Herman Cain

[n_huffhines]

I'm not saying this will happen at all, as the current economic environment is as fragile as it's ever been, but history indicates that the next president will preside over economic expansion.

Would economic recovery be good for conservatives or liberals if BHO is in office?

?

 

[HSVol]

?

Preside during economic expansion

 

[n_huffhines]

No way of knowing that, but Reagan actually came out of the 76 convention as a superstar at likely was going to happen at some point no matter what.

Think of all the judicial appointments Carter got to make in those 4 years: the complete malaise that fell over the country; the hit we took as far as the way we were viewed in the world. I just don't think it's ever worth it.

Maybe. But, when Reagan was elected in '80 there were a lot of concerns about his age. If he loses to Carter in '80 because Ford was still in office, an older version of himself might not win in '84. I don't know. I don't remember because I was born in '82. Maybe the age thing wasn't as big a deal as it was related to me.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Maybe, but that doesn't really change my point. Reagan probably doesn't happen if Ford wins, so conceivably losing an election can be a good thing.

:zeitung_lesen:

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Like it or not, it's the way a 2 party system works. It's kind of like playing for field position in a football game.

Paradigm changes needs to be made. You are starting to see the first sparks of it in the tea party movement. The GOP will continue to lose a significant number of potential voters because they refuse to remove the Romney and Perry-esque politicians out of the 4 year hopper.

 

[n_huffhines]

Preside during economic expansion

I'm just questioning your statement. History indicates we'll have expansion next presidential term? Your statement has validity, I'm sure, but I am questioning whether or not past recession trends can tell us anything about when this one should end. We haven't had this much market manipulation to "fix" the economy since the Great Depression and that went on for like 4 presidential terms.

 

[HSVol]

I'm just questioning your statement. History indicates we'll have expansion next presidential term? Your statement has validity, I'm sure, but I am questioning whether or not past recession trends can tell us anything about when this one should end. We haven't had this much market manipulation to "fix" the economy since the Great Depression and that went on for like 4 presidential terms.

Just citing the business cycle. I did caveat my statement before I made it.

 

[gsvol]

 

[n_huffhines]

Just citing the business cycle. I did caveat my statement before I made it.

Oh yeah.

 

[sjt18]

Like it or not, it's the way a 2 party system works. It's kind of like playing for field position in a football game.

And because it is the way the system works... the only way to move it in the right direction is to withhold support unless someone gives you a legitimate candidate to vote for.

Let's say Romney is the nominee. Who will the GOP run next time? Will they choose a better candidate? Will they runs someone who is a principled conservative and genuine alternative to what the Dems offer?

If you keep giving big gov't types of both parties power then that's the only type you will see. You have to demand something different to get it...and the only way to do that is to use the power of your vote.

 

[sjt18]

Well, this is what we have. The store is only selling two tools these days. So it's either a hammer or a screw driver. Problem is you need a wrench.

Unless there's a political or cultural revolution, I guess you're screwed. Or nailed. Whichever.

Honestly... I don't know about you... but if I go to the store needing a wrench and all they have is screw drivers and hammers... I tell them I need a wrench and leave... I don't give them money for something I don't need.

 

[sjt18]

Limbaugh made an interesting point today...

We are now five days into Cain's sexual harassment "scandal" and the only tangible charges that have been made are that Cain refuses to deny charges that have not been specified and that his response hasn't been like that of a typical political campaign. It does not have the signs of a cover up or counter-marketing campaign.

Accusations have been hinted at... but if accusations were all that was required Obama should have been impeached for failing to meet Constitutional qualifications, right?


The longer this thing drags out without specifics... the more it smells like a hit job.

 

[therealUT]

Limbaugh made an interesting point today...

We are now five days into Cain's sexual harassment "scandal" and the only tangible charges that have been made are that Cain refuses to deny charges that have not been specified and that his response hasn't been like that of a typical political campaign. It does not have the signs of a cover up or counter-marketing campaign.

Accusations have been hinted at... but if accusations were all that was required Obama should have been impeached for failing to meet Constitutional qualifications, right?


The longer this thing drags out without specifics... the more it smells like a hit job.

Limbaugh is willfully ignorant. Cain's responses:

No comment.
I do not know what you are talking about.
There were false accusations but no settlement was made.
There was a settlement, but it was minor (maybe 2-3 months salary).
There was a settlement that was a yearly salary.

 

[sjt18]

Limbaugh is willfully ignorant. Cain's responses:

No comment.
I do not know what you are talking about.
There were false accusations but no settlement was made.
There was a settlement, but it was minor (maybe 2-3 months salary).
There was a settlement that was a yearly salary.

IOW's, he didn't go back to his "war room" and formulate a response, right? He didn't act like a politician but rather answered questions as best he could when they were asked.

Five days later... and this is what we know. We know that 2 women left the Association with 5 figure settlements after apparently making complaints. FWIW, I know mid-managers who have been cut loose for job performance who got that kind of settlement. Cain claims that one of the women could be disgruntled because she was fired.

No one has been willing to specify what Cain said, how often he said it, or whether it really rose to the level of a S/H case that would win in court.

Apparently another woman came forward and accused Cain of propositioning her but she did not complain at the time.

Yes. Cain looks like a non-politician. He's being fired at from all angles and is trying to answer directly rather than with scripted talking points and damage control.


So far... this has the appearance of guilty by accusation.

 

[sjt18]

Hey TRUT, serious question. What is Limbaugh intentionally ignorant of right now?

You have a shotgun spray of accusations with no specifics and a series of responses with basically the same level of organization and planning.

What demonstrated guilt is being overlooked here?

 

[therealUT]

IOW's, he didn't go back to his "war room" and formulate a response, right? He didn't act like a politician but rather answered questions as best he could when they were asked.

Five days later... and this is what we know. We know that 2 women left the Association with 5 figure settlements after apparently making complaints. FWIW, I know mid-managers who have been cut loose for job performance who got that kind of settlement. Cain claims that one of the women could be disgruntled because she was fired.

No one has been willing to specify what Cain said, how often he said it, or whether it really rose to the level of a S/H case that would win in court.

Apparently another woman came forward and accused Cain of propositioning her but she did not complain at the time.

Yes. Cain looks like a non-politician. He's being fired at from all angles and is trying to answer directly rather than with scripted talking points and damage control.


So far... this has the appearance of guilty by accusation.

I have a hard time believing that someone could fail to remember an occasion where they were charged with sexual harassment and the allegations were serious enough that one not only had to consult with legal counsel but also felt they needed to mention it to a key-staffer at the beginning of a Senate campaign.

Also, Cain had 10 days notice from Politico that this story was going to run. For 10 days he could not remember this event in his life; then just magically remembered a lot a day and a half later.

 

[therealUT]

Hey TRUT, serious question. What is Limbaugh intentionally ignorant of right now?

That this has "no signs of a cover-up". It has all the same inconsistencies of defense that most cover-ups I have observed also have.

 

[sjt18]

I have a hard time believing that someone could fail to remember an occasion where they were charged with sexual harassment and the allegations were serious enough that one not only had to consult with legal counsel but also felt they needed to mention it to a key-staffer at the beginning of a Senate campaign.

Also, Cain had 10 days notice from Politico that this story was going to run. For 10 days he could not remember this event in his life; then just magically remembered a lot a day and a half later.

My guess is he didn't. Someone walked back through the details with him.

Look, as disappoint as it will be, if this has meat to it... I can't vote for him. I am not so much disappointed with the accusations of S/H unless it was Clintonian in nature. If he said something careless or that they considered misogynist... something purely perception related then I don't think that should tank him. I have been through enough S/H training with examples to know that it doesn't take all that much sometimes.

If it can be substantiated that he propositioned that woman then that is a bigger issue for me. He HAS to answer that.

But it doesn't bother me that he isn't handling this like a "pro". We've had pros... we've had a bunch of pros in a row. They know how to lie and play political games. They've left us in a mess that threatens the sovereignty and solvency of our nation.

This reminds me of the Reagan clip about prostitution and politics bearing a striking resemblance to each other... I am not necessarily bothered by him being a campaign trail novice.

No, I don't believe that campaign prowess bears direct relation to how a person would perform the job. That is a different form of politics... and one that you don't become a CEO without mastering.

Several of our last 5 or 6 Presidents were great campaigners... it didn't translate into executive effectiveness.

 

[sjt18]

That this has "no signs of a cover-up". It has all the same inconsistencies of defense that most cover-ups I have observed also have.

What is he covering up though? If there's something real there... I'll be disappointed but will let go.

Cover ups usually involve attempts to silence the accusers, deny, obfuscate, etc... they are nothing if not highly calculated and organized. If this is a cover up then it is the worst conspiracy of all time.

My take is that he made the mistake of TRYING to answer a negative. He tried to answer the accusation that he did "something". He was asked questions without specificity and tried to answer them. That IS a mistake but does not make him guilty.

Am I trying too hard to put myself in his shoes?

 

[therealUT]

So, you are voting for Cain because he ran Godfather's Pizza (a pizza corporation that is far from overwhelming success)? Or, are you voting for him because he has been a lobbyist twice? Obviously, you cannot vote for him because of anything he is campaigning on (since, you have dismissed campaigning in general).

Cain had 10 days to prepare for this; I would hope that given 10 days to prepare for something that has the potential to be crucial, he would handle it well as POTUS. This episode demonstrates that he will not.

 

[therealUT]

What is he covering up though? If there's something real there... I'll be disappointed but will let go.

Cover ups usually involve attempts to silence the accusers, deny, obfuscate, etc... they are nothing if not highly calculated and organized. If this is a cover up then it is the worst conspiracy of all time.

My take is that he made the mistake of TRYING to answer a negative. He tried to answer the accusation that he did "something". He was asked questions without specificity and tried to answer them. That IS a mistake but does not make him guilty.

Am I trying too hard to put myself in his shoes?

I do not know what he is covering up; I do know that he has lied at least twice now, though, with regard to the story. This leads me to believe that there is something he feels is worth lying about in order to keep concealed.

 

[GAVol]

I do not know what he is covering up; I do know that he has lied at least twice now, though, with regard to the story. This leads me to believe that there is something he feels is worth lying about in order to keep concealed.

I'm thinking what happened is that he thought the confidentiality agreement was a little more airtight than it was and that he'd never be challenged on the details.

 

[sjt18]

So, you are voting for Cain because he ran Godfather's Pizza (a pizza corporation that is far from overwhelming success)? Or, are you voting for him because he has been a lobbyist twice? Obviously, you cannot vote for him because of anything he is campaigning on (since, you have dismissed campaigning in general).

No. I have not dismissed campaigning. It is necessary to discuss your views... and to not obscure them.

I have dismissed the disinformation and slick marketing that modern campaigning have become. I am dismissing the highly honed craft of presenting an image of candidates that may (usually does) bear little resemblence to who they really are. I am not offended that people have flaws. I would rather they not lie about them. If they do lie or are less than candid... I want them to clear it up. Everyone makes mistakes. That bothers me far less than lying about it.

If I vote for Cain, it will be because I believe him to be an "honest" man... not a perfect man. It will be because he espouses the right political philosophy though maybe not one I perfectly agree with. It is important to be an experienced executive... but he's already more accomplished in that regard than six of the last 8 Presidents with the possible exceptions being Bush II and Clinton. He is far more qualified than Obama was when he ran.

I would find honesty even about flaws and failings to be a welcome and attractive trait... not a disqualifier.

Cain had 10 days to prepare for this; I would hope that given 10 days to prepare for something that has the potential to be crucial, he would handle it well as POTUS. This episode demonstrates that he will not.

No it doesn't. Not even close. This is a campaign. It is effectively marketing of a product.

The man turned around failing major companies. He IS a rocket scientist. I am NOT afraid of him being unable to do "the job".

I would liken this to the difference between two job applicants. One is a professional interviewer. He has the ability to "sell" himself and make it all sound wonderful. You hire him... and you find out why he has to be so good at interviewing. He can't perform. The second guy stumbles here and there in the interview. At various points he is "too honest" exposing past mistakes and failures but also that he's been effective in overcoming them.

Give me the effective guy. You can have the professional BSer.

 

[sjt18]

I do not know what he is covering up; I do know that he has lied at least twice now, though, with regard to the story. This leads me to believe that there is something he feels is worth lying about in order to keep concealed.

Did he lie or was he taken off guard by the questions?

I honestly don't know. The sooner he answers it directly and honestly... the better.

But I will reassert... a disjointed response is not of itself evidence of wrong doing.

 

[GAVol]

The headline of this story - while technically true - comes off as something in the National Enquirer once you read the article.

Herman Cain Hit by Tax Lien - ABC News