GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm also very skeptical of this supposed witness. Unless it was something incredibly, incredibly obscene, who on earth would remember an (essentially) innocent hand gesture or comment someone made 15 years ago? I certainly wouldn't.
Well you're right, if it was innocent you probably wouldn't remember it.

As far as digging up dirt, are you referring to the media or the person's primary opponents? If it's the latter, I agree- it's fair game. If you're referring to the media, there's clearly a double standard. The media did not do its due diligence in examining Obama's record and weaknesses in 2008, and said next to nothing of the John Edwards scandal until long after he was out of the race, among other examples. I'd say it's less a racial bias then a pure ideological bias.

More Tea Party victimhood.

Edward's story was tabloid rumor until after he already had bowed out, not even the right wing media said much about it, because no one knew anything about it.

Even if every news outlet in the world dedicated hours to Obama's relationship with Ayers it wouldn't have mattered. Intelligent people didn't care, it was obvious to everyone that their relationship was pretty insignificant, even Ayers himself said so, and don't you think a radical like himself would want to brag about the influence and relationship he had with the President of the US? There is no double standard, it's just that you've been listening to paranoid conspiracy media for too long.

But I'm still very doubtful.
Based on what?

I honestly have no clue what the claims are, and honestly make no judgement based on what I've heard so far, BUT I don't understand why some of you act so suprised. He obviously prides himself on a "I'm not going to be PC, I don't care what people say" mentality, and he obviously has some akward social habits. So if the allegations were of the verbal nature, I wouldn't be all that suprised.
 
There's allegedly more than one witness to at least one occurrence, because it was in a restaurant. Maybe some sort of meeting of the association, I'm not sure.

Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior - Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman and Anna Palmer and Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com

"During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures."

"On the details of Cain’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two women, POLITICO has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.

The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship."


By JACK GILLUM and STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain faces accusations from a third woman, who considered filing a complaint against him over sexually suggestive remarks and gestures.

The allegations are similar to accusations of unwanted behavior that led to separate settlements in the late 1990s with two other women who went on to pursue successful careers after leaving the organization Cain once headed.

The latest allegations come from a woman who said in interviews with The Associated Press that Cain was aggressive and inappropriate with her, even extending a private invitation to his corporate apartment when she worked with him at the National Restaurant Association. The woman said Cain's behavior occurred at the same time two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against him while he was leading the association.

Those two women, now the focus of an intensifying scrutiny after their settlements became public, moved on professionally and personally after their time at the restaurant association. One woman thrived in her pursuit of her communications career and the other moved up in positions focusing on political outreach and public policy.

Cain's third accuser was located and approached by the AP as part of its investigation into harassment complaints against Cain that were disclosed in recent days and have thrown his presidential campaign into turmoil. She spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying she feared losing her current job and the possibility of damage to her reputation.

The woman said she did not file a formal complaint against Cain because she began having fewer interactions with him. Later, she learned that a co-worker - one of the two women whose accusations have rocked Cain's campaign - already had done so. She said she would have felt she had to file otherwise.

She said Cain told her that he had confided to colleagues how attractive she was and invited her to his corporate apartment outside work.

His actions "were inappropriate, and it made me feel uncomfortable," the woman said.

Read more: Third Cain accuser emerges, 2 others thrived later - Nation - MiamiHerald.com
 
I am skeptical about the Cain allegations. I don't really think it would be beyond Camp Niggerhead to drudge up some slime on this issue at all. They are desperate.

-------

Interesting poll just came out on Florida voters. I wonder if the "GOP sabotage" angle will make its way into the general election campaign:

With 51 percent of voters saying that jobs and the economy are the most pressing issues in the nation today, 49 percent said they believe that the Republicans are intentionally hindering efforts to boost the economy so that President Barack Obama will not be reelected. Thirty-nine percent disagreed. As expected, most registered Democrats (70 percent) agreed that Republicans are intentionally hindering the economy and hurting Obama, but independents (52 percent) and even some Republicans (24 percent) also agreed.
Those two latter categories would be setting off alarm bells at the RNC, if this was a national poll.
 
By Shira Schoenberg, Boston Globe Correspondent Nov 3

The campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry, trying to deflect allegations that their campaign leaked the story about alleged sexual harassment by Herman Cain, is trying to put the attention elsewhere: on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

The Perry campaign does not claim to have any proof that Romney supporters leaked the allegations against Cain, the businessman and presidential candidate. But a Perry campaign spokesman pointed out that two Romney supporters have ties to the National Restaurant Association, where Cain was president when he allegedly harassed up to three women.

“We never accused anyone,” said Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan. “We simply pointed out the ties between campaign backers and the restaurant association. We’re just saying there are other connections involved potentially in the story.”

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said any allegations that the Romney campaign was involved in the Cain story are “absolutely not true.”

One of those Romney supporters, former restaurant association president Steven Anderson, denied that he even had knowledge of the alleged sexual harassment accusations. Chris Krese, a spokesman for Steven Anderson, told the Globe, “He has not commented about this story because he didn’t have knowledge of the allegations when he was president and CEO of the (National Restaurant Association). He didn’t have knowledge of it so he obviously couldn’t have provided the story to the media or anyone, and he didn’t provide the story to the media or anyone.”

Politico first reported Sunday that Cain allegedly agreed to financial settlements with two women who claimed he had sexually harassed them during his tenure as president the National Restaurant Association. The women left the trade group. Since then, a third woman told the Associated Press that she had similar complaints.

The Cain campaign has given a series of inconsistent responses to the allegations, and yesterday accused Perry’s campaign of leaking them. Cain Chief of Staff Mark Block said yesterday that the Politico story “was almost certainly provided to them by the Rick Perry campaign.” As proof, the Cain campaign pointed to the fact that Curt Anderson, a partner in a consulting firm hired by Perry, knew about the allegations from his work as a consultant for Cain’s Senate campaign in 2003. Cain told Forbes magazine that he briefed Curt Anderson about the sexual harassment allegations in 2003.

Curt Anderson denied that he had anything to do with leaking the charges. “I’d never heard any of these allegations until I read them in Politico, nor does anything I read in the press change my opinion that Herman is an upstanding man and a gentleman,” Curt Anderson said in a statement provided by the Perry campaign. “I have great respect for Herman and his character and I would never speak ill of him, on the record or off the record. That’s true today and it’s not going to change.”

Sullivan said the Perry campaign denies it had anything to do with the story. “For a candidate and campaign claiming to be victims of unfounded and unproven accusations, they are awfully quick to hurl unfounded accusations themselves,” Perry said. “Contrary to the Cain campaign’s false accusations, there is not one shred of evidence that any member of the Perry campaign had anything to do with the recent stories regarding Herman Cain -- because it isn’t true.”

Perry told the conservative blog RedState that he is “disappointed that there’s finger pointing going on.”

But the Perry campaign has implied a similar allegation – if less directly. Sullivan pointed out the Romney connections with the restaurant association to CBS News and National Journal reporter Rebeccca Kaplan last night, saying “”I wouldn’t put it past them,” to leak the story, CBS reported. Speaking to the Globe today, Sullivan said he was not accusing anyone, but simply pointing out connections between Romney’s campaign and the National Restaurant Association.

He pointed specifically to Steven Anderson and Richard Marriott. Steven Anderson succeeded Cain as president and CEO of the restaurant association, a position he held from 1999 to 2007. Steven Anderson donated $1,000 to Romney’s presidential campaign. It is unclear why, if Steven Anderson was concerned about the sexual harassment allegations, he would have also donated $1,000 to Cain’s 2004 Senate campaign.

Marriott is a former president of the restaurant association and a close associate of Romney. Marriott contributed $500,000 to a pro-Romney super-PAC. The Marriott family, which owns the hotel chain by that name, is friends with the Romney family, and Romney was a director of Marriott International.

But there is no evidence that Marriott would have been in a position to know about the allegations. Marriott was chairman of the National Restaurant Association board of directors for a single year-long term, beginning in May 1992. Cain took over as vice president at the same time. But according to the Politico story and to Cain, the sexual harassment claims were brought when he was chairman of the association, from 1996 to 1999 – after Marriott left.

Messages for Marriott, left at the hotel chain office and at his foundation, were not immediately returned today.
 
OMG the hand gestures are hilarious. And the way he giggles at himself. The hands are flying all over the place.

I guess he was just high on fall in the Granite State, Halloween, or the impending October snowstorm.
 
Hey dude, is there any whiskey in this maple syrup?

31_perry.gif
 
Maybe he was just trying to appear a bit more loose and relaxed, but overshot so much that now everyone thinks he's insane.

(well, more insane, anyway.)
 
Did anyone post this? Some people were saying he was acting drunk, buzzed, whatever.

I've been around a few drunk people in my time, and my first instinct is that he'd had a few.

Where was this speech made? Was it at an event where maybe he would have been sitting down earlier in the night for dinner and had a couple glasses of wine or something?
 
More Tea Party victimhood.

Where? There's no victimhood here. It's actually empowering when you recognize how incompetent and dishonest much of the media is. You should try it.

And I'm not talking about Ayers. He and Wright are only a small part of it. I'm talking about the overall pass that the media gave to Obama. It's tragically blatant. Check out the conversation between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw about 4 days before the 2008 election. Many times they state how they are completely ignorant and unfamiliar with parts of Obama's background, his education, his experience, his foreign policy stances, and the people he surrounds himself with. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I can't name off the top of my head one challenging or critical assessment of the guy that didn't come from a conservative outlet or from the Clinton campaign. Not one. I doubt you can either.

Go ahead and investigate this Cain thing. He's running for president, and if the people think it's a legitimate story, fair enough. But the double standard is striking.
 
2861U2 said:
Where? There's no victimhood here. It's actually empowering when you recognize how incompetent and dishonest much of the media is. You should try it.

And I'm not talking about Ayers. He and Wright are only a small part of it. I'm talking about the overall pass that the media gave to Obama. It's tragically blatant. Check out the conversation between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw about 4 days before the 2008 election. Many times they state how they are completely ignorant and unfamiliar with parts of Obama's background, his education, his experience, his foreign policy stances, and the people he surrounds himself with. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I can't name off the top of my head one challenging or critical assessment of the guy that didn't come from a conservative outlet or from the Clinton campaign. Not one. I doubt you can either.

Go ahead and investigate this Cain thing. He's running for president, and if the people think it's a legitimate story, fair enough. But the double standard is striking.

I agree for the most part that there's media incompetence, but here's where we differ; I don't think they are critical or challenging enough of any candidate, or most issues for that matter. For the most part they're pedestrian and tabloid.
 
Why is it that all of the current GOP nominees, aside from Romney, appear to be crazy nutjobs? Stuttering Perry wants to build a fence along the border of Mexico, Casanova-Cain wants it to be an electric fence so we can execute the mexicans, Bachmann's a sort of Palin-lite who's husband is trying to turn gays into alter boys :)drool:), Paul appears sane half of the time...yet just when i think he's making sense he claims that a fence along the border of Mexico would "keep US in", Huntsman has way too many kids to be taken seriously, Gingrich could be the smartest of the bunch but his own personal commitment issues make you wonder about his character, Sanatorium....now here's a really swell fellow....he's clearly disgusted at the "social experiment" currently "infecting" our military with the repeal of DADT.

Seriously, is there any other choice for GOP nominee aside from Romney? He's the slickest, most moderate and least poisonous of the bunch, and it does help that he has executive level experience as well as a business background. How the hell is this even a contest?
 
Why is it that all of the current GOP nominees, aside from Romney, appear to be crazy nutjobs? Stuttering Perry wants to build a fence along the border of Mexico, Casanova-Cain wants it to be an electric fence so we can execute the mexicans, Bachmann's a sort of Palin-lite who's husband is trying to turn gays into alter boys :)drool:), Paul appears sane half of the time...yet just when i think he's making sense he claims that a fence along the border of Mexico would "keep US in", Huntsman has way too many kids to be taken seriously, Gingrich could be the smartest of the bunch but his own personal commitment issues make you wonder about his character, Sanatorium....now here's a really swell fellow....he's clearly disgusted at the "social experiment" currently "infecting" our military with the repeal of DADT.

Seriously, is there any other choice for GOP nominee aside from Romney? He's the slickest, most moderate and least poisonous of the bunch, and it does help that he has executive level experience as well as a business background. How the hell is this even a contest?

If I was taking one of those "are you satisfied with the GOP field" surveys, I'd say "yes," but only because Romney is there. If he wasn't there, I guess I'd be halfway excited about Gingrich but unimpressed by everyone else.

I suppose that's where the current split in the party is. As for me, my favorite leaders of the party (and potential future presidents) have been people like Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour- reasonable adults who are unquestionably intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues, regardless of whether you agree or not. I'd rather have any of them be the face of the GOP over people like Palin, Perry or Santorum. I guess 2012 will be the ultimate test of that.

Of course, that said, I'd still vote for any of the current field over Obama. :wink:
 
As for me, my favorite leaders of the party (and potential future presidents) have been people like Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour- reasonable adults who are unquestionably intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues, regardless of whether you agree or not. I'd rather have any of them be the face of the GOP over people like Palin, Perry or Santorum. I guess 2012 will be the ultimate test of that.

Fair enough, "reasonable adults who are unquestionably intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues" is apparently considered optional among many in the tea party. So far their choices range from fanatical to one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

I saw Condi Rice on a tv interview recently, and she reminded me how smart and reasonable acting someone from the GOP could be. Obviously that's treasonous behaviour by tea party standards. Clearly she is smart enough to not get involved in the current political circus.
 
As for me, my favorite leaders of the party (and potential future presidents) have been people like Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour- reasonable adults who are unquestionably intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues, regardless of whether you agree or not.

Of course, that said, I'd still vote for any of the current field over Obama. :wink:
Do you consider Obama to not be a reasonable adult who is unquestionably intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues?
 
Rice can do ok in an interview, but she was a terrible Secretary of State, one of the worst ever.
2nd term, things improved a bit. But she was right at the center during the worst decisions ever made. A few people got out, or were pushed out, not her.
 
Do you consider Obama to not be a reasonable adult who is unquestionably intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues?

The tragedy of Obama. Is that he ran and won too soon.
We all would have been much better served if Hillary had gotten the nomination.

He has been called the brilliant amateur. We will never know how great of a president he could have been, with more experience.
 
Do you consider Obama to not be a reasonable adult who is unquestionably intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues?

On many things, no. If he is, I've yet to see much of it demonstrated, especially if the people he surrounds himself with are supposed to be an extension of that intelligence.

I don't care how long I live, I will never understand how in the midst of unprecedented challenges, two wars, an economy in decline, a mounting debt, and increasing tensions with Iran and China, we elected not Hillary Clinton or John McCain, but a guy who was completely untested and unproven as a leader and a problem-solver.
 
John McCain has no chance in 2008 and if Romney got the nomination he would have lost too. The country had severe Bush/.Cheney fatigue. Wall Street was in a free fall, due to the Bush Admin policies and the Iraq War was perceived as completely unnecessary and extremely costly by most Americans.

In 2008 Romney would have recieved less votes than McCain/ Palin.
That was the best ticket the GOP could have put up.

The playing field was not even. The Dems had a 2 touchdown advantage and managed to win by one touchdown. :shrug:
 
On many things, no.

Regardless of whether you disagree or not, you don't think Obama is intelligent and knowledgeable about the issues? Hell, I disagree vehemently with Karl Rove on pretty much everything politically, but there's absolutely no doubt that he's extremely intelligent and well-versed on the issues.

I'm having a hard time understanding how one could come to the conclusion that Obama is dim-witted and/or uninformed on the issues. Care to explain?
 
John McCain has no chance in 2008 and if Romney got the nomination he would have lost too. The country had severe Bush/.Cheney fatigue. Wall Street was in a free fall, due to the Bush Admin policies and the Iraq War was perceived as completely unnecessary and extremely costly by most Americans.

In 2008 Romney would have recieved less votes than McCain/ Palin.
That was the best ticket the GOP could have put up.

The playing field was not even. The Dems had a 2 touchdown advantage and managed to win by one touchdown. :shrug:

I understand the politics of it. It was a Democratic year if there ever was one, and they did a good job of portraying McCain as an extension of Bush. Obama was appealing on a personal and emotional level. McCain wasn't at all. I get all that. But considering the problems America was facing, I can't wrap my head around his election.
 
I understand the politics of it. It was a Democratic year if there ever was one, and they did a good job of portraying McCain as an extension of Bush. Obama was appealing on a personal and emotional level. McCain wasn't at all. I get all that. But considering the problems America was facing, I can't wrap my head around his election.

Considering the problems America was facing, maybe the American people didn't want a President who would choose (with little to no vetting done) a second-in-command as clearly unprepared and uninformed about the issues as Sarah Palin, and then appeared to not know how to handle his #2 for the remainder of the campaign?
 
I'm having a hard time understanding how one could come to the conclusion that Obama is dim-witted and/or uninformed on the issues. Care to explain?

I just haven't seen much evidence to the contrary.

I think everything he knows about creating jobs and how to get the economy moving is wrong. His foreign policy moves (authorizing the OBL strike, continuing the drone attacks, keeping Gitmo) are admirable and worth some points, but I'd be very worried if he DIDN'T do those things. I think Holder and Geithner and Chu are embarrassments. You hardly ever hear him speak off the cuff, and I've never thought he was that impressive of a debater, either with the Democrats or against McCain. He's well-educated, of course- I just think he's in over his head.

And getting back on topic, I think Cain is, too. And Sarah Palin. And a few others. It's time to look for something better. :shrug:
 
I saw Condi Rice on a tv interview recently, and she reminded me how smart and reasonable acting someone from the GOP could be. Obviously that's treasonous behaviour by tea party standards. Clearly she is smart enough to not get involved in the current political circus.

If anyone cares to listen to an intelligent, honest conservative, Ramesh Ponnuru gave a speech and was interviewed recently at the U of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs. He is a senior editor for the National Review and a Bloomberg News View commentator.

What's the future of conservatism? | Minnesota Public Radio News

It's not scintillating radio, but it is interesting to hear criticism of the current crop of conservatives from a conservative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom