Herman Cain suspends his presidential campaign

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]He is a moron. Once again blaming the media for "spinning" the stories of the allegations. Spinning? You mean reporting what all these women have said? Then he reveals some stupid website and follows it with quoting Pokemon again? Troll.SaintLeonidas

You do know that women like to make up allegations like that, don't you?

How the hell is it sexism, exactly? This wouldn't be the first time that women have done that to someone, you know. I'm not sexist at all, but you would have to be blind to not find out that certain women are sneaky & manipulative just like certain men are.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="garland51"]

You do know that women like to make up allegations like that, don't you?

garland51

How the hell is it sexism, exactly? This wouldn't be the first time that women have done that to someone, you know. I'm not sexist at all, but you would have to be blind to not find out that certain women are sneaky & manipulative just like men are.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] :lol: wow, your sexism is showing.SaintLeonidas

How the hell is it sexism, exactly? This wouldn't be the first time that women have done that to someone, you know. I'm not sexist at all, but you would have to be blind to not find out that certain women are sneaky & manipulative just like men are.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] :lol: wow, your sexism is showing.SaintLeonidas

How the hell is it sexism, exactly? This wouldn't be the first time that women have done that to someone, you know. I'm not sexist at all, but you would have to be blind to not find out that certain women are sneaky & manipulative just like men are.

Wow. I sure hope that you don't get picked for something like jury duty. It's always innocent until proven guilty for everyone.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="garland51"]

How the hell is it sexism, exactly? This wouldn't be the first time that women have done that to someone, you know. I'm not sexist at all, but you would have to be blind to not find out that certain women are sneaky & manipulative just like men are.

garland51

Wow. I sure hope that you don't get picked for something like jury duty. It's always innocent until proven guilty for everyone.

That ends that, thankfully. Now we can focus on candidates who actually have shots.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]"Suspending" a presidential campaign worked so very well for John McCain. Don't see how this is anything other than brilliant news for Mr. Cain.coolbeans90

I think it's a different sort of suspend, though, considering the political circumstances. He's supposedly set to endorse.

I was being sarcastic. Basically, Cain didn't "suspend" his campaign today. He ended it. Guy's done. Has been for weeks now.

Only remaining questions with the Republican field is whether or not they settle on Newt as the latest Anti-Romney or they give a look at Santorum or, finally, the guy they should have been paying attention to all along in Huntsman. (A.K.A. "The only candidate in the field that Democrats are actually afraid of.")

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] Yes, implying all of these women are sneaky and manipulative because a few have lied in the past isn't sexist :roll:SaintLeonidas

Wow. I sure hope that you don't get picked for something like jury duty. It's always innocent until proven guilty for everyone.

its pretty stupid. can blame stupid bogus accusations and the media for this one. not good for politics in general. xbox360isgr8t

The affair accusation is probably true. He was calling (or being called by) this woman constantly and one call even happened at 4 in the morning. What married man does that? Answer: one that is having an affair.

In all other news, the Republican primary has become 54% less interesting. With Cain, Perry, Trump, Palin and Bachmann all out of the picture, it's almost business as usual.

coolbeans90

IDK, I was kind of tired of the sideshow. I'm looking forward to seeing how Romney deals with the Gingrich threat. So far he's dealing with it rather badly.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="garland51"]

Wow. I sure hope that you don't get picked for something like jury duty. It's always innocent until proven guilty for everyone.

Diophage

Question, ladies and gentlemen: Who do you think Herman Cain will endorse?

In 2008, he endorsed Romney -- and so far, Romney has taken the lion's share of presidential endorsements.

However, Gingrich I think is slightly more aligned with Cain than Romney.

What say you?

Moreover, do you think a Cain endorsement of Romney, or any other candidate than Gingrich for that matter, would be severely detrimental to Gingrich?

coolbeans90

I don't really think that would be very detrimental at all. Cain's credibility has been undermined and Cain's supporters might not back Romney even in spite of his endorsement. His supporters are not the kind that like cold calculating politicians like Romney.

Good. He seems like he would be a crappy choice of being president after seeing that interview aboutforeign affairs for example.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In all other news, the Republican primary has become 54% less interesting. With Cain, Perry, Trump, Palin and Bachmann all out of the picture, it's almost business as usual.

GreySeal9

IDK, I was kind of tired of the sideshow. I'm looking forward to seeing how Romney deals with the Gingrich threat. So far he's dealing with it rather badly.

[QUOTE="Diophage"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] If you are talking about Cain, again, with most sexual harassment cases it is one persons word vs. another persons word, there is rarely any physical evidence like photos or video. You would have to be incredibly naive to think that with the number of allegations, the amount of denial, back tracking and lying Cain has done, the fact that he admits to giving one of these women money, that he admits to contacting her in early hours of the morning and for it to lead for him to suspending a campaign, even though he claims he is innocent, is more than enough evidence to suggest some sort of wrong doing, whether all the women are telling the truth does not matter. For you to only believe him to be innocent because "well a few women in the past have lied, so clearly all these women are just as sneaky and manipulative" is moronic and borders on being sexist. One woman =/= all women and you just can't ignore allegations because some have been known to be false in the past.

SaintLeonidas

I'm looking forward to seeing how Romney deals with the Gingrich threat. So far he's dealing with it rather badly.

GreySeal9

Interested in this as well. I don't think that the Romney camp has treated Gingrich any differently than his former competitors -- essentially ignoring them. I am also inclined to think that it is a bad strategy in this case, but it's not like Romney can go after Newt on his inconsistent record, and I think going after Newt on the personal record is something preferred to be avoided.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

In all other news, the Republican primary has become 54% less interesting. With Cain, Perry, Trump, Palin and Bachmann all out of the picture, it's almost business as usual.

Diophage

IDK, I was kind of tired of the sideshow. I'm looking forward to seeing how Romney deals with the Gingrich threat. So far he's dealing with it rather badly.

I would rather have Romney or Huntsman. I don't really care for either, but they seem like have normal ways of thinking in spite of other shortcomings (kinda like Obama).

Did you know that Gingrich is actually claiming that he will be the nominee? He's ridiculously cocky.

[QUOTE="Diophage"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

IDK, I was kind of tired of the sideshow. I'm looking forward to seeing how Romney deals with the Gingrich threat. So far he's dealing with it rather badly.

GreySeal9

I would rather have Romney or Huntsman. I don't really care for either, but they seem like have normal ways of thinking in spite of other shortcomings (kinda like Obama).

Did you know that Gingrich is actually claiming that he will be the nominee? He's ridiculously cocky.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="garland51"]

Wow. I sure hope that you don't get picked for something like jury duty. It's always innocent until proven guilty for everyone.

Diophage

I'm pretty sure what he meant was this:

"You do know that SOME women like to make up allegations like that, don't you?"

I, too, find it odd that all of a sudden these allegations surface, when he's trying to run for president. It does strike me a bit odd. AND I ****ing HATE Herman Cain.

Thank you! Finally, someone gets it.

Only remaining questions with the Republican field is whether or not they settle on Newt as the latest Anti-Romney or they give a look at Santorum or, finally, the guy they should have been paying attention to all along in Huntsman. (A.K.A. "The only candidate in the field that Democrats are actually afraid of.")

nocoolnamejim

I really wish Huntsman could receive a little bit of attention, but as the clock continues to wind down, it's starting to look like any traction he gains is going to be too little, too late. The disturbingly sensationalistic nature of this campaign hasn't boded well for him. I don't think Santorum will be able to gain traction, so basically it seems to be Newt vs. Romney.

Cain's credibility has been undermined

GreySeal9

You raise a good point.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm looking forward to seeing how Romney deals with the Gingrich threat. So far he's dealing with it rather badly.

coolbeans90

Interested in this as well. I don't think that the Romney camp has treated Gingrich any differently than his former competitors -- essentially ignoring them. I am also inclined to think that it is a bad strategy in this case, but it's not like Romney can go after Newt on his inconsistent record, and I think going after Newt on the personal record is something preferred to be avoided.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. He still thinks that he can run a controlled campaign in which he ducks from press appearances and declines to engage with Gingrich and just coasts to the nominations. But it's looks to me that Gingrich's surge might have staying power and in that case Romney has to engage him. Also, Romney needs to start thinking about doing something about Hunstman. He's not going to be the nominee, but if he gains any serious ground in New Hampshire, it will help Gingrich immensely.

He was the only worthwhile canidate the republicans had, this sucks, 4 more years of obama...

siriusbusiness

LOL. He was the worst Republican candidate by far.

[QUOTE="siriusbusiness"]

He was the only worthwhile canidate the republicans had, this sucks, 4 more years of obama...

GreySeal9

LOL. He was the worst Republican candidate by far.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. He still thinks that he can run a controlled campaign in which he ducks from press appearances and declines to engage with Gingrich and just coasts to the nominations. But it's looks to me that Gingrich's surge might have staying power and in that case Romney has to engage him. Also, Romney needs to start thinking about doing something about Hunstman. He's not going to be the nominee, but if he gains any serious ground in New Hampshire, it will help Gingrich immensely.

GreySeal9

The thing is, I don't really see how Romney can substantively engage with Gingrich in a manner which would win him votes. (see: immigration squabble) I mean, camera time might help a little, but it seems to me that there is a bigger problem -- that Gingrich is seen as conservative, which is funny since he has danced around about as much as Romney, but I digress. I mean, there are two potential avenues of attack, neither of which are policy: personal history (probably not a wise course of action, that might even be done for him via media) and the fact that Gingrich is portrayable as a big gov't, lifetime politician with shady political associations (see: Freddie Mac). I think the latter may have to be pushed if Gingrich doesn't self-destruct.

Huntsman is pulling about 10% in Hampshire, IIRC. That's a problem for Romney, one which I see no immediate solution to. Romney can't placate moderates while going toe-to-toe with Gingrich in a primary. It's a two-front war.

To be honest, things are starting to look bad for Romney if Gingrich stays around.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="siriusbusiness"]

He was the only worthwhile canidate the republicans had, this sucks, 4 more years of obama...

Ace6301

LOL. He was the worst Republican candidate by far.

I don't think so. Although Bachmann frequently makes statements that are flat out wrong or crazy and Santorum's social conservatism is highly concerning, they both seem far more knowledgable on the issues than Cain. Candidates that know less about issues than laypeople scare the hell out of me.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm looking forward to seeing how Romney deals with the Gingrich threat. So far he's dealing with it rather badly.

coolbeans90

Interested in this as well. I don't think that the Romney camp has treated Gingrich any differently than his former competitors -- essentially ignoring them. I am also inclined to think that it is a bad strategy in this case, but it's not like Romney can go after Newt on his inconsistent record, and I think going after Newt on the personal record is something preferred to be avoided.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. He still thinks that he can run a controlled campaign in which he ducks from press appearances and declines to engage with Gingrich and just coasts to the nominations. But it's looks to me that Gingrich's surge might have staying power and in that case Romney has to engage him. Also, Romney needs to start thinking about doing something about Hunstman. He's not going to be the nominee, but if he gains any serious ground in New Hampshire, it will help Gingrich immensely.

coolbeans90

The thing is, I don't really see how Romney can substantively engage with Gingrich in a manner which would win him votes. (see: immigration squabble) I mean, camera time might help a little, but it seems to me that there is a bigger problem -- that Gingrich is seen as conservative, which is funny since he has danced around about as much as Romney, but I digress. I mean, there are two potential avenues of attack, neither of which are policy: personal history (probably not a wise course of action, that might even be done for him via media) and the fact that Gingrich is portrayable as a big gov't, lifetime politician with shady political associations (see: Freddie Mac). I think the latter may have to be pushed if Gingrich doesn't self-destruct.

Huntsman is pulling about 10% in Hampshire, IIRC. That's a problem for Romney, one which I see no immediate solution to. Romney can't placate moderates while going toe-to-toe with Gingrich in a primary. It's a two-front war.

To be honest, things are starting to look bad for Romney if Gingrich stays around.

I agree with most everything you've said, but in a two-man race, it becomes immediately obvious if one side is not engaging. However, I completely agree that it will be difficult for Romney to find a good avenue of attack, which is why Team Romney is scrambling for a strategy. And they would be foolish to count on Gingrich self-destruction. It could very well never happen.

What I don't understand is why he declined to debate Gingrich one-on-one. Romney is a good debater and has a good grasp of issues. I don't see the upside in refusing, especially since people are starting to whisper (and in some cases, not whispering that Romney is scared of scrutiny).

You're completely right that Gingrich has dance around as much as Romney, but with Gingrich's personality, the flip flops come across differently, like he changed his mind or just said something stupid in the past. He even calls some of the stuff he did.said stupid.

Romney's flip flops come across as being coldly calculating and he tries to act like they don't exist, which insults people's intelligence. Newt will just say, "Oh yeah. I was dumb to think that. This is what I think now." I think that's more appealing to conservative voters.

Question, ladies and gentlemen: Who do you think Herman Cain will endorse?

In 2008, he endorsed Romney -- and so far, Romney has taken the lion's share of presidential endorsements.

However, Gingrich I think is slightly more aligned with Cain than Romney.

What say you?

Moreover, do you think a Cain endorsement of Romney, or any other candidate than Gingrich for that matter, would be severely detrimental to Gingrich?

coolbeans90

and follows it with quoting Pokemon again? Troll.SaintLeonidas

I agree with most everything you've said, but in a two-man race, it becomes immediately obvious if one side is not engaging. However, I completely agree that it will be difficult for Romney to find a good avenue of attack, which is why Team Romney is scrambling for a strategy. And they would be foolish to count on Gingrich self-destruction. It could very well never happen.

What I don't understand is why he declined to debate Gingrich one-on-one. Romney is a good debater and has a good grasp of issues. I don't see the upside in refusing, especially since people are starting to whisper (and in some cases, not whispering that Romney is scared of scrutiny).

You're completely right that Gingrich has dance around as much as Romney, but with Gingrich's personality, the flip flops come across differently, like he changed his mind or just said something stupid in the past. He even calls some of the stuff he did.said stupid.

Romney's flip flops come across as being coldly calculating and he tries to act like they don't exist, which insults people's intelligence. Newt will just say, "Oh yeah. I was dumb to think that. This is what I think now." I think that's more appealing to conservative voters.

GreySeal9

I agree that refusing to go one-on-one with Gingrich was a poor judgement call. It's not exactly like there is a major downside to him debating Gingrich. Unrelated: I think I read Huntsman is doing one of those with Gingrich.

Admire and respect Cain for continuing to fight for what he believes in despite being forced out for a very stupid and sad reason.Charazani

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Question, ladies and gentlemen: Who do you think Herman Cain will endorse?

In 2008, he endorsed Romney -- and so far, Romney has taken the lion's share of presidential endorsements.

However, Gingrich I think is slightly more aligned with Cain than Romney.

What say you?

Moreover, do you think a Cain endorsement of Romney, or any other candidate than Gingrich for that matter, would be severely detrimental to Gingrich?

topsemag55

The thing which prompted me to ask who he would endorse is a statement that he would shortly endorse someone.

Sad day, that means we won't be seeing any more of his ad campaign gems.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm looking forward to seeing how Romney deals with the Gingrich threat. So far he's dealing with it rather badly.

mattbbpl

Interested in this as well. I don't think that the Romney camp has treated Gingrich any differently than his former competitors -- essentially ignoring them. I am also inclined to think that it is a bad strategy in this case, but it's not like Romney can go after Newt on his inconsistent record, and I think going after Newt on the personal record is something preferred to be avoided.

He could probably still go after him over his questionable ethics and interest conflicts, but I'm not sure how effective that would be alone.

Yeah, it would just bring attention to his deeper individual mandates problems.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] and follows it with quoting Pokemon again? Troll.BranKetra

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I agree with most everything you've said, but in a two-man race, it becomes immediately obvious if one side is not engaging. However, I completely agree that it will be difficult for Romney to find a good avenue of attack, which is why Team Romney is scrambling for a strategy. And they would be foolish to count on Gingrich self-destruction. It could very well never happen.

What I don't understand is why he declined to debate Gingrich one-on-one. Romney is a good debater and has a good grasp of issues. I don't see the upside in refusing, especially since people are starting to whisper (and in some cases, not whispering that Romney is scared of scrutiny).

You're completely right that Gingrich has dance around as much as Romney, but with Gingrich's personality, the flip flops come across differently, like he changed his mind or just said something stupid in the past. He even calls some of the stuff he did.said stupid.

Romney's flip flops come across as being coldly calculating and he tries to act like they don't exist, which insults people's intelligence. Newt will just say, "Oh yeah. I was dumb to think that. This is what I think now." I think that's more appealing to conservative voters.

coolbeans90

I agree that refusing to go one-on-one with Gingrich was a poor judgement call. It's not exactly like there is a major downside to him debating Gingrich. Unrelated: I think I read Huntsman is doing one of those with Gingrich.

Yeah, he is. He's trying to look like the more gutsy and consistent moderate, which he certainly does.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] and follows it with quoting Pokemon again? Troll.BranKetra

Link because your google must be broken.

Good Hunstman anti-Romney ad.

[QUOTE="Charazani"]Admire and respect Cain for continuing to fight for what he believes in despite being forced out for a very stupid and sad reason.Diophage

[QUOTE="Diophage"][QUOTE="Charazani"]Admire and respect Cain for continuing to fight for what he believes in despite being forced out for a very stupid and sad reason.Charazani

The thing which prompted me to ask who he would endorse is a statement that he would shortly endorse someone.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] and follows it with quoting Pokemon again? Troll.Charazani

Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Oh noes, President Cain wont get to have any sexy parties in the Lincoln Bedroom.Allicrombie