Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Does it matter if Herman Cain was completely innocent?

Does it matter if Herman Cain was completely innocent?

We’ll never know now, will we?  And it’s ancient history, right?

We have substituted speculation and conjecture for proof.  Such as, the woman who says she had a 13 year affair with Cain says they went to the Tyson-Holyfield fight together.  Cain denies it.  It’s a provable/disprovable fact, but no one bothered to try.

And we still don’t even know what he was accused of at the National Restaurant Association.  Get that, we don’t even know the allegations, much less the proof.

As to Sharon Bialek, it now turns out that she came onto another NRA executive, according to him, and probably had little or no contact with Cain.  But who cares, he was a flawed candidate anyway, right?  So if the media took him out, the other candidates’ supporters get to dance on his political grave.

Pathetic.

(h/t to dmacleo in the Tip Line and others who e-mailed me the video link)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Yes, pathetic.

Truly pathetic and predictable.

The media has never, ever bothered to bury its dead.

As a fellow black conservative, nobody wanted to believe there was more to Cain than met the eye more than I did. The first two alleged settlements didn’t necessarily mean much. Sharon Bialek was the typical Allred foil — a worldly woman who has made big honking mistakes and should have known better, but who wants to blame everybody but herself. When Karen Kraushaar decided she didn’t want anyone asking why she asked for a JFK School of Business scholarship as settlement for a separate harassment claim, the whole distraction was dissolving into thin air.

Then, came the bombshell. No, not Ginger White; Cain’s brain freeze when it came to Libya. His sneer about not needing to know the king of “Bekibekistanstan” was troubling, but not fatal; his inability to articulate what his problem with Obama’s Libya policy was.

Ginger was icing on the cake, especially when he asserted that even though he gave her money, and they had a longtime “friendship” his wife was in the dark about the entire time, there was no sex. That crossed over into Clinton territory. The whole thing became a circus when Cain would announce that he was going to talk to his wife. What kinda BS is that, when the guy is treating a meeting with his spouse as if it’s an international summit?

I’m done with Cain. Maybe he and Mark Sanford could open up a pizza chain in Argentina.

When ‘blood libel’ was directed at Sarah Palin so many Republicans danced with joy at that story too.

Yet for the sake of party unity we all must rally behind Mitt Romney.

    logos in reply to syn. | December 9, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    By all means, support your candidate of your choice now, but:

    For the sake of party unity, we must all rally around the ultimate Republican nominee – whoever that may be, whenever that becomes clear.

as long as people did not like the candidate the character assassination was ok. after all it got a weaker candidate out of the way right?

I don’t care who the candidate is, or what party they are in. wrong is wrong and needs to be fought against.

    Lewfarge in reply to dmacleo. | December 9, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    dmacleo: Your comment is absolutely RIGHT ON! At some point everyone need to understand it is time to FIGHT back! We, as a Nation can no longer passively stand by, compromise, go along to get along, and watch this Nation go down the toilet!

“As to Sharon Bialek, it now turns out that she came onto another NRA executive, according to him, and probably had little or no contact with Cain.”

Why should I believe him? Maybe he was rebuffed by her, and is taking some revenge. Does he have two affidavits from people who he spoke to at the time to prove it happened?

I didn’t know what to think of Bialek. She said she shook his hand at a recent Tea Party, but a witness said they gave each other a big hug like old friends. So, she was spinning. There are pics of them together at the event. However, Cain says he did not know the woman. How does that compute?

    VetHusbandFather in reply to NbyNW. | December 9, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Does he have two affidavits from people who he spoke to at the time to prove it happened?

    Keep in mind these affidavits weren’t signed 14 years ago. So the question is does he have two friends willing to swear that he told them a story about a woman hitting on him?

    There are pics of them together at the event. However, Cain says he did not know the woman. How does that compute?

    Yeah, who would want to get their picture taken with a guy running for President anyway? They MUST have been secret lovers.

      “Keep in mind these affidavits weren’t signed 14 years ago. So the question is does he have two friends willing to swear that he told them a story about a woman hitting on him?”

      Well?

      “Yeah, who would want to get their picture taken with a guy running for President anyway? They MUST have been secret lovers.”

      The picture is proof that he was there, not of an affair, silly. The witness is a radio personality from Chicago (whose name I forget) being interviewed by Glenn Beck on his show. She said she saw Bialek approach Cain, and the two embraced like old friends. She then said they seemed to have an intense conversation with Bialek doing most of the talking. By the way, she believes Bialek. She says she’s been harassed herself.

      But Cain says he does not know the woman. It does perplex.

      And there is a flaming double standard when promoting the word of one (and only one) person to invalidate a Cain accuser, but dismissing multiple accusations against Cain.

        Milhouse in reply to NbyNW. | December 11, 2011 at 2:24 am

        The “witness” is a disgraced journalist

          Well this is typical. Try to destroy the female messenger while elevating the accused but saintly male.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 11, 2011 at 7:12 pm

          Huh? What has her sex got to do with anything? Are you claiming that because she’s female it doesn’t matter what she does or what she says, we must never question her character because females are superior beings who never lie?! Or what are you saying? It is an indisputable fact that this “witness” is a discredited journalist. Thus every word she utters must be questioned.

    dmacleo in reply to NbyNW. | December 9, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    I guess per some people if I came home, told the wife I saw obama and he raped me, that her signing an affadavit saying I told her that is proof pbama raped me.
    good lord.

    Milhouse in reply to NbyNW. | December 11, 2011 at 2:21 am

    Um, no, there are no pics of them together.

Simply put, the administration’s worst nightmare as been eliminated by hearsay, innuendo and the MSM.

Nothing more to look at here folks so move along now…

deuscaritas8132 | December 9, 2011 at 10:14 pm

does it matter? You bet it does. If i have to explain why we’re in bigger trouble than i thought. Read this comment,
“Cain’s brain freeze when it came to Libya. His sneer about not needing to know the king of “Bekibekistanstan” was troubling, but not fatal; his inability to articulate what his problem with Obama’s Libya policy was.

Ginger was icing on the cake, especially when he asserted that even though he gave her money, and they had a longtime “friendship” his wife was in the dark about the entire time, there was no sex. That crossed over into Clinton territory. The whole thing became a circus when Cain would announce that he was going to talk to his wife. What kinda BS is that, when the guy is treating a meeting with his spouse as if it’s an international summit?”
i watched the ‘brain freeze’ Cain had. He had a brain freeze.Hold the presses.i heard the question.It was like the do you agree with the Bush Doctrine question. Could Cain have handled it better? Probably. But the question was so stupid to begin with i wouldn’t have wasted my time giving an answer.Sorry ppl.Just because a guy is an interviewer it doesn’t qualify them as an Einstein. Regardless the media played up his poorer interviews and didn’t bother to play up his good ones. He had many. They made damned sure this one hit the waves. The good ones got buried into obscurity.They didn’t make the light of day.
I will also say this for Cain though-bad interview or not.
Herman Cain KNOWS where America is and what we stand for.
I don’t care that he was being more or less sarcastic about Uzbekistan.
At least he knows there aren’t 57 states. That Texas is not Kansas or Ark whatever 2 states the current Pres got mixed up,or that Hawaii is part of Asia and that corpsman are not corpsemen. He also knows to put his hand over his heart when he says the Pledge. IMHO his campaign staff would have done a better job by keeping him away from some of these jerks. They didn’t but that doesn’t change the FACT that Herman Cain has it right where it counts.BTW.As bumbled as it looked in that interview his points are actually dead on.As for talking with his wife-he said he was going to talk to his wife.I’m shocked. Herman Cain would be a great Pres. Flawless human being? Know one? Good leader? VERY likely. Rise to the office? Also very likely. Perfect? Nope.Right principles? YEP.
Loves his country-DEFINITELY.Good enough for me.

Herman C. meet Joseph K.

“Keep in mind these affidavits weren’t signed 14 years ago. So the question is does he have two friends willing to swear that he told them a story about a woman hitting on him?”

Well?

“Yeah, who would want to get their picture taken with a guy running for President anyway? They MUST have been secret lovers.”

The picture is proof that he was there, not of an affair, silly. The witness is a radio personality from Chicago (whose name I forget) being interviewed by Glenn Beck on his show. She said she saw Bialek approach Cain, and the two embraced like old friends. She then said they seemed to have an intense conversation with Bialek doing most of the talking. By the way, she believes Bialek. She says she’s been harassed herself.

But Cain says he does not know the woman. It does perplex.

And there is a flaming double standard when promoting the word of one (and only one) person to invalidate a Cain accuser, but dismissing multiple accusations against Cain.

    dmacleo in reply to NbyNW. | December 10, 2011 at 10:34 am

    name the accuser and what they accused him of.
    I want to see these multiple accusations, their names and the transgressions.

    this is turning into another trig isn’t sarah palins real child fiasco, innuendo counts as facts.

Oh please. It is truly offensive to compare these attacks to those on Palin and sweet little Trig.

You know the names of three accusers, and you know explicit accusations by two of them. You also know that two cases of sexual harassment claims were filed and resolved with money. Yes, I know that these can be frivolous and some companies pay off a lot of claims – but how many times do they pay off multiple claims against one person?

I understand the appeal of Herman Cain. I don’t understand the strong resistance to accepting the fact that the guy has some issues with women. That is much more logical in explaining the situation than some devious conspiracy by the left.

    dmacleo in reply to NbyNW. | December 10, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    describe these sexual harassment claims. again, be specific. tell us exactly what happened and which accuser it was.
    you can’t because nobody bothered to give a damn and look.
    so now cain and his whole family are tainted as him being a serial harasser and adulterer with no actual investigations.
    and what its done to his family is like the trig thing. he said before his whole family was being harassed.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend