Boy you Democrats really can't stand to see a black Republican do well can you. Just irritates you that Cain is twice the man Obama is. Congratulations on destroying a good man. Guess if you know your (Democratic) ideals are worthless than you just start playing dirty. Thank God there is no double standard for Democrats (e.g. Clinton while in office). Whatever you do don't win on merit. I would hate for you libs to start a new trend.
Does anyone else wonder why the Republicans cannot offer a decent candidate? Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Santorum, Romney, Cain and now Gingrich. Is this the best you have? If so, get used to 4 more years of Obama.
like someone close to me says all the time, democrats will always go for the personal attacks because they can never win on ideas! Gingrich, who has been divorced a couple of times and had one extramarital affair, will be the next one attacked because he's the up and coming candidate, even though his past has already been beaten to death by the dems. Gingrich worries dems because he's the absolute smartest candidate on either side and has common sense ideas that will resonate with conservatives!
Herman Cain is the example of a candidate who couldn't handle the first part of being elected President -- having a capable campaign organization. It's a given that the media will run with whatever story Democrats are able to dig up, true or not. The capable candidate's organization has a mechanism to handle such inevitable issues. (The way Clinton's people handled the "bimbo eruption" of Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and finally Monica Lewinsky.) Cain was not prepared to respond properly, and suffered the consequences. This is why "amateur" politicians -- which I wish for as much as anyone else does -- don't stand a chance. (And for the record, no evidence has been presented that proves Cain even did anything wrong.)
Every campaign needs competent crisis communications managers. End of this part of the story. I'd like to know which campaign Oppo Research team did the digging. I can think of four likely suspects: Obama, Perry, Gingrich and Romney. Other than Romney, the others could be considered "politics as blood sport" kind of guys and all have the most to gain by shooting Herman Cain's wheels off. Notice how all this started once Cain gained a little traction and Governor Perry spun out. A lot of people in Perry's campaign may have learned to the dark art of the whispering campaign as practiced by Karl Rove throughout the South. The whispers don't have to be accurate or truthful. They just have to stick to the target. And people wonder why the pool of candidates for any office is lacking.
well shows that the jim crow and party of the klan are at it since the republicans came out with a pure black man not a half breed to run for president and of course they could not count on the race card if there was a black real black man on the republican ticket
If being a "perfect" moral person is the big criteria for running for President, they'd all have to drop out. Sheesh, whatever happened to just plain good leadership?
And Republicans are every bit as immoral as Democrats.
This man would not have been out next president anyway. Goodbye and good ridance! Republicans did not run him off...his own guilt and the media boxed him into a corner he could not get out of. Now to get rid of Perry, another idiot!
Why blame Democrats for Cain's problems (Wordkyle)? It's the Republicans who are backing away from Cain - for any number of reasons. As to wordy's claim that Cain's indiscretions are unproven - what does he need? A soiled blue dress?
1148 - Of course "Republicans are backing away" - in an election year, nobody wants to become collateral damage. So far the alleged indiscretions are absolutely unproven. Something beyond "she said" ought to be required before the media destroys a candidate. Cain made a lot of mistakes in his campaign, but media coverage of the alleged scandals piled a ton of rock on top of his mistakes. Here's a column that breaks it down pretty clearly.
Politico, June 18, 2008, on Larry Sinclair's claims of having a drug-filled sex tryst with presidential candidate Barack Obama: "Politico isn't reprinting Sinclair's allegations because they are unsubstantiated." The entire column is devoted to trashing the accuser.
631 - nah, not sensitive. Hard-headed, maybe. If a person states an opinion in a semi-public forum like this one, shouldn't they be willing to defend it?
Wordy, Bill Clinton had two accusers. Cain has at least 2 who got financial settlements and others who claim the same "bad behavior:. Now another claims a 13 year involvement (with documentation). What sort of "proof" would satisfy you?
It seems to me that Cain's bailing out of the race is due his inability to formulate consistent answers and is de facto "proof" of his past inappropriate actions. Besides that - he's just unprepared and incompetent to be president of the United States. The media is the messenger - Cain is (was) the candidate.
711 - First of all, I named four Clinton accusers above, one of which produced DNA, another of which won a court case -- in court, not just in media reports -- and Clinton admitted to an affair with the third.
As for Cain, you've got two "financial settlements" (as in, "cheaper than going to court") and the claim of an affair by a woman who has a troubled past, to say the least. (And the "documentation" you claim has so far lacked any indication of wrongdoing on Cain's part.) Did the media (and therefore the public) apply the same standard for proof to both Cain and Clinton?
I think the standard for people SEEKING office and those already in office (when it is already too late for the true believers to vote for someone else) is different.
In this case, Cain obviously weighed his chances within his OWN party's primary and decided he couldn't do it.
To use a Cainism, comparing Cain 2011 to Clinton 1997 is apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.
KatyDid, the Gennifer Flowers story came out during Clinton's 1992 campaign. Re: Bill & Hillary's appearance on 60 Minutes featuring Bill's denial.
I don't deny that 1) Cain handled the accusations disastrously; and 2) He may be guilty of all he's been accused of. However, we'll likely either never know, or have to read the back pages of the newspaper to find out. Now that Cain is out of the way, the media will turn its attention to the next Republican frontrunner to see what damage it can do. Meanwhile, at the end of the third year of the administration of President Obama, many of the questions raised about Candidate Obama remain unanswered.
@wordkyle: I don’t usually vote for winning candidates, so I might not be the best judge of these things…
But the four women you mentioned were ALL Gennifer Flowers during the primary season?
I’m no fan of Clinton or Obama. But I do think that it’s not just that the handling of these scandals is important: I think it’s pretty much the whole game. There is no way to quantify the effect of voters watching a candidates’ response and either believing or not believing them.
Rahm Emmanuel and the liberal media might or might not be after someone in the Republican primary which doesn’t even make sense, really), but if the candidate waves the problem off and people believe him, he’s golden.
KatyDid - Flowers '92, Jones '94, Willey & Lewinsky '98. (Dates when their accusations became public.) Clinton's approval rating was higher in 1999, after all his affairs and lies had been made public, than it was when he was first elected. So your observation of different standards for sitting presidents versus candidates seems pretty accurate.
1. Cain had at least two cases settled (so no trial could bring out more facts - or clear him). 2. Other claims were made against Cain. He first denied, then shuffled around. 3. Latest woman had 13 year relationship with him. She even has phone records! Cain now acknowledges paying some of her "expenses" without his wife's knowledge.
Besides being unqualified, the guy is an incompetent liar.
Regardless of your opinions, Clinton is widely regarded as a exceptional president and statesman (even while acknowledging his womanizing).
1. As you say, there are no facts that "prove" Cain is guilty of sexual harassment. 2. I said previously Cain handled the situation poorly, innocent or not. He first denied poorly, then denied somewhat better. The fact of his denial was consistent. 3. The latest woman had a 13-year acquaintance with him. She has admitted to having other such "acquaintances" with men who also helped her financially. And I'm not sure that "phone records" = "had sex."
You may be right about Cain being unqualified to be President, but he's hardly less qualified than the current occupant of the White House. Given the results of three years of Obama, we can see the consequences of electing an "unqualified" candidate.
Your opinion of Bill Clinton has been duly noted. Two points: 1) How do you justify saying his exceptionalism is "widely regarded?" By experts? Or is he simply popular with average citizens? 2) On what do you base your opinion (I presume) that Clinton was an exceptional president and statesman? Accomplishments? Popularity polls?
Clinton's reputation seems obvious. You seldom find anyone referring to either Bush as a diplomat or for their political advice. Clinton's term resulted in significant legislative accomplishments (I'll let you research them). He left a surging economy (with and without Republican support in congress). That situation soon disintegrated with Bush. Of course 9/11 contributed but we're still paying for the disastrous policy decisions that followed. The tax cuts in time of war were ridiculous. The lessening of oversight in financial areas contributed to the near meltdown of 2008/09. Obama's actions dealing with that mess may have saved our economy. While the economy is not wonderful, just how much worse it might be is certainly debatable.
So while I frequently reject your premises - and therefore your conclusions, we are destined to continue to disagree. (BTW - so does the country (outside of rural Texas) as the next election will reveal). We'll see.
Surging economy - If you recognize that what Clinton "left" were declines in private investment, profits, the stock market, industrial production, and personal savings -- all of which occurred in 2000, before Bush took office -- then you'll need to define "surging." Clinton was the luckiest President in history, the beneficiary of the dot-com boom, which propelled the U.S. economy and burst shortly before he left office.
Dear wordy, Did you actually review the charts in your link?! They indicate most every measurement was improving through the 90's and tanked after 2000 (except corporate profits that continued to climb when other measures were declining!). I know you wear blinders when reviewing data, but take another look. BTW: these charts (again) illustrate that government revenues were exceeding expenditures (a surplus) when Clinton left and Bush came in to preside over an economic disaster. Note also the increasing unemployment line as profits went up. Do you see where the "occupy" protesters are coming from? In my humble opinion, you're hopeless.
The measurements began to tank during 2000, not after. In other words, the decline began while Clinton was in office, and thus he did not leave a "surging" economy. I thought maybe the passage at the top of the page which says "...the U.S. entered a recession in the third quarter of 2001 but statistics other than real GDP indicate that the problems for the economy developed in the summer of 2000." would give readers a clue, but I see that it wasn't quite enough for everyone.
The myth of the Clinton surplus has been refuted here before. Every year Clinton was in office the amount the government borrowed went up. You can't fund a "surplus" with borrowed money.
In the sense that I selected the words written on the page I linked, your (sic) correct. As to my point about government borrowing, feel free to explain where Clinton's borrowed-money "surplus" came from, and where it went.
.jpg)
61 comments:
Drop into obscurity, you worthless idiot.
Boy you Democrats really can't stand to see a black Republican do well can you. Just irritates you that Cain is twice the man Obama is. Congratulations on destroying a good man. Guess if you know your (Democratic) ideals are worthless than you just start playing dirty. Thank God there is no double standard for Democrats (e.g. Clinton while in office). Whatever you do don't win on merit. I would hate for you libs to start a new trend.
I guess he just couldn't get past the bad press on that whole killing Abel thing.
My Other Brother Darryl
It's a good thing they found all the dirt or Obama would have been in trouble. I would still vote for a ladies man over a far left muslum any day.
Does anyone else wonder why the Republicans cannot offer a decent candidate? Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Santorum, Romney, Cain and now Gingrich. Is this the best you have? If so, get used to 4 more years of Obama.
What kind of world do we live in that a black man who's worth nothing can be elected to the office but a black man who helps people can't?
I think I speak for all of us when I say... Let's hire a white guy this time....that way if he cheats on his wife no one will care.
Rage
Clinton cheated on his wife and the dems didn't care.
A black man allegedly cheated on his wife and the dems call for the rope and tree.
Wow....exactly how racist are democrats?
like someone close to me says all the time, democrats will always go for the personal attacks because they can never win on ideas! Gingrich, who has been divorced a couple of times and had one extramarital affair, will be the next one attacked because he's the up and coming candidate, even though his past has already been beaten to death by the dems. Gingrich worries dems because he's the absolute smartest candidate on either side and has common sense ideas that will resonate with conservatives!
gern blansten
rage:
that will be true only if it is a white guy democrat.
gern blansten
2:13 said "drop into obscurity".
What do you think his quote for ken starr would be?
2:13,
Go back to your tent.
Tiger Woods Disciple.
Herman Cain is the example of a candidate who couldn't handle the first part of being elected President -- having a capable campaign organization. It's a given that the media will run with whatever story Democrats are able to dig up, true or not. The capable candidate's organization has a mechanism to handle such inevitable issues. (The way Clinton's people handled the "bimbo eruption" of Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and finally Monica Lewinsky.) Cain was not prepared to respond properly, and suffered the consequences. This is why "amateur" politicians -- which I wish for as much as anyone else does -- don't stand a chance. (And for the record, no evidence has been presented that proves Cain even did anything wrong.)
Every campaign needs competent crisis communications managers. End of this part of the story. I'd like to know which campaign Oppo Research team did the digging. I can think of four likely suspects: Obama, Perry, Gingrich and Romney. Other than Romney, the others could be considered "politics as blood sport" kind of guys and all have the most to gain by shooting Herman Cain's wheels off. Notice how all this started once Cain gained a little traction and Governor Perry spun out. A lot of people in Perry's campaign may have learned to the dark art of the whispering campaign as practiced by Karl Rove throughout the South. The whispers don't have to be accurate or truthful. They just have to stick to the target. And people wonder why the pool of candidates for any office is lacking.
Just a Nigga bein a Nigga.
He should have had Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, David Axelrod, Saul Alynski and Rahm Emanuel as his mistresses.
Where are the Ronald Reagon's of the world?????????
well shows that the jim crow and party of the klan are at it since the republicans came out with a pure black man not a half breed to run for president and of course they could not count on the race card if there was a black real black man on the republican ticket
Rage,
It's not like you to speak with common sense.
You get hit on the head or something?
"Where da white women at?" - DF Herman Cain
" Eatin' aint cheatin' " - DF Bill Clinton
No one 'did it' to him.....He did it to himself all by himself........GET REAL!
Now he knows what James Byrd went through.
bye bye bye plan
Ronald Reagan is why air travel today sucks!!!!
If being a "perfect" moral person is the big criteria for running for President, they'd all have to drop out. Sheesh, whatever happened to just plain good leadership?
And Republicans are every bit as immoral as Democrats.
The media thrives on it.
This man would not have been out next president anyway. Goodbye and good ridance! Republicans did not run him off...his own guilt and the media boxed him into a corner he could not get out of. Now to get rid of Perry, another idiot!
Its really ridiculous...
A mans private life shouldn't have anything to do with his Administrative duties.
Clinton, JFK, Giuliani..... all solid leaders who had their own affairs outside the office.
Media and Society is overmoralistic until it's you
Arise zombie Reagan and save us from ourselves.
Why blame Democrats for Cain's problems (Wordkyle)? It's the Republicans who are backing away from Cain - for any number of reasons. As to wordy's claim that Cain's indiscretions are unproven - what does he need? A soiled blue dress?
1148 - Of course "Republicans are backing away" - in an election year, nobody wants to become collateral damage. So far the alleged indiscretions are absolutely unproven. Something beyond "she said" ought to be required before the media destroys a candidate. Cain made a lot of mistakes in his campaign, but media coverage of the alleged scandals piled a ton of rock on top of his mistakes. Here's a column that breaks it down pretty clearly.
Reagan caused our air-travel woes?
I kinda thought the American-hating terrorists had a little something to do with that. But what do I know? I just live by common sense.
Everyone blames the liberal media. It was Politico that broke the story. Their as far away from the left wing media as you can get.
I'd suspect Romney or Perry before the Dems on digging this up. But then WordBile can only think in 1 dimension.
Honestly, he probably needed to drop out, but the liberal weenies and especially Obamy must be thrilled that they don't have to run against him!
Very telling proof- Dems can never debate on content. That's why they, with the media beat the dead horse of alledged indiscretions.
If I was a Democrat, I would shoot myself in the face.
Politico, June 18, 2008, on Larry Sinclair's claims of having a drug-filled sex tryst with presidential candidate Barack Obama: "Politico isn't reprinting Sinclair's allegations because they are unsubstantiated." The entire column is devoted to trashing the accuser.
For some reason, there seems to be an awful lot of Republicans mad that scandals arose surrounding Cain.
Never mind the fact that scandals - real, exaggerated, and imagined - appear around EVERY person who tries to run for major office.
It's sort of how you handle it...
Cain handled it badly.
I mean, look at Gingrich: He's got 10x the baggage and he just sort of shrugs it off. Like Clinton and Obama and Bush managed to...
So complain all you want: Cain couldn't finesse his way out of a wet paper bag...
Wordy - always defending his position.
Sensitive are you?
631 - nah, not sensitive. Hard-headed, maybe. If a person states an opinion in a semi-public forum like this one, shouldn't they be willing to defend it?
Hey 9:10 PM:
The answer to your question is: Thankfully DEAD!!! (20%+ prime rate, trading arms for hostages, diverting US funds to finance illegal wars, etc.)
Hey 8:40 - The prime rate when Reagan took office was 21.5%. When he left office, it was 10.5%, and that was up from a low of 7.5%.
Always a comeback. That's our Wordy!
10:45
What were Obama & Bush scandal?
Don't hate the playa...hate the game.
Double Fake Herman Cain
Wordy, Bill Clinton had two accusers. Cain has at least 2 who got financial settlements and others who claim the same "bad behavior:. Now another claims a 13 year involvement (with documentation). What sort of "proof" would satisfy you?
It seems to me that Cain's bailing out of the race is due his inability to formulate consistent answers and is de facto "proof" of his past inappropriate actions. Besides that - he's just unprepared and incompetent to be president of the United States. The media is the messenger - Cain is (was) the candidate.
711 - First of all, I named four Clinton accusers above, one of which produced DNA, another of which won a court case -- in court, not just in media reports -- and Clinton admitted to an affair with the third.
As for Cain, you've got two "financial settlements" (as in, "cheaper than going to court") and the claim of an affair by a woman who has a troubled past, to say the least. (And the "documentation" you claim has so far lacked any indication of wrongdoing on Cain's part.) Did the media (and therefore the public) apply the same standard for proof to both Cain and Clinton?
Yikes.
I think the standard for people SEEKING office and those already in office (when it is already too late for the true believers to vote for someone else) is different.
In this case, Cain obviously weighed his chances within his OWN party's primary and decided he couldn't do it.
To use a Cainism, comparing Cain 2011 to Clinton 1997 is apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.
Damn, he sure would have been better than Rick Perry's dumb Cracker a^%.........
KatyDid, the Gennifer Flowers story came out during Clinton's 1992 campaign. Re: Bill & Hillary's appearance on 60 Minutes featuring Bill's denial.
I don't deny that 1) Cain handled the accusations disastrously; and 2) He may be guilty of all he's been accused of. However, we'll likely either never know, or have to read the back pages of the newspaper to find out. Now that Cain is out of the way, the media will turn its attention to the next Republican frontrunner to see what damage it can do. Meanwhile, at the end of the third year of the administration of President Obama, many of the questions raised about Candidate Obama remain unanswered.
@wordkyle: I don’t usually vote for winning candidates, so I might not be the best judge of these things…
But the four women you mentioned were ALL Gennifer Flowers during the primary season?
I’m no fan of Clinton or Obama.
But I do think that it’s not just that the handling of these scandals is important: I think it’s pretty much the whole game. There is no way to quantify the effect of voters watching a candidates’ response and either believing or not believing them.
Rahm Emmanuel and the liberal media might or might not be after someone in the Republican primary which doesn’t even make sense, really), but if the candidate waves the problem off and people believe him, he’s golden.
KatyDid - Flowers '92, Jones '94, Willey & Lewinsky '98. (Dates when their accusations became public.) Clinton's approval rating was higher in 1999, after all his affairs and lies had been made public, than it was when he was first elected. So your observation of different standards for sitting presidents versus candidates seems pretty accurate.
While wordy is fully discredited on this Cain item, I expect he'll throw in another attempt at the last word. Pathetic.
1056 - You're partly right. Please reveal how I'm "fully discredited."
1. Cain had at least two cases settled (so no trial could bring out more facts - or clear him).
2. Other claims were made against Cain. He first denied, then shuffled around.
3. Latest woman had 13 year relationship with him. She even has phone records! Cain now acknowledges paying some of her "expenses" without his wife's knowledge.
Besides being unqualified, the guy is an incompetent liar.
Regardless of your opinions, Clinton is widely regarded as a exceptional president and statesman (even while acknowledging his womanizing).
1. As you say, there are no facts that "prove" Cain is guilty of sexual harassment.
2. I said previously Cain handled the situation poorly, innocent or not. He first denied poorly, then denied somewhat better. The fact of his denial was consistent.
3. The latest woman had a 13-year acquaintance with him. She has admitted to having other such "acquaintances" with men who also helped her financially. And I'm not sure that "phone records" = "had sex."
You may be right about Cain being unqualified to be President, but he's hardly less qualified than the current occupant of the White House. Given the results of three years of Obama, we can see the consequences of electing an "unqualified" candidate.
Your opinion of Bill Clinton has been duly noted. Two points: 1) How do you justify saying his exceptionalism is "widely regarded?" By experts? Or is he simply popular with average citizens? 2) On what do you base your opinion (I presume) that Clinton was an exceptional president and statesman? Accomplishments? Popularity polls?
Clinton's reputation seems obvious. You seldom find anyone referring to either Bush as a diplomat or for their political advice. Clinton's term resulted in significant legislative accomplishments (I'll let you research them). He left a surging economy (with and without Republican support in congress). That situation soon disintegrated with Bush. Of course 9/11 contributed but we're still paying for the disastrous policy decisions that followed. The tax cuts in time of war were ridiculous. The lessening of oversight in financial areas contributed to the near meltdown of 2008/09. Obama's actions dealing with that mess may have saved our economy. While the economy is not wonderful, just how much worse it might be is certainly debatable.
So while I frequently reject your premises - and therefore your conclusions, we are destined to continue to disagree. (BTW - so does the country (outside of rural Texas) as the next election will reveal). We'll see.
512 - Legislative accomplishments - Do you mean welfare reform, the balanced budget legislation and the Defense of Marriage Act, those pillars of the Democrat party?
Surging economy - If you recognize that what Clinton "left" were declines in private investment, profits, the stock market, industrial production, and personal savings -- all of which occurred in 2000, before Bush took office -- then you'll need to define "surging." Clinton was the luckiest President in history, the beneficiary of the dot-com boom, which propelled the U.S. economy and burst shortly before he left office.
Dear wordy, Did you actually review the charts in your link?! They indicate most every measurement was improving through the 90's and tanked after 2000 (except corporate profits that continued to climb when other measures were declining!). I know you wear blinders when reviewing data, but take another look. BTW: these charts (again) illustrate that government revenues were exceeding expenditures (a surplus) when Clinton left and Bush came in to preside over an economic disaster. Note also the increasing unemployment line as profits went up. Do you see where the "occupy" protesters are coming from? In my humble opinion, you're hopeless.
The measurements began to tank during 2000, not after. In other words, the decline began while Clinton was in office, and thus he did not leave a "surging" economy. I thought maybe the passage at the top of the page which says "...the U.S. entered a recession in the third quarter of 2001 but statistics other than real GDP indicate that the problems for the economy developed in the summer of 2000." would give readers a clue, but I see that it wasn't quite enough for everyone.
The myth of the Clinton surplus has been refuted here before. Every year Clinton was in office the amount the government borrowed went up. You can't fund a "surplus" with borrowed money.
More selective perceptions. As I said, your (sic) hopeless.
In the sense that I selected the words written on the page I linked, your (sic) correct. As to my point about government borrowing, feel free to explain where Clinton's borrowed-money "surplus" came from, and where it went.
Post a Comment