.  If she had accused him of those things at they time they had allegedly happened, fine.  But to come out with unactionable and unsubstantiated allegations years later... does not pass the stink test.  She was out to smear him because she did not like his politics.
That's still a conclusion you don't have the info to back up: maybe she didn't want the trouble and hassle that bringing these sorts of complaints against a rich man would bring.  Then he runs for president - someone in her position doesn't have to have to have any opinion about policies at all to know that this isn't someone they want running the country.

I can see myself doing much the same sort of thing: not pursuing a complaint, but knowing that it makes the guy really not someone you'd want in the most powerful office on the planet.

I'm not actually saying you're wrong, because I don't know any of the details.  However, your "logic" about her motives is flawed, and you need something to back up those sorts of assertions.

Because it was more than coincidence that she waited until he was nominated for the SCOTUS to come out with her heinous allegations.  If she had been alleging that Thomas had just done those things a few days prior to the nomination, fine.  If she had accused him of those things at they time they had allegedly happened, fine.  But to come out with unactionable and unsubstantiated allegations years later... does not pass the stink test.  She was out to smear him because she did not like his politics.

And I can say these things for the very same reason that she did... because I can.
basically what I'm getting from this is, if you're ever encountered with a "He said, She said" sexual harassment allegation, I can count on you to automatically assume the "He" side.

4th accuser...


November 7, 2011 10:09 AM

New Herman Cain accuser to come forward with Gloria Allred

Another woman alleging that Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain sexually harassed her in the 1990's will come forward today, according to her attorney Gloria Allred.


According to a press release from Allred, the woman charges that Cain harassed her during his tenure as chief executive of the National Restaurant Association (NRA), when she sought help from him with an employment issue.


The woman plans to make her allegations public at a press conference with Allred on Friday at 1:30 p.m. in New York City.


Allred's client would be the first of Cain's accusers to speak publicly about the charges. Already, three former NRA employees have reported that they were harassed by Cain at the restaurant lobbying group; two of the women filed formal complaints and reached settlement agreements with the NRA.


Allred is known for taking on high-profile clients. Last year, she represented Nicky Diaz Santillan, the housekeeper that California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman fired because of her immigration status.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57319638-503544/new-herman-cain-accuser-to-come-forward-with-gloria-allred/




Dan

basically what I'm getting from this is, if you're ever encountered with a "He said, She said" sexual harassment allegation, I can count on you to automatically assume the "He" side.


Not really... during Zippergate I pretty much believed Monica Lewinsky.  Why?  Because she had evidence...

Not really... during Zippergate I pretty much believed Monica Lewinsky.  Why?  Because she had evidence...
ok. so you believe the man when he's a republican, but you believe the woman when the man's a democrat.

you should quit confusing politics with team sports, LB.

ok. so you believe the man when he's a republican, but you believe the woman when the man's a democrat.

you should quit confusing politics with team sports, LB.


Well I didn't believe Larry Craig either.  He was the toe-tapping dude who like to pick up other men at the airport men's room, and a card carrying Republican as I recall.

I saw yesterday that a 4th woman has emerged and she is at least showing her face.  Of course her appearance included the customary lawyer Gloria Allred.  Not sure why she needs a lawyer as the statute of limitations on anything from 1997 has long expired.

Anyway her story is that she came to Cain looking for a job.  Listening to the details of her story, it sounds like Cain was looking for a job too.  :P

I saw yesterday that a 4th woman has emerged and she is at least showing her face.  Of course her appearance included the customary lawyer Gloria Allred.  Not sure why she needs a lawyer as the statute of limitations on anything from 1997 has long expired.

Anyway her story is that she came to Cain looking for a job.  Listening to the details of her story, it sounds like Cain was looking for a job too.  :P


Herman offered Sharon his stimulus package but she didn't want to go that deep in debt.



Dan

So I guess the title of this thread is, um, inaccurate?

Not really... during Zippergate I pretty much believed Monica Lewinsky.  Why?  Because she had evidence...



The difference between Bill/Monica & Herman/whoever, is that with Bill/Monica both were CONSENTING adults. If Herman wanted to get it on with any of these ladies and if they agreed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if (and I do say if-giving him the benefit of the doubt-innocent until proven guilty) made advances upon them when they did not want or asked for it and used his position of authority to try to persuade her-THEN THAT IS A CRIME!!!


BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!



Cat

The difference between Bill/Monica & Herman/whoever, is that with Bill/Monica both were CONSENTING adults. If Herman wanted to get it on with any of these ladies and if they agreed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if (and I do say if-giving him the benefit of the doubt-innocent until proven guilty) made advances upon them when they did not want or asked for it and used his position of authority to try to persuade her-THEN THAT IS A CRIME!!!


BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!



Cat


Yes....and yes again!

So I guess the title of this thread is, um, inaccurate?


Not yet.  Let's just stay that whenever somebody shows up with Gloria Allred, Kanye West's "Gold Digger" song starts running through my head.  And... as is typical with this sort of thing, there is absolutely no way for her to prove, or for him to disprove... anything.

Not yet.  Let's just stay that whenever somebody shows up with Gloria Allred, Kanye West's "Gold Digger" song starts running through my head.  And... as is typical with this sort of thing, there is absolutely no way for her to prove, or for him to disprove... anything.


Hermain Cain will not be President, so it doesn't matter either way.
Poor GOP. It has been reduced to a den of crazies.

Hermain Cain will not be President, so it doesn't matter either way.


Yeah I can agree wit dat.

Hermain Cain will not be President, so it doesn't matter either way.
Poor GOP. It has been reduced to a den of crazies.
yeah, except for ron paul, who's just like 60% crazy, and that one other guy who's polling at like 2%.

unfortunately, to the extent the GOP is populated with crazies, the democrats are populated by spineless worms who insist on giving in to the GOP on everything as though they WEREn't a den of crazies.

yeah, except for ron paul, who's just like 60% crazy, and that one other guy who's polling at like 2%.

unfortunately, to the extent the GOP is populated with crazies, the democrats are populated by spineless worms who insist on giving in to the GOP on everything as though they WEREn't a den of crazies.


The Dems were idiots.  They had a once-in-a-lifetime thing going when they controlled both houses of Congress with a sitting President, and then managed to fumble the ball away.  The majority of American voters, realizing this, took away their control of the House and, I predict, will finish off the Dems in the Senate on the next go-round.  Repeat... the bums got thrown out by the MAJORITY of the voters.  Even O'bama acknowledged that his side got shellacked.

The Democratic party could learn alot from the Pennsylvania Republicans who control both houses of the Legislature and the Governor's mansion.  Agree with their approach or not, they are not squandering their opportunity.  They are steadily progressing with implementation of their platform, something the Dems could not manage to do at the Federal level.

The Dems were idiots.  They had a once-in-a-lifetime thing going when they controlled both houses of Congress with a sitting President, and then managed to fumble the ball away.  The majority of American voters, realizing this, took away their control of the House and, I predict, will finish off the Dems in the Senate on the next go-round.  Repeat... the bums got thrown out by the MAJORITY of the voters.  Even O'bama acknowledged that his side got shellacked.

The Democratic party could learn alot from the Pennsylvania Republicans who control both houses of the Legislature and the Governor's mansion.  Agree with their approach or not, they are not squandering their opportunity.  They are steadily progressing with implementation of their platform, something the Dems could not manage to do at the Federal level.i'm not actually sure what the democratic platform is. it seems to be trickle-down-lite, and it didn't go well given we're watching trickle-down destroy the country's economy. honestly, the dems were hamstrung by the fact that they do still have some marginal concern for the country whereas the republicans are perfectly willing to cause america grievous harm just to make obama look bad. which means whenever the republicans hold the country hostage, the dems instantly capitulate.

until the dems rediscover their testicles and become FDR-style democrats (or, for that matter, teddy roosevelt or eisenhower republicans) rather than drinking diluted supply-side kool-aid left over from the reagan era, they're going to keep failing. but the republicans are in even worse shape. their presidential candidates are melting down one after the other, and the republicans in congress literally polling in the single digits in some polls. i can't say i care too much who wins, though. they talk very different games, the republicrats and the demoblicans, but when they get into office they both pretty much do what the campaign donors want. and the campaign donors give to both parties. that's why OWS is protesting in wall street and not in washington, because they know wall street is really calling the shots in washington, and they'll get their way no matter who's in office.

that said, i almost hope you're right and the republicans get the senate, i'll actually be glad. if we're going to be governed based on republican principles regardless of which party's actually in office, there might as well be nominative republicans in office to take the blame when those principles fail.

The Dems were idiots.  They had a once-in-a-lifetime thing going when they controlled both houses of Congress with a sitting President, and then managed to fumble the ball away.


Sounds like the political party that in 2008 that failed to fire an unpopular Secretary of Defense until after the 2010 midterms.

Not judgin', just sayin'.

If we change the name from Herman Cain to John Edwards, would the same arguments from the right still apply?  Or would they grossly conflict with the opinion they held a few short years ago?  Of course it was only one accuser in the John Edwards case.

The only difference between the reaction of the NRestA and the Penn State thing is the degree of culpability of the two perps.  Both are the result of a culture of silence, especially when it comes to abuse of women and children, and especially if there is big $$$ involved

I thought Mr. Cain was an insufferable creep even before the charges.  Whatever the outcome of the particular accusations, I will still believe Mr. Cain spent his career abusing his power to get women to sleep with him. Why?  Because that's just the type of maggot he is!  He's Clarence Thomas with extra cheese and free refills.

Oh, and it's nice to see classism trump racism.  Time was if a blonde accused a black man of groping her, the white men would band together and lynch the accused within 48 hours.  Now all's well with whitey so long as the black man is rich and conservative! 

I wonder if Cain's camp leaked the story themselves because it's slightly less nasty than his economic proposals!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/jerk.gif

Oh, and it's nice to see classism trump racism.  Time was if a blonde accused a black man of groping her, the white men would band together and lynch the accused within 48 hours.  Now all's well with whitey so long as the black man is rich and conservative! 


Nothing to do with class, and everything to do with party.

(As if anyone in either party has any class :)

C-SPAN replayed Anita Hill from October this weekend!  Good timing!

Georgia Woman Claims 13-Year Affair with Herman Cain

Ginger White's exclusive interview with the I-Team

Updated: Monday, 28 Nov 2011, 5:01 PM EST
Published : Monday, 28 Nov 2011, 5:01 PM EST

By DALE RUSSELL/FOX 5 I-Team


ATLANTA, Ga. - An Atlanta businesswoman is breaking her silence, claiming she has been involved in a 13-year-long affair with Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, FOX 5 senior I-Team reporter Dale Russell sat down with Ginger White, who had an amazing story to tell.

“It was pretty simple,� White said. “It wasn't complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.�

In an exclusive interview on FOX 5 News at 6, Russell will tell you why White is speaking out now, and show you the records that she says back up her story. He also talks to Herman Cain, who denies the affair. Cain’s attorney, Lin Wood, released the following statement to just moments ago:

"Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault - which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public's right to know and the media's right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one's bedroom door.

Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media."

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/ginger-white-claims-affair-herman-cain-20111127-es




Dan

"Ginger White"???

What were her parents thinking?