Originally Posted By gadzuux The latest word is that one of the women who filed a complaint is chomping at the bit to go public with her story. Unfortunately she signed a confidentiality agreement with the Nat'l Restaurant Assoc. - NOT with Cain. Her lawyers are seeking a waiver to allow her to go public with her story. Her story is non-specific right now, but the gist of it is that Cain is lying. The question is whether she has any corroborating evidence to support her side of the incident. If not, it's still "he said she said". Either way, I don't see the restaurant association being all too interested in releasing her from her confidentiality agreement. Still, I bet her story gets out one way or another, and sooner rather than later.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Agreed, gadz. This story will definitely leak out before the first primary. As for who's behind it... my money's on Perry. He's been coming up short in the polls lately, and seems desperate enough to go down this road early on. Bachmann is running out of money and staff, and isn't bright enough to find dirt like this; she's lucky if she can dig out her house keys from the bottom of her purse. It could be Romney, but it doesn't quite feel like his style. Perry? Absolutely. The guy seems capable of doing just about anything to be the next George W Bush.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 My first guess would be Perry too. Not only does he have a rep for playing dirty, but he benefits most right now if Cain goes away.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, well. Looks like Cain himself thinks so too. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/11/02/herman-cain-curt-anderson-sexual-harassment-allegations_n_1072482.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...482.html</a> Meanwhile, the Perry folks blame Romney. Where's my popcorn?
Originally Posted By ecdc I love Cain! Please let him stick around. Who else says he's ready for tough foreign policy questions because he's "been studying these issues for months."
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 At least he didn't say he could see Russia from his house. I guess studying is slightly better, LOL.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I am just amazed that the Cain campaign would expect this issue to never come up. They were asked about it several days before the story broke nationally, and still they stumbled and scrambled. At first, Cain blamed the "liberal media" and borrowed a throw-back line about a "high tech lynching" from Clarence Thomas. Then he said he didn't know if there'd been a settlement. Then he remembered something about it, but didn't follow the details. Now he blames the Perry campaign. But it still goes back to this: Cain knew this was in his past, and he and his campaign decided to play the odds and hope it wouldn't never be raised. At the very least, you have to question the man's judgement, as well as question how serious he is about running for office at all. This is sloppy, not-ready-for-primetime stuff. If there was nothing to the charges, then he should have mentioned them right off and taken the issue away. That he wanted this kept hidden only adds to the intrigue. And now, a third woman has something to say...
Originally Posted By gadzuux As much as I'm enjoying the entertainment value of Cain's candidacy, as well as the clown car of other GOP candidates, I can't help but be resentful of him conjuring up the whole Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill story. The clear inference is that Anita Hill was lying in a deliberate and malicious attempt to destroy Thomas, and that everybody (on that side of the aisle anyway) acknowledges this. This just isn't true. As first hand accounts go, they don't come any more credible than Anita Hill. Attorneys talk about the "perfect victim", meaning that the woman making claims of sexual harrassment needs to be without fault in her personal life or her professional career. Anita Hill was the 'perfect victim' - she brought with her integrity, credibility and dignity - and carried those attributes before the hearings and ever since. Yet the right wing continues to savage her reputation twenty years later, all in a revisionist attempt to justify their support for Thomas - arguably one of the weakest justices the supreme court has ever known. If this woman does indeed come forward, she'll be on the receiving end of horrible character assassination - anyting they can dredge up ... she led him on, she was a bad employee, she came in late, she wore short skirts and high heels, her lipstick was the wrong color - whatever - it was her fault and she was asking for it. One of the thousands of reasons to be disgusted to the very pit of my gut by republicans.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If this woman does indeed come forward, she'll be on the receiving end of horrible character assassination - anyting they can dredge up ... she led him on, she was a bad employee, she came in late, she wore short skirts and high heels, her lipstick was the wrong color - whatever - it was her fault and she was asking for it. << That is for sure.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think Cain is toast. Not only is there the scandal itself (and the ridiculously sloppy way he's handled it), but just the other day he said something about being worried that China could become a nuclear power... something they've been since 1964. Which any reasonably attentive high school kid would know. The irony is that I think, as many people have opined, that Cain never seriously thought he had a shot at getting the nomination. But he saw others - Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee (who at least were governors), even a relative nobody like Alan Keyes parlay a failed presidential bid into bigger speaking fees and book advances. And he figured he could do that. So he ran. And then Perry stumbled and the base support went to Cain for a time (almost by default because the others were sooooo weak), and he topped some polls. Which he probably never expected, but which brought out greater scrutiny - and quite probably serious oppo research from the other campaigns. And then one of those campaigns discovered this and leaked it. And if the reputation for being a serial harasser sticks, his speaking fees and book advances just took a serious nose dive. Some will insist (as with Clarence Thomas) that he got a raw deal, and will remain fans. Dang liberal media and slutty women! But a lot more will have a bad taste in their mouths about him (worse than his lousy pizza!) So by trying to up his speaking fee/book advance numbers, the irony is that he got so strong in the polls, he invited the scrutiny that now means those fees just probably plummeted back down to earth. Had he just gotten to just 15% or so, he'd have been an entertaining afterthought that no one would have thought they needed to scrutinize further, and he'd have had his enhanced speaking fees (as indeed, someone like Keyes did). It's like an O. Henry story.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>just the other day he said something about being worried that China could become a nuclear power... something they've been since 1964<< As the day went on, he began remembering more and more about China.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Steve Forbes should have been exhibit A B and C as to the chances that Cain had.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<(worse than his lousy pizza!)>> Until he started running I never heard of Godfather's pizza. Which begs the question but how do you screw up pizza. It's like sex even when it's bad, it's still better than most things out there.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Until he started running I never heard of Godfather's pizza.<< We've got one here. And it's pretty bad pizza. Not as bad as Chuck. E. Cheese pizza, which is only considered pizza because it is flat and round, but still it's pretty bad.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <but how do you screw up pizza> They manage. I've had it twice - once before I knew how bad it was (it was there, and like you, I figured "how bad can it be?") and once when I was forced to stay overnight when my flight was canceled due to weather, and there was only a little strip mall next to the airport motel. I knew it was going to be bad the second time, but it was the only thing open. It's really bad. Yes, I'm a pizza snob, living in a largely Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn like I do. But I can deal with, say, Pizza Hut if I'm some place where that's all there is - I know it won't hold a candle to the mom and pop places in Brooklyn, but I can deal. Godfather's is a whole other deal though. Worse than Domino's, if you can imagine.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 But Dominoes tells me in their ads that they're doing better. It's very rare if I get pizza from one of the mega-chains. I'd rather give my money to the mom and pop places. And we have a ton of great ones here. And it's always good.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'd rather give my money to the mom and pop places. And we have a ton of great ones here. And it's always good.<< I would too, but I'm in the land of pizza chain restaurants mostly in my area.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Yes, I'm a pizza snob, living in a largely Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn like I do.<< I don't blame you. Our trip to New York a couple years ago ruined me for any other kind of pizza now.
