The Demise of Herman Cain

[WinePusher]

Herman Cain officially suspended his campaign after a third woman, by the name of Ginger White, accused him of having a 13 years extramarital affair with her. These accusations attracted alot of attention from the media caused support for Cain's candidacy to dwindle.

Questions:

1) Was Herman Cain treated fairly by the press?

2) Based on what you know, do you believe that these sexual harrasment charges are valid and that Herman Cain actually did have an affair? Or do you believe these accusations are lies and falsehoods orchastrated by those on the left?

3) Since Herman Cain's out, 9-9-9 is also out. Should another candidate pick up the pieces and revive this 9-9-9 plan? Would 9-9-9 be good for the country?

[micatala]

Herman Cain officially suspended his campaign after a third woman, by the name of Ginger White, accused him of having a 13 years extramarital affair with her. These accusations attracted alot of attention from the media caused support for Cain's candidacy to dwindle.

Questions:

1) Was Herman Cain treated fairly by the press?

Well, I would say overall Cain was treated similarly to other politicians accused of this kind of thing, at least the press I have seen. I have seen coverage of this on PBS, CNN, MSNBC, and I think even a tiny bit on FOX. I think CNN and PBS were very fair. I would say MSNBC was probably not inaccurate in their coverage, but were definitely giving it way more air time than it deserved, and were obviously making political hay out of it. I would guess FOX ignored it a lot more than the others, although I can't say I have a very large sample of "FOX viewing minutes" to draw from.


Reporting the allegations and some reasonable discussion of the possible implications of the allegations, whether true or not, I think is fair. Berating Cain and making negative personal comments is not. I did not see the latter at all on CNN or certainly not on PBS. I did on MSNBC.

2) Based on what you know, do you believe that these sexual harrasment charges are valid and that Herman Cain actually did have an affair? Or do you believe these accusations are lies and falsehoods orchastrated by those on the left?

Well, I hate to prejudge Cain based on rumor or allegations. However, we do seem to have documented cases of sexual harassment settlements. The allegations of affairs are, you could say, "he said - she said" and so I certainly do not consider those proven. On the other hand, it is hard for me to conclude all of these allegations are made up. At this point, I am reserving judgment.

I have seen absolutely no shred of evidence these are outright falsehoods "orchestrated by those on the left." Weren't these allegations first made public through supporters of other Republican candidates? Isn't that where Cain first directed his fire?

3) Since Herman Cain's out, 9-9-9 is also out. Should another candidate pick up the pieces and revive this 9-9-9 plan? Would 9-9-9 be good for the country?

9-9-9 is a horrible idea and I doubt any other candidate will pick up that standard. I certainly hope not, anyway. We do not need to move further toward the regressive end of taxation. Rather the opposite in my view.

[dianaiad]

Herman Cain officially suspended his campaign after a third woman, by the name of Ginger White, accused him of having a 13 years extramarital affair with her. These accusations attracted alot of attention from the media caused support for Cain's candidacy to dwindle.

Questions:

1) Was Herman Cain treated fairly by the press?

In comparison to what? I think he was treated the way the press treats everybody on the right, and very few people on the left. I am forcibly reminded, for instance, of the way Clinton was treated when he first campaigned...with Jennifer Flowers and one accused--not sexual harassment and an affair, but out and out rape. The difference between the way the two candidates have been treated is glaring.

It's not that I think that the media was too hard on Cain. It's that the media covers up/approves of/ignores/excuses the same sort of thing on the left.

2) Based on what you know, do you believe that these sexual harrasment charges are valid and that Herman Cain actually did have an affair? Or do you believe these accusations are lies and falsehoods orchastrated by those on the left?

I don't really know. What I DO know is that if the same allegations were made about a left wing candidate, the left-leaning media and the supporters of that candidate would be saying two things: first...it's just sex, and has nothing to do with his ability to run the country, and second, they would be vilifying the accusers. Second, the NOW women would be backing him and completely ignoring the women involved. "The issues are more important."

It is only when the right wing candidate is in trouble that the Borking happens. (shrug)

..............which is one of the reasons, I think, that the left does NOT want Romney to be running. I can absolutely guarantee you that there won't be any of that baggage in HIS history. I imagine that he's had sex with one woman, and one woman only--and he married her first. In fact, I think that's a pretty solid assumption. They have no target to aim at, there.

3) Since Herman Cain's out, 9-9-9 is also out. Should another candidate pick up the pieces and revive this 9-9-9 plan? Would 9-9-9 be good for the country?

Oh, I do hope not. I HATED that 9-9-9 thing. The simpler it sounded on the surface, the more complicated it got in the details. We would have been so bogged down in that, that Obamacare would have seemed like the two step. (shudder)

Our tax system needs re-doing--but not THAT way.

[RobertUrbanek]

If we had higher taxes on the rich, men like Herman Cain would have less disposable income to spend on mistresses. I guess anti-tax Christian conservatives aren’t that interested in preventing adultery.

[micatala]

Herman Cain officially suspended his campaign after a third woman, by the name of Ginger White, accused him of having a 13 years extramarital affair with her. These accusations attracted alot of attention from the media caused support for Cain's candidacy to dwindle.

Questions:

1) Was Herman Cain treated fairly by the press?

In comparison to what? I think he was treated the way the press treats everybody on the right, and very few people on the left. I am forcibly reminded, for instance, of the way Clinton was treated when he first campaigned...with Jennifer Flowers and one accused--not sexual harassment and an affair, but out and out rape. The difference between the way the two candidates have been treated is glaring.

It's not that I think that the media was too hard on Cain. It's that the media covers up/approves of/ignores/excuses the same sort of thing on the left.

I would have to disagree. I was around during the whole Clinton thing as well. I remember ad nauseum coverage of his various transgressions, both the real and the alleged. And I should say I did not vote for Clinton either the first or the second time (Perot in '92 and Dole in '96). I remember being rather astonished that he seemed to be the best the Dems could come up with.

I also remember withering coverage of Gary Hart, and John Edwards on mainstream media outlets.

2) Based on what you know, do you believe that these sexual harrasment charges are valid and that Herman Cain actually did have an affair? Or do you believe these accusations are lies and falsehoods orchastrated by those on the left?

I don't really know. What I DO know is that if the same allegations were made about a left wing candidate, the left-leaning media and the supporters of that candidate would be saying two things: first...it's just sex, and has nothing to do with his ability to run the country, and second, they would be vilifying the accusers. Second, the NOW women would be backing him and completely ignoring the women involved. "The issues are more important."

I would agree the candidate's supporters would make excuses of any kind as long as they could get away with it. Some MSNBC types might as well.


HOwever, I think you are again overstating the case. When the whole Anthony Weiner thing hit, most of the coverage I saw in MSNBC was along the lines of
1) what an idiot
2) the Reps are sure gonna make hay out of this
3) too bad such an effective spokesman for the left shot himself in the foot (or maybe some other part should be specified here)
4) there were some what might be called excuses along the lines of "well, at least he never actually had sex, unlike Sanford, and others"


I would also say that to the extent there is a double-standard, it is fed by the notion that the Republicans are the party of "family values," and so there is a somewhat higher perception of hypocrisy when a Republican has an affair, especially when the Republican touts their family values or is complaining about others for things he himself has done (e.g. Gingrich).

..............which is one of the reasons, I think, that the left does NOT want Romney to be running. I can absolutely guarantee you that there won't be any of that baggage in HIS history. I imagine that he's had sex with one woman, and one woman only--and he married her first. In fact, I think that's a pretty solid assumption. They have no target to aim at, there.

I won't disagree with this, but I think the main reason the left would rather someone else get the nomination is the simple fact that, overall, they perceive Romney as the strongest candidate. His impeccable personal morals are a part of that, of course, but far from the only or even the largest part.

3) Since Herman Cain's out, 9-9-9 is also out. Should another candidate pick up the pieces and revive this 9-9-9 plan? Would 9-9-9 be good for the country?

Oh, I do hope not. I HATED that 9-9-9 thing. The simpler it sounded on the surface, the more complicated it got in the details. We would have been so bogged down in that, that Obamacare would have seemed like the two step. (shudder)

Our tax system needs re-doing--but not THAT way.

Well, we agree here, although I suspect the details of that reform would be rather different if you did it than if I did it.


As one final comment, I tend to be frustrated at any host or show that spends too much time on this sort of thing, either left or right or center. I do not need to see a 15 minute interview with "the other woman." I do not need three people analyzing the body language of the aggrieved wife as she stands behind her husband, whether he is abjectly apologizing or sticking to his denials. Just state the fact, or if there are no facts, shut up and get on to something more important.

[dianaiad]

As one final comment, I tend to be frustrated at any host or show that spends too much time on this sort of thing, either left or right or center. I do not need to see a 15 minute interview with "the other woman." I do not need three people analyzing the body language of the aggrieved wife as she stands behind her husband, whether he is abjectly apologizing or sticking to his denials. Just state the fact, or if there are no facts, shut up and get on to something more important.

Oh, I'm in absolute agreement with this.

Complete

total
agreement.

Come election day, actually, I'm going to be so flippin' tired of the whole thing that I might take scissors to the voting booth and cut paper dolls out of the ballot.

Just to see what the machines would do with THOSE hanging chads.

[100%atheist]

Herman Cain officially suspended his campaign after a third woman, by the name of Ginger White, accused him of having a 13 years extramarital affair with her. These accusations attracted alot of attention from the media caused support for Cain's candidacy to dwindle.

Questions:

1) Was Herman Cain treated fairly by the press?

Presidential elections are not about fair treatment of candidates.

2) Based on what you know, do you believe that these sexual harrasment charges are valid and that Herman Cain actually did have an affair? Or do you believe these accusations are lies and falsehoods orchastrated by those on the left?

Actually, I don't care, especially since the latest accusations were not exactly about harassment. He needed to keep his private life in order before seriously thinking to go public as a presidential candidate.

3) Since Herman Cain's out, 9-9-9 is also out. Should another candidate pick up the pieces and revive this 9-9-9 plan? Would 9-9-9 be good for the country?

I don't see how his 999 plan was based on any actual financial analysis. It was just his personal PR. How about 666, or 911 plan? You'd probably say, and rightfully so, that it makes no sense. And I will agree with you as well as I agree to use the same qualification for the 999.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) Was Herman Cain treated fairly by the press?

Depends on one's definition of fairly. I'm sure he's spittin' mad about it. I see nothing to conclude he wasn't treated like any other politician, when we average out biased news sources.

It coulda been worse - He coulda got elected then have the legislature spend millions and millions to find out he got his cigar smoked. At least this way our tax dollars weren't spent to find out he's a man.

2) Based on what you know, do you believe that these sexual harrasment charges are valid and that Herman Cain actually did have an affair?

I could only speculate, so I will... Yes, I believe he did, but don't care. It doesn't change my impression of him in the least. I've come to learn that so many of these "values" candidates are :censored:.

Or do you believe these accusations are lies and falsehoods orchastrated by those on the left?

Or, do I believe the attempts to refute these accusations are "lies and falsehoods" orchestrated by those on the right?

3) Since Herman Cain's out, 9-9-9 is also out. Should another candidate pick up the pieces and revive this 9-9-9 plan?

Perhaps yes, so that we can shine a light on the disproportionality of this proposal.

Would 9-9-9 be good for the country?

No. It would unfairly burden the poorest among us.

It is my opinion that those who are "blessed" the most by this "Christian Country" should pay a share proportionate to their "blessing".

[dianaiad]

From the OP:

1) Was Herman Cain treated fairly by the press?

Depends on one's definition of fairly. I'm sure he's spittin' mad about it. I see nothing to conclude he wasn't treated like any other politician, when we average out biased news sources.

It coulda been worse - He coulda got elected then have the legislature spend millions and millions to find out he got his cigar smoked. At least this way our tax dollars weren't spent to find out he's a man.

A MAN?

Joey, for some reason....I have no clue why...this one surprised me.

I had a number of internal reactions....and quite a few responses to the above statement, every single one of which would have had my icons in handcuffs by this afternoon. Took me a breath or two to regain my virtual composure, actually.

When I DID calm down, I realized that all those responses had one message in common: a question, actually.

Why is it that when a MAN screws around, cheats on his spouse, uses his power to intimidate and harass women, uses them as personal sex toys, and generally acts like an ass, he's being a MAN, by golly? He's a 'dog', (said usually in an admiring tone of voice, with the underlying 'attaboy!" attached to it).

But let a woman behave the same way, and...hoo, boy...nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, would simply shrug and say "at least this way our tax dollars weren't spent to find out she's a woman!"

Or...let this happen to a REPUBLICAN, and the envious 'attaboy's' turn into gasped outrage.

Now, I don't know if Herman Cain did everything that was claimed or not; that he had an affair? The fact that he dropped out of the race is fairly indicative of that. I am very cynical about the timing of the disclosure of that affair. I do wonder about the bank balances of the women who came forward, actually.

Never mind that--I wasn't going to vote for Cain anyway. His 9-9-9 plan was too flippin' awful.

But this post isn't about Cain. It's about this attitude you have shown here; a very typical left wing attitude; one that is shining through those posts from people who have claimed that the media treats politicians equally, and who see absolutely nothing wrong with applying a double standard here; when a politician you LIKE gets caught with his pants around his ankles, why,he's just being a man, gol dang it---but when a RIGHT wing candidate gets caught 'being a man,' the targeting icons come out in force.

The sheer hypocrisy of this stinks to the next galaxy, actually.

By the way, the bias of the news media is not only clear to folks like me, it's clear to scholars, as well--peer reviewed studies have shown that the media leans pretty far to the left, most of 'em. Shoot, even the Wall Street Journal does; in fact, the news pages (not the business pages, but the news pages) lean further left than anybody but the old Huffington Press. The Wall Street Journal beat out the New York Times and the LA times.

What really tickles me is that Fox News, especially the "News Report" by Jim Lehrer, is very close to CENTRIST, not right or left....so, yeah, it can be demonstrated quite clearly that the media treats the right wing candidates differently--and more negatively--than it does the left. Don't believe me?

Here ya go.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

...
Why is it that when a MAN screws around, cheats on his spouse, uses his power to intimidate and harass women, uses them as personal sex toys, and generally acts like an ass, he's being a MAN, by golly? He's a 'dog', (said usually in an admiring tone of voice, with the underlying 'attaboy!" attached to it).

But let a woman behave the same way, and...hoo, boy...nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, would simply shrug and say "at least this way our tax dollars weren't spent to find out she's a woman!"

Please note, nowhere in my referenced statement do I make the argument that a woman should be held to a different standard. I merely noted that men have a long tradition of enjoying them some sex.

I do, however, agree that confusion here'd be easy to come by.

Or...let this happen to a REPUBLICAN, and the envious 'attaboy's' turn into gasped outrage.

I propose that if so many Republicans weren't so adamant about monitoring, and legislating what goes on in folks' private sex lives, they wouldn't be held to so much scrutiny in this regard.

Now, I don't know if Herman Cain did everything that was claimed or not; that he had an affair? The fact that he dropped out of the race is fairly indicative of that. I am very cynical about the timing of the disclosure of that affair. I do wonder about the bank balances of the women who came forward, actually.

I note that Herman Cain (or his camp) proposed this issue was most likely raised by his Republican opponents.

Deseret News.
NY Times.
Lest those be considered biased, what does Fox News allow?...

Herman Cain's top aide accused Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign of being behind the recent stories about sexual harassment allegations against Cain from the 1990s that have rocked the former pizza company executive’s presidential campaign.
...

It's about this attitude you have shown here; a very typical left wing attitude; one that is shining through those posts from people who have claimed that the media treats politicians equally, and who see absolutely nothing wrong with applying a double standard here; when a politician you LIKE gets caught with his pants around his ankles, why,he's just being a man, gol dang it---but when a RIGHT wing candidate gets caught 'being a man,' the targeting icons come out in force.

Again, please note that nowhere in my referenced statement have I made the argument that a woman seeking her some sexual pleasure should be frowned upon. Heck, I rely on such women for my sexual pleasure.

As I mentioned above, I propose if it weren't for so many "right wingers" seeking to intrude - through legislation - on the private sexual practices of others then they'd be less prone to such scrutiny.

The sheer hypocrisy of this stinks to the next galaxy, actually.

I agree. It's the height of hypocrisy for folks to try to tell others not to do something when they're sitting there doing it themselves.

By the way, the bias of the news media is not only clear to folks like me, it's clear to scholars, as well--peer reviewed studies have shown that the media leans pretty far to the left, most of 'em.

Which is why I say we should get our information from a wide-ranging group of sources. I don't doubt there's some bias, however, the gist of my argument doesn't rely on any real or perceived media bias. My argument relies on - to use your term - the "hypocrisy" of folks trying to legislate the moral / sexual lives of others as they go about violating the very tenets of this legislation.

Shoot, even the Wall Street Journal does; in fact, the news pages (not the business pages, but the news pages) lean further left than anybody but the old Huffington Press. The Wall Street Journal beat out the New York Times and the LA times.

I think the following will show that what Miss dianaiad considers "biased" is itself likely to contain some of it...

What really tickles me is that Fox News, especially the "News Report" by Jim Lehrer, is very close to CENTRIST, not right or left.

I propose that when the "left" has moved so far to the "left", a good bit of that "left" will then be seen to be "centrist".

so, yeah, it can be demonstrated quite clearly that the media treats the right wing candidates differently--and more negatively--than it does the left. Don't believe me?

Again, my argument doesn't rely on media bias near as much as it relies on real or perceived hypocrisy on the part of those who seek to legislate the private sexual practices of others, all the while engaging in those very same practices.


On that, I gotta wonder if there ain't some bias in former Cain supporters rejecting him for his real or perceived sexual practices, only to hop on the Newt Gingrich train.