Herman Cain

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Sounds like splitting hairs to me. Oh, it's okay to pay them tens of thousands of dollars in response to the claim. Doesn't prove a thing because it's an agreement, not a settlement.

Do you acknowledge that frivolous baseless allegations are sometimes still paid off, because it is cheaper than proving innocence in court?

I'm not sure, but that's not my point. He said there was no settlement. Then he came out and said, "well, that was an agreement, not a settlement". I'm just saying, that feels mighty misleading. Kinda like "I'm pro-life" then coming back and saying it's up to the woman. Yeah, it's all find and dandy. But I sure understand people who say witholding the pro-choice part of that was misleading.

Of course he's really pro-choice. He wouldn't want paternity test proof he's a d-bag crawling around, right?

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Its not misleading. Some people are just honest enough to show that they can separate their personal lives and views from whats best for the country.

I'm prochoice until I have to pay for it.

Cone_Junky wrote: Of course he's really pro-choice. He wouldn't want paternity test proof he's a d-bag crawling around, right?

Pro-choice advocates don't need paternity tests to prove they're d-bags.

Ask John Edwards.................

In reply to oldsaw:

So all pro-choicers are d-bags, liars, and adulterers?

Which also means you think Cain is a d-bag, which I whole heartedly agree with.

ThePhranc wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Its not misleading. Some people are just honest enough to show that they can separate their personal lives and views from whats best for the country. I'm prochoice until I have to pay for it.

I said before, his views sound very much like my own. But if you're running for President and are asked for your position on Abortion, you should assume people are asking what policy you would persue on the subject. If you're going to respond with just your personal opinion, I think you owe it to the voters to say so up front. He didn't lie, but he certainly witheld his views on a policy matter many people base their vote on. And don't get me wrong, I know they all do that. But if you're running as the "not a politician" guy, you are holding yourself to a higher standard.

Those are exactly the things that Ron Paul does to earn my respect. I don't agree with him on much, but I know where he stands. He says what he means and doesn't hide his views with half statements. I just wish they would all do that.

SVreX wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: “Being the leader of the free world is like preparing pizza dough”…Um, Herman, no, no it’s not, it’s actually wildly more complicated than that and the ramifications of mistake are profoundly more severe.

Is that better or worse than being a community organizer???

Tough choice…let’s see, naïve but well intentioned verses sophisticated but bent on funding his social agenda with my life savings.

Guys, don’t get me wrong, I think we could do far, far worse than having Cain as President.

The trouble is, you have to go through Obama to get there and I just don’t believe Cain’s folksy, common sense style will hold up against Obama’s polished, media backed, and labor union funded campaign.

Cone_Junky wrote: In reply to oldsaw: So all pro-choicers are d-bags, liars, and adulterers?

Some pro-choicers, yes. Certainly not all.

Cone_Junky wrote: Which also means you think Cain is a d-bag, which I whole heartedly agree with.

I think Cain has put himself (and his campaign) in jeopardy with inept and ill-advised responses.

I don't consider him a d-bag, yet. You, OTOH...........

oldsaw wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Of course he's really pro-choice. He wouldn't want paternity test proof he's a d-bag crawling around, right?

Pro-choice advocates don't need paternity tests to prove they're d-bags. Ask John Edwards.................

Well then your judgemental attitude has changed in the last half hour... Or would that be an inept and ill-advised response...

RX Reven' wrote:

SVreX wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: “Being the leader of the free world is like preparing pizza dough”…Um, Herman, no, no it’s not, it’s actually wildly more complicated than that and the ramifications of mistake are profoundly more severe.

Is that better or worse than being a community organizer???

Tough choice…let’s see, naïve but well intentioned verses sophisticated but bent on funding his social agenda with my life savings. Guys, don’t get me wrong, I think we could do far, far worse than having Cain as President. The trouble is, you have to go through Obama to get there and I just don’t believe Cain’s folksy, common sense style will hold up against Obama’s polished, media backed, and labor union funded campaign.

Folksy common sense style?? His performance in the press conference was just plain bad. He sounded like Bart Simpson with his hand caught in the cookie jar. "Nope. Nope. I didn't do it. It wasn't me. It was the media. It was Rick Perry. It was the Democrats. I don't even know her (even though she worked for him)." This was not Nixon's Checkers Speech. It isn't that they don't want to put a businessman in the White House, it's that half the Republican Party wants that businessman to be Mitt Romney and not Herman Cain. All of the Koch's money, Fox News and all of the talk show hosts on the right side of the dial can't help him if he can't help himself.

RX Reven' wrote: The trouble is, you have to go through Obama to get there and I just don’t believe Cain’s folksy, common sense style will hold up against Obama’s polished, media backed, and labor union funded campaign.

I think it's a riot that the same people who can't tell you what the weather is going to be tomorrow are somehow organized as a unit to elect the leader of the free world.

Cone_Junky wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Of course he's really pro-choice. He wouldn't want paternity test proof he's a d-bag crawling around, right?

Pro-choice advocates don't need paternity tests to prove they're d-bags. Ask John Edwards.................

Well then your judgemental attitude has changed in the last half hour... Or would that be an inept and ill-advised response...

Cain has put himself in a position where full disclosure is necessary. When that's done, I'll pass judgement and willfully admit if I'm wrong about the man's character.

But, I'm going with the "inept and ill-advised" option as applied to your response(s).

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: The trouble is, you have to go through Obama to get there and I just don’t believe Cain’s folksy, common sense style will hold up against Obama’s polished, media backed, and labor union funded campaign.

I think it's a riot that the same people who can't tell you what the weather is going to be tomorrow are somehow organized as a unit to elect the leader of the free world.

I don’t believe the media is an organized unit to elect the next leader, that’s just an unintended consequence.

The media is beholden to advertisers and advertisers pay a premium for air time that targets young people because they’re more impressionable.

Young people tend to be relatively liberal so the media takes liberal positions to attract them…it’s just business.

Snowdoggie wrote:

RX Reven' wrote:

SVreX wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: “Being the leader of the free world is like preparing pizza dough”…Um, Herman, no, no it’s not, it’s actually wildly more complicated than that and the ramifications of mistake are profoundly more severe.

Is that better or worse than being a community organizer???

Tough choice…let’s see, naïve but well intentioned verses sophisticated but bent on funding his social agenda with my life savings. Guys, don’t get me wrong, I think we could do far, far worse than having Cain as President. The trouble is, you have to go through Obama to get there and I just don’t believe Cain’s folksy, common sense style will hold up against Obama’s polished, media backed, and labor union funded campaign.

Folksy common sense style?? His performance in the press conference was just plain bad. He sounded like Bart Simpson with his hand caught in the cookie jar. "Nope. Nope. I didn't do it. It wasn't me. It was the media. It was Rick Perry. It was the Democrats. I don't even know her (even though she worked for him)." This was not Nixon's Checkers Speech. It isn't that they don't want to put a businessman in the White House, it's that half the Republican Party wants that businessman to be Mitt Romney and not Herman Cain. All of the Koch's money, Fox News and all of the talk show hosts on the right side of the dial can't help him if he can't help himself.

Sorry, I’ve spent three of the last five weeks in Colorado and Canada so I haven’t been following the developments very closely. Obviously this has become a touchy subject so please forgive my ignorance.

RX Reven' wrote: The media is beholden to advertisers and advertisers pay a premium for air time that targets young people because they’re more impressionable. Young people tend to be relatively liberal so the media takes liberal positions to attract them…it’s just business.

Target audience for most advertisers is 25 - 54. It's a pretty big hunk. But, yes, if you're talking Prime Time, they're shooting pretty young. I'd wager younger than the average voter, though I don't know those statistics off the top of my head. So if you want to make the case that CSI has a liberal bent, your case makes sense.

News is a different animal, though. And I'm pretty sure when we hear the "liberal media" conspiracy, that's what we're talking about. Yeah, they'd love to have a 25 year old watch, but it doesn't happen. Very bottom of that group is 35 or so. And even at that point, not a lot of folks. The overwhelming majority of news viewers are 40+. Big emphatic on the "plus".

I haven't seen a stat in a while, but typically the average age of news viewers is somewhere around 60. Yes, 60 years old. Average. If you look at a household rating for a newscast, then look at the "demo comp", or composition of the audience in the 25-54 target you'll see a more dramatic decline than any other television product. It's an age old struggle for broadcasters. So, no, if you're talking about news viewers, your argument doesn't really hold water.

I don't want to go too deeply into my job or what info I get in my in box every morning, but there is plenty available on google. You can confirm all this for yourself.

In fact, that is exactly why almost every ad in a newscast during political seasons is a campaign ad. They're the only big money advertisers looking for older viewers. And news is their primary target.

This thread:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: ...I haven't seen a stat in a while, but typically the average age of news viewers is somewhere around 60. Yes, 60 years old. Average....

Perhaps this is the reason you see Boner Pill commercials and not Mountain Dew commercial when the NBC nightly news is on...

Back to Cain:

I really wish one of these idiots would just OWN THE SITUATION. They know it's going to come out, OWN it. Just say "Yup something like that happened, I did it, it was a while ago, it was my mistake, any other questions?"

How hard is that anyway? Denial works great for a situation like OJ and most other legal situations (sadly). But for a political campaign, it never works!

aircooled wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: ...I haven't seen a stat in a while, but typically the average age of news viewers is somewhere around 60. Yes, 60 years old. Average....

Perhaps this is the reason you see Boner Pill commercials and not Mountain Dew commercial when the NBC nightly news is on... Back to Cain: I really wish one of these idiots would just OWN THE SITUATION. They know it's going to come out, OWN it. Just say "Yup something like that happened, I did it, it was a while ago, it was my mistake, any other questions?" How hard is that anyway? Denial works great for a situation like OJ and most other legal situations (sadly). But for a political campaign, it never works!

Agreed. IF something happened. If it didn't, there is nothing to own.

RX Reven' wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

RX Reven' wrote:

SVreX wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: “Being the leader of the free world is like preparing pizza dough”…Um, Herman, no, no it’s not, it’s actually wildly more complicated than that and the ramifications of mistake are profoundly more severe.

Is that better or worse than being a community organizer???

Tough choice…let’s see, naïve but well intentioned verses sophisticated but bent on funding his social agenda with my life savings. Guys, don’t get me wrong, I think we could do far, far worse than having Cain as President. The trouble is, you have to go through Obama to get there and I just don’t believe Cain’s folksy, common sense style will hold up against Obama’s polished, media backed, and labor union funded campaign.

Folksy common sense style?? His performance in the press conference was just plain bad. He sounded like Bart Simpson with his hand caught in the cookie jar. "Nope. Nope. I didn't do it. It wasn't me. It was the media. It was Rick Perry. It was the Democrats. I don't even know her (even though she worked for him)." This was not Nixon's Checkers Speech. It isn't that they don't want to put a businessman in the White House, it's that half the Republican Party wants that businessman to be Mitt Romney and not Herman Cain. All of the Koch's money, Fox News and all of the talk show hosts on the right side of the dial can't help him if he can't help himself.

Sorry, I’ve spent three of the last five weeks in Colorado and Canada so I haven’t been following the developments very closely. Obviously this has become a touchy subject so please forgive my ignorance.

Please don't take offense. I have no clue about whether or not Cain fooled around. I just don't think he was prepared for the press conference. He is running a low budget shoot from the hip campaign just like Ross Perot did, and it looks like he is going to get the same result. He just didn't look Presidential.

ddavidv wrote: This thread:

I think that's the intent. In other news, if we elected a dog turd with a sign stuck in it that read: "I promise to do nothing but keep the country safe and uphold the constitution for the next four years" the stock market would rally and the economy would start to turn around.

As a white, non-democrat racist, I'm apparently supposed to be upset that this hooker is white(?) Thanks msnbc. Now snowdoggie has his marching orders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1rmPSXwCM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Snowdoggie wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

racerfink wrote: Eddie, either contribute or don't post. Stop trying to put words in other people's mouths.

I'll leave it to Mr. Cain to try to put things in people's mouths. I watched the man say on television that the "Democrat Machine" was behind this, even though the accuser is a registered Republican. Not putting words in his mouth, that's a quote. He said it right before he attacked the accuser and implied that she had mental problem. Right before he warned us that there would be more accusations like this and they'll be lies too.

Depending on one's perspective, it easy to view the media as part of the "Democrat Machine". The media reported his accuser as a "registered Republican", but guess what, Illinois voter registration doesn't acknowledge (or require) party affiliation - http://www.elections.il.gov/downloads/votinginformation/pdf/r-19.pdf That's another example of either incredibly woeful journalism or an attempt to influence those who see/hear/read the report.

You would think that the 'Democrat Machine' would at least wait until after Cain wins the primary before they spring this on him. Doing this now just gives the Repulicans a chance to regroup with another candidate. On the other hand, if Rick Perry's guys have something on Herman, the time to spring it on him is now, especially since one of Perry's guys actually saw Herman harassing a woman. Allegedly.

No. I would think that the only thing the democratic party has going for it is classifying people as victims. When a black man, like Herman Cain, who identifies himself as a conservative speaks and people listen, democrats panic and attack viciously - not on policy, but on personal issues. When a woman (pick one.) identifies herself as a non-democrat, she's labeled as a stupid 'home-maker' type.

If you "work for the man" you're a victim. If you're not white, you're a victim. If you choose to 'work' a pathetic 40 hrs a week, you're a victim. And if you can be a victim and choose not to be, you're a sell-out and need to be knocked down a peg or two.

poopshovel wrote: As a white, non-democrat racist, I'm apparently supposed to be upset that this hooker is white(?) Thanks msnbc. Now snowdoggie has his marching orders. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1rmPSXwCM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Amazing to me how the Left are the ones who are first to bring up race, yet it's the right who are the racists.

poopshovel wrote: No. I would think that the only thing the democratic party has going for it is classifying people as victims. When a black man, like Herman Cain, who identifies himself as a conservative speaks and people listen, democrats panic and attack viciously - not on policy, but on personal issues.

Uhhhh. Wow. There is NO WAY any Democrats are behind any of this. Period. End of story. We WANT him to win the primary and are still hoping he finds a way out of this mess, though his performance at the press conference didn't offer much hope of that. I mean, I can't speak for every Democrat, but all the talking heads on TV were saying the same thing. We're pulling for the guy.

Not so fast...the source is obviously biased, but she does make some good points: Ann Coulter's Chicago Theory