home

Cain "Reassessing" Campaign

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:04:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Won't Have "Herb" Cain To Kick Around Much Longer:

Herman Cain told members of his campaign staff on Tuesday that he was reassessing whether to proceed with his bid for the Republican presidential nomination[.]

I've not written about Cain much, because I knew he had no chance to win the GOP nomination (contra Nate Silver) and in fact he was just engaged in a speaking tour to raise his profile (ironically, I think Newt Gingrich was too, but he may stumble into being the GOP nominee - Obama is a lucky guy, nothing to sneeze at) and speaking fees.

Cain stumbled into the "anti-Mitt" role, and a lot of things he probably did not want to discuss have been reported on. If I was advising Cain, I would tell him not to drop out. If leaves now, it will look like he was driven out by scandal. If he just goes and loses, getting say, 6% of the vote in Iowa, he'll still have a viable "speaking career."

Speaking for me only

< The Return of Bell Curve Sully | The Missing Fiscal Policy: Austerity Now? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Cain "Reassessing" Campaign | 101 comments (101 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I can't believe (none / 0) (#1)
    by me only on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:25:53 AM EST
    That someone running for president ever committed an indiscretion like this.  I'm am sure that it has never happened before.

    You must be (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    Sarcastic Unnamed One in disguise.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Gingrich vs. Romney (none / 0) (#2)
    by markw on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:34:25 AM EST
    Interesting read by Nate Silver (NYT) today on how the prolonged primary calendar may benefit Romney, allowing him to make a comeback even if Gingrich manages to sweep the first four states.

    Somehow I just can't believe the Republican electorate will be stupid enough to nominate a loser like Gingrich.

    If Romney loses New Hampshire (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:37:08 AM EST
    it's over.

    Nate is nuts.

    Parent

    And, if Cain drops out (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:38:35 PM EST
    a significant portion of that un-Romney's support may well go to Gingrich. This could get curiouser & curiouser.

    Parent
    Not if Newt... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    keeps taking family values seriously in regards to the undocumented.

    Suggesting it is cruel and counter-productive to rip apart paperless American families will get you nowhere in GOP primary season...save that common and compassionate sense sh*t for the general Newt...and everybody thought you were smarter than Perry, thats a rookie mistake.

    Parent

    How could I foreget...stand corrected:) (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:08:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm thinking Bachmann... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    may re-emerge as the front-running Anti-Mitt...give her this, she knows the base....when it comes to the paperless all the base wants to hear about is chains, cages, & deportations.

    Family Values?  Papers....first show me your papers!

    Parent

    brokered convention not out of the question (none / 0) (#57)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    that may in fact be Romney's best hope.  Take it out of the hands of GOP primary voters, aka the insane, and let the GOP establishment choose.

    Parent
    believe. (none / 0) (#60)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:20:29 PM EST
    Somehow I just can't believe the Republican electorate will be stupid enough to nominate a loser like Gingrich.

    for the tea party folks, american history started jan. 20, 2009. nothing happened before that date.

    Parent

    I wouldn't worry... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:40:41 AM EST
    about Herm's "speaking career"...it's just a variation on the age-old preacher grift.

    A fool and his money are easily parted.

    Ew (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    why do you think Newt could win?

    It's him or Romney no? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    I mean Perry looks finished doesn't he?

    Parent
    Romney is garnering CubAn ex pat endorsements. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:56:23 AM EST


    Parent
    Heck, this week Romney is probably running (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Farmboy on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    AS a Cuban ex pat.

    Parent
    Cubans bet on winners (see my Sat best bets) (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    Newt can't win.

    Parent
    Very funny. Really. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:05:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Romney-Rubio? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:46:30 PM EST


    Parent
    I recall that being said about Bush pre 2000 NH (none / 0) (#56)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    primary.

    I think if Perry can somehow talk like something other than a completely uninformed idiot, he remains the most likely nominee. It's a low bar after all.

    Parent

    Have you heard the latest Perry gaffe? Today (none / 0) (#72)
    by Angel on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:04:03 PM EST
    he said the voting age is 21.  And he got the election date incorrect as well.  Both in the same sentence.  All Perry has to do to lose is open his mouth.  He really is an idiot and even some in the GOP realize that.  He will not get the nomination.  If he does, "Hello, President Obama, and welcome to your second term."

    Parent
    Since when is being an idiot (none / 0) (#101)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:34:51 AM EST
    an obstacle to becoming the GOP nominee for President of the US?

    Parent
    not really. (none / 0) (#62)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:26:57 PM EST
    I mean Perry looks finished doesn't he?

    in the rational world that you and i inhabit, he wouldn't ever have been a legitimate candidate to begin with, except, perhaps, on the "Smothers' Brothers Show". the average republican primary voter doesn't inhabit a reality-based world, so rick perry as an actual presidential candidate makes perfectly good sense, in that alternate universe.

    with that as a given, he appeals to just a significant enough a %, of those probable primary voters, to remain viable, until mr. gingrich, in turn, flames out.

    Parent

    Lucky me--CNN in. Hotel. But it's all CAin and (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    Murray.  Silly.

    I believe a GOP messiah will appear (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    He will have lighter hair, perhaps a beard; he may write on clay tablets, and he'll be sponsored by Birkenstock.  

    Either that or perhaps a "Romney and Hominy," grits in every bowl, crossover Southern Strategy.  His wind-up motor's tendency to sputter out mid-notion (can't really call them ideas) will require a tour mechanic of deft skill.

    As for GinGRINCH,  he's a loser on par with his green namesake.  Indeed, Obama will be one lucky bastard if that happens.

    speaking as a fellow bastard, of course (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    Ahem.

    Parent
    Surely you jest... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    if that long-haired bearded GOP messiah appeared, he'd be kicked off the campaign trial faster than a 99%er kicked out of his/her tent.


    Parent
    Kicked off the trail? The right wing flat-out (none / 0) (#61)
    by Farmboy on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    crucified Him the last time He dropped in for a visit.

    Parent
    true, (none / 0) (#64)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    The right wing flat-out crucified Him the last time He dropped in for a visit.

    but they feel just awful about it now.

    Parent

    Cain should stay (none / 0) (#12)
    by TJBuff on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    The merry-go-round might come around again for him, just like Newtie.

    Cain has surprised me. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    I didn't think that much about him thinking that he was another "Steele" but it seems he has some real stuff.

    Reminds me of:
    Kennedy,
    Clinton,
    Hart.

    In fact if the parade of "real close friends" keeps growing, I might think that Mr Cain missed his calling in the Navy.

    You know a girl in every port.

    My only question is why are these ladies coming forward now. Do they hate him that much?  It seems that if they wanted something from him, they would have waited until he was actually running for the presidency or was elected.

    I don't get it.

    well, no gerald, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    once again, you've "missed the point". mr. cain, unlike the three you note, specifically has identified himself as a devout christian, a good family man, and a man of honor and integrity. as well, he has specifically castigated the presumptive democratic candidate for failing to meet his high standards in any of those areas.

    while hyprocrisy among politicians is a time-honored tradition, pretty much everywhere, having it blow up in such a flagrantly public manner puts mr. cain in a special category, which the aforementioned three came nowhere close to, not even gary hart.

    Parent

    If he had some real stuff (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:32:19 PM EST
    We wouldn't be narcing on him like this :)

    Parent
    These ladies are doing it for money. (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    Maybe directly paid or for indirectly through a job, etc.

    And I don't blame'em. (Assuming they're truthful.)

    This is a cold cruel world and we all need low friends in high places!

    ;-)

    Parent

    Still (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    riding that train high on Co-Cain?

    Parent
    Remember I am ABO (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:11:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Why now? Read back (none / 0) (#19)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    to the first stories in each case, and you will see either that media broke the story -- or, as in the current case, they were about to break the story, so the mistress came forward first.

    Parent
    More than the ladies (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:47:19 PM EST
    Whatever the number of women & whatever that may call to mind, Gerald, there's that other little matter...about not appearing to be informed (Libya plus.)

    Apart from his now-demonstrated unawareness about foreign policy matters and about anything involving numbers beyond 9s, your wonderment about what-is-going-on may get a partial answer by surveying his primary opponents and considering who might have the most to gain.

    Parent

    If Cain is finished because of his infidelities, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Farmboy on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    then Gingrich needs to drop out for his.

    And what did you say about Clinton?? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:35:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Okay, so, since Clinton was not (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:43:30 PM EST
    finished for that reason, Cain need not be, either.  Fine.  Then we can get back to the far more important reason why Cain ought to be finished:  He's an uninformed fool.

    Parent
    Cain and Gingrich are running as part of the (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Farmboy on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    "family values" party, with a strong emphasis on moral superiority. That's why infidelity should be a game-ender for them.

    Bill Clinton didn't take that stance nor make that argument, and when he finally 'fessed up to the one proven affair, his career was unaffected.

    Parent

    Well, your attack vigor (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    is recognized.

    I just can't figure out how an uninformed fool has had the success he has had.

    Parent

    this is America (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    Home of Kate plus eight, the cast of the Jersey Shore, Octomom, and Rod Blagojevich who was actually elected governor once - which seems remarkable to anyone who first heard of him in 2008.

    Seems like being an uninformed fool is the recipe to success these days.

    Parent

    Oh, I would say the people you (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:15:03 PM EST
    mentioned with unstated disapproval are definitely smart... And that includes Obama.

    Being smart enough to get something you want doesn't include being smart enough to run it.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    apparently don't realize how easily grifted conservatives are. It seems pretty obvious that if you just tell conservatives what they want to hear, they are going to open up their wallets and shower you with money.

    Parent
    Conservatives easy??? (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    Who voted for Obama?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    I guess you forgot that Obama's big selling point back in 2008 was that conservatives and Republicans would vote for him where they wouldn't Hillary. So I guess that kind of proves my point even more.

    Parent
    Easier answer (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    Who voted for GW Bush?

    Parent
    I still can't figure out (none / 0) (#39)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    why so many uninformed fools have been elected president, much less made it this far in the campaign -- unless, of course, we accept that such evidence would seem to support the argument that too many voters are uninformed fools.  There 'tis.

    Parent
    clinton never ran as the personification (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:26:08 PM EST
    of "family values". geez jim, you're slipping.

    Parent
    One more time (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:15:55 PM EST
    I never said Clinton did.

    I said that when outed many Democrats, some Repubs and many Independents who supported Clinton now attack Newt and Cain.

    That's hypocritical.

    Parent

    Except, .... it's NOT (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 08:10:43 PM EST
    Many people agree that consensual, sexual affairs are a private matter.  But when a politician attacks others for lacking "family values"(Newt), impeaches someone over an affair (Newt) and calls themselves a defender of the sanctity of marriage (Cain), the issue of the candidate's affairs becomes relevant.

    Not a difficult concept.

    Parent

    We're not talking about Clinton. We're talking (none / 0) (#21)
    by Farmboy on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:45:15 PM EST
    about the candidates running for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, and the question of applying the same rule to all of them. Bill Clinton (I assume, you could be referring to Roger or George) is not part of this group.

    Parent
    Uh, what I was talking about (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    is what I see as rank hypocrisy when people who defended Clinton who had a long term affair, accused of rape, two counts of sexual harassment and not being able to understand that oral sex is sex... He did finally agree that what is, is.

    And I don't think Clinton was running in the "Sexual Activities out of wedlock are OK" party.  

    Parent

    That's funny, because ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    ... the "rank hypocrisy" appears to be coming from the Republican side.  Most Democrats say a candidate's extramarital affair wouldn't affect their vote, while most republicans say it would:

    How US voters react to politicians' infidelity

    The same poll showed a significant gap between the parties: Among Republicans, 62 percent said they were less likely to support such a candidate compared with 25 percent among Democrats.

    Personally, I think a consensual affair is a private matter and irrelevant, unless the candidate has been up on his/her "family values" morality horse.

    Parent

    Your data is dated, (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    although your point still stands.

    May, 2011, PEW.

    More Republicans (57%) than Democrats (42%) say they would be less likely to support a candidate who has had an extramarital affair.

    The gap was much wider in 2007 when 62% of Republicans and only 25% of Democrats said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who had an extramarital affair.

    Quite an increase in Dem lack of acceptance of infidelity, about 70% increase in just 4 years. At this rate they'll soon exceed Rep's.

    Parent

    "At this rate" ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:57:52 PM EST
    ... in fifty years, @400% of Dems will be less likely to vote for a candidate who had an affair.

    Heh.

    Get back to me when most Dems care, let alone when they "exceed Republicans".

    Parent

    42% of Dems "care," (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:04:22 PM EST
    seems like it would be a pretty significant percentage, if analysis of such poll data are important to you...

    Parent
    It's important to the OP, ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    ... who was claiming hypocrisy, although I don't recall saying it wasn't a "significant percentage", merely that most Dems don't care, while most Republicans do.

    Parent
    Ok, so you want to hang your hat on (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:53:55 PM EST
    Dems "only" being 42% hypocrites vs. those dastardly Reps being 57% hypocrites. Some meager gruel imo, but, hey, when you're starving...

    Parent
    Not "hanging my hat" on anything (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:14:41 PM EST
    Least of all your imaginary premise.  Some Dems care about it (although I'd hardly concede 42% given that it's a single poll, while the other poll is much lower).  Who's claiming these same Dems gave Clinton a hypocritical pass?  Most Republicans, OTOH were clamoring for Clinton's impeachment, being the party of "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage" and what not.  Hell, it was part of the Republican party platform until just two years ago ,when they realized how hypocritical it was with so many "family values" Repubs getting caught in sex scandals.

    Like I said, get back to me when most Dems give a $hit, or when your fairy tale "trend" (consisting of two data points) actually happens.

    Parent

    Oy. And now you question the very poll data (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    itself. Odd that it was unquestionable when it seemed to serve your purpose. Enough of your childness for today.

    Parent
    Reading comprehension issue? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 06:57:16 PM EST
    When did I ever say the poll I cited was "unquestionable"?  What I questioned was your use of a your single poll as the determinate number, when there is another poll which has a number that differs significantly, as well as your suggestion that two data points somehow represent a trend.

    Maybe a child's course in reading comprehension would help?

    Parent

    "My" PEW poll is from six months ago, (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 10:55:03 PM EST
    "your" PEW poll is from some time in 2007.

    What a waste of time.

    Parent

    Congratulations on reading the dates (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 08:02:59 AM EST
    My points still stand.

    Parent
    You have citations of proof that in 1992 (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Farmboy on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:29:09 PM EST
    when Clinton was running for President he was having a long term affair, and had committed rape along with two "counts" of sexual assault? Odd that a web search shows that there was never any legal action for any of this, despite years of research by right wingers. But hey, you show us a case number where he was charged or convicted, and we're all good.

    And your projection is flipping this around - Cain and Gingrich are running on the moral superiority platform. Nobody is claiming that  makes the Democratic Party the "Sexual Activities out of wedlock are OK" party except you.

    Parent

    Huh??? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    Where have you been? Bill and Hill made up on TV re the affair and he was accused of rape and sexual harassment... and then we had..

    "I did not have sex with that woman."

    who defended Clinton who had a long term affair, accused of rape, two counts of sexual harassment and not being able to understand that oral sex is sex... He did finally agree that what is, is.

    The rape charge never went to court. Paula Jones' did and Clinton wound up loosing his law license in AR. Kathleen Wiley's charges never did and I don't have to expand over Monica.

    So I find anyone who didn't condemn Clinton who now condemns Newt or Cain to be a hypocrite.

    Gingrich has confessed and found salvation. Cain denies.

    BTW - I never condemned Clinton for Monica. I think Paula Jones was truthful as I do Wiley. The rape charge bothers me but I can't say that I believe it. Too long and not enough proof.

    Parent

    A lot of that defense (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    was premised on a good economy, smooth-running programs, well-handled Bosnia crisis, etc.

    BTW, hypocrisy is often associated with saying/preaching one thing about one's self & doing another. From the Scarlet Letter to ol' Gingrich. Glass houses & stones.  (Another BTW: 'Do not recall Clinton ever professing to be a saint.) Nah...in my read, the word "hypocrite" <at least in the preaching moral values arena> could have been coined for the Newt, with his spearheading impreachment against President Clinton while doing more than the same with his office assistant while married was-it-to wife #2 then. At least a contemporary of his Speaker Livingston came forward to "confess" & resign.

    Parent

    But Newt has confessed (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    his sins and found salvation.

    If Clinton got a pass for his affair, shouldn't Newt?

    Parent

    The only problem with that maneuver (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    is that there looks to be a host of other civil "sins" including ethical breaches & reprimand (another do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do example for Newtie in the book sales dept wherein he did that for which he condemned one-time Speaker Wright (D Tex.) The big "sin" for Newt now may be the non-lobbying lobby in the well-over-a-million$$ range that he did for Freddie Mac even as he castigated them to woo tea party types.

    Again, President Clinton did not preach the routine that Newtie & the other Repubs have so often done. That does make a difference on a number of levels...including, perhaps, the category of the ethical lapse.

    As to confessing one's "sins & finding salvation," I understand that Newt has converted recently to Catholicism. As a lifelong Catholic, I have a wee comment: While the grace of absolution accompanies Confession--and, I wouldn't question what Newt said--he may want to familiarize himself with beliefs regarding Penance and the call to avoid repetition of a wrongful pattern as part of atonement.

    But, hey, the gag-prodcuing Newtism of most recent vintage that should be nominated for a Can You Believe He Said This Award is contained in a speech he gave at Harvard wherein he made an argument against "truly stupid" child labor laws.
    It seems that he wants poor kids to be able to earn $$ by doing janitorial work at their schools.

    Parent

    Look, Clinton lowered the bar (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    and now you complain about Newt?

    And your out of context re the child labor laws just proves my point that you don't see the point that what we need is for children to learn that work is good and that they can be successful doing something besides texting each other about each other.

    It might even reduce the number of Occupiers demonstrating because they have discovered their diplomas, paid for with thousands and thousands of borrowed dollars, won't get them a job above entry level when they all just knew they were destined to rule the world..... immediately upon graduation.

    Parent

    Clinton "lowered the bar"?!?! - heh (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    No - the Republicans lowered the bar when the hypocrites started their "family values" crusade and decided that consensual sexual affairs were not only a public issue, but grounds for impeachment.  

    Of course, with all the Republican sex scandals in recent years, they've finally realized they shouldn't have gotten up on that very high horse.

    Parent

    good night (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 08:13:08 PM EST
    You only want to snark.

    I'm done.

    Parent

    Just pointing out ... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 08:42:16 PM EST
    ... the very obvious flaws in your accusations.

    But I understand why you'd want to try to omit the obvious.

    Parent

    Hilarious. (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:13:35 PM EST


    Parent
    That's all you have to do?!? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    You can hypocritically attack someone for having an extramarital affair while you're having your own affair, all the while preaching from the high horse of "family values" about the immorality of the other guy, and then all you have to do is "find salvation" when you're getting ready to run for office?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Well, it worked for Clinton. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:06:08 PM EST
    Who knows about Newt?

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 06:59:38 PM EST
    How about you tell us when Clinton climbed on the high horse of "family values" to attack someone for having an affair, while at the same time he was having his own - as Newt did.

    Heh.

    Parent

    That is not the issue (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    The issue is that many Democrats, some Repubs and many Independents all gave Clinton a pass.

    And, let's not forget John Edwards whose activities were known by the Lame Stream Media but ignored until the National Enquirer broke the story.. But I digress.

    To return to the subject at hand.

    Many of the supporters of Clinton and Edwards now attack Newt and Cain.

    This is so obviously political hypocrisy that it should require no discussion.

    Parent

    It's not hypocrisy at all (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 08:04:08 PM EST
    "Many supporters" of Clinton and Edwards gave them a pass because, like most democrats, they feel consensual, sexual affairs are a private matter and have little or no bearing on a candidate's fitness for office.  Republicans, OTOH, run as the "family values" candidates and as "defenders of the sanctity of marriage" (ala Herman Cain), while at the same time carrying on their own affairs.

    Although I understand why don't want it to be about their hypocrisy.

    Parent

    Clinton didn't get a pass. What rock have you been (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Farmboy on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    under? Clinton was impeached by right wingers like Gingrich and Hyde, who were obsessed with the contents of Bill's pants. The hypocrisy is that Gingrich was cheating on his wife while denouncing Clinton, and Hyde's own affair was made public.

    As to Bill's law license getting lifted, that was in 2001 because of his testimony over Monica being misleading, not your claim that he raped Paula Jones. The Jones' case was dropped because there was no evidence. The only outcome of that case was to bring the Monica infidelity to light. The allegations by Broaddrick, Jones, Flowers, et al, couldn't be corroborated by fact.

    But again, Clinton didn't campaign on moral superiority and family values - Gingrich and Cain are. This has nothing to do with sin or forgiveness, and has everything to do with hypocrisy by the GOP candidates.

    Parent

    Clinton survived (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    That's his "pass."

    And the claims were true. You know it, I know it and the world knows it.

    They just decided to let him skate because he is a likable cuss, the world was mostly at peace and the economy, though collapsing at the end, was mostly good.

    For that he can thank the Internet bubble  and cheap oil.

    Parent

    "The claims were true" - heh (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:47:49 PM EST
    Speak for yourself, Jim.  The rest of the world knows he had a consensual, sexual affair - that's it.  Unless you're talking about all the other winger fairy tales the wingers came up with  - Mena, Arkansas, love child with a black prostitute, Vince Foster, the Clinton Chronicles, etc., etc.

    You guys sure do have some active imaginations!

    Parent

    Look, I can tell you are a fiction (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    type of guy, but don't make things like this, up:

    not your claim that he raped Paula Jones.

    The rape charge never went to court. Paula Jones' did and Clinton wound up loosing his law license in AR. Kathleen Wiley's charges never did and I don't have to expand over Monica.

    So I find anyone who didn't condemn Clinton who now condemns Newt or Cain to be a hypocrite.

    Gingrich has confessed and found salvation. Cain denies.

    BTW - I never condemned Clinton for Monica. I think Paula Jones was truthful as I do Wiley. The rape charge bothers me but I can't say that I believe it. Too long and not enough proof.

    And since you seem to want court level proof, I assume you will leave Cain alone.

    Parent

    As someone (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:30:17 PM EST
    who has had Gingrich as their rep, his personal problems are the LEAST of his problems if hes' the nominee. His millions of dollars that he took from Fannie May and his voting record and his charge account at Tiffany's are going to end his political career much quicker than any personal problems.

    I do find it hysterical that Newt was running around lecturing other people about their "morals" while boinking an aide. People will forgive a sinner a lot sooner than they will a hypocrite.

    Parent

    But, but, but, but..... (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:07:34 PM EST
    That was all in the past and Fannie was just one of the guys in the neighborhood.

    ;-)

    Parent

    All true ... (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:07:37 PM EST
    ... but you wingers love to make up fairy tales to the contrary, and having a candidate who was being paid 7 figures to counter winger fairy tales won't fly.  Oh, wait, ... that's right, ...

    ... they were just paying him to be an in-house "historian".

    Heh.

    Parent

    :"wingers"????? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    Watch my lips. I am a social liberal and have supported many so-called liberal positions since day 1 on this blog.

    So quit making charges and name calling that you know to be wrong.

    Now. Goodnight.

    Parent

    Call yourself anything you want (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:50:03 PM EST
    ... but when you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and leave a trail of duck dropping wherever you go, ...

    ... I'll call you a duck.

    Parent

    Good Night (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 08:14:09 PM EST
    Watch my lips. I am a social liberal and have supported many so-called liberal positions since day 1 on this blog.

    So quit making charges and name calling that you know to be wrong.

    Now. Goodnight.

    Parent

    Watch mine (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 08:40:36 PM EST
    Good night ...

    ... duck.

    Parent

    He's not out because of his infidelities (none / 0) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    He's out because of the horrible way he handled them.  

    Apparently he didn't view Anthony Weiner as a cautionary tale.  Don't challenge the media to find dirt because they ALWAYS WILL!

    Parent

    Unless the issue involves uneccessary wars (none / 0) (#58)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:03:19 PM EST
    and other matters of national security.  

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    Cain's best strategy is the Sarah Palin "The Media is out to get me" strategy at this point.  He could make a killing from that.

    Of course it is possible that the list of women is far from over.  He may need to get out before he become a complete laughingstock.

    I just can't imagine that the GOP is goofy enough to nominate Newt.  The guy has had chronic foot in mouth disease for the last 15 years.  

    I'm not complaining, mind you.  The GOP seems to have some sort of martyr thing going on right now.  Thus they ignore the most electable guy(Huntsman) and the 2nd most electable guy(Romney) because they haven't followed the path of the righteous conservative.  

    I think Huntsman will be the nominee (none / 0) (#69)
    by loveed on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    The media keeps pushing these crazies. No way it will be Newt. Soon he will return to his book tour.
     I find it interesting that no one get over 25% in the polls. This means 75% are aganist them. So how can there be a front runner?
     Huntsman is climbing in the polls in NH (12%). Lately he's getting a lot of exposure. He reminds me of Hillary, well informed on the issues. Also he has a plan for the country (I love his big bank plan).
     The media is treating this primary like a game show or sporting event. We're talking about Cain,not jobs, China,big banks,education,health care.
     I will say this over & over, the republicans want to win.
     Don't worry about Cain, he will be just fine. The repub. hate the media, and will blame the media for Cain downfall.He will sell a lot of books.

    Parent
    bless your heart (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    i really do love how steadfast you have been on this point

    o/t, but i hope you had a good Thanksgiving - your first without your beloved mother

    Parent

    Broken record (none / 0) (#82)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 06:20:04 PM EST
    still getting no play here.

    A new header, at the least, might get you play.


    Parent

    that train left the station months ago. (none / 0) (#81)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:27:12 PM EST
    Of course it is possible that the list of women is far from over.  He may need to get out before he become a complete laughingstock.


    Parent
    As I've been saying, Romney can't win (none / 0) (#55)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:53:56 PM EST
    you have to appreciate that to many evangelicals and the like Mormons are "cultists."  And these are the people who show up in force on GOP primary day.

    Ron Paul has a bteer chance.

    It not the mormon issue (none / 0) (#70)
    by loveed on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:45:31 PM EST
    Romney is a flip/flopper.

    Parent
    Strongly disagree (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    Huntsman cannot win GOP nomination either, same reason.

    Parent
    Cain "Reassessing" Campaign | 101 comments (101 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment