Three women accuse Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

When it comes down to it I will believe it when I see it if the Republican base would ever vote for a Mormon in office any time soon..

sSubZerOo

Romney's poll numbers are a rather compelling case.

Based on scientific polling where they take a cross section.. They can be accurate but we have NO idea how the voter turn otu will be with evangelicals if they fear that a Mormon could get into office.. Like I said I will believe it when I see it, I seriously think when it comes down to voting a huge base are going to vote against Romney specifically because he is a Mormon..

The problem for our evangelical friends is that they need a candidate can coalesce around. They seem to suffer from a lack of a good, traditional folksy politician in Huckabee's absence. Unless Cain can manage to prevent a serious popularity bleed in between now and the primary, there will be a serious competition for their votes. Intrade has Romney at ~70% likelihood of nailing the primary. In the general election, Obama is going to have serious voter turnout problems of his own; he doesn't have the same enthusiasm he did in '08. Independents are key and tend to flip during troubling economic times. They are swing state voters. The evangelicals are most heavily concentrated in deep red states. I'm putting Romney slightly over Obama in terms of likelihood of winning the election shall he take the nomination.

The problem for our evangelical friends is that they need a candidate can coalesce around. They seem to suffer from a lack of a good, traditional folksy politician in Huckabee's absence. Unless Cain can manage to prevent a serious popularity bleed in between now and the primary, there will be a serious competition for their votes. Intrade has Romney at ~70% likelihood of nailing the primary. In the general election, Obama is going to have serious voter turnout problems of his own; he doesn't have the same enthusiasm he did in '08. Independents are key and tend to flip during troubling economic times. They are swing state voters. The evangelicals are most heavily concentrated in deep red states. I'm putting Romney slightly over Obama in terms of likelihood of winning the election shall he take the nomination.

coolbeans90

You also have to remember that Romney was a governor in a blue state. Candidates that were governors of states that were historically on the other side have had success in carrying states that would normally vote Dem/GOP. Clinton with arkansas and Reagan with california. Although Romney might not win Massachusetts he can give Obama a run for his money in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania

You also have to remember that Romney was a governor in a blue state. Candidates that were governors of states that were historically on the other side have had success in carrying states that would normally vote Dem/GOP. Clinton with arkansas and Reagan with california. Although Romney might not win Massachusetts he can give Obama a run for his money in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania

DroidPhysX

I do think that has to do with the fact that said politicians are, by political necessity, closer to the center. This does explain Romney's greater appeal to swing state voters/independents.

Two unnamed, totally anonymous sources citing events from 15 years ago? If you're a Republican, well then it MUST be true.:roll:

To be honest, I don't even care if the allegations are true. I hate how these kind of scandals and other "past mistakes" always end up in the campaign. People should base their opinion on him based on how fit he is to run the nation.

Unfortunately, he's a complete clown in that aspect as well. :P

Figured some dirt would come out about him sooner or later.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="flazzle"]

Wow. I didn't see a total How huge were the settelements? I didn't see it in the article

Wait. Didn't first you say those women got HUGE settlements.

And then you say 'Nobody knows' what they got?

Which is it?

Two unnamed, totally anonymous sources citing events from 15 years ago? If you're a Republican, well then it MUST be true.:roll:

QuistisTrepe_

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Two unnamed, totally anonymous sources citing events from 15 years ago? If you're a Republican, well then it MUST be true.:roll:

Frame_Dragger

Two unnamed, totally anonymous sources citing events from 15 years ago? If you're a Republican, well then it MUST be true.:roll:

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] That would be much more compelling and less whiny if Cain didn't admit that he did in fact know about the settlements made on his behalf... a few hours after saying unequivocally that he DIDN'T know. As to what he did, or if he did anything... who knows, but now he's caught in a lie and that's that. Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

When it comes down to it I will believe it when I see it if the Republican base would ever vote for a Mormon in office any time soon..

sSubZerOo

Romney's poll numbers are a rather compelling case.

Based on scientific polling where they take a cross section.. They can be accurate but we have NO idea how the voter turn otu will be with evangelicals if they fear that a Mormon could get into office.. Like I said I will believe it when I see it, I seriously think when it comes down to voting a huge base are going to vote against Romney specifically because he is a Mormon..

Two unnamed, totally anonymous sources citing events from 15 years ago? If you're a Republican, well then it MUST be true.:roll:

QuistisTrepe_

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Nobody knows, there were NDAs signed by all parties. The problem now is that during his talk earlier today Cain said that he had no idea that these women were paid anything, but he hoped "it wasn't a lot, because nothing happened." Well... tonight he's saying he DID know about those settlements. Oops. Kissinger laid it out a long time ago, but nobody seems to listen: "Any fact that needs to be disclosed should be put out now or as quickly as possible, because otherwise the bleeding will not end." (Henry Kissinger)Frame_Dragger

Wait. Didn't first you say those women got HUGE settlements.

And then you say 'Nobody knows' what they got?

Which is it?

ok, so you are guessing. got it

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Race card playing aside, to say that any lie is being perpetuated, you kind of have to prove that the accusations are lies.

GreySeal9

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Well, the way I see it, the **** making the nasty ass accusation ought to be held to account for some proof.

Anita Hill worked with Thomas for years. Even followed him from one job to another. Never filed a complaint. Never said anything to any of her coworkers about the supposed problem.

Do some research on what Juan Williams has to say about what was done to Clarence Thomas. According to him, it was a pure character assassination job orchestrated by liberal groups pissed off over Thurgood Marshalls seat on the SC going to a conservative black man.

Of course, don't believe Juan he's a conserv...........oh wait. Well, he is black, so........

Nobody said he was guilty. What I said is that you don't know if the accusations are lies. And that is true.

I don't care what Juan Williams says as that it just his interpretation.

Your last line is just more tired race card playing.

Sure does get old and tiresome after a while, huh?

Sounds like he is a true politician then if he is being accused of inappropriate behavior.

and there goes his vote, but it did work for clinton so I do not know.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Romney's poll numbers are a rather compelling case.

Based on scientific polling where they take a cross section.. They can be accurate but we have NO idea how the voter turn otu will be with evangelicals if they fear that a Mormon could get into office.. Like I said I will believe it when I see it, I seriously think when it comes down to voting a huge base are going to vote against Romney specifically because he is a Mormon..

I really don't see this affecting him too badly. It's not as if he physically harassed the women and it's certainly not as if he did something that could be absolutely interpreted as sexual harassment. So, in the long run, I think the Cain Train will keep on moving.

I really don't see this affecting him too badly. It's not as if he physically harassed the women and it's certainly not as if he did something that could be absolutely interpreted as sexual harassment. So, in the long run, I think the Cain Train will keep on moving.

RexerBot

[QUOTE="RexerBot"]

I really don't see this affecting him too badly. It's not as if he physically harassed the women and it's certainly not as if he did something that could be absolutely interpreted as sexual harassment. So, in the long run, I think the Cain Train will keep on moving.

Frame_Dragger

People will be forgiving; no-one is perfect. Most people in his situation would do what he did. Also, he didn't lie. Saying that he was unaware of a settlement is not the same as saying that he was aware of an agreement. "Settlement" is a legal-term with a very specific meaning; "Agreement" is a general term that has meaning with a wider range.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="RexerBot"]

I really don't see this affecting him too badly. It's not as if he physically harassed the women and it's certainly not as if he did something that could be absolutely interpreted as sexual harassment. So, in the long run, I think the Cain Train will keep on moving.

People will be forgiving; no-one is perfect. Most people in his situation would do what he did. Also, he didn't lie. Saying that he was unaware of a settlement is not the same as saying that he was aware of an agreement. "Settlement" is a legal-term with a very specific meaning; "Agreement" is a general term that has meaning with a wider range.

[QUOTE="RexerBot"]

People will be forgiving; no-one is perfect. Most people in his situation would do what he did. Also, he didn't lie. Saying that he was unaware of a settlement is not the same as saying that he was aware of an agreement. "Settlement" is a legal-term with a very specific meaning; "Agreement" is a general term that has meaning with a wider range.

Frame_Dragger

You can listen to his exact words in the following video on CNN.com:

CNN Video

On Fox News:

If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn't even aware of it and I hope it wasn't for much because nothing happened. So, if there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other offices that work for me at the association. So, the answer is absolutely not.Herman Cain

Note that he follows his use of the word settlement by saying "I hope it wasn't for much", making it very clear that he was referring to some sort of monetary compensation and not just a general agreement.

National Press Club:

I am unaware of any sort of settlement. I hope it wasn't for much because I didn't do anything. But the fact of the matter is I'm not aware of any settlement that came out of that accusation. Herman Cain

PBS:

I was aware that an agreement was reached. The word settlement vs the word agreement; I'm not sure what they called it. I know that there was some sort of agreement, but because it ended up being minimal, they didn't have to bring it to me.Herman Cain

You can clearly see/ hear that he uses the word "Settlement" in the first two instances, denying that he knows about them (i.e. the settlements) entirely. Then, in the third instance, he acknowledges that he knew about an agreement, making it clear that he is unaware if they (i.e. the subordinates who handled the case) called it/ handled it as a settlement. Hence, there is no contradiction. Perhaps there is another video that you were referring to when you said that he said something that contradicted his initial statements. However, regarding these three instances, there is no contradiction. As for him slipping in the polls in the future; neither of us can know that, but if he does, I will own up to my wrongful prediction.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="RexerBot"]

People will be forgiving; no-one is perfect. Most people in his situation would do what he did. Also, he didn't lie. Saying that he was unaware of a settlement is not the same as saying that he was aware of an agreement. "Settlement" is a legal-term with a very specific meaning; "Agreement" is a general term that has meaning with a wider range.

RexerBot

You can listen to his exact words in the following video on CNN.com:

CNN Video

On Fox News:

If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn't even aware of it and I hope it wasn't for much because nothing happened. So, if there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other offices that work for me at the association. So, the answer is absolutely not.Herman Cain

National Press Club:

I am unaware of any sort of settlement. I hope it wasn't for much because I didn't do anything. But the fact of the matter is I'm not aware of any settlement that came out of that accusation. Herman Cain

PBS:

I was aware that an agreement was reached. The word settlement vs the word agreement; I'm not sure what they called it. I know that there was some sort of agreement, but because it ended up being minimal, they didn't have to bring it to me.Herman Cain

You can clearly see/ hear that he uses the word "Settlement" in the first two instances, denying that he knows about them (i.e. the settlements) entirely. Then, in the third instance, he acknowledges that he knew about an agreement, making it clear that he is unaware if they (i.e. the subordinates who handled the case) called it/ handled it as a settlement. Hence, there is no contradiction. Perhaps there is another video that you were referring to when you said that he said something that contradicted his initial statements. However, regarding these three instances, there is no contradiction. As for him slipping in the polls in the future; neither of us can know that, but if he does, I will own up to my wrongful prediction.

[QUOTE="RexerBot"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] People won't bother with someone who's already compromised and shown they can't deal well with such situations in a primary. He's done, but on the bright side you'll be able to see this reflected in the polls, so I won't actually have to argue the point. Still... nice try with the settlement/agreement thing, but he said he wasn't aware they were paid, and that if they were he hoped it wasn't much. Hours later, he admit he knew they were paid. His wording was unfortunately clear, even for someone trying to spin it like you. Frame_Dragger

You can listen to his exact words in the following video on CNN.com:

CNN Video

On Fox News:

If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn't even aware of it and I hope it wasn't for much because nothing happened. So, if there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other offices that work for me at the association. So, the answer is absolutely not.Herman Cain

National Press Club:

I am unaware of any sort of settlement. I hope it wasn't for much because I didn't do anything. But the fact of the matter is I'm not aware of any settlement that came out of that accusation. Herman Cain

PBS:

I was aware that an agreement was reached. The word settlement vs the word agreement; I'm not sure what they called it. I know that there was some sort of agreement, but because it ended up being minimal, they didn't have to bring it to me.Herman Cain

You can clearly see/ hear that he uses the word "Settlement" in the first two instances, denying that he knows about them (i.e. the settlements) entirely. Then, in the third instance, he acknowledges that he knew about an agreement, making it clear that he is unaware if they (i.e. the subordinates who handled the case) called it/ handled it as a settlement. Hence, there is no contradiction. Perhaps there is another video that you were referring to when you said that he said something that contradicted his initial statements. However, regarding these three instances, there is no contradiction. As for him slipping in the polls in the future; neither of us can know that, but if he does, I will own up to my wrongful prediction.

This isn't a mere play on words. Re-read the first quote:

On Fox News:

If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn't even aware of it and I hope it wasn't for much because nothing happened. So, if there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other offices that work for me at the association. So, the answer is absolutely not.Herman Cain

Note that he follows his use of the word settlement by saying "I hope it wasn't for much", making it very clear that he was referring to some sort of monetary compensation and not just a general agreement.

Also, what the Restuarant Association calls it isn't relevant since he said that he was unaware of what they did/ called it. Hence, as I've said before, there is no contradiction.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[QUOTE="RexerBot"]

You can listen to his exact words in the following video on CNN.com:

CNN Video

On Fox News:

If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn't even aware of it and I hope it wasn't for much because nothing happened. So, if there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other offices that work for me at the association. So, the answer is absolutely not.Herman Cain

National Press Club:

I am unaware of any sort of settlement. I hope it wasn't for much because I didn't do anything. But the fact of the matter is I'm not aware of any settlement that came out of that accusation. Herman Cain

PBS:

I was aware that an agreement was reached. The word settlement vs the word agreement; I'm not sure what they called it. I know that there was some sort of agreement, but because it ended up being minimal, they didn't have to bring it to me.Herman Cain

You can clearly see/ hear that he uses the word "Settlement" in the first two instances, denying that he knows about them (i.e. the settlements) entirely. Then, in the third instance, he acknowledges that he knew about an agreement, making it clear that he is unaware if they (i.e. the subordinates who handled the case) called it/ handled it as a settlement. Hence, there is no contradiction. Perhaps there is another video that you were referring to when you said that he said something that contradicted his initial statements. However, regarding these three instances, there is no contradiction. As for him slipping in the polls in the future; neither of us can know that, but if he does, I will own up to my wrongful prediction.

This isn't a mere play on words. Re-read the first quote:

On Fox News:

If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn't even aware of it and I hope it wasn't for much because nothing happened. So, if there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other offices that work for me at the association. So, the answer is absolutely not.Herman Cain

Note that he follows his use of the word settlement by saying "I hope it wasn't for much", making it very clear that he was referring to some sort of monetary compensation and not just a general agreement.

Also, what the Restuarant Association calls it isn't relevant since he said that he was unaware of what they did/ called it. Hence, as I've said before, there is no contradiction.

This is right up there with, "What the definition of Is, is," frankly. The agreement in question wasn't some random handshake, it was specifically a monetary arrangement with NDA: a "Settlement Agreement". What they Agreed to was a Settlment... without the latter there is no former. Still, if you wan to hang your hat on this, go for it, just try to keep the tears inside when his polls plummet. Republican pundits are already throwing him under the bus, and something tells me his doner pool is already drying up.Frame_Dragger

We are not talking about the meaning of the words, "Agreement" and "Settlement", nor are we talking about what the NDA actually did. We are talking about what Cain meant when he used both terms; based on his wording, it is obvious that he thought of them as different. As for Republican pundits throwing him under the bus, what sources do you have for such a claim, other than yourself?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Well, the way I see it, the **** making the nasty ass accusation ought to be held to account for some proof.

Anita Hill worked with Thomas for years. Even followed him from one job to another. Never filed a complaint. Never said anything to any of her coworkers about the supposed problem.

Do some research on what Juan Williams has to say about what was done to Clarence Thomas. According to him, it was a pure character assassination job orchestrated by liberal groups pissed off over Thurgood Marshalls seat on the SC going to a conservative black man.

Of course, don't believe Juan he's a conserv...........oh wait. Well, he is black, so........

collegeboy64

Nobody said he was guilty. What I said is that you don't know if the accusations are lies. And that is true.

I don't care what Juan Williams says as that it just his interpretation.

Your last line is just more tired race card playing.

Sure does get old and tiresome after a while, huh?

Please stop acting like you were making some kind of point about liberals.

You were playing the race card and it failed.

Why are these politicians so dumb. Cain knew about it from the start, how many times does this have to happen for them to realize that to come out and confirm and defend yourself is better than to just lie.

Why are these politicians so dumb. Cain knew about it from the start, how many times does this have to happen for them to realize that to come out and confirm and defend yourself and better than to lie.

SaintLeonidas

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Nobody said he was guilty. What I said is that you don't know if the accusations are lies. And that is true.

I don't care what Juan Williams says as that it just his interpretation.

Your last line is just more tired race card playing.

GreySeal9

Sure does get old and tiresome after a while, huh?

Please stop acting like you were making some kind of point about liberals.

You were playing the race card and it failed.

Guess it only works for liberals.

watch Coulter and Hannity froth at the mouth over this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo0r_ay9DG4&feature=related

Oooohhh.. and Herman Cain takes another to the chops.

WAAAA Waaaaa...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/lawyer-cain-accuser-wants-to-talk-but-is-barred-by-agreement/2011/11/01/gIQA0bOIdM_story.html

One of the women who accused GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment wants to tell her side of the story but is barred by a confidentiality agreement, her attorney in Washington said Tuesday...

...

"It is just frustrating that Herman Cain is going around bad-mouthing the two complainants, and my client is blocked by a confidentiality agreement," Bennett said. "The National Restaurant Association ought to release them and allow them to respond. "

The association, which Cain headed from 1996 to 1999, has remained mum since the story broke in Politico on Sunday evening, citing a long-standing policy not to comment on personnel issues. Cain denied the sexual harassment allegations, saying they were "totally baseless and totally false."

Bennett represents one of the two women, who attended an Ivy League school and now works for the federal government. She has avoided the limelight since the allegations were aired, and she is staying with relatives while the media stakes out her home in suburban Maryland, Bennett said.

If she is released from the confidentiality ban, "then it is whole new ballgame," Bennett said.

"If we didn't have a written settlement agreement that says confidential and no disparagement, I think she'd be very comfortable coming forward," the attorney told The Post on Tuesday. "Not because she would be so hellbent on doing something to Herman Cain — I don't know that.

"For all practical purposes, Herman Cain has already done that" — waived confidentiality, Bennett said. "But legally that might not constitute a waiver."WashingtonPost

Not good... also it's been made clear by this lawyer that the money was NOT paid towards severence as Cain has said, but was in fact... a settlement.

I'm not really a fan of Herman Cain, but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone. Now all of a sudden after all this time these two "anonymes women" are claiming he was inappropriate with them from an "anonmyes sourcr"? Yeah it's just BS attack on him, that's all it is. It happens to anyone who is a serious candidate.

I'm not really a fan of Herman Cain, but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone. Now all of a sudden after all this time these two "anonymes women" are claiming he was inappropriate with them from an "anonmyes sourcr"? Yeah it's just BS attack on him, that's all it is. It happens to anyone who is a serious candidate.

ShadowMoses900

I'm not really a fan of Herman Cain, but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone. Now all of a sudden after all this time these two "anonymes women" are claiming he was inappropriate with them from an "anonmyes sourcr"? Yeah it's just BS attack on him, that's all it is. It happens to anyone who is a serious candidate.

ShadowMoses900

I'm not really a fan of Herman Cain, but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone. Now all of a sudden after all this time these two "anonymes women" are claiming he was inappropriate with them from an "anonmyes sourcr"? Yeah it's just BS attack on him, that's all it is. It happens to anyone who is a serious candidate.

It's clear that Cain was doing massive damage control. I was listening to the Adam Carolla podcast and they played the tapes of his responses to these allegations and as they day went on he for some reason remembered that there was a settlement after denying it.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I'm not really a fan of Herman Cain, but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone. Now all of a sudden after all this time these two "anonymes women" are claiming he was inappropriate with them from an "anonmyes sourcr"? Yeah it's just BS attack on him, that's all it is. It happens to anyone who is a serious candidate.

DroidPhysX

It doesn't have to be sexual harrasment neseccarily, it can be anything. Romeny got accused of being in a cult by some evangilical guy, Obama got accused of being a communist and a secret muslim, it just happens to eveyone.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I'm not really a fan of Herman Cain, but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone. Now all of a sudden after all this time these two "anonymes women" are claiming he was inappropriate with them from an "anonmyes sourcr"? Yeah it's just BS attack on him, that's all it is. It happens to anyone who is a serious candidate.

ShadowMoses900

It doesn't have to be sexual harrasment neseccarily, it can be anything. Romeny got accused of being in a cult by some evangilical guy, Obama got accused of being a communist and a secret muslim, it just happens to eveyone.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] It has yet to happen to Romney.DroidPhysX

It doesn't have to be sexual harrasment neseccarily, it can be anything. Romeny got accused of being in a cult by some evangilical guy, Obama got accused of being a communist and a secret muslim, it just happens to eveyone.

The claim is anonymes from and from an anonmes source, there isn't any proof that he sexually harassed anyone.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I'm not really a fan of Herman Cain, but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone. Now all of a sudden after all this time these two "anonymes women" are claiming he was inappropriate with them from an "anonmyes sourcr"? Yeah it's just BS attack on him, that's all it is. It happens to anyone who is a serious candidate.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

It doesn't have to be sexual harrasment neseccarily, it can be anything. Romeny got accused of being in a cult by some evangilical guy, Obama got accused of being a communist and a secret muslim, it just happens to eveyone.

ShadowMoses900

The claim is anonymes from and from an anonmes source, there isn't any proof that he sexually harassed anyone.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I'm not really a fan of Herman Cain, but I don't think he sexually assaulted anyone. Now all of a sudden after all this time these two "anonymes women" are claiming he was inappropriate with them from an "anonmyes sourcr"? Yeah it's just BS attack on him, that's all it is. It happens to anyone who is a serious candidate.

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] I am pretty sure the evangelical preacher called mormonism a cult and Obama's attacks came from mainly right leaning groups and people. This sexual harassment suit is not the work of a liberal leaning think tank.DroidPhysX

The claim is anonymes from and from an anonmes source, there isn't any proof that he sexually harassed anyone.

He may be oddly switching his story around, but how do you know that isn't the case of biased reporting or media spin? I have seen countless times when watching a story or interview on TV or reading about it and the reporter asks two totally different questions but edits it so it seems like he is answeringa differentquestion instead of the origional one. It happens all the time.

And even if he is really doing the "damage control" he's not the only one. Obama did it through his whole campaign with the racist church he came from.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Nope because the difference between those situations is that what Cain did was (or potentially was) illegal.Stevo_the_gamer