I sure don’t like to see this, but if it’s true, it’s the death knell for the candidacy of Herman Cain:
 |
|
Exclusive: Two women accused Cain of inappropriate behaviorBy: Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman and Anna Palmer and Kenneth P. Vogel |
|
| During Herman Cain’stenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.
POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names. Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon told POLITICO the candidate indicated to campaign officials that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the restaurant association’s general counsel had resolved the matter. |
More at the link; I found the story through a link on Hot Air.
I like Herman Cain, even though he isn’t my first choice as our nominee. He has been successful in whatever he has attempted, and a role model for success through hard work. But being (mostly) right on the issues does not mean he’s a perfect human being — the last perfect human having died on the cross almost 2000 years ago — and these allegations are absolute killers.
If they are true, of course. Politico asserts that there are “signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association,” so the allegations, if true, are simple enough to prove: simply produce the signed agreements. My question is: if the signed agreements cannot be produced, will the allegations alone still kill his candidacy?
One thing that politicians do is try to dig up any potential dirt on their opponents; rumors that Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) is homosexual or has been cheating on his wife were brought out in 2004 and then again in 2009, the latter time by the gubernatorial campaign of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), while the despicable Wonkette tried to spread rumors that Michelle Bachmann was an adultress.
Of course, with the record on which President Obama has to run, it’s only natural that the Democrats would try to dig up, or fabricate if they could not find, evidence that the President’s Republican opponents are Bad People; President Obama can’t win on his record. And that means that, if a candidate has a problem like this in his past, he had better either disclose it right away, and get it over and done with, or expect to see his candidacy shattered when it’s revealed by others, or simply not run at all. The option that it might stay covered up is not a realistic one, at least not anymore.
Think back to the 2000 campaign. Governor George Bush (R-TX) was leading Vice President Al Gore by four percentage points in the polls five days before the election. Then a New Hampshire reporter dug up the old story of Mr Bush’s driving under the influence of alcohol arrest.
Five days before the election, at a routine campaign stop in Wisconsin, Karen Hughes pulled me aside. We walked into a quiet room and she said, “A reporter in New Hampshire called to ask about the DUI.” My heart sank. Such negative news at the end of a campaign would be explosive.
I had seriously considered disclosing the DUI four years earlier, when I was called for jury duty. the case happened to involve drunk driving. I was excused from the jury because, as governor, I might later have to rule on the defendant’s case as a part of the pardon process. As I walked out of the Austin courthouse, a reporter shouted, “Have you ever been arrested for DUI?” I answered, “I do not have a perfect record as a youth. When I was young, I did a lot of foolish things. But I will tell you this, I urge people not to drink and drive.”
Politically, it would not have been a problem to reveal the DUI that day. The next election was two years away, and I had quit drinking.1
Former President Bush continued to note that Karl Rove estimated that he had lost two million votes due to that late disclosure, from people who either changed their votes or simply stayed home, and that his four point lead evaporated, turning into a dead heat. That dead heat in the opinion polls manifested itself in a very close race for the total popular vote, which Mr Gore won, and in the electoral college, which Mr Bush won by the barest of margins. While no one can know for certain what the results would have been had the disclosure not been made when it was, my guess is that Mr Bush would have won both the popular and electoral votes rather easily, and there’d have been no Florida recount mess.
Had Governor Bush simply revealed the bad news four years earlier, it would have all been taken care of early, as part of the wastrel youth description to which he had already admitted; by not disclosing it on his terms, when it would not have been a problem, he turned it into a far more serious problem.
As for Mr Cain, early revelations of sexual harassment accusations wouldn’t have helped; you don’t get over those through a wastrel youth claim, especially when the alleged incidents date from the late 1990s, when Mr Cain was in his fifties. Those allegations are a campaign death sentence . . . if they are true. Such accusations, when proved, cost Carl Greene, Philadelphia’s director of public housing, his job, and former representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) can tell you all about waving his weiner on camera. If these allegations are accurate, Mr Cain should have just stayed out of the race, period.
As I said earlier, the allegations are easy enough to prove, if they are genuine: just produce the signed agreements. But even if Politico can never do that, my guess is that Mr Cain has still been too badly hurt to survive this one.
_____________________________
1 – George W Bush: Decision Points, (New York: Crown Publishers, c 2010) p. 75-76.
I’m skeptical; on Friday afternoon a “campaign adviser” supposedly told CNN bloggers that Cain “found out more” about how many women are involved in rape or incest abortions, so now he’s suddenly OK with killing ‘em. Given Cain’s pro-life history, not very probable. As a political move, it wouldn’t do any good– he’s said, vehemently, that he believes it’s wrong and should be illegal too many times. That little bombshell has hurt him with pro-lifers, though.
Oh, I’m absolutely willing to believe that the allegations are false, because Politico already set up the standard of proof: produce the signed agreements, and the allegations have been proved, or, if the signed agreements can’t be produced, the reports are deliberate lies, and whatever credibility Politico has — and they don’t have much with conservatives anyway — is shot.
Sounds like we might have another Clarence Thomas on our hands!
Except, of course, in Thomas’ case, there were no settlements, were there Perry? And why did Prof. Hill follow him from job to job if she was so “harassed?”
Sounds to me more like Perry doesn’t like black people.
I wonder why it took the National Enquirer to do the real reporting on John Edwards’ dalliances. Actually, I don’t. He’s a Democrat.
Roger L. Simon’s take on this, His title says it all …
Politico and Cain: Return of the High-Tech Lynching
-
Sure, compare Cain to Edwards in order to make Cain look benign in comparison. That doesn’t work, except for Rightie Repubs.
The Political piece is quite damning of Cain. And you have to wonder why Cain refused to respond when questioned. One would think he would have denied it immediately, if there were no truth to the allegation. But he did not deny it, did he?
That said, his performance on Face the Nation, which was just before he was confronted with this allegation, was impressive. He certainly has put the flat tax idea front and center. But I do not agree with his flat tax, because it hits the poor and middle and is a gift for the wealthy, thus a real non-starter.
Perry wrote:
Yup, it could be exactly that, another black man falsely accused to keep him out of office. Fortunately, it did not work in Justice Thomas’ case, because there was no corroborating evidence; whether there is the evidence specified by Politico in this case remains to be seen.
Hube wrote:
That was the part which persuaded me that Anita Hill was lying; if she had felt so uncomfortable around Clarence Thomas, why did she choose to follow him to a second position?
It’s interesting: at the time of Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearings, most people believed that Dr Hill was lying. Then, after years of continued innuendo and demagoguery by the Democrats, most people now seem to believe her story, even though no new evidence has been presented.
If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you might notice that I referred to the MEDIA treatment of such. Duh.
Perry Fail. Again.
Dana, where is your evidence showing that Cain has been falsely accused? Politico has made a strong case about Cain’s alleged behavior, and Cain, at least so far, has been unwilling to comment. But then, of course, we have your good old political ideology sticking up its middle finger again!
Here is some corroborating evidence against Thomas.
At the time, I listened to Anita Hill’s testimony, and found it to be quite believable. I wonder why, all of a sudden, Mrs Thomas is demanding an apology from Anita Hill, after all these years?
Your comment isn’t germane to my comment, Hube, nor is your conclusion, which therefore is a self-characterization.
A Perryism if there ever was one. (Perryism = Utter Nonsense.)
Of course you did. Because for all your blather about “gap briding,” “coming together,” and nonsense like that, you’re nothing but the dogmatic peon you call everyone else but yourself.
The biggest and irrefutable aspect of Hill’s lying was that she followed Thomas from job to job.
Another Clarence Thomas Moment.
Politico writes:
This is the part that gets me. It’s perfectly in line with “progressive”/academic law theory in that it all depends on the individual’s interpretation of otherwise innocuous actions. We see this all over American campuses where speech codes say “it doesn’t matter your intent — it only matters how someone may perceive it.”
Perry wrote:
I already told you: Politico specified that there was documentary evidence against Mr Cain; when they actually produce it, they will have proved their case, and if they do not produce it, the allegations are false.
Translation: someone believed her testimony, but offers no proof, save the testimony of an ex-girlfriend who is shopping a book around. That’s the very definition of someone with both an axe to grind and a financial interest in saying something, which is exactly what you would say were this about a liberal Democrat. I would have just loved to hear your defenses of President Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke!
But, as I said before, the one piece of evidence which is undeniable is that Anita Hill chose to follow Clarence Thomas to another job, at a time after she claimed the alleged sexual harassment started. That’s not a he said/she said, but an documented fact, and, to me, that makes her story less than believable.
The point which gets it for me is Cain’s response when asked by reporters: first he says he needs more information, then when he’s given a specific name, he says he’s not going to discuss it.
What that says to me is that either he’s completely inept at handling reporters, or in the case of the name he was given, he has something to hide.
————
It’s a terrible shame, though, to see him go down this way. I didn’t agree with him on much of anything, and I thought he was terribly inexperienced, but he was a real candidate who had clearly thought about things, stood for something, and wasn’t pandering. Disagree with him as I might, he was (before this revalation) the kind of candidate we need more of.
Afreal, I must disagree with you that “it’s a terrible shame…to see him go down this way”. It is what it is and the media is vetting Cain with the same intensity they used on Clinton (rapist, serial cheater and libertine), Edwards (wife cheater, father of a bastard), and Obama (marxist, class warrior, crony capitalist and thug who murdered an American citizen in Yeman). It’s best we get the dirt out and make room for the second Obama term. After all, when compared to those slimy Republicans, Obama and his socialist minions looks good. Besides, Cain is wholly black. The left can handle a half black but a real black person just won’t do. Perhaps if Cain got a $400 haircut or used a cigar on an intern he would be forgiven. But there is no excuse for being Republican, conservitive, a businessman and black. None at all.
So now let the systematic destruction of all Obama opposition begin. We need another four years of Obama to fix what Bush did. And I really want to see Obama in office when the shit hits the fan with Obamacare. I can’t wait. The good news is in his second term Obama can do whatever he wants without fear of loosing re-election. This should be good. Four more years with a marxist in the White House with zero accountability. Hell, how much you want to bet Obama leaves office as the first ex-President billionaire?
[released - pH]
BTW afreal, 50% of the people in Congress are millionaires compared with 1% of the general population who are. EAT THE RICH! After all, when one works his ass off to create wealth, jobs, take care of his family, provide tax revenue, prepare for his retirement and pay his own bills he has no standing next to the Noble Poor. Ask Perry. It’s the poor man who is the engine of our economic growth not the rich man. Perry will tell you, there is too much money at the top. He never stops to think if we take all the wealth from the top ten percentile, the the second ten percentile becomes the New top ten. Then what do we do, eat them too?
Let the Revolution begin! I’ll be in Bermuda, call me when it’s over.
Assuming that is true, you make a good point Hube! In your own experience, it was true, as I recall your writing about it previously.
I go back to the point made earlier, that Canadians in general do not like hate speech. This then acts as an inhibitor which does not depend on any speech codes or laws. This should be our approach.
Sorry Hube, but I’ve called no one a “dogmatic peon”, though I have used the word “absolutist”, which is absolutely true!
On gap bridging, it is pretty hard to make any headway when dealing with absolutists and dogmatic peons!
Regarding Anita Hill’s following Thomas from job to job, that is not evidence of lying. Women have been putting up with the Thomas kind of alleged behavior forever, yet extenuating circumstances cause them to tolerate it anyway.
I gave you a link to corroborating testimony, but apparently that does not matter to you.
My impression gleaned from listening and watching Anita Hill’s live testimony came well before I realized what an oaf that Thomas actually is. Now I am more inclined than ever to believe her!
Moreover, please explain to me how Thomas can function as an effective Justice if he never asks questions during hearings? This is a very strange man indeed, in more ways than one, in my view!
Perry, as much as I don’t like Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence, I think the “but he never asks questions” trope is kinda silly.
95% of the work of making a decision is done before oral arguments. Judges read the briefs presented by both sides and the amici. They then think about the arguments raised. To the extent there are differing characterizations of precedent in opposing briefs, they either remember the cases and already have their own opinions, or they can read the precedent and think about them.
Oral arguments essentially serve four purposes:
(a) to explore the outer limits of a line of reasoning – to force the lawyers in question to distinguish the case at bar from the reductio ad absurdum of their reasoning. this is important because that distinction is going to have to be made at some point, if the court adopts the reasoning put forward. (this is probably what killed the government argument in citizens’ united, to be honest). This is irrelevant for Justice Thomas because, as far as I can tell, he’s usually willing to go to the reductio ad absurdum in any theory or argument he believes in.
(b) to manipulate the arguing attorneys in order to make points that may or may not persuade the other justices. I suspect that Justice Thomas thinks this is pointless and ineffective.
(c) to look for matters of fact not in the record. this isn’t the normal case, but it isn’t rare, from what i can tell.
(d) in very rare cases, to answer questions which aren’t the reductio ad absurdum case or the fact case and are legitimately unclear after looking at precedent and the arguments placed in the briefs.
In both (c) or (d), if you wait long enough, one of the other justices is going to ask it.
Perry wrote:
Perhaps he doesn’t need to. After all, the man reads the legal briefs, and listens to the oral arguments. The few of his decisions that I have read were concise and to the point.
One of the best dissents I’ve ever read was Justice Thomas dissent in Lawrence v Texas. He said that the law under inquiry was a stupid law, and that were he in the Texas legislature, he’d have voted against it, but that, as a judge, it wasn’t his function to invalidate a law just because it was stupid, that it has to actually be unconstitutional for him to do that. That’s exactly the type of Justice we need.
Overt racism at its finest!
Nobody likes hate speech. But as has been mentioned, Canada has no First Amendment but does have human rights councils (and laws, as does Europe) which actively prosecute (persecute, more accurately) people who speak out on “controversial issues” as I also mentioned above. “Hate” speech’s definition inevitably becomes ever more expansive as to effectively shut down legitimate debate.
Which is precisely what you’d like, I’m sure.
The latest from one who loves to look on the dark side:
Shall I now accuse you of murdering Vietnamese combatants, Hoagie? That’s the level of your rhetoric here, and it does not amount to very much, considering the list on which you have decided to focus.
You seem to live in a world of sound-bites, yours, with political motivation being the deciding factor governing whom to attack. I am not suggesting we white-wash misbehavior, but when used to make a political point against one party, when the other party has similar behavior ripe for discussion, well Hoagie, that’s just not kosher.
Also, since you liberally sprinkle the Marxist label around, perhaps you should define the term. Moreover, does this mean that you are on the other side, a fascist?
I say this to show how silly this approach really is.
Not at all is that what I’d like. However, I will say, that hate speech on this blog often has the effect of shutting down debate, or at least diverting it. So we have some improvement to put in place right here!
Regarding the Canadian situation, I was not aware of your point on Canada and Europe. Since you did not provide a citation, I will follow up anyway with some research on that topic. I will note that in London they have Hyde Park for all who wish to get up on the box and say anything they please. Also, if you ever watched the House of Commons, you would see that, except for language, it is pretty much no holds barred.
Hardly, Hube; only in your mind!
Perry, I’m still at work, so I’m not going to do the looking up right now, but I do know that Canada does have some form of human rights commission which has brought up people like Mark Steyn on charges for writing mean things about Muslims. As for Europe, there are people who have actually been jailed for Holocaust denial.
Please, Dana, you are making excuses for this man. Having studied your own notes from the lecture and having read the text book and even done a little research, can you imagine yourself going into a recitation class and not asking some questions? You probably monopolized the class with questions, correct?
My analysis is that Justice Thomas is lacking in self-confidence, therefore doesn’t want to appear foolish before his peers and the legal community. Moreover, I think he defers to Justice Scalia all the time. It would be interesting to learn how many times Thomas has not concurred with Scalia on a ruling, even when they are in the minority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8
Clarence Thomas gets it right. Let’s see, one female Marxist said Cain “knows his place” Now what if a Republican said that of BO? If it wasn’t for Double Standards, the Left wouldn’t have any standards at all!
Your analysis means absolutely shit, for reasons too numerous to mention. You’re only relying on your usual swill radical blogs to TELL you about Justice Thomas. All you’ve written here is the same overt racism. After all, how can a black man have self-confidence, right? Always has to defer to a white man, right?
Regarding the Canadian situation, I was not aware of your point on Canada and Europe.
I find that amazing for a “man” who has bragged about getting his news from many sources. How is that possible? Or were you lying yet again?
Here — check out this story about Oriana Fallaci:
Now, you don’t have to agree with Fallaci’s many conclusions to defend her right to say them and/or write them. At least in a truly free society, that is.
The LSM never bothered with Clinton and all the crap he did. Better put some ice on that lip. So, yor husband died, want to have sex? Bimbo Eruptions. Carville, drag a 50 dollar bill through a trailer park. Oh, THAT stain on the blue dress. DOUBLE STANDARDS.
The double standard is well practiced by both sides, Yorkshire. Shall I make a list of the Repubs in just the last few years? You don’t get this list from your Rush Limbaugh!
Yeah Perry, start with John Edwards cheating on his dying wife. LSM wouldn’t touch, and then the National Enquirer made them cover it.
Bimbo eruptions were all over the place with Bubba and he was elected in spite of it. So, if you think this takes Cain out, I have some land to show you at low tide on a full moon.
Precisely. But once Cain allegations come up, all over the MSM immediately.
Kathleen Willey was excoriated by the Old Media for her allegations.
Please do. I eagerly await to see the double standards the GOP “enjoys” via the mainstream media.
POLITICO’S “ROCK SOLID” STORY CRUMBLES
Politico’s Martin Dodges Question On Cain Details
By Mark Finkelstein | October 31, 2011 | 08:19
Herman Cain has been taking heat for his response to questions about Politico’s story on alleged sexual harassment. But today on Morning Joe, it was Politico’s own Jonathan Martin, lead author of the story, who was being evasive about the details of the allegations against Cain.
Incredibly, when Willie Geist asked him to describe specifically what Politico is accusing Cain of having done, Martin hemmed, hawed then ultimately said “we’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women,” beyond the sketchy generalities in the Politico story. Video after the jump.
WILLIE GEIST: Hey Jonathan, what are the allegations specifically as you understand them? There’s obviously a wide range in sexual harassment. What did he do?
JONATHAN MARTIN: We-, we-, well we have to be careful about that obviously, because we’re sensitive to –
GEIST: Of course –
MARTIN: — the sourcing involved here. And also, what actually happened to these women as well–we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures. These women felt uncomfortable, they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain’s on the road. Um, but, we-, we-, we’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what’s in the story.
And remember, as for the details in the Politico story, they are as ambiguous as can be [emphasis added]:
“[C]onversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.”
So part of the alleged sexual harassment consisted of gestures that “were not overtly sexual” but that made people feel “uncomfortable.” Politico is going to have to do better than that. Martin’s evasiveness today was telling.
Videos here
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/10/31/politicos-martin-dodges-question-cain-details
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/10/31/politicos-martin-dodges-question-cain-details#ixzz1cP2HLnP2
What else can you expect from the LSM? The allegation means more than the story.
As I posted on Facebook, “If Herman Cain would just come out as pro-choice, these sexual harassment charges would go away.”
Sharon says:
31 October 2011 at 19:38
As I posted on Facebook, “If Herman Cain would just come out as pro-choice, these sexual harassment charges would go away.”
Actually the Dims are wondering how Herman ever got off the Plantation. That’s his major Liberal/Leftists/Marxists sin. He does not play by their rules and the Dims are pissed.
Perry wrote:
From Wikipedia:
The evidence does not support your beliefs, Perry, nor does it portray Justice Thomas as “lacking in self-confidence.” As is frequently the case, you take judgements on conservatives not on the people themselves but upon a caricatured image of them.
So, the story has been public for a day now, and the proof that Politico set up themselves, the existence of signed agreements, has yet to be presented. I wonder why that is.
it’s riotously funny that this thread has no recollection of the Bush campaign actively impugning John Kerry’s military service to his country
What did the Bush campaign do to impugn his service? OTOH, what did John Kerry do to impugn the service of thousands of his fellow soldiers?
cbmc says:
31 October 2011 at 20:41
it’s riotously funny that this thread has no recollection of the Bush campaign actively impugning John Kerry’s military service to his country
Kerry provided good canon fodder with his record, and his record of lies impugning the troops. Kerry reminds me of Maj. Frank Burns on M*A*S*H. Burns put in for a Purple Heart for a shell wound near his eye. That is he put in for an egg shell from a hard boiled egg hit him in the eye. And lets not forget Kerry’s Hide & Seek Yacht moored in RI trying to evade MA TAX.
Well, looky here, Sen. Joe Biden was the Chair of the Committee that tried a High Tech lynching of Clarence Thomas.
…whether there is the evidence specified by Politico in this case remains to be seen. >danapico
++++++++++++++++++
Well, FWIW, the proof (?) is now out that both women were paid — for something — by the restaurant association, and required to agree to not talk about (something) in return. I can’t see any way that could turn out other than bad.
I dunno how a man running for president could imagine a story like this would not come out. Or how Cain could not know all the details of whatever settlement; I heard him say just today that it all happened outside his knowledge — go figure that.
Such settlements occur all the time so as not to have protracted courts battles and even bigger costs.
That’s right, and now he keeps changing his story. Herman Cain has destroyed his credibility, therefore his candidacy. That said, it has to be noted that he made a significant impact on the race. Every other candidate could learn some lessons about campaigning from Herman Cain, a fascinating individual.
Well, FWIW, the proof (?) is now out that both women were paid — for something — by the restaurant association, and required to agree to not talk about (something) in return. I can’t see any way that could turn out other than bad. >bb
Such settlements occur all the time so as not to have protracted courts battles and even bigger costs.>hube
+++++++++++++++++
To American presidential candidates? Please join me in the real world.
Yorkshire, you have accepted the word of the Swift Boaters, which contradicts the testimony of most of the men who were on board the boat which John Kerry commanded. This continues to be very foolish, a black mark on the campaign tactics of that particular Swift Boaters’ group, in my view!
The Bush campaign should have refuted the lies of the Swift Boaters.
If you are speaking of the Detroit meeting, John Kerry and the rest of the 150 or so vets, cited specific examples of atrocities. Hey, if one’s fellow citizens are misbehaving, is it proper to sweep it under the rug.
The Viet Nam War was a mistake of major proportions, though certainly not the fault of the hundreds of thousands of American men and women who answered the call of duty and performed with valor. The further tragedy is that some people abused our returning troops, rather than to bring to justice the American leaders who put our troops into battle for no good reason, who used toxic materials (agent orange and nuclear bunker busters), and who continually lied to the American people.
Dana, this paragraph itself from your Wiki quote defines a failed Supreme Court Justice:
Add this to Thomas’ inability to ask questions in hearings, and to his questionable treatment of Anita Hill, and you have one weird individual who should never have been approved for the SCOTUS, in my view. And note, I never said that he is dumb. And then, he sure does have a flake for a wife. Does this reflect on Thomas as well?
Oh, I see. So now the “Bush campaign actively impugning John Kerry’s military service” is the “Bush campaign not refuting the lies of the Swift Boaters.” Nice goal post shift.
Yeah, haha. Kerry impugned the honorable service of thousands of vets with his allegations. He has no leg to stand on when his fellow service-members impugn his own.
IOW, “weird individual” = person who Perry disagrees with politically. If Thomas is “weird,” then that must make you an extraterrstrial. Or at the very least a racist.
I readily admit it, I’m weird, therefore I will not accept a nomination to the SCOTUS!
Well of course I don’t agree with any of this, for reasons already stated.
Guess who said this:
I’ll give you a hint: She is a fairly good looking staunch Conservative Republican who has long blond hair and writes books containing scathing political commentary. In case you still don’t know, the answer is right here!
Hube says:
1 November 2011 at 07:50
Such settlements occur all the time so as not to have protracted courts battles and even bigger costs.
These settlements get settled for their ‘nuisance’ value. Seen a lot of these done. It costs $50k to $100k just to get ready to go court, then hire experts, the trial, then hope you get the right verdict. If not in your favor, it could cost a Million.
Bubba’s credibility was shot before he became president. But that didn’t and never will matter for the Left.
Perry says:
1 November 2011 at 10:34 (Edit)
“Yeah, haha. Kerry impugned the honorable service of thousands of vets with his allegations. He has no leg to stand on when his fellow service-members impugn his own.”
Well of course I don’t agree with any of this, for reasons already stated.
Perry, I would agree that Thomas’ effect on his fellow justices means he is ineffective at persuasion, and that this could be indicative of being a bad justice.
And yet, I think that he sees himself as a modern Harlan: he’s writing the dissents from the common wisdom of the age which, when the wheel turns, will be the received common wisdom of tomorrow. At which point, if he’s right, he’ll be looked on as a hero.
If I’m right in my characterization, I think he’s wrong. But there’s still something surprisingly noble about it.
Aphrael, that is a very interesting comment, that Thomas may have his own vision, which if it turns out to be correct, then he will be a hero. We shall see!
Your point is consistent with his unwillingness to ask questions in hearings, and to his apparent lack of congeniality, as he retreats within himself.
The nobility you speak of is that Thomas is his own man.
I have to say that this conversation has given me a different impression of the man, whom I had previously viewed as only one who clings to Scalia’s shirttails. The Wiki piece which Dana posted calls this perception to question it.
The nobility you speak of is that Thomas is his own man.
For sport and recreation, every summer he and his wife get in the RV and just roam around the country to see how the real people live. They like Wal-Mart parking lots to stay over night and do some shopping.
Speaking of Herman Cain’s self-inflicted wounds, here is more on Governor Perry, who is running on what he perceives to be his record in TX. Well the Texans themselves do not perceive Perry the way he perceives himself, and the way Dana wishes to perceive him.
More at the link.
Finally the Republicans are taking a page from the Libs, Progressive, Socialists playbook, and circled the wagons around Cain. Cain had his best fund raising day yesterday.
Perry, I think every member of the Supreme Court is his own man, or woman. I don’t always agree with them; but I see no reason to doubt their integrity.
Aphrael, have you forgotten the Gore v Bush decision in 2000? There they superseded the authority of the Florida Supreme Court which, according to the US Constitution, takes precedence over the Feds on matters of elections. Moreover, the majority opinion states that this decision is not to be used as a precedent. That is a classic example of SCOTUS activism for partisan political gain.
Can you imagine what the post 2000 history of our United States would have been without the Cheney/Bush neocon crowd not in charge of our federal government? In my opinion that decision solidified the decline of our nation.
And now we have the Citizens’ United decision, which has the potential of further diminishing our nation by permitting further corruption of our election process by allowing a massive injection of corporate monies into our campaigns by ruling that a business corporation is like a person wrt the First Amendment.
I just don’t see the integrity which you see, aphrael.
“I just don’t see the integrity which you see, aphrael.”
Of course you don’t Perry. Integtrity only exists if you agreee with their decision. Just like democracy works only if the SCOTUS goes 5 to 4 your way. And if you don’t like “massive injection of corporate monies into our campaigns” then I assume you also don’t like it when labor unions or other organizations such as moveon.org or the NRA does it either. They, like corporations are groups of persons working together toward a common goal. Some are monetary, others political or social but they are all persons and as such are all entitled to unite to further their objectives.
If you don’t like those massive amounts of money going toward campagins then perhaps a law allowing only a $100 per person or organization in campaign contributions. That would mean I can only donate $100 and Planned Parenthood could only donate $100, GE can only donate $100 and the UAW can only donate $100. How’s that? Level the playing field enough for you or should only corporations be limited?
Perry’s selective memory:
Aphrael, have you forgotten the Gore v Bush decision in 2000? There they superseded the authority of the Florida Supreme Court which, according to the US Constitution, takes precedence over the Feds on matters of elections. Moreover, the majority opinion states that this decision is not to be used as a precedent. That is a classic example of SCOTUS activism for partisan political gain.
Perry, it was simple for the Supremes. The FL Supremes were violating their own laws and making it up as they went along. The SCOTUS called them on it. And every recount conducted has shown Bush won. I know you can’t accept this, but it’s what happened.
Yorkshire, as I remember it, the FL Supreme Court called for a recount of every county in the state. How was that violating their own rules? And again, why do you suppose the majority specifically stated that their decision was not to be used as precedent in future cases? And the fact remains, that elections are under the auspices of the individual states, not the feds or the SCOTUS. There is a sizable body of opinion that the SCOTUS acted inappropriately. And again, look at the damage that decision did to our country. I don’t believe that today we would have this Great Recession had it not been for the faulty actions of a SCOTUS making up their own law, which is exactly what they did! All the said, Gore did make a tactical error in the case by petitioning for a recount of only select counties instead of the whole state.
Then you should look it up on google.
Yes, that is my opinion.
Excellent idea, Hoagie!!!
Looks like this old dilapidated, Alzheimer-infested memory was correct, Yorkshire:
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
“The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
It seems, not that you could tell from the quotes above, that the SCF had ordered inclusion of recounts from certain counties, but had also ordered recounts in other counties *limited to undervotes*. Meaning the standard for the recount varied from county to county.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
aphrael says:
4 November 2011 at 15:22
It seems, not that you could tell from the quotes above, that the SCF had ordered inclusion of recounts from certain counties, but had also ordered recounts in other counties *limited to undervotes*. Meaning the standard for the recount varied from county to county.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Like I said, the FL Supremes made it up as they went along.
That is true, aphrael; you are, in effect, stating the majority opinion in Bush v Gore. However, the variations from county to county was the election set-up fact in FL at the time, so the remedy should have taken that into account, which is what the FSC attempted to do. Moreover, different states have different standards, for example, using different ballots and different voting machines. Does these then constitute violations of the equal protection clause. If we accept the decision in FL in 12/2000, then we have to straighten out the state-to-state variations, otherwise we are in for more trouble in future elections for very close vote outcomes.
I think we need to pay attention to the words of the dissenters:
If you read through this Wiki article, you will see that now, almost 12 years later, this SCOTUS decision remains as controversial as the day it was rendered.
So did the US Supremes. No one foresaw this situation, therefore no one knew what do do with it. The remedy should not have been having a partisan SCOTUS deciding the outcome of an election in favor of their party! Reverse the outcome, Yorkshire, and ask yourself what your reaction would be?
Perry says:
4 November 2011 at 17:13 (Edit)
“Like I said, the FL Supremes made it up as they went along.”
So did the US Supremes. No one foresaw this situation, therefore no one knew what do do with it. The remedy should not have been having a partisan SCOTUS deciding the outcome of an election in favor of their party! Reverse the outcome, Yorkshire, and ask yourself what your reaction would be?
You’re like the Birther Movement. You can fight this, discuss it, let your mind go crazy, anything you want, the final situation is OVER. You can have spasmatic dreams of Gore being President, YUCK. But EVERYONE who went in and performed an autopsy on the vote has Bush still winning. If you’re still this totally disturbed after 11 years, seek help. IT’S OVER.
This post is in dire need of an update:
And this little tidbit:
Now, I really do hope that neither the Perry or Romney campaign had anything to do with this, because it was strategically stupid.
Rovin:
Two Women Say Herman Cain Beat Them Senseless with a Frozen Turkey
WASHINGTON – Yet another Herman Cain scandal has been unearthed by the Politico news organization. Their website is reporting that two women who wish to remain anonymous have come forward and said that in the late nineties republican presidential candidate Herman Cain beat them senseless with a frozen turkey after they refused to accompany him to his private residence. Politico reports that the women are terrified to make public statements for fear that Cain will track them down and beat them again with a frozen turkey, possibly even with a canned ham.
Yet they didn’t say they were hospitalized, didn’t report it to the Police, and the witness didn’t either. And it’s all anonymous. Not in defense of Cain, but two were beaten “senseless” with a frozen turkey and not report it to the police, and a male witness stood by and did nothing. What’s wrong with this story?