The end of Herman Cain's campaign

[heironymouspasparagus]

Other than Eisenhower, who have we had as president in the last century who really had an in-depth knowledge or experience on foreign relations prior to taking office? 

How much experience did Clinton bring as governor of Arkansas or Bush as governor of Texas?  Nixon, Johnson, and Truman did bring some pretty good insight as former VP's.

You just answered your own question.

But left off Jerald Ford.  Not only understood foreign policy, but was a master at working with Congress - both houses.  As good as Johnson ever was, and perhaps better.  Plus being a pretty decent guy. 

[Hoss]

You just answered your own question.

But left off Jerald Ford.  Not only understood foreign policy, but was a master at working with Congress - both houses.  As good as Johnson ever was, and perhaps better.  Plus being a pretty decent guy. 

Too bad he pardoned Nixon.  That doomed his chance for re-election.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Too bad he pardoned Nixon.  That doomed his chance for re-election.

Had to be done.  It was the only way to really put it behind us and start to heal.  Nixon would have deserved life in prison for some of the stuff he did, but it would NOT have served this country well to pursue that.

And we like to think we have a history and tradition of being merciful.  Nixon was no longer in a position to do more damage, so let him crawl into his hole and disappear.

I see where his sealed testimony is being released soon.  Haven't had a chance to go find it, but will try to over the weekend.  Very curious.

[we vs us]

Why do you insist they are telling the truth?  What's your evidence?  

I have five professional women from very different backgrounds all accusing him of very similar acts.  There's almost nothing to connect them other than Herman Cain, the NRA, and his advances.  Coulter's accusations notwithstanding, they didn't ALL live in Axelrod's building.  Most of these women are keeping OUT of the spotlight and refusing to identify themselves.  That's not a very good strategy if you're angling for a payday.  I also have Cain paying out two separate times to keep the accusations out of the courts.  Whether the amount is huge or not is irrelevant; there's no set "price" for silence.  

The Cain thing is playing out a bit like the Penn State thing . . . in the sense that, as it's become publicized more witnesses and victims are willing to come out of the woodwork.  Just because we only know of what he did during his days at the NRA doesn't mean that's the end of it.  Right now -- after these five separate accusations -- I'm very willing to believe that his actions continued before and after.

And finally, everyone else is right about Clinton.  The key to his innocence -- distasteful as it was -- is that he engaged in consensual behavior with all of his ladies -- Kathleen Willey's accusations notwithstanding.  

EDIT:  I'm crossing out "innocence" in re: Clinton.  He was certainly no innocent.  Please replace with "What made Clinton's actions legal"

[heironymouspasparagus]

What made Clinton's actions not illegal...

The consensual nature of the relationships.  Willey included.  As shown by the letters and phone calls she made to Billy Bob.

[nathanm]

And we like to think we have a history and tradition of being merciful. 

If you're rich and powerful, anyway. Unless you happen to be chosen as a fig leaf.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If you're rich and powerful, anyway. Unless you happen to be chosen as a fig leaf.

Here is the dichotomy of us....

NO country in the history of the world has done so much good for so many people...
and
NO country in the history of the world has done so much bad to so many people...


The schizoid nature of who/what we are.

[nathanm]

NO country in the history of the world has done so much good for so many people...
and
NO country in the history of the world has done so much bad to so many people...

I can't say for certain that either of those statements is true, especially the second. WWII-era Germany did quite a lot of bad. I don't think we've exceeded their body count yet, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I can't say for certain that either of those statements is true, especially the second. WWII-era Germany did quite a lot of bad. I don't think we've exceeded their body count yet, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

Both are absolutely true.

No country in the world even THINKS about doing good as much as we do, let alone actually perform the act.  No one has helped more different countries and peoples in more different ways than we.  Granted, most of it has been in the last 70 years or so (since WWII), but that takes nothing away from it.  And I'm not counting the improvements to life in general by the technical advancements we have developed - others have made massive advancements there, too.

As for body counts, the extermination of 15 + million Native Americans from the Pilgrims to about 1900 was probably the single biggest chunk.  And doing bad is much more than a body count - how many millions of people were deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the last 200/400 years on this land.  (Yeah, I am counting us before 1776 - it was still us back to the founding invasion force.)  And we can add the 1 million civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as the latest body count.

Germany wasn't as bad as Russia in same era - by another 15 to 30 million.  Cambodia under Pol Pot at 20 + million in recent decades even beat Germany in WWII.

[Red Arrow]

Whether the amount is huge or not is irrelevant; there's no set "price" for silence.  

My former employer used to fight product liability claims to prove a point.  It was frequently more expensive than settling.  Some are willing to settle to save time and money but regret it later.  Fortunately, I have no personal experience with the issues bombarding Cain (and I intend to keep it that way).

[Conan71]

I have five professional women from very different backgrounds all accusing him of very similar acts.  There's almost nothing to connect them other than Herman Cain, the NRA, and his advances.  Coulter's accusations notwithstanding, they didn't ALL live in Axelrod's building.  Most of these women are keeping OUT of the spotlight and refusing to identify themselves.  That's not a very good strategy if you're angling for a payday.  I also have Cain paying out two separate times to keep the accusations out of the courts.  Whether the amount is huge or not is irrelevant; there's no set "price" for silence.  

The Cain thing is playing out a bit like the Penn State thing . . . in the sense that, as it's become publicized more witnesses and victims are willing to come out of the woodwork.  Just because we only know of what he did during his days at the NRA doesn't mean that's the end of it.  Right now -- after these five separate accusations -- I'm very willing to believe that his actions continued before and after.

And finally, everyone else is right about Clinton.  The key to his innocence -- distasteful as it was -- is that he engaged in consensual behavior with all of his ladies -- Kathleen Willey's accusations notwithstanding.  

EDIT:  I'm crossing out "innocence" in re: Clinton.  He was certainly no innocent.  Please replace with "What made Clinton's actions legal"

Do you actually recall any of the details of the Paula Jones case?  She filed suit for sexual harassment in 1994 for unwanted advances made toward her in a Little Rock hotel room by then Gov. Clinton.  While her claims were considered "baseless", Clinton paid her a settlement, as I recall, of $800 to $850K.  That's a lot of money for a "legal" action or a consensual groping.

And again, you've glossed over the fine point that many corporations have paid out settlements for harassment claims.  It's not to buy someone's silence, it's because the burden of proof is so low that they don't want the expense or embarrassment of going to court to fight claims which could range anywhere from truthful to completely spurious.  Companies know when they pay out, that without corroboration, it's a 50/50 chance they are paying out a bogus claim.

Do you appreciate how subjective the whole harassment issue is?  I hope if any of you are ever accused of it you are shown more mercy than the automatic conclusion of guilt you've thrown at Cain.

Finally, we have one person who remains anonymous who used to work at the NRA, one who had her veil of secrecy lifted (who appears to be a serial complainer and settler), a third one we know nothing about nor any details, a fourth whose friends have characterized her as a gold-digger and she was seen giving Cain a hug at a political function the week prior to her allegations.  Female 5 merely claims she was made uncomfortable by Cain asking her to arrange for him to have dinner with a woman who was in the audience where he was on a speaking engagement to be able to more fully expand on his answer to her question he had fielded.  In that case, there's really no harassment.  

Finally, I believe this story is starting to die down, even though the media is still trying to stick it into any story about Cain right now.  So long as there are no more people to come forward and no one with physical evidence or corroboration of their story, this issue dies off in a matter of a couple of weeks.  He's leading the polls.  Whomever initiated this smile-storm is probably scratching their head right now because it appears to have back-fired.

[Townsend]

 He's leading the polls.  

To that I offer;  Getcha a gander at the rest of the field.

[Conan71]

To that I offer;  Getcha a gander at the rest of the field.

It was interesting to see CNN spend 10 minutes on the Perry memory loss moment yesterday at lunch.  Was that really so noteworthy?

[Townsend]

It was interesting to see CNN spend 10 minutes on the Perry memory loss moment yesterday at lunch.  Was that really so noteworthy?

No.  Neither is the doctor who killed MJ or the Kardashian wedding/divorce filing or a number of other things.

TV goes with what they think the sponsors will like...and with "sister" network programming.  Then they tell us it's important.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Do you actually recall any of the details of the Paula Jones case?  She filed suit for sexual harassment in 1994 for unwanted advances made toward her in a Little Rock hotel room by then Gov. Clinton.  While her claims were considered "baseless", Clinton paid her a settlement, as I recall, of $800 to $850K.  That's a lot of money for a "legal" action or a consensual groping.

Right back at you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

In particular the background section in the following.  There was a whole lot of he said/she said.  Like you been saying about Cain.

It's interesting that the Judge ruled in 1997 that Jones could have access to pertinent claims in the relevant timeframe, and they we got the lie about Lewinsky that was two years after the relevant timeframe.  And the judge, even though a conservative Republican, found the suit without merit and dismissed the suit, which was on appeal to get to the 'special' prosecutor stage.  Ken Starr and his ongoing adventures.

Then there is the fact that the other two have been proven to have lied - one admitted so in a sworn court document.

Leaves us with the question, how could a lie mean something about a point that was by definition not relevant to what was going on?  Interesting how lawyer minds work - am reminded of The Doors lyric "his brain is squirming like a toad".

Messy stuff isn't it?