Herman Cain's stupidity is amazing to me. How could this guy not know that in running for president all of his past would come out. Definitely too stupid for the world stage. Under comments on this story the comment that "he failed the 1-1-1 plan. One man, one woman, one marriage" is good for a laugh.



story

Herman Cain is toast. The only question left: Is his marriage going to be toast as well?

Does that really matter to you?

And what if the accusations are not true?
This has David Axelrod written all over it.
Apparently you're unaware how B.O. became Senator B.O..

Since when did rumors and accusations of sexual infidelities prevent anyone from becoming president? Have you not read some of the released FBI files on JFK? Then there's Jefferson, Wilson...and didn't Grover Cleveland father a child out of wedlock?

I don't believe Herman Cain has the qualifications for US President (not because of possible infidelity). But then, neither did B.O..

I'm always torn on this type of issue. On the one hand, being unable to honor this most important of vows makes me skeptical that one can honor any other vow. On that proverbial other hand, there have been great leaders in the past with the same problem who have led with excellence. I guess I can only figure that if the wife can live with it, so can I. Unless, of course, it was Mr. Funky and then he'd be dead and I'd be in prison.

If Cain were qualified, he could possibly have weathered this storm... at least until phone records and/or pictures came out. But, when you throw these repeated accusations and the way they were consistently handled worse than poorly on top of the horrendous gaffes that provided evidence he was not and probably never would be ready for prime-time, he's toast.

I said of Obama that he didn't have the credentials to be president. He was a minor league public organizer, beginning senator but he was leaps and bounds ahead of Cain. All Cain had was bluster. I delight in him being hounded out of contention because we need something better. I cannot say I like Gingrich but he is skilled at getting two parties to work together. Cain would only make a good dictator and our country is not run that way.

Another sign that he is on the way out:

According to Politifact, B.O. has broken 54 campaign promises.
Apparently marital fidelity has little, if nothing, to do with it.

Apparently reality doesn't either.

Let's look at the latest of those "promises broken," according to Politifact.

The promise: "Will "place the weight of (his) administration behind...a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."

The reality: He can support it all he likes, but with Republicans in lock-step against it, it's not going anywhere.

Politifact says: "We rate this a promise broken."

Really? He said he'd support it. He does. Congress locks up, and so the President has "broken his promise"?

In fact, of the top 10 "broken promises" listed by Politifact, only two--ending income tax for seniors earning less than $50,000 a year, and ending no-bid contracts above $25,000--are actual broken promises. The rest are all instances in which the President attempted to act only to be thwarted by a group of intransigent Republican legislators whose priority--as expressed by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell--is making Obama a one-term President. As opposed to working on the actual problems we have as a nation.

I know you hate him because he's black, but give it a rest.

Sing your stupid song to Politifact.
Obviously they "hate him" because "he's black".

Agree.



Really? That's not the way I remember the 90's.

I don't know that. But you obviously do, because you don't employ any sort of critical or analytical thinking to anything having to do with the President or his positions. No matter how wrong you are proven to be, over and over and over again, it's always Obama in the wrong, according to you. What Politifact's problem is is less clear--maybe they think they're being "balanced" by blaming Obama for Congress's failures.

Your posts in this vein are just so pathetic.
I reported accurately the Politifact rating of 54 promises broken.



Why don't you put down that big plastic cup of kool-aid and show half an ounce of initiative and check their website. Their rating is clear-cut: 1) Campaign promise made 2) Was it kept, broken, compromised, or is it in the works. "Blame" isn't assigned to "promise broken". Neither is marriage fidelity or infidelity. Neither is skin color.

Which is utterly pathetic. Jesus said give all you have to the poor and practice nonviolence. You advocate neither. Does that mean Jesus has broken his promise?



...and just as bogus as your citing of it.

Take it to the Religion Forum.



lol...waaaah waaaah.

Beavis loves to deflect. He's already been outed as a rascally racist. Good job not letting him push your buttons

Although when others don't let Iky push their buttons, they're called cowards. I guess life is grand when one has one standard for others and another for self.

True That. I'll cheerlead for you next time that happens, cool?

I gave a complete answer/explanation to him pertaining to Politifact.

I also told him to redirect the rest of his post to the Religion Forum, respecting past stated wishes of other board members to keep discussions of religion in that forum.

That's appropriate, not cowardly.

I'm not running from the playground with my head down and my fingers in my ears, nor am I making a drive-by hit and run. That's your m.o.. And you're right. I have a higher standard for myself.

Appreciated. It is not a deflection. It is the opposite. The attempt to turn the conversation to religion was deflection.

This topic was originally about Cain and possibly bowing out due to scandals but Iky kept deflecting it to Obama and “broken” campaign promises.

Of course I could see how a fundamentalist would want to protect someone like Cain. After all, the [allegedly] first Cain’s wife was his sister who he made out with to have a baby. So I guess protecting Cains from scandalous relationships is par for the course.

Back to topic, I don’t care if Cain had an affair, there are too many other issues why I don’t think he was right for the job. If he was one of the republican nut cases who love to pontificate on the “sanctity” of marriage while sleeping around outside of his, then the affair would be an issue on his character.

Take away the religious arguments and Ilky has no buttons to push. When Ilky argues any other subject it is nice to see another view since most of the rest of us already know what the others think. Also, I don't recall being called a coward on any other subjects besides religion.

In Aesop's Fables there would be moral out of that kind of story: Stay out of religious forums and arguments.

This must be my defense of Ilky post. I admire tenacity. Outside of religious arguments we mostly agree on most things.

Back to the subject, Cain:

Can anyone imagine having the nerve to run for president with that much garbage in your past. This is just way too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere in there.

That was my thought, too. Not that marriage is any kind of qualifier for being POTUS, but if a candidate has skeletons they had better be willing to confront them because they're going to show up eventually.

Most will agree that morality cannot be legislated, yet we expect our legislators to live up to our idea of morals. Interesting.

Aside from the hypocrisy, this is my concern. Had his 13 year mistress come to him a few weeks ago, what could she have extorted? If she came to him after inauguration (we know that would have never happened with Cain, but what about someone else... even Obama?) what could she have extorted from the President? What could Paula or Monica or the other one(s) have coerced out of the POTUS had they attempted that first? Or, an even worse thought... what evil would a POTUS be willing to do to keep their secret?

Candidates need to diffuse the value of their skeletons before jumping in to the Presidential campaign... and definately before taking the oath.

Agree. Can you imagine the stunned looks on the faces of the press if a candidate just came out and dropped all the dirty laundry right in their laps?

"OK, listen up, people! I smoked weed all through college. I inhaled. I ate a lot of deli food. I also ate acid a few times. Even as recently as... umm... I'm not exactly sure. It was really powerful. I found out I can't fly. That was a hard lesson to learn. I bet on all the big games. So far I'm ahead, but with Pa being booted for running a football program like a Catholic boy's choir, it's anybody guess how my early bets will pay off. Could be a tough year. I've lost count of how many chicks I've slept with, both before and after marriage. I'm sure there a few tapes still in circulation but don't waste your hard-earned money on them. The quality is pretty lousy. I'm normally very easy going but if you wind me up I can cuss like a sailor. I like sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. And don't let my wife's sheepish demeanor fool you. We're both very open-minded. Now... let's talk budgets!"

All valid concerns.

Here are a few alternative scenarios that I'm sure must have been the real story at least once or twice all those many times politicos have run and hid in the face of scandalous accusations and the public never heard both sides of the story.

Perhaps the accuser is simply making up the details out of spite. After all, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Or maybe the accuser tried to blackmail, but failed, so figures what the hell, let's grab a little time in the limelight at so and so's expense. Maybe the enquirer will slip me big bucks for my story...

Or, sometimes, maybe the accuser is simply crazy.

What reasonable course of action does the now-tarnished politico have? Particularly since he probably does know the accuser, and maybe there was opportunity for something to have happened--whether it did or not. Once a nasty allegation is out there, the bell has been rung with the public, and any opponents are going to keep ringing it. It doesn't much help one's cause to adamantly shout "She's lying!" or "Yes, I know this person. She's crazy!" because that just adds fuel to the fire for opponents and the press to hash over. And likely brings the risk of having to defend a lawsuit. Shutting one's mouth and drooping out of the race is the easiest way to cut your losses.

Sometimes we do see a politico simply stonewall a scandalous accusation, and survive. For example, I just last week stumbled across some crap flung at Obama a few years back that he seems to have survived. It only seems to work out when the press won't touch the allegations, however.

After all, what are the odds that every political smear is 100% gospel truth? Slim to none is my bet.

1) I mentioned Obama's Politifact promise broken account in response to Funky's post more than implying you cannot trust someone to keep promises (I'm presuming campaign/political, since this is the thread context) who is unfaithful to their marriage vows.

I'm not surprised that you didn't connect the context even though I spelled it out: "Apparently marital fidelity has little, if nothing, to do with it"...having no reason to believe B.O. has ever been unfaithful to his wife.

There are several reasons for a campaign promise being broken other than the candidate being deceitful, such as an uncooperative Congress or a drastic change of specific federal, national, international circumstances which renders the promise unwise or unfeasible. However, given the history of Presidency, I do not believe "marital infidelity" has ever been suggested as a reason for a broken campaign promise.

2) As to your charge that a "fundamentalist would want to protect someone like Cain"...if you are referring specifically to me, you are making up crap. I don't know if he's innocent of the charges or if he is guilty of the charges. Neither do you. You may form an OPINION, but unless you've had a sexual relationship with him, you don't know for sure, do you? However, if guilty, that does not DISqualify him from either the Republican nomination or the Presidency. Look it up. Also, I went on the record here many many posts ago stating I would not vote for him. So your snide remarks are baseless and without merit.

Ever see "Man of the Year," in which standup comedian Robin Williams starts a run for President as a joke, and winds up the front-runner?

"I did inhale because I thought 'What the hell, it's lit, it's in my hand, I'll inhale it.'"

"HMOs will pay for your Viagra, but they won't pay for your glasses. So you can have a hard-on, but you can't see where to put it."

"I had sex with a prostitute when I was 21, I was so bad, she gave me a refund."

"No, I did not sleep with that woman... but I wanted to!"

"Why do we need a Constitutional Amendment with regard to burning the flag? Let's just make the flag out of asbestos. They talk about the desecration of the American flag and yet, online, you can buy flag underwear. I just saw my grandmother wearing a flag thong, and I was like, "Granny, I don't wanna know where Old Glory is!"

"People say Intelligent Design, we must teach Intelligent Design. Look at the human body, is that intelligent? You have a waste processing plant next to a recreation area."

Here’s what Funky said


Wow, you took that statement as “more than implying you cannot trust someone”? That’s a huge stretch of the imagination. But then again for someone to believe in the inneracy of some hand me down story that’s the bukkake result of a lot of writers about a socialist hippy with daddy issues, well then I guess I could see how you could misinterpret that skepticism.



Title says “Cain to bow out”, first post is only about Cain’s affair allegations. I’d say the thread context would be about sex allegations and Cain. The first reply was by you trying to move the discussion on Obama. And your reply to Funky was back to Obama. What’s with your fetish and Obama, or is it Cain your protecting?

Hmmm? Will she ever go back?

When you look up the correct spelling of your "inneracy", look up the definition of "first". Then read up the thread.

Nevermind.

I think Strider has the right idea.

What ever happened to innocent until .....


Does "Shirley Sherrod" ring any bells?

Forgot about that one! I saw that a long time ago. That's a great movie. Along the lines of "Crazy People" with Dudley Moore, where telling the truth suddenly catches on and becomes hip. Netflix search time!

OK, Cain is a quitter!

Cain is, at least in this instance, a realist.

Clinton was the "Comeback Kid"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/05/1042469/-PolitiFact-2011-Lie-of-the-Yearfinalist%C2%A0%C2%A0istrue?via=blog_1

One politifact finalist for lie of the year is, in fact true

How does that pertain to the marital fidelty/able to keep campaign promises issue?

It is germane to your assertion that Politifact has something relevant and useful to add to the discussion.

According to the logic of Politifact, if Republicans vote to defund the FBI, and instead give the money to citizens in the form of vouchers which could be used to purchase the services of vigilantes, body guards and mercenaries, and called the resulting program "FBI", the claim that "Republicans support ending the FBI" would be one of the 10 biggest lies of the year.