Lies are not OK. He sleeps around? I don't care. He lies about sleeping around? I do care.

My take on Cain's situation is that from the first allegation,
he decided (on PR advice ?) to adopt a campaign strategy of:
"Deny, Deny, Deny..."

Now, he is stuck with it, no matter what the truth may be.

See, he got it wrong.

step one: feign ignorance
step two: deny
step three: counter accuse


Example:

"What are you talking about? I didn't do that. I think YOU did it."

Leaves them flustered, and you can move forward.

"I didn't do that. I didn't do that. I didn't do that." Sounds like you're protesting too much.

He should have just married them all, like Newt.

:lol:

I imagine the Republican party searching through the cupboards and looking under the cushions on the lounge, trying frantically to find a better candidate.

Some days the stars align and all is good. Some days, not so much.
Today, just before the Iowa caucuses, Romney is seeing some marginal
headlines and articles that ostensibly are pro-Mitt.

One announces a Florida Congresswoman's endorsement of Mitt.

Washington Blade
Chris Johnson
November 30, 2011

Pro-LGBT Republican endorses Romney
This one offers "friendly" advise to Mitt on how to run a better campaign.

Forbes
Gary Shapiro, Contributor
11/20/11
Mitt: All He Needs is Love

And besides all that:

Romney has other career opportunities.

Salt Lake Tribune
Peggy Fletcher Stack
11/20/11

Romney next Mormon prophet? Even if he loses, he could be president

The Forbes article above has a fragrance of faint praise.

Wikipedia
And besides all that:

Forbes magazine is owned and edited, in part, by Steve Forbes,
who was a GOP presidential candidate in years past, when he
ran on his proposal of a 17% "flat tax"

This year Steve Forbes is supporting Rick Perry, and it is rumored
that Perry's budget proposal is derived from, if not written by, Steve Forbes.
.

So I guess you still feel the same about Bill Clinton?

Yes. His lies bothered me too. Although Clinton did eventually come clean after he couldn't deny it any more, and he apologized to the country.

Cain is still telling lies that nobody believes. He's dug himself into a hole with his lies and can't find a graceful way out. His mistake was thinking that because his lies had always worked in the past, they would continue to work once he jumped onto the national stage.

When will politicians realize that if they have a lot to hide, it's going to come out?

Clinton could get away with it 'cause he was a kickass president. And smart. Smart enough to save his fooling around until AFTER he got into office. :lol:

Why do these guys think their roaming penises won't come to light?

The power of the penis, why women should run the world.

So you are willing to give Cain the same break?

How do you know he is lying? Isn't it his word against the accusers? As far as I know there is only one documented case where some monetary settlement was reached, the details of which are still sketchy. All of the other women have some major baggage in their past, so you have to question the motivation to come out now.

Really?

Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Suzanne Coleman, Judy Gibbs, Katherine Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning, former Miss America Elizabeth Gracen, and the Arkansas state troopers were reported to had helped solicit women for Bill. All before he was president.

Makes Herman Cain look pale in comparison.

Of course he's lying.

I haven't followed each of the allegations that closely, because I don't think he's worth my time. But you don't get this many different people coming forward when someone is squeaky clean. The most recent one is making him think about dropping out of the race it's so serious. And he's still denying it. "Oh, I never had sex with her, but we did spend a lot of time together and I did give her money. And we were seen in public in Vegas together at a prize fight. But no, no sex. My wife's pissed at me. But no. No sex. Honest."

Comparing the guy to Clinton is fair, because they both have a history of being sluts who lie about it. But Clinton was a good president, and Cain has never held any office, so there's no comparison there.

Clinton was among the biggest disgrace's ever to hold the office. He was as corrupt as they come. The Clinton couple was just as big a disgrace to move into the place. Take your blinders off.

Cain has had a few people come out and make accusations. The Clinton family has a literal body count behind them.

You actually believe the Clintons had people killed? This is an actual belief you hold?

:tinfoil:

No, that is a pretty far out conspiracy thingy. But there is a body count of affairs and sexual misconduct left in his wake. And when a President of the United States shoots his DNA onto the dress of White House Intern and gets a complete pass compared to a few accusations against someone who wants to unseat Obama we have a major problem with the way people view the Demoncrats in this nation.

Come on, this is just funny:

--Chris Rock, 1999

Clinton didn't get a complete pass. He was impeached.

And found not guilty. Impeachment is the process. He was eventually disbarred but not for any sexual misconduct, but for perjury. His perv behavior was never questioned, only his lie under oath. He got a major pass. And as evidenced by of the people who want to through Cain under the bus but still think Clinton was great. Hypocrisy.

:lol:

That's my whole point. The "perv" behaviour is not the problem. It's the lies about the behaviour that are the problem.

Good, so they are equal. If Clinton can come out smelling like a rose, so can Cain.

"It was Clinton's fault":right:

:rant:
Attention!

George W Bush moment.

Do you all remember how former President Bush used to pronounce "nuclear" "new-kyoo-ler"? I got so tired of hearing him show his ignorance this way. It got to the point that when he said that I heard "I'm an idiot".

I feel the same way about mercy's reflexive thoughtless repetition of this slur, and your other pejoratives.

Ok, rant over. Carry on.

People please!

Herman Cain is getting a free pass on his utter lack of a clue in foreign policy. To run for the Presidency and not know what is going on in Libya is rather inexcusable. When you run for the Presidency it is for the sake of the nation, not to improve your standing in it.

Clinton got a free pass from the American public, not from the media, Congress, or the prosecuting team. Once the public has all the details, but gives you a free pass anyway, it's over. There's no use bitching about it.

And while the masses are generally ignorant, they do sense what is going on; that Clinton was an utter womanizer, but was not using it as an excuse, while the prosecution was charging him with this during the investigation of a completely unrelated matter upon which he was later found innocent.

It was like, they have gone after him with all weapons on hand, so now we know the very worst of him, and it merely makes him human.

It's also an understanding of what makes leadership; you can be a womanizer and have affairs and still be President, but what you can't do is show weakness. Clinton's finger-jab was a bitter pill for his political enemies, but he was sure never to be a deer in the headlights.

Wut UT said.

I can't argue with any of that.

I agree with UT's post as well.

I wanna take this in another direction. WHY is anyone fighting for Cain when he clearly isn't fit to lead? Thats what puzzles me the most.

:sheep:

Is that a black walnut flavour smilie?

Well by now I figured this thread had move on to a more relevant topic: Michael Vic.

Michael Vick...

I am amused that the republicans are considering Newt, a former college professor, when they've historically sneered at the educated elite Democrats.

Does Newt Gingrich really want to be the next GOP president ?

It strikes me that he is savvy enough to know that his comments
on "child labor laws" and the derogatory comments about "poor kids"
are going to do four things:

a) generate short term news media coverage
b) draw cheers from the bigots
c) inflame the rest of society
d) kill his chances for any votes from non-conservatives

Of all the topics Newt could chose to speak about, this one is
deliberately calculated to inflame, and to draw attention to Newt...
which may well be the only things he really wants in his life.

Does Newt Gingrich really want to be the next GOP president ?
I think not. Instead, I think he's in it for self-stimulation !
.

Well, Herman Cain is not long for this race. Which is why this commentator wrote his farewell address for him. Funny!


http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/1...m-herman-cain/

:lol2::thumb:

:D very good !

So today marks the day Herman Cain "suspended" his campaign.
Suspension allows him to continue raising campaign funds and use them.
If he "quit" the race, he would lose control of $ already contributed.

So now, we have a new field in this derby. Gingrich, Paul, and Romney,
in that order, among likely caucus members in Iowa.
So the question being asked now is:

Huffington Post
Stewart J. Lawrence
12/2/11

Could a Late Jon Huntsman Surge Spell the End of Mitt Romney?
And besides all that:

USA Today
.

Huntsman v Obama, moderate right v moderate left, nice outcome. Then the real question becomes, how do we get enough flexible Congressmen to do the nations work?

That would be a fascinating presidential race. Either outcome could be good for America I think. That'd be a first for a long time: a win-win election :p

Huntsman is skipping the Trump / Newsmax debate, which is probably smart. He is also smacking Mitt around a little.

"Anyone who is in the hip pocket of Wall Street because of all the donations they are picking up, like Mr. Romney, is in these days not going to be the change agent who is going to fix the too-big-to-fail banking system," Huntsman told an audience Monday night.

Agreed.

I disagree, Dana. Huntsman is claiming independence from corporate interests. Well maybe true, but maybe not. At any rate, Huntsman is the dream candidate for the Tea Party.

When Huntsman was governor of Utah, he scaled back the state human services program and left most assistance in the hands of the community. He could get away with this in Utah because the state is largely Mormon. The Mormon Church has more money than most people can imagine, and it has a very generous plan of assistance for its members.

However, if Huntsman's ideas are applied to the country as a whole, they will cause a social services nightmare along with a great deal of human suffering.

If he had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted, I'd agree. But I get the impression that, despite his free market, small government, anti-assistance stance, he'd be more able or willing to forge a consensus compromise in Washington than some of the other candidates.

In other words, I don't necessarily think his views and policies are reasonable, but he seems a reasonable and pragmatic man.

I draw that conclusion on very fucking little, mind you. I know very little about him, other than the bits I've caught of him via the Daily Show.

CBS News
Lucy Madison
December 5, 2011 4:23 PM

Ron Paul launches "Big Dog" ad in Iowa, New HampshirePaul wants to eliminate at least 5 major departments of the federal government, as in this ad.



FYIW, the reference to "whimpering little shih tzus" is a play on
Rachael Maddow's poke last week at (R) Senator Scott Brown
who has a shih tzu pet dog named Snuggles.

And besides all that:

You can't drain the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators.

Huntsman can talk all he wants about his independence, but the fact is that his Horizon PAC started raising money for Huntsman campaign while he was still officially ambassador to China. Strictly speaking, this is illegal, but Huntsman is getting away with it because he claims Horizon drafted him.

From The Deseret News, A Utah paper with strong ties to the Mormon Church:

In addition Huntsman comes from a devout Mormon family - one of his ancestors was on speaking terms with Moroni or something - and his father was a billionaire industrialist.

Now Huntsman would have us believe that all his wealthy supporters would never set so much as a toe onto Wall Street. No doubt his "billionaire industrialist" father put all the company profits into some credit union back in Utah. :eyebrow:

Huntsman has proposed reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, eliminating corporate taxes on income earned overseas, and implementing a tax holiday for repatriation of corporate profits. Of course, he is only trying to help those poor little corporate entities along. He himself has no interest in them. All those donations from wealthy supporters will be returned. :right:

So he made nice with Obama. Smart career move. Getting the experience in high Federal government positions and making important Washington contacts is a plus in his bid for the presidency.

Bottom line, Huntsman is an extremely wealthy, Mormon, ex CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation. As a Mormon he is against any laws protecting homosexuals and he is pro life, among other things. If you don't know much about Mormonism, imagine a fundamentalist who believes that if he lives right and climbs up the hierarchy of the faithful, upon his death he will be given his very own planet to rule - kind of like a mini-god. And yes, Mormons really believe this.

If you Google Huntsman, you will quickly discover that he is little more than another wolf in sheep's clothing. I'd vote for Ron Paul over Huntsman.

Against any law protecting homosexuals? That isn't true.

Did he hire the marketing team from Ford???

The Daily Beast
June 21, 2011

marriage and civil unions are not considered the same thing by some

That isn't being against any law that protects homosexuality. I disagree with him about gay marriage as well but civil unions is protecting homosexuality (to a degree)...

Just because he would allow civil unions does not mean Huntsman is a champion for gay rights. Compare the following statement made by Huntsman with the teachings of the Mormon Church.

Huntsman:

Mormon Doctrine:

As a politician, Huntsman takes into account the growing acceptance on the part of the public of the gay life style and supports civil unions. Yet he is against "redefining marriage." Since he is a Mormon, is he is against gay marriage because “marriage is a very important part of Mormon doctrine”? Just how accepting of gays can he really be if he believes the Mormon dogma that gays are “an enemy to God”?

I remain skeptical.

I have to say, his support for civil unions does him a great deal of credit in my view. It speaks to one of two things. Either he holds anti-gay views but isn't letting that adversely affect his political role. instead going for a compromise position that maintains the primacy of heterosexual marriage, but sanctions an important step forward in terms of alternatives to marriage.

Or, he is relatively moderate for a devout Christian.

Given that some of that stripe are dead against any acceptance of homosexuality at an official level, it was a strong stance to take.

Doesn't he accept evolution? For a religious guy, especially in the US, that makes him moderate.

Heck I've heard he even believes in anthropogenic climate change. That makes him the lunatic fringe of moderate conservatives.

The thing is, I don't think anyone on the left, even on the centre left is going to find themselves agreeing with a great deal of his opinions or policy intentions.

The question is, could he, from the right, find a compromise that worked for the whole of the centre, more or less, and take the left with him some of the way.

I don't know if that's likely or possible.

Ron Paul has been quite interesting. There have been a few times I've found myself nodding along. The comments he made about waterboarding for instance.

Someone needs to be able to break through the impasse in Washington.

Huntsman's views on marriage/civil union seem identical to Obama's.

Do you believe the same with Romney, who is also a Mormon? Or, maybe its possible that both candidates are Mormon without allowing the religion to control their beliefs?

I am willing to concede that both candidates - and any one else for that matter - may not allow their religion to "control their beliefs." Although isn't that how religion is defined - a system of belief?

Maybe Huntsman is a kinder, gentler Mormon who won't damage your stomach lining. I don't know.

I had a friend who is a lesbian who grew up in the Mormon church. Some of her stories just broke my heart. Her parents married her off at 16, so she could "over come" being gay. Needless to say, it didn't work. And I myself have had some unpleasant encounters with Mormons.

So, maybe my view of the Mormons is distorted. I'll admit that. But I still would rather not have a Mormon president.

I don't think that is possible. The very foundation of religion IS a system of "beliefs". Many of the more extreme religions disallow tolerance, insisting that conversion and obedience to their dogma is the only acceptable way to live.

And in my opinion, someone who is unable or unwilling to tolerate differences in lifestyles and beliefs has no business running a multi-cultural and diverse country such as the USA.

Mormonism is just like any other religion: there are good honest people who can think for themselves and there are crazy fundamentalist assholes who feel they need to everyone to adhere to their beliefs. I grew up with two Mormons, in Wisconsin not Utah, and they were not extreme by any means. One was actually good friends with a gay guy as well.

I can't find the original article about Huntsman and his faith that I read but this one basically says the same thing (at least from what I skimmed over):

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-1...mormon-circles