Tag Archives: Cain

Diane Sawyer Impressed by Iowa Hicks and Their Book-learnin' : Debate Recap

ABC held yet another Republican debate at Drake University in Iowa Saturday.  Diane Sawyer moderated along with George Steph….. oh you know who he is, don’t make me spell the whole thing.  The GOP field is becoming smaller and it seems to make for a much more interesting debate process.  There was arguing, bickering and even a few jokes.  All the candidates seemed to appreciate the extra time less contenders in the field produced and they all took full advantage.

Cranky Uncle Newt showed up straight from the family Thanksgiving gathering where he spent the whole weekend cranking at cousin Jimmy for being a lazy, slacker, mama’s boy and fussing at Aunt Linda for being 40 years old and still single.  Newt has that air – he’s one of the most intelligent political candidates in modern history but he always sounds like he’s in a bad mood.  Personally I find it charming; some of my favorite relatives are cranky old people.  I don’t know how it washes with the rest of the electorate, however.  Also, there was the issue of Newt’s hair.  His typically well-groomed, silky white mane was looking extra helmet-y on Saturday.  It was strange and distracting for this blogger who is weirdly obsessed with presidential/political manes.  Is Newt auditioning for Galaxy Quest 2?

Newt’s hair aside, the Speaker’s Saurday debate performance was that of a man who know he is surging in the polls and understands the importance of winning in Iowa.  No doubt, Newt would kill Obama (metaphorically, liberals. Don’t get your chemical-free, dye-free panties in a bunch) in a debate, but do Americans want a Debater-in-Chief or something more? Time will tell.

I get tired of saying this about Romney, but he was quite polished, as usual.  Mitt Romney worked very hard to reassure voters that he is not the establishment candidate many conservatives are worried about.  He has a private sector record, didn’t you know?  Oh, yes…Romney worked in the private sector for 25 years.  Also, Romney was a private sector businessman for 25 years.  And don’t forget, for 25 years Mitt Romney worked in the private sector, that’s run privately, and not by government.  As always, Romney was clear and succinct and even got a few good-natured barbs in there.  He continues to lay out a platform for the general elections, should he receive the nomination.

Rick Perry seems much more relaxed in a debate setting where he is afforded more time to answer questions.  Perry is as solid on his positions as the day he announced, but the real question is this: Will Americans be more interested in his actual policy and political platform than his debate performances?

Ron Paul was there and so were many, many, many of his supporters – as usual.  Ron Paul wants to end the Fed.  He wants to end the Fed and American involvement in foreign issues of any kind, forever.  Of all the candidates I think Paul is the most consistent. He never backtracks and never changes his tune.  I may tire of hearing him talk about the Fed, but at least I know Ron Paul hates the Fed.  No one can lie or say otherwise.

Rick Santorum had a good night, but he continues to see less screen time than his opponents and have fewer questions directed toward him.  At this point Santorum is known as the ‘social conservative’ candidate and he seems comfortable with that.  Santorum had many good moments on Saturday night. One came when Diane Sawyer was becoming perturbed that none of the candidates would give a firm number on the amount of jobs they would create in their first term as President.  Santorum basically said its not the President’s job to make promises like that because the President can’t create jobs; private sector citizens create jobs and all the government can do is get out of their way.  I like that answer.  Government doesn’t create anything, Diane! Except red tape; they are good at that.

Michele Bachmann gave a very good performance Saturday as well.  Iowa is her home state and she certainly looks at home when she is campaigning there.  As a former tax lawyer and IRS employee, Bachmann has a very unique position.  She’s been on the inside of our tax code and she knows how devastating it is for working families.  She knows the dangers of Obamacare and Obama’s tax policies in general.  Bachmann is extremely intelligent.  Those Americans that live on the coasts may feel she is dumb because her A’s are flat and she talks like she’s from Iowa. I think those people should stop being such snobs.  Quit listening to her (very American) accent and listen to the content of her words.  Bachmann may have a very slim chance of winning this primary, but she seems more than qualified to be in this race.  Her experience as a midwestern girl on the inside of Washington makes her one of the more genuine candidates, in my opinion.  The Iowa primary will be very telling for Bachmann.  If she does not do well there, its likely her campaign ends.  Bachmann did manage to salute her tea party compatriot, Herman Cain.  As she said, its just not a debate anymore unless someone mentions 9-9-9.  I agree! I missed the Herminator.  I did not miss Jon Huntsman.

Sawyer and George (sorry, I just can’t type that whole name) did a satisfactory job moderating, although Sawyer was very condescending when she opened with a comment to Iowa voters telling them how IMPRESSED she was at how seriously they take their primary process.  Imagine that, Diane! A bunch of mid-west country hicks who don’t shop designer stores or have issues with trans-fats actually like to take part in the political process.  How cute!  Yes, Diane – Iowans vote.  They love to vote. They love America and they care about what happens here.  Shocking news to an East coast elitist, mainstream media diva, I know.

Cain: Perhaps Able, but Doomed From the Start

courtesy Wikipedia Commons

This will be my obligatory Herman Cain post, and I’ll bid some of you farewell at the outset because you won’t like what I have to say. That’s fine, there’s a comment box down below or you can post it to Facebook or Twitter and slag me there.

Herman Cain was a relative unknown on the national scene until bursting to the front of the Race for the Republican Nomination to run for the Presidency in 2012. I had heard of him as a radio talk show host and had heard him fill in for Sean Hannity, I believe, once or twice. Even then I noticed that while he has a great speaking voice and a very down home folksy way about him he has a tendency to misspeak or misuse words, mind you I’m sure he knows how to pronounce ‘Corpsman‘ and what it means, but for any candidate or anyone speaking publicly it’s one of my pet peeves. I think it betrays an underlying lack of preparation. No one is perfect and I’m not wooed by verbal fluff (I was dismayed in the ’08 election cycle listening to people talk about this ‘Amazing Speaker‘ from Illinois and remain so) I just want someone who is trying to convince me to elect them to the most powerful office in the land to be able to do it without making me cringe as they butcher the language. That was the first thing I noticed.

THE Herman Cain’s tendency to speak about Herman Cain in the third person was and is also a bit off-putting.

As he began his campaign I noticed that he was sketchy on specifics both of history and current events but much more telling to me was that he was weak in explaining his own positions. I’m sorry but if you have come up with what you’re promoting as your signature program, let’s take his most famous ‘9-9-9 Plan’ and note that at one point he said perhaps it would be 9-0-9, and you introduce it before you have the details worked out I refer you to my previous point about not being prepared. Hey, I was a good student, but my ‘dog ate my homework’ a time or two however, again, this is the Presidency we’re talking about and the whole ‘I’ll consult my assembled panel of experts’ answer doesn’t cut it for me. For one thing we’ve seen what some of the so-called experts have wrought on our country for the past century and I’ve had enough of it, and for another… Who are these experts going to be? Cain had not surrounded himself with an all-star cast of campaign insiders.

I don’t think a candidate should try to be ‘Mr. Know-it-All’ (see Newt) however I prefer a candidate with a firm grasp on the facts and on history to one who is unsure of some rather basic terms from recent world history and especially when said candidate tries to explain away his getting caught out with a series of weak excuses.

Then the multiple ‘Bimbo Eruptions’ began. First the Politico story then Gloria Allred and Sharon Bialek all culminating in the Ginger White allegation of a long-term extra-marital relationship that was apparently the straw that broke the camels back. I do not know nor do I care if a single one of the allegations were true. I do not know nor do I care where they all came from. What did concern me was that Herman Cain carried on a 13 year extra-marital relationship of some kind with a woman who he acknowledged giving money to without his wife knowing about it.

Deal Breaker, Minister Cain. Sorry sir but you and your supporters were the ones who brought up your faith. Scripture says ‘the two become one flesh’, so at the very least Mrs. Cain should have known what Mr. Cain was doing with her money.

But let’s get to the part of this that will do the most to alienate you.

Herman Cain is Black, or an African-American if you’re into hyphenating people. For some who want to see Barack Obama defeated in 2012 this was apparently some sort of secret weapon. If only the Republican Party could field a viable candidate with a high enough melanin content in his or her skin Obama’s defeat was certain. Apparently this must be because… well, I actually can’t think of a coherent explanation for this vapid reasoning.

Anyone who voted FOR Obama in all or in any part because of his ‘race’ is a Racist.

Anyone who voted AGAINST Obama in all or in any part because of his ‘race’ is a Racist.

Anyone who supported Herman Cain in all or in any part because of his ‘race’ is a Racist.

Too harsh? I think not.

The Democrat party has done a masterful job of painting themselves as the party of ‘the little guy'; the party that looks out for Minorities and the Underprivileged, the poor and oppressed. At the same time they have done a masterful job of painting the Republican party as the party of the Rich, Fat Cat Capitalists; the party that wants to reverse all the ‘progress’ the party of the little guy has managed to ‘eek out’ over the past hundred years and return us to polluted streams and land, acid rain, polluted air, unsafe food, oil spills… basically killers of kittens & puppies.

The Democrat party owns the Racist vote. Well, they own the overwhelming majority of it.

I have seen some folks on Twitter and elsewhere attempting to sell Herman Cain on the basis of ‘If we nominate him the Democrats can’t use Race against us…’.

Thinking that shows a naivete that borders on pathological. The Democrats will never stop using race as a wedge in this country. It also belies a misunderstanding of just how much damage Leftists within the Democrat party have done to the thought processes of the ‘Black Community’ over generations by destroying the family unit and fracturing the most basic societal building block. The ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is very real. Misinformation, disinformation and blatant lies have taken root and metastasized within the black culture and it will take several generations to undue the damage. Many blacks who think for themselves did not vote for Barack Obama, and many more will not vote for him again. It had and has absolutely nothing to do with his race. They didn’t or won’t vote for him based on the fact that they saw through his rhetoric or simply disagreed with his politics. Remember, in California, 70% of African-Americans and 53% of Latinos supported Prop. 8. defining Marriage as between one man and one woman and For Obama on the same day. They were then called Religious Bigots or worse by the Homosexual Lobby.

Our country is at a precipice. In the next election we will decide to attempt to begin to reverse course from the accelerated leftward rush that finally woke many of our fellow citizens up to the 100 year assault that the country has been undergoing, or not. We may decide to continue or even accelerate the headlong rush for the rocks where great empires go to dash themselves into little pieces that are chronicled in tomes with titles that start ‘The Rise and Fall of….’. This is going to be an extremely long and hard fight. It has taken a century for the Left and So-called Progressives to drive us to this point and it will take a similar amount of time, energy and much more courage than the Right has ever shown to undo what has been done.

Making decisions about a candidate based on melanin content or TelePrompTer reading ability or the crispness of the crease in their pants or their Religion (see Romney and some folks Mormon Bigotry) or any other superficial reason has us at the precipice.

Adherence to First Principles, a return to and reverence for Constitutional Governance and the candidates ability to express those ideas and their demonstrated personal character and experience which would lead us to believe they will govern as they campaign is all we have to go on or hope for in choosing a nominee.

CNN Republican Debate Recap: Debate Fatigue and Box Wine

I have a confession to make.  I was really bored by Tuesday’s Republican debate.  I know, its shocking.  Somebody found a primary debate boring? Quel horreur!  It is my job to comment on such things and I watched it eagerly, but as I was writing my traditional recap I realized that I just wasn’t that excited about what I had seen.  It’s not that the candidates weren’t interesting or capable.  Actually all of them seemed more prepared then they have been in the past. There were no major gaffes or senior moments.  The topic of national security is certainly engaging enough as debates go, but still that wasn’t enough to raise my excitement level.  Everyone did just fine.

Herman Cain is doing his homework, as always.  It’s one of the things I really appreciate about him as a candidate.  He is obviously weak on foreign policy and security issues.  Of course he is; he’s a business man.  He does not have the advantage of being privy to the tidbits of information and exchanges that result from working inside government.  Cain has to develop his foreign policy and domestic security stances just like the rest of us – by studying and employing old-fashioned common sense.  It puts him at a disadvantage, no doubt; but Cain has proven he is up to the challenge and he always seems to go into every debate knowing more than he did the last time.  Cain is what it looks like when a regular, average Joe runs for President.  Some people don’t like that, but I think its kind of neat.

This was the first debate that didn’t turn into the Mitt Romney show.  In fact, Romney probably got less camera time on Tuesday night than he has in any debate so far this year.  It was refreshing.  That being said, he (predictably) made the best use of every second. He was confident and assured in his answers.  Romney said nothing out of line or out of order or out of Romney.  Even his hair was on board. 

Maybe that is my problem with this debate.  It was predictable.  Everyone performed according to their character descriptions in the GOP Primary Field Handbook.  Cain was weak but adequate in his depth of knowledge on the subject.  Ron Paul gave his typical RonPaul-y answers about minding our own business as a nation and if we would just be nice to the terrorists they would stop hating us and leave us alone in peace.  Predictably there were more than a few Ron Paul fans in the audience.  Santorum stayed true to form: feisty, with a touch of whine but bolstered by his strong conservative stance on social and security issues alike.  Jon Huntsman was…there.  His daughters graced CNN with an appearance on the debate pre-show.  They were way more interesting than their father and they seemed like lovely young ladies.  I didn’t care for their lipstick, though.  The shade of red made me suspicious.  Rick Perry was just fine, but I always feel like I’m holding my breath when he speaks.  He seems like a nice man and I hate to see him struggle up there, which he does all too often.  But Tuesday he was fine.

Perhaps the only two people who really interested me in this debate were Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.  This was Newt’s first debate as a “front-runner” and it remained to be seen how his platform/performance would change in light of that.  It didn’t really change at all which is a good thing, I suppose.  Newt was simply Newt, the smartest (if not crankiest) guy in the room.  Newt knows his stuff…and Newt does not like gotcha questions.  For the most part I believe Wolf Blitzer behaved accordingly.

If anyone “won” that debate it was Michele Bachmann.  Bachmann has a seat on the House Intelligence Committee and she is obviously privy to some very sensitive information.  She knows what she is talking about and when Bachmann speaks on foreign policy, security and Obamacare she sounds more competent than any of her compatriots on the stage.  In fact, it infuriates me to hear people refer to her as an idot, a la Sarah Palin.  I don’t know how you can listen to her speak of the nuances of foreign aid and intelligence and conclude that she is dumb.  You may not care for her social stances or her tea party label, but the woman is wickedly smart and deserves respect for that.  I really feel we need a woman like Bachmann in the House for as long as possible, but if she were our President, I have no doubt she would fight for this country every day she was in office.

In the end, the predictability was my problem.  No one came out with anything new or different.  Everyone pretty much held the line on the stances they have developed throughout this process.  There were no surprises; besides a couple of small differences on withdrawing troops and securing the border the candidates pretty much in line with each other and the Republican outlook on such issues.  Except Ron Paul, of course…but there’s an “except Ron Paul” implied in every line I write about these debates.  I know, ultimately it is a good thing that there were no fireworks.  Its important for the people to see the candidates lay out their positions logically as much as possible.  Its good that they were predictable because it helps us feel confident about how they will behave in the general elections.  But it makes for boring television sometimes.  I admit, debate fatigue is setting in.  There are at least four more debates to go.  I think I’m going to need a bigger box of wine.

 

Herman Cain's Libya Gaffe: Let's Examine The Video


I heard a lot about Herman Cain’s “Libya” video yesterday.  It always works out like this; I’m in no position to sit down and watch a video, and everyone’s talking about it.  I heard it was really bad, and the snippets I saw on the news made it look pretty bad also, so I was expecting a train wreck of epic proportions.  Well, I hate to tell you, but I was disappointed.  It wasn’t as much of a train wreck as I’d been led to believe.  It was more like watching someone struggle to parallel park a car, so they circle the block in frustration, and then they find a new space has opened up just as they’ve come back around around the block.  It was awkward and sad, but train wreck it was not.  I actually felt compelled to annotate the video with my thoughts.  Check it out below.

So that’s pretty much it.  It looks like they woke him up on the bus, threw some clothes on him, and shoved him in the interview.  He seems to be progressively waking up throughout the conversation, and by the halfway point, he seems to know what he’s doing.  I don’t know about you, but it didn’t seem like that much of a train wreck upon viewing the whole video.

What do you guys think?  Was he just sleepy?  Was some “special” liquid in that bottle of “water”?  Or was it a total flame-out train wreck, after all?

Let us know what you guys think in the comments below.  And as always, resist we much.

CNBC Debate: Your Money, Your Vote, Perry's Senior Moment

CNBC hosted the “Your Money, Your Vote” Republican debate Wednesday night and Jim Cramer is a loud bugger, isn’t he?  The CNBC financial analyst who is famous for his apology tour after he criticized Obama early in his regime was one of 3 moderators in Wednesday’s debate.  He was also the loudest.  Cramer’s perpetual outside voice lacked no measure of righteous indignation as he attempted to shore up his lib cred by yelling at the candidates.  It was clear from the start that Cramer and his colleagues were thoroughly disgusted with the general conservative approach to the economy.  At one point the topic of student loans was broached and the disgust from the moderating panel was palpable.  Students pay for their own college?  The horror!

There wasn’t anything about this debate that would be particularly interesting to those outside the world of GOP primaries.  It was pretty much cut and dry economic policy questions.  Not the most exciting topic but one that is very important in the search for our next President.  For the most part the candidates all seemed solid and answered questions capably…with the possible exception of Rick Perry.  Perry started out the evening looking more competent than he has in a while but then stumbled into the most cringe-worthy moment half way through when he could not recall the third of three federal departments he would prefer to put an end to.  His fumbling only lasted a few seconds but in Presidential debate time it was an eternity.  Perry paused, stuttered, repeated himself, and even looked to his fellow candidates to help him remember.  A few did shout out some ideas to him, probably just hoping to put an end to his embarrassment.  Eventually Perry had to admit he just didn’t remember his third point.  As a regular person, Perry’s stumble was forgivable.  We’ve all had those moments when we’re put on the spot and can’t remember the simplest words or lose our train of thought right in the middle of a sentence.  However to see a Presidential candidate fumble so horribly for so long on the debate stage was excruciating and it was obvious the audience and other Republicans on the stage felt the same way.  It may not necessarily spell the end of Perry’s candidacy, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Herman Cain sent Perry a lovely edible arrangement the next day.  This will be all anyone thinks about when they hear Perry’s name for a long time.  He’s got a lot of work to do to erase that memory.

Speaking of Herman Cain, the big question of the night was how he would perform after a brutal week of shocking allegations and scandal.  Maria Bartiromo led off the night with a question aimed directly at Cain regarding the scandal.  The question was met by hearty boos from the audience, after which Cain reiterated he would not be distracted by attempt to assasinate his character.   The audience responded with great applause and from that point on Herman Cain was off and running.  At least for one night it seems Cain was successful in rising above the accusations. Also, Cain has a tax plan.  Its called 9-9-9.  And, oh yeah…9-9-9.

Gingrich continues to dominate as an intellectual heavyweight.  At this point I must admit that I am changing my mind about a Gingrich candidacy.  I’m not convinced yet, but I may end up eating a little blogger crow at some point.  The guy is good.  He made mincemeat out of every “gotcha” question that was thrown at him.

The rest of the field was fine, solid- there weren’t any surprises.  As always Bachmann is at her best when she is talking Obamacare repeal and Romney was as smooth as ever.  He is obviously fine-tuning his platform for generals, but it remains to be seen if the conservative wing of the party will bow the pressure of “electability” and “next in line”.

The winner of Wednesday’s debate was Newt Gingrich.  Cain comes a close second if for no other reason than he was able to rise above the media circus of the last week and stay on message for the whole night.  Losers were Rick Perry (ugh, I cringe just thinking of that moment) and Jim Cramer, because he’s a loud mouthed ass.  It wasn’t the most exciting of platforms but it was valuable in the sense that it gave the candidates a good opportunity to expound on their economic positions.

Herman Cain Better Be Telling The Truth


Oh, Herman.  Why did you double down so forcibly?  I hope Cain’s innocent, really I do.  Tuesday’s press conference gave him little wiggle room.  Within the first 1 minute and 45 seconds, Herman Cain said that he saw Sharon Bialek for “the very first time”, that he “doesn’t even know who this woman is”, and that he “doesn’t recognize her name at all”.  By the 2 minute and 20 second mark, he had repeated that he didn’t know who Sharon Bialek is and that he didn’t recognize her name.

I hope that’s true.  We already know that he saw her in September of this year, but that might have been the only time he’s ever seen her, and he may honestly have forgotten about it.

But when you think back to Sharon Bialek’s original press conference, Sharon was very, very specific in her accusations.  Here’s some of the transcript from that press conference.

“I took the train into Washington, D.C. When I went to check into the room I was shocked to be taken to a palatial suite. I said to the bellman that there must be some mistake, but he insisted that there was no mistake. I later found out that Mr. Cain had arranged for the suite, though at the time I thought that maybe my boyfriend had tried to surprise me.

“I met Mr. Cain in the lobby of the bar at the Capitol Hilton at around 6:30 p.m. We had drinks at the hotel, and he asked how I liked my room, which is kind of normal, and I said I was very surprised. I said, I can’t believe it, I’ve got this great suite, it’s gorgeous. Mr. Cain kind of smirked, and then said, ‘I upgraded you.’

“He then took me to an Italian restaurant where we had dinner. During dinner, Mr. Cain looked at me and said, ‘Why are you here?’ I said, ‘Actually, Herman, my boyfriend, whom you met, suggested that I meet with you ‘cause he thought you could help me because I really need a job. I was wondering if there’s anything available at the state association level or perhaps if you could speak to someone at the foundation to try to get my job back, perhaps even in a different department.’ He said, ‘I’ll look into that.’

“While we were driving back to the hotel, he said that he would show me where the National Restaurant Association offices were. He parked the car down the block. I thought that we were going to go into the offices so he that could show me around. At that time I had on a black pleated skirt, a suit jacket and a blouse. He had on a suit with his shirt open. But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch. I was very, very surprised and very shocked.

“I said: ‘What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for.’ Mr. Cain said, ‘You want a job, right?’

“I asked him to stop and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel which he did, right away.”

Here are some of the details just from that transcript:
She said that she stayed in the Capitol Hilton
He upgraded her room to a suite.
She met him in the lobby bar for drinks
They went to an Italian restaurant.
She had on a pleated skirt.

When you listen to her tell the tale in her press conference (that the transcript above is from), she really seems to be making specific accusations and “recalling” specific details.  When Herman Cain says that he doesn’t even know who Bialek is, he’s denying a LOT of things.  So, if even ONE of them is true, it casts a lot of his testimony into question.

If any one of the things Ms. Bialek claims is proven to be true, then Herman’s goose can be cooked.  (hotel records, credit card records, etc…)  I feel that Mr. Cain took a very big gamble by saying he had did not even know who Sharon Bialek is.  I think it would have been a safer bet for him to say he’s “not sure” if he’d ever seen her before, but by making such adamant claims, he’s really given himself little recourse in the event (or if) he’s ever proven to not be telling the truth.

Of course… if he IS telling the truth, then his gamble may likely pay off.

What do you guys think?  Did Herman take too big of a risk by saying so adamantly that he did not even know who Sharon Bialek is?  Should he have been more vague and just said that he “didn’t recall ever meeting her”?  Or, should he have “put his chips all in”, as it seems he has?  What would you do, if you were accused of wrong doing by someone on national TV, for that matter?  I’m not sure what I would do, if I was in that situation, myself.

As always, let us know what you think in the comments below.  I know a lot of you are tired of this conversation, but we’re trying to choose a leader of the free world, and part of the process is gauging how candidates do under pressure.  And right now, I’d say Herman Cain is under pressure.

 

Will Gloria Allred be Cain's Biggest Campaign Contributor?

In comedy, timing is everything. The same can be said for politics.  In what seems to be a semiannual event, attorney Gloria Allred held a press conference yesterday representing yet another oppressed female at the hands of a dominant man. The latest of Allred’s clients is a step up from the two porn stars she represented during last year’s Tiger Woods sex scandal.

 

Sharon Bialek, hailing from Chicago (red flag), came out Monday accusing Presidential hopeful Herman Cain of what she calls “inappropriate sexual advances” during a meeting in 1997. Bialek claims that Cain put his hand on her leg, attempted to slide it up to her nether region and then attempted to force her head toward his “crotch” with his other hand.  Cain has vehemently denied the charges.

 

But that’s where it ends, at least as far as Bialek and Allred…. Or does it?

 

Allred, at the presser, said that there will be no formal charges or complaints filed.  Bialek has stated repeatedly that she is not in it for the money; she lists her profession for the past several years as a “stay at home, single mother.”  Reports quickly circulated that she had been involved legally with David Axelrod in a proceeding in 2009 in Chicago.  As it turns out, it is true that her attorney was David Axelrod, just not the same Axelrod as the President’s senior advisor (yes, that means there are two of them; please resume work on your secret underground shelters).

 

Different from the accusation of harassment levied at Cain for the past two weeks from anonymous sources, this one has a face and a name.  Rather than being gummed to death, this accusation against Cain has teeth.  However, what may have been the thing that caused the biggest visceral reaction from the right was, not the client, but the lawyer.

 

Gloria Allred, a person who strikes fear in the hearts of ambulances around the country, probably garnered more attention at first than the fact that there was a real person, with fingerprints and everything, making an accusation against Herman Cain.  The unlikely GOP candidate turned frontrunner has survived several hard jabs since his meteoric rise to the top of the polls, but this is an unobstructed blow to the gut.  The political pundits are predicting that Cain’s campaign will crumple to the canvas, but he may very well have a secret advocate in his corner – the opposing counsel!!

 

It could be that the site of Gloria Allred creates such a “GERD-like” reaction in the tummy’s of conservatives, that they could respond in a way contrary to Allred hopes; especially after her jab that Cain was providing his own version of a “stimulus.”  It was good for a momentary laugh from the press, but in the long run, it could be the catalyst for a massive rallying of the troops around Cain.

 

It is ironic that the retaining of a high profile lawyer may actually serve as a detriment to Bialek’s cause, rather than an aid.  Bialek may want to check the contract for a money back guarantee.  Allred’s purpose is yet unclear with no further actions plan, except for a quick joyride on the media circuit.  Perhaps Allred is experiencing the “Jesse Jackson” effect – he becomes irrelevant when racism does not exist.

 

Allred’s track record of defending the “innocent” against the man (and I do mean that literally) apparently didn’t make a stop in Juanita Broaddrick’s town.  Broaddrick supposedly sought her counsel in 1997, claiming that sitting President Clinton had actually “raped” her back in 1978.  Perhaps her own statute of limitations is somewhere between 14 and 19 years; Allred refused to represent Broaddrick.

 

Time of course will write the last chapter – does this end Cain’s run for the top office in the land or does it upgrade his armor to Teflon with an increase in support?  We will know by Thanksgiving if Cain’s turkey is pardoned.

New Mitt Romney Ad: Vote For Me; I'm All You Got

This new “campaign ad” from Mitt Romney tells the hard truth folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZLUKiGTXI&feature=channel_video_title

What do you think?  Has he convinced you?  Or are you still holding out for Ron Paul to finally have his year?  Let us know in the comments below. (and send your hate mail to Jimmy Kimmel in Hollywood, CA)

**Update: Cain Camp Blames Perry For Leaking Sexual Harassment Story


It’s going to be a long week for Herman Cain, if this is dropping so late on a Wednesday night….

This just in from Politico:

Cain’s inflammatory charge came in an interview with Forbes:

In the summer of 2003, Cain recalls briefing Anderson—his general campaign consultant at the time—that sexual harassment claims were brought against him while he was chairman of the National Restaurant Association from 1996 to 1999.

“I told my wife about this in 1999 and I’ve got nothing to hide,” Cain told me Wednesday. “When I sat down with my general campaign consultant Kurt Anderson in a private room in our campaign offices in 2003 we discussed opposition research on me. It was a typical campaign conversation. I told him that there was only one case, one set of charges, one woman while I was at the National Restaurant Association. Those charges were baseless, but I thought he needed to know about them. I don’t recall anyone else being in the room when I told him.” …

Aside from knowing about the alleged sexual harassment accusations, Cain campaign officials point to the timing of Anderson’s hiring by Perry as evidence of his involvement. The campaign announced Anderson’s role on October 24, just a week before Politico broke the story.

Does he regret telling Anderson about it? “I don’t regret it at all,” Cain says. “The guy who was supposed to help with strategy should know everything. I put it on the table right from the get go. I wasn’t trying to hide it.”

UPDATE:
Herman Cain’s campaign manager, Mark Block, went on Fox News to personally accuse the Perry campaign of leaking the sexual harassment charges to Politico.  He says, “The actions of the Perry campaign are despicable.”  Video is below.


UPDATE 2:

Now the Perry camp points their finger at the Romney camp. (I kid you not, people)
This via CBS.com:

Rick Perry’s presidential campaign says it is “absolutely not” responsible for leaking the fact that Herman Cain was accused of sexual misconduct while head of the National Restaurant Association to Politico, which broke the explosive story Sunday night.

“That is false, patently untrue, no one at this campaign was involved in this story,” said Perry communications director Ray Sullivan.

Sullivan then suggested to CBS News and National Journal reporter Rebecca Kaplan that Mitt Romney’s campaign is behind the allegations.

“I wouldn’t put it past them,” he said, stating that blog posts have noted that Cain’s successor at the Restaurant Association “is a big Romney donor.”

“There are much closer connections between the Restaurant Association, Cain and the Romney camp than there are with us,” he said.

Federal Election Commission records show that Steven C. Anderson, who succeeded Cain as the Restaurant Association’s CEO, gave $1,000 to Romney’s campaign on July 14, Kaplan reports. He also gave a total of $1,000 to Cain in two $500 installments during Cain’s 2003-2004 Senate campaign.

In response to Sullivan’s comments, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul offered two words to CBS News: “Not true.” She declined to elaborate.

Herman Cain Talks About How Accusations Of Sexual Harassment Have Affected His Campaign

On Tuesday night, Herman Cain went onto the O’Reilly Factor to discuss (among other things) how the allegations of sexual harassment have impacted his campaign.  According to him, business is better than ever.  Watch the video below to see what Cain says about how these allegations have impacted him and his campaign.

 

 

 

 

I have to admit that Cain makes some compelling points in this video, especially the fact that over a course of 42 years, these (supposedly) “baseless” accusations are the only thing he’s been confronted with.

What do you think?  Is this story finally behind him?  Or does Herman still have some ‘splainin to do?  Let us know in the comments below, or if you’re feeling really ambitious, you can rent out a billboard with your opinion on it.  Prizes will be awarded to the most creative billboard that’s submitted.  The deadline is 3pm tomorrow afternoon. (but we suggest telling us in the comments section; it’s much simpler for all of us)

Herman Cain Explains "Smoking Man" Video

You might have recently seen Herman Cain’s campaign ad that features a middle-aged white guy smoking a cigarette while telling you that “America’s never had a candidate like Herman Cain before.”  You may have seen the ad, but you may not have understood it.  Well, Cain went on Hannity tonight to explain the ad, and…. I still don’t understand it.

What about you?  Do you understand it?  Let us know in the comments below.  Most of us at CDN are still confused…

CNN Debate Recap: High Stakes in Sin City

CNN hosted the latest Republican debate in Las Vegas Tuesday night and many are hailing it as the best debate yet.  Perhaps it was the mere spectacle of debating in a city famous for excess, championship boxing events and gambling that inspired the candidates.  At points the debate took on the feel of a sporting event with candidates shouting over each other and trading personal barbs.  The audience responded with great enthusiasm to that atmosphere.  Americans love a good fight!

 Here are the highlights and lowlights from Tuesday’s debate:

  • Anderson Cooper took time out from quest to be the next Oprah Winfrey to host the debate.  Cooper is a liberal and it’s obvious he holds some disdain for the viewpoints of the GOP field, but he is one of the few liberal journalists who are able project a professional air through his biases.  He is a lot like Brian Williams in that respect.  Cooper was an adequate host and pretty much stayed away from the typical liberal funny business that tends to arise when they host events like this.
  • In news that no one cares about, Jon Huntsman boycotted the debate.  He claims his boycott was in protest to Nevada’s “leapfrog” of the primary process.  However, rumor has it Huntsman was taking time out of the Presidential process to mourn the recent, tragic loss of Steve Jobs.  Jobs actually created the original Huntsman prototype in his makeshift garage lab back in 1974.  All production at the Huntsman assembly line has been halted until further notice.
  • Michele Bachmann had a stellar night with her “sexy-librarian meets Isaac from Loveboat” terrycloth jacket.  As usual the tiny, tea party tactician exhibited an experienced understanding of the tax system and the lethal effects of over-regulation on the American economy.  She was one of the few candidates who actually called out Obama’s policies by name.  She looked strong and confident.  It was a good night for Mrs. Bachmann.
  • Herman Cain put in another fine performance, although perhaps not his best.  His meteoric, almost bizarre rise to the top of the field now puts him in the position of having a higher standard to perform to.  He did not reach that standard in this debate.  However, the most interesting thing about Cain right now is his 9-9-9 plan.  There has been considerable debate over the merits of his plan – in the media and among conservatives specifically.  Anderson Cooper started the debate with a question about 9-9-9.  The candidates spent nearly 20 minutes grilling Cain about the plan.  It was mentioned dozens of times in the first hour of the debate.  It might not be the best plan in the world but everyone is talking about it.   Everyone.  Its classic, brilliant branding from the man who turned around Godfather’s Pizza.
  • Rick Perry started out the debate with the energy of a man who had his first 5-hour Energy drink 20 minutes before the event began.  It was refreshing to see him so energized, but he quickly faded back into the Perry of Debates Past, stammering and struggling to form his thoughts and responses.
  • Mitt looked as solid as ever.  As the media-proclaimed front runner he was the most obvious target for all the candidates.  At times Mitt was forced to chastise his opponents for talking over him.  His exchanges with Perry were particularly feisty.  Romney is an experienced campaigner.  He is nearly unflappable in debates, but a chink in the armor may have been revealed Tuesday night.  He did seem agitated at having to answer question after question regarding Romneycare.  His colleagues should note that pressing Romney continuously about the same issue seems to be the key to throwing him off his game.
  • Newt is still super smart, but will Republicans vote for him?
  • Ron Paul put in the typical Ron Paul performance.  His supporters were out in full force, as usual.  As a physician and man of faith, Paul is unparalleled in his rhetoric on healthcare reform and individual freedom.  He’s the type of man who can have every person in the audience nodding their heads and cheering when he talks about the need for every person to take responsibility for their own decisions in life, and not wasting tax dollars trying to prevent people from making bad decisions.  Then Paul starts talking foreign policy and makes it painfully obvious that he has very little understanding of the nuances of foreign relations. Republicans don’t like that.
  • Rick Santorum probably had his best performance to date Tuesday night.  He was strong and pointed.  It is obvious Santorum is courting the family values vote.  He spoke about faith and the family as the bedrock of American society.  He was the only candidate who addressed the issue of eroding religious freedom in America.  Santorum is so far to the back of the pack it’s puzzling as to why he continues to push forward.  Could it be that Rick Santorum is actually running based on his own concerns, and not the polls? Gasp!

The GOP debate train rolls on with the next debate scheduled to be hosted in Michigan by CNBC, November 9th.  It remains to be seen whether or not Jon Hunstman will be finished charging his batteries and updating his software in time to participate.

« Older Entries