The curious timing AND target of the Cain accusations

[Little-Acorn]

As Herman Cain starts his surprising rise in the polls, he is quickly hit by four (five?) separate accusations of sexual impropriety by as many different, unrelated women. Well, that's politics.

Isn't it?

Some people immediately said it must be a setup: Democrats dug up these women, maybe fabricated charges, etc. etc. to try to destroy Cain in ways that can't be disproven or even traced.

Others, mostly Democrats, just as quickly scoffed at the idea:
(1) Baloney, we didn't do it. And the women are telling the honest truth.
(2) Even if we wanted to go after a Republican candidate, why on Earth would we do it to Herman Cain? Barack Obama would easily crush Cain in a Nov. 2012 election. But Obama would have a tougher time defeating Mitt Romney. We would LOVE to have Cain as Obama's Republican opponent - it would guarantee Obama's re-election! No way would we attack Cain like this and knock him out of the race now.

So the Democrats airly insist.

If the accusations against Cain are genuinely true and Democrats DIDN'T have anything to do with them, then the point is moot, and in fact Cain would deserve all the grief he's getting, and more.

But what if the women are lying and Cain didn't in fact, do anything to anyone as he maintains? And what if it turned out that Democrats somehow DID gin this up? Why would they try to knock out such an "easy" Nov. 2012 opponent?

Note that all the statements about how "easy" Cain would be to defeat in Nov. 2012, are coming from people who, without exception, do NOT have access to the Democrats' secret internal polls. (Every political party takes and keeps such polls.)

Could it be that top-echelon Democrats are actually finding that Cain would NOT be so easy to defeat in November? And are letting the current "everybody knows" screaming, go on as an effective smokescreen?

In Nov. 2010, Americans elected a lot of more-conservative-than-usual Congressmen. And those Congressmen are, for the first time in living memory, actually holding the line AGAINST the Democrats' longtime (and even Republicans' recent) tax-and-borrow-and-spend policies. And Cain shows every sign of intending to do the same, and more.

Could Democrats' internal polls - the ones they don't talk about publicly - be telling them that a more-conservative candidate like Cain - whose popularity has already risen beyond anyone's expectations - is actually likely to garner MORE Republican votes in November, than the semi-liberal Romney? And could Democrats be calculating that Romney's sometimes-liberal policies put him much more in the mold of, say, John McCain... whom Obama has already beaten once in a Presidential race?

Could it be that - despite what they tell us publicly - Democrats would actually prefer the semi-liberal Romney as an opponent, than the forthright, more-conservative Cain?

It has been borne out again and again, year after year, that the candidate the Democrats attack the most viciously, is the candidate they fear is most likely to defeat them.

Is there any reason to think it's any different now? Despite what "everybody knows" about each candidates' chances in the Nov. 2012 election?

And especially considering each candidate's track record - and reasonable expection - of cooperating with Democrats?

I have no idea if the women are lying or not. But if in fact they are lying....

...maybe the Democrats have a lot more reason to try to destroy Cain early, than they are telling us.

[sundaydriver]

Does anyone have a roster that I can look at cause I'm having a hard time with all the players and the positions they play?

Lead off batter was that Darn Rick Perry & his campaign!

"We’ve been able to trace it back to the Perry campaign that stirred this up in order to discredit me," Cain said at the tele-town hall. "The fingerprints of the Rick Perry campaign are all over this, based on our sources."

Second up was old Jim Crow.



"I believe the answer is yes," said Cain himself when asked on Fox if race was the cause of his woes, adding honestly, if hilariously, that he has no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

Two outs and the Democratic machine strolls to the plate.


Herman Cain (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Blotter/fourth-woman-accuses-herman-cain-sexual-harassment/story?id=14896935) issued his strongest denial yet of charges of sexual harassment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Blotter/cain-sexual-harassment-accuser-sharon-bialek-paid/story?id=14901062) during a 5 p.m. press conference in Phoenix, Arizona, saying that the harassment alleged by accuser Sharon Bialek "simply didn't happen, and calling Bialek "a troubled woman" put forward by "the Democrat machine" to attack him.

Who's on deck?

[SassyLady]

Does anyone have a roster that I can look at cause I'm having a hard time with all the players and the positions they play?

Lead off batter was that Darn Rick Perry & his campaign!

"We’ve been able to trace it back to the Perry campaign that stirred this up in order to discredit me," Cain said at the tele-town hall. "The fingerprints of the Rick Perry campaign are all over this, based on our sources."

Second up was old Jim Crow.



"I believe the answer is yes," said Cain himself when asked on Fox if race was the cause of his woes, adding honestly, if hilariously, that he has no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

Two outs and the Democratic machine strolls to the plate.


Herman Cain (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Blotter/fourth-woman-accuses-herman-cain-sexual-harassment/story?id=14896935) issued his strongest denial yet of charges of sexual harassment (http://www.debatepolicy.com/Blotter/cain-sexual-harassment-accuser-sharon-bialek-paid/story?id=14901062) during a 5 p.m. press conference in Phoenix, Arizona, saying that the harassment alleged by accuser Sharon Bialek "simply didn't happen, and calling Bialek "a troubled woman" put forward by "the Democrat machine" to attack him.

Who's on deck?





What makes you think they aren't all true. Perhaps each of these were working on their own smear campaign and they all just surfaced as he reached the top of the polls.

[Gaffer]

Cain is black. They can't use race against him so the next best thing is sex.

The dems fear Cain the most because they can't use race against him.

[sundaydriver]

What makes you think they aren't all true. Perhaps each of these were working on their own smear campaign and they all just surfaced as he reached the top of the polls.

I give Cain 2 out of 3 on this, but can't give hime all 3. Race is a given, and either or on which party. Besides since when do Dems think sex is a bad thing for a politician. :rolleyes:

[Wind Song]

If Cain didn't have these incidents in his past, he would have no problem. His character is up for grabs.

[jimnyc]

If Cain didn't have these incidents in his past, he would have no problem. His character is up for grabs.

If there was actual proof that these alleged incidents happened, more people might believe them. Anonymous accusers, not wanting to discuss, history of accusing people... still nothing that would sway me.

[Wind Song]

If there was actual proof that these alleged incidents happened, more people might believe them. Anonymous accusers, not wanting to discuss, history of accusing people... still nothing that would sway me.

2 people are legally unable to discuss what happened. You don't believe the allegations. I do. I don't buy Cain's victim cry.

[jimnyc]

2 people are legally unable to discuss what happened. You don't believe the allegations. I do. I don't buy Cain's victim cry.

So you fall to emotions and ignore facts. Typical liberal!

[Wind Song]

So you fall to emotions and ignore facts. Typical liberal!

Facts are, quite a number of women have come forward, two were paid for their silence. You're pretty emotional yourself. You support sexual harassment? One of those guys who doesn't believe it ever happens, especially to the guy they want to vote for?

[jimnyc]

Facts are, quite a number of women have come forward, two were paid for their silence. You're pretty emotional yourself. You support sexual harassment? One of those guys who doesn't believe it ever happens, especially to the guy they want to vote for?

You're a fucking idiot! Just because I don't believe these women automatically means I support sexual harassment?

A bit of it seems racist to me. You support racism? Why?

[jimnyc]

Facts are, quite a number of women have come forward, two were paid for their silence. You're pretty emotional yourself. You support sexual harassment? One of those guys who doesn't believe it ever happens, especially to the guy they want to vote for?

Btw - FACTS are, not a single fact exists to prove the accusation that Cain sexually harassed anyone - NONE. Of course you can prove me wrong by posting these facts...

[Wind Song]

Where there is smoke there is fire, and where there is one accuser there is perhaps a fire; where there is four, there is a conflagration.

Cain did it. You know it. That's what pisses you off.

Get a hold of yourself, jim. Familiarize yourself with sexual harassment cases and how they're proven.


To establish a prima facie (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Prima_facie) case for hostile work environment sexual harassment, the alleged victim must prove the following five elements:

He or she suffered intentional, unwanted discrimination because of his or her sex.
The harassment was severe or pervasive.
The harassment negatively affected the terms, conditions or privileges of his or her work environment.
The harassment would detrimentally effect a reasonable person of the same sex.
Management knew about the harassment, or should have known, and did nothing to stop it.

[jimnyc]

Where there is smoke there is fire, and where there is one accuser there is perhaps a fire; where there is four, there is a conflagration.

Cain did it.

Get a hold of yourself, jim. Familiarize yourself with sexual harassment.

Liberals are accused of TONS of things on a DAILY basis. Lots of smoke and fires... Should I believe ALL of it to immediately be true - or should I seek out the facts and make a decision based on them - or should I just fall back on my emotions and assume it must all be true?

[jimnyc]

Where there is smoke there is fire, and where there is one accuser there is perhaps a fire; where there is four, there is a conflagration.

Cain did it. You know it. That's what pisses you off.

Get a hold of yourself, jim. Familiarize yourself with sexual harassment cases and how they're proven.

Posting again to address your edit...

I know more about them than you'll ever know... And that doesn't change the fact that no FACTS exist and no sexual harassment case has been made towards Cain, not by a longshot, not with the facts as we know them thus far.

[Wind Song]

Btw - FACTS are, not a single fact exists to prove the accusation that Cain sexually harassed anyone - NONE. Of course you can prove me wrong by posting these facts...

Facts are two women were paid to shut up about it. Others are coming out and speaking about it. I'm sure that just ticks you off.

[Wind Song]

Liberals are accused of TONS of things on a DAILY basis. Lots of smoke and fires... Should I believe ALL of it to immediately be true - or should I seek out the facts and make a decision based on them - or should I just fall back on my emotions and assume it must all be true?

Facts are. Two employees were paid to shut up about their sexual harassment. I bet you didn't believe Anita Hill either.

[jimnyc]

Facts are two women were paid to shut up about it. Others are coming out and speaking about it. I'm sure that just ticks you off.

Not at all, not at all. Hasn't hurt Cain in the polls either! Either way, doesn't tick me off as I'm not a Cain supporter. But still not one piece of evidence has been posted by you other than accusations. I know this is enough for emotional liberals, but for many it's not enough without further evidence and facts.

[jimnyc]

Facts are. Two employees were paid to shut up about their sexual harassment. I bet you didn't believe Anita Hill either.

What does this have to do with Anita Hill? That rests on it's own evidence, just as this should.

[Wind Song]

Sexual harassment isn't proven by "facts", such as semen or pubic hairs. It's proven by detailed testimony of what happened.

It's not proven the way rape is proven because they are two different kinds of offenses, one criminal and one civil.

Women who have had the unfortunate experience of being sexually harassed at the workplace can tell you EXACTLY what happened and how it made them feel.

[jimnyc]

Sexual harassment isn't proven by "facts", such as semen or pubic hairs. It's proven by detailed testimony of what happened.

It's not proven the way rape is proven because they are two different kinds of offenses, one criminal and one civil.

Of course, and then there is hearsay and regular testimony - and there are facts and eyewitness testimony. Without the latter the case is extremely hard to prove.

[jimnyc]

Women who have had the unfortunate experience of being sexually harassed at the workplace can tell you EXACTLY what happened and how it made them feel.

So can liars. It's called acting.

[Wind Song]

Of course, and then there is hearsay and regular testimony - and there are facts and eyewitness testimony. Without the latter the case is extremely hard to prove.

Actually, detailed testimony is usually enough. One usually doesn't have a witness nor physical evidence. We are talking about verbal abuse, touching, innuendo, staring at body parts. Like it or not, this is how sexual harassment is proven.

There are usually multiple incidents and if they are written down with dates and times, it's pretty compelling evidence.

In my own past, I've usually chosen to leave the job because it's too upsetting and humiliating to go over the details again and again.

[Little-Acorn]

If the accusations against Cain are genuinely true and Democrats DIDN'T have anything to do with them, then Cain would deserve all the grief he's getting, and more.

But what if the women are lying and Cain didn't in fact, do anything to anyone as he maintains? And what if it turned out that Democrats somehow DID gin this up? Why would they try to knock out such an "easy" Nov. 2012 opponent?

Note that all the statements about how "easy" Cain would be to defeat in Nov. 2012, are coming from people who, without exception, do NOT have access to the Democrats' secret internal polls. (Every political party takes and keeps such polls.)

Could it be that top-echelon Democrats are actually finding that Cain would NOT be so easy to defeat in November? And are letting the current "everybody knows" screaming, go on as an effective smokescreen?

After nearly two weeks of continuous (and so far unfounded) accusations, Cain is understandably falling in the polls somewhat.

What are the chances that, regardless of the basis of the accusations, Democrats are heaving a quiet sigh of relief?

[Wind Song]

What does this have to do with Anita Hill? That rests on it's own evidence, just as this should.

We didn't even HAVE sexual harassment cases taken seriously until Anita Hill stepped forward. I remember how contentious the Thomas hearings were and how divided along gender lines.

Clarence Thomas got away with it because of the racism claim. It's not going to work for Cain. He's going down and he has nobody but himself to blame.

[Wind Song]

I think he's guilty, but even if he isn't, Cain knows little about how government works and nothing about foreign policy. I'm not voting for the guy.

His 999 plan hurts the poor.

It takes a tremendous ego need to run for president when you have no political qualifications. Cain has the personality of a man who lusts for power and who may have used his power for sexual gratification with employees.

Since the allegations took place long before any political motivation was even possible — and because there were multiple allegations — I suspect there’s a good chance the allegations have at least some substance to them. The fact that it’s to someone else’s advantage for the facts to come out doesn’t automatically mean they’re false.

Instead of treating this as an opportunity to show himself as a person who empathetic, thoughtful and measured, Cain has approached these women’s allegations by trying to silence them, attacking their character and financial backgrounds, and mocking the situation entirely.

That speaks volumes to me about his character, more than the allegations themselves.

[jimnyc]

I think he's guilty, but even if he isn't, Cain knows little about how government works and nothing about foreign policy. I'm not voting for the guy.

What did our current president know about government and foreign policy, outside of community organizer? LOL He was in government for a few months and then ran for president.

[LuvRPgrl]

2 people are legally unable to discuss what happened. You don't believe the allegations. I do. I don't buy Cain's victim cry.
so you believe it because they cant talk about it? strange logic there. Helps me understand why you are a lesbo

[LuvRPgrl]

Where there is smoke there is fire, and where there is one accuser there is perhaps a fire; where there is four, there is a conflagration.

Cain did it. You know it. That's what pisses you off.

Get a hold of yourself, jim. Familiarize yourself with sexual harassment cases and how they're proven.


To establish a prima facie (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Prima_facie) case for hostile work environment sexual harassment, the alleged victim must prove the following five elements:
He or she suffered intentional, unwanted discrimination because of his or her sex.
The harassment was severe or pervasive.
The harassment negatively affected the terms, conditions or privileges of his or her work environment.
The harassment would detrimentally effect a reasonable person of the same sex.
Management knew about the harassment, or should have known, and did nothing to stop it.


ERGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGgggggggggggggggggg umpppppppppppppfhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

plop, plop, plop
THAT IS THE SOUND OF YOU ON THE CRAPPER.
Take a look down, what you will see is your words from these posting swirling around with the other shit.
.
Prima Facie has absolutely nothing to do with proving sexual harrasement. In fact, PF has no purpose in proving anything other than the case has merit to go ahead and THEN TRY TO PROVE YOUR CASE.
What you want is QUID PRO QUO. Without QPP you cannot prove sexual harrasement in the workplace.
.
There are, and always are,the possibility of facts that one could show in court. If none are brought forward, then one can ask the Judge to dismiss the case on its merits. If no facts are presented, its a pretty good bet the accusation is bogus,
'
even if the details of the latest accusation were true, it wouldnt reach the level to accuse one of sexual harrasement.
.
In fact, I would say, IF IT WERE TRUE, that Cain is only guilty of a really poor pick up method.

[Shadow]

so you believe it because they cant talk about it? strange logic there. Helps me understand why you are a lesbo

They can talk about it... I believe they were released from their gag order (They just don't want to). Seems like I also read that one of the women that came forward recently,also said she would not give a press conference or details...unless she could convence the other two women to talk also. That right there seems kinda shady to me. If you have something to say...just say it.

[red states rule]

I think he's guilty, but even if he isn't, Cain knows little about how government works and nothing about foreign policy. I'm not voting for the guy.

His 999 plan hurts the poor.

It takes a tremendous ego need to run for president when you have no political qualifications. Cain has the personality of a man who lusts for power and who may have used his power for sexual gratification with employees.

Since the allegations took place long before any political motivation was even possible — and because there were multiple allegations — I suspect there’s a good chance the allegations have at least some substance to them. The fact that it’s to someone else’s advantage for the facts to come out doesn’t automatically mean they’re false.

Instead of treating this as an opportunity to show himself as a person who empathetic, thoughtful and measured, Cain has approached these women’s allegations by trying to silence them, attacking their character and financial backgrounds, and mocking the situation entirely.

That speaks volumes to me about his character, more than the allegations themselves.

So now we know you share the same motive as the rest of the Cain accusers - you have to try and take down a threat to Obama

You blast Cain for lack of "experience" - what was Obama's experience when he decided to run for President? Don;t tell the it was the 150 some odd days he spent in the US Senate and mostly voted "present"

I do have to laugh at libs like you for demanding Cain "come clean" when we were told during the Clintno years all of this same stuff was a "personal matter between Bill and Hillary"

Where were the calls to "come clean" when a memebr of the Kennedy clan was accused of abusing women?

Or John Edwards?

or Weiner when he sent his pics to his girlfriends and then openly lied about it?

You are like most liberals I know WS - you have one set of standards for your fellow liberals - then you raise the bar as high as you can for others when it might help you politically

[LuvRPgrl]

So now we know you share the same motive as the rest of the Cain accusers - you have to try and take down a threat to Obama

You blast Cain for lack of "experience" - what was Obama's experience when he decided to run for President? Don;t tell the it was the 150 some odd days he spent in the US Senate and mostly voted "present"

I do have to laugh at libs like you for demanding Cain "come clean" when we were told during the Clintno years all of this same stuff was a "personal matter between Bill and Hillary"

Where were the calls to "come clean" when a memebr of the Kennedy clan was accused of abusing women?

Or John Edwards?

or Weiner when he sent his pics to his girlfriends and then openly lied about it?

You are like most liberals I know WS - you have one set of standards for your fellow liberals - then you raise the bar as high as you can for others when it might help you politically

she wont vote for him bec ause he is a repub, plain and simple. What she says is the reason is simply the most negative aspect of
Cain that she can come up with

[fj1200]

His 999 plan hurts the poor.

The 999 plan would be a boon to the poor. Not only does it unleash the private sector to create investment, and hence jobs, but it removes the anti-job taxes that have been chipping away at the jobs that benefit the poor. Both Social Security and Medicare taxes are eliminated under Cain's plan which makes it far cheaper to employ those at the bottom of the income scale.

Removing the majority of the corporate income tax, I'd say eliminate it all but anyway..., also removes much of the incentive to move US jobs overseas; it makes us far more competitive on a global scale and would reverse the trend that had the rest of the world slowly becoming (more?) competitive as compared to the US. Our global competitiveness ranking has been slowly falling these past few years and that has to stop if we are to have any shot at a robust recovery.

What say you?

[Wind Song]

The 999 plan would be a boon to the poor. Not only does it unleash the private sector to create investment, and hence jobs, but it removes the anti-job taxes that have been chipping away at the jobs that benefit the poor. Both Social Security and Medicare taxes are eliminated under Cain's plan which makes it far cheaper to employ those at the bottom of the income scale.

Removing the majority of the corporate income tax, I'd say eliminate it all but anyway..., also removes much of the incentive to move US jobs overseas; it makes us far more competitive on a global scale and would reverse the trend that had the rest of the world slowly becoming (more?) competitive as compared to the US. Our global competitiveness ranking has been slowly falling these past few years and that has to stop if we are to have any shot at a robust recovery.

What say you?

999 is a regressive tax. Regressive taxes hurt the poor. Sales tax, while it is the same for both low- and high-income persons, is regressive in the extreme because the lower a person's income, the higher percentage of that income has to be spent just to live.

FAMILY #1 with 3 kids and $30,000.00 per year annual income, a trip to the mall for back to school clothes and supplies costs at least $250.00. Tack on 9% sales tax or $22.50.

FAMILY #2 making $75,000.00 that same trip also pays $22.50 in tax payments. But here’s where the lower income family gets screwed.
FAMILY #1: $22.50 is taxed .075% of their $30,000.00 annual income
FAMILY #2: $22.50 is taxed .030% of their $75,000.00 annual income.

The tax impact on the poorer family is more than double that of the wealthier family.

[Little-Acorn]

999 is a regressive tax.
Only in regards to people's incomes. But 999 isn't based on income (well, 1/3 of it is, but you are arguing that's not enough).

Any tax that isn't an Income Tax, is "regressive"... but so what? The whole idea of a tax not based on income, is to throw out the comparisons to peoples' income, remember? (D'OH!) The whole idea of non-income taxes, is to have people pay in proportion to what they get from govt, not in proportion to what's in their wallet.
[/QUOTE]

[fj1200]

999 is a regressive tax. Regressive taxes hurt the poor. Sales tax, while it is the same for both low- and high-income persons, is regressive in the extreme because the lower a person's income, the higher percentage of that income has to be spent just to live.

FAMILY #1 with 3 kids and $30,000.00 per year annual income, a trip to the mall for back to school clothes and supplies costs at least $250.00. Tack on 9% sales tax or $22.50.

FAMILY #2 making $75,000.00 that same trip also pays $22.50 in tax payments. But here’s where the lower income family gets screwed.
FAMILY #1: $22.50 is taxed .075% of their $30,000.00 annual income
FAMILY #2: $22.50 is taxed .030% of their $75,000.00 annual income.

The tax impact on the poorer family is more than double that of the wealthier family.

You completely missed the details in my post and are not factoring in the already regressive SS taxes and those being removed from the equation. You are also missing, although not brought up yet, the embedded taxes that consumers already pay which will be dramatically reduced. No more built in SS and Medicare taxes, much less corporate taxation built in, much lower income taxes built in, (hopefully) eliminated compliance costs, etc. You need to be more concerned with how the unseen costs of the tax system we have are being born by those of whom you express concern. Increased transparency in taxation and removing tax disincentives to hiring/employing will help those on the lower end of the scale the most.

[red states rule]

999 is a regressive tax. Regressive taxes hurt the poor. Sales tax, while it is the same for both low- and high-income persons, is regressive in the extreme because the lower a person's income, the higher percentage of that income has to be spent just to live.

FAMILY #1 with 3 kids and $30,000.00 per year annual income, a trip to the mall for back to school clothes and supplies costs at least $250.00. Tack on 9% sales tax or $22.50.

FAMILY #2 making $75,000.00 that same trip also pays $22.50 in tax payments. But here’s where the lower income family gets screwed.
FAMILY #1: $22.50 is taxed .075% of their $30,000.00 annual income
FAMILY #2: $22.50 is taxed .030% of their $75,000.00 annual income.

The tax impact on the poorer family is more than double that of the wealthier family.

It would be nice to have the "poor" pay SOMETHING since they are getting a free ride with the current tax system

Currently the top 1% earn about 20% of the income yet pay over 40% of all federal income taxes collected

The top 50% pay about 97% of all the federal income taces

and the bottom 50% pay the remaining 3%. About half of these people pay ZERO federal income taxes. Some of them get a "refund" on taxes they did not pay

Given how libs claim we need "shared sacrifice" - the "poor" need to step up and kick in some money like the rest of us

[logroller]

999 is a regressive tax. Regressive taxes hurt the poor. Sales tax, while it is the same for both low- and high-income persons, is regressive in the extreme because the lower a person's income, the higher percentage of that income has to be spent just to live.

FAMILY #1 with 3 kids and $30,000.00 per year annual income, a trip to the mall for back to school clothes and supplies costs at least $250.00. Tack on 9% sales tax or $22.50.

FAMILY #2 making $75,000.00 that same trip also pays $22.50 in tax payments. But here’s where the lower income family gets screwed.
FAMILY #1: $22.50 is taxed .075% of their $30,000.00 annual income
FAMILY #2: $22.50 is taxed .030% of their $75,000.00 annual income.

The tax impact on the poorer family is more than double that of the wealthier family.

Should i assume you disagree with the tobacco tax too. It's regressive.

[red states rule]

Should i assume you disagree with the tobacco tax too. It's regressive.

and the gas tax which several Dem run states (like MD) want to raise

[red states rule]

Facts are two women were paid to shut up about it. Others are coming out and speaking about it. I'm sure that just ticks you off.



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/GM111114CLR-CainCove_120111115022300.jpg