This COMPLETE DESTRUCTION of Cain by the MSM will be the new standard we can expect

[Dr Grump]

Sweet, like during the Clinton years. Tell me Gramps, how many manufactured Clinton administration "scandals" can you name off the top of your head? I think I can name about 5 or 6.

And the "Mainstream Media" made sure the public was kept fully appraised of each an every one, with good old Rush Limbaugh leading the charge.

But I'm guessing you'll say that that was somehow different.

Fail

Well, that's a response, I guess...

Did Rush Limbaugh not in fact lead the criticism of the Clinton administration?

Did the freshman Republican class not award Limbaugh an honorary membership in their caucus, when the Republican Party won control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections?

His 'argument' would be that Rush is not MSM. To which I would say nobody expressing an op-ed piece is....even those doing so against Cain.

As to your following post, Gramps is absolutely about what is happening to Cain.

He honestly believes that this is the first 'assassination-by-media' of a politician. Cry me a freaking river....

The real reason Gramps objects to Cain being brought under scrutiny is that Gramps is a teabagger and Cain is one of their poster boys. Well, boo-hoo. Welcome to the real world....

 

[Vast LWC]

His 'argument' would be that Rush is not MSM. To which I would say nobody expressing an op-ed piece is....even those doing so against Cain.

As to your following post, Gramps is absolutely about what is happening to Cain.

He honestly believes that this is the first 'assassination-by-media' of a politician. Cry me a freaking river....

The real reason Gramps objects to Cain being brought under scrutiny is that Gramps is a teabagger and Cain is one of their poster boys. Well, boo-hoo. Welcome to the real world....

Ah, yes, the argument that anyone who agrees with their point of view is obviously not "mainstream".

What does the right-wing media have to do exactly to become "mainstream".

After all, FoxNews has the largest viewership of ANY News channel or program. Doesn't that, by definition, make them "mainstream"?

In addition, talk radio is almost completely ruled by right-wing pundits and right-leaning shows. Doesn't that mean that Rush Limbaugh is in fact "mainstream"?

Perhaps their problem is they don't understand the meaning of the word "mainstream"?

Here Gramps, I'll help you out:

main·stream   [meyn-streem] noun
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend

So, to break it down, if your the most popular station or announcer on a media medium, you are, by definition, "mainstream".

 

[Vast LWC]

And this is ESPECIALLY true when the rest of the media are reporting the exact same thing you are, as was the case in the Clinton years.

Thus my statement "with Rush Limbaugh leading the charge".

I would say your "fail" is a fail.

 

[Dr Grump]

His 'argument' would be that Rush is not MSM. To which I would say nobody expressing an op-ed piece is....even those doing so against Cain.

As to your following post, Gramps is absolutely about what is happening to Cain.

He honestly believes that this is the first 'assassination-by-media' of a politician. Cry me a freaking river....

The real reason Gramps objects to Cain being brought under scrutiny is that Gramps is a teabagger and Cain is one of their poster boys. Well, boo-hoo. Welcome to the real world....

Ah, yes, the argument that anyone who agrees with their point of view is obviously not "mainstream".

What does the right-wing media have to do exactly to become "mainstream".

After all, FoxNews has the largest viewership of ANY News channel or program. Doesn't that, by definition, make them "mainstream"?

In addition, talk radio is almost completely ruled by right-wing pundits and right-leaning shows. Doesn't that mean that Rush Limbaugh is in fact "mainstream"?

Perhaps their problem is they don't understand the meaning of the word "mainstream"?

Here Gramps, I'll help you out:

main·stream   [meyn-streem] noun
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend

So, to break it down, if your the most popular station or announcer on a media medium, you are, by definition, "mainstream".

I would disagree with your assessment of Fox News. People tend to say they are the biggest raters. They are, on cable. Free to air such as ABC, CBS and NBC still kill them ratings wise, quite considerably...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cain was destroyed when the analysis of his wacky 999 plan came out and showed that it would raise taxes on 84% of Americans, while being a huge tax cut for the Rich.

 

[Vast LWC]

I would disagree with your assessment of Fox News. People tend to say they are the biggest raters. They are, on cable. Free to air such as ABC, CBS and NBC still kill them ratings wise, quite considerably...

Their news-type shows do not.

I say "news-type" because so much of what are supposedly "news" shows are really thinly disguised opinion shows.

But, even so, one cannot say that FoxNews is not "mainstream". They definitely are.

And, when combined with all the other right-wing radio, print and other media, not to mention their second channel "Fox Business", they are quite mainstream indeed.

 

[Vast LWC]

However, all that being said. I don't like the way this is being handled. It reminds me of Clinton in 1992, and I didn't particularly like that either. I won't consider Cain proven guilty of anything until he's actually proven guilty of it.

After all, there's a whole lot of other things about Herman Cain that would disqualify him as a candidate. Like incompetence.

Someone has it out for Cain, and they're pulling out all the stops to get him.

However, logically, that person is probably one of his Republican primary opponents.

The Democrats would obviously wait until Cain won the race, if he won the race, in order to gain the maximum amount of advantage from it.

I mean, why would the Democrats bring this out now? If Cain won, they could use it like next May, and gain a big leg up in the race.

 

[candycorn]

yes the MSM made Cain change his story 3-4 times. The MSM, Cain, and the NRA are all in on it together just to punk you.

seriously this is what?, the 4th-5th time you have brought up this argument in a thread?

It seems apparent you don't understand the timeline of what has happened and why.
It seems you never will and no matter how many facts about Cain are thrown in your face, that bubble you enclose yourself in won't pop.

Cain got a fair shake. He had his 1, 2, 3 times to explain himself. He didnt and got caught up in the lie. This is what liars do when caught. They make up more lies, and more lies in order to try to get out of the lie.

I don't know if he got caught up in a lie or not. I disagree with that part. What I will agree with is that he had 3 or 4 opportunities to explain his side of the argument and went from "never" to "once" to where we are now talking about an "agreement" vs a "settlement". You don't "agree" to fork over a year's salary if there are no basis for the charge Herm. If nobody is buying your story, you should stop changing it.

 

[rdean]

Cain got to Cain before MSN did. Oops.

 

[Chris]

DES MOINES, Iowa — A conservative Iowa radio host, who on Wednesday became the latest person to accuse Herman Cain of acting inappropriately toward women, declined to offer specifics about the presidential candidate’s behavior but suggested that Cain was “compromised in his private life.”

Steve Deace, who hosts a syndicated two-hour radio program in Iowa, said that two of his female staff members were subjected to “inappropriate and awkward” comments by Cain. But he refused to identify them or elaborate on the seriousness of the allegations.

After his show on Wednesday night, Deace held an impromptu press conference outside his Des Moines studio while his two female staff members rushed out of the building, escorted by two men who attempted to keep reporters away.

One of the women was identified to ABC News by an independent source as a victim of the behavior Deace mentioned. Both of the women repeatedly refused to comment on anything related to the controversy.

Deace, an influential conservative figure in the state, declined to say whether he had the women’s consent before going public with the allegations, but added, “As a staff we are very tight and we are very close and we share everything with one another.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-herman-cain-compromised-in-his-private-life/

 

[JoeB131]

yes the MSM made Cain change his story 3-4 times. The MSM, Cain, and the NRA are all in on it together just to punk you.

seriously this is what?, the 4th-5th time you have brought up this argument in a thread?

It seems apparent you don't understand the timeline of what has happened and why.
It seems you never will and no matter how many facts about Cain are thrown in your face, that bubble you enclose yourself in won't pop.

Cain got a fair shake. He had his 1, 2, 3 times to explain himself. He didnt and got caught up in the lie. This is what liars do when caught. They make up more lies, and more lies in order to try to get out of the lie.

I don't know if he got caught up in a lie or not. I disagree with that part. What I will agree with is that he had 3 or 4 opportunities to explain his side of the argument and went from "never" to "once" to where we are now talking about an "agreement" vs a "settlement". You don't "agree" to fork over a year's salary if there are no basis for the charge Herm. If nobody is buying your story, you should stop changing it.

I kind of imagine him like that old SNL character. "A Settlement... Yeah, A settlement. That's the ticket."

I do disagree with the notion that a settlement really is an admission. (I mean, come on, that's not what you libs were singing in 1999 when Clinton paid Paula $850,000.) The reality is, most companies would rather settle than risk their fortunes on the judgment of 12 slugs too stupid to get out of jury duty.

This was probably more acute in 1999. Keep in mind, you had just had the Ellworth v. Burlington decision, that had vastly expanded the definition of harrassment to the point where the complaintant didn't even have to show she had suffered in any way. Clinton just chucked out the equivlent to everything he made in his second term and was 10 million in debt.

Someone at the NRA said, "We can make this bullshit go away for $45,000? Where do we sign?"

Still, I think this is serious enough for the GOP to reject Cain, on the notion that the GOP nominee, like Caesar's wife, should be above reproach.

 

[The Infidel]

Obama Admin All But Refuses to Turn Over Subpoenaed Solyndra Documents | TheBlaze.com

 

[jgarden]

This isn't about guilt or innocence. No proof is truly known beyond he said she said. Many a man were found guilty or innocent with less proof.

This is about the personal destruction of a candidate based merely on the words of a couple people. This destruction is done through beating the drums of a story that offered less proof than the actual words and action of Rev Wright or Aeyrs.

Our media is now officially in charge of who can make a splash in politics and who can't and that's just wrong. Now don't get me wrong I believe that the story was worthy of being reported once or twice but with no new evidence the constant barrage of this story in the media was unethical by journalistic standards. The story was hyped to the point that any person seeking their 15 minutes of fame could now put themselves in the limelight with just the slightest involvement with Cain in the past.

The Duke Lacross team is a perfect example of the power of the media. They had everyone convicting the team by simply pounding the story over and over.

Weather or not you believe Cain was the right man for the job one thing is sure. He is an eligible American that deserved a fair shake in the process. He did not receive that fair shake. Being a journalist used to be a dignified job. Now its about ratings and sales.

Future elections will never be the same.

Even Cain contends that this was all leaked by his Republican opponents - Rick Perry to be exact.
One could argue that Cain's accusation has even less concrete evidence to support his claim than his accusers, so how has he given Perry "a fair shake?"

Given that conservatives have already waged a 3 year war to discredit Obama on the "birther" issue, they are certainly in no position to lecture journalists about giving Cain "a fair shake" or complain about "simply pounding the story over and over."

 

[Mr.Nick]

This isn't about guilt or innocence. No proof is truly known beyond he said she said. Many a man were found guilty or innocent with less proof.

This is about the personal destruction of a candidate based merely on the words of a couple people. This destruction is done through beating the drums of a story that offered less proof than the actual words and action of Rev Wright or Aeyrs.

Our media is now officially in charge of who can make a splash in politics and who can't and that's just wrong. Now don't get me wrong I believe that the story was worthy of being reported once or twice but with no new evidence the constant barrage of this story in the media was unethical by journalistic standards. The story was hyped to the point that any person seeking their 15 minutes of fame could now put themselves in the limelight with just the slightest involvement with Cain in the past.

The Duke Lacross team is a perfect example of the power of the media. They had everyone convicting the team by simply pounding the story over and over.

Weather or not you believe Cain was the right man for the job one thing is sure. He is an eligible American that deserved a fair shake in the process. He did not receive that fair shake. Being a journalist used to be a dignified job. Now its about ratings and sales.

Future elections will never be the same.

Which is why we need Ron Paul...

He has absolutely no "dirty laundry" or "skeletons in his closet."

Ron Paul is immune from progressives...

Ron Paul would beat Obama by at least 10 points.

 

[Ravi]

yes the MSM made Cain change his story 3-4 times. The MSM, Cain, and the NRA are all in on it together just to punk you.

seriously this is what?, the 4th-5th time you have brought up this argument in a thread?

It seems apparent you don't understand the timeline of what has happened and why.
It seems you never will and no matter how many facts about Cain are thrown in your face, that bubble you enclose yourself in won't pop.

Cain got a fair shake. He had his 1, 2, 3 times to explain himself. He didnt and got caught up in the lie. This is what liars do when caught. They make up more lies, and more lies in order to try to get out of the lie.

I don't know if he got caught up in a lie or not. I disagree with that part. What I will agree with is that he had 3 or 4 opportunities to explain his side of the argument and went from "never" to "once" to where we are now talking about an "agreement" vs a "settlement". You don't "agree" to fork over a year's salary if there are no basis for the charge Herm. If nobody is buying your story, you should stop changing it.

I kind of imagine him like that old SNL character. "A Settlement... Yeah, A settlement. That's the ticket."

I do disagree with the notion that a settlement really is an admission. (I mean, come on, that's not what you libs were singing in 1999 when Clinton paid Paula $850,000.) The reality is, most companies would rather settle than risk their fortunes on the judgment of 12 slugs too stupid to get out of jury duty.

This was probably more acute in 1999. Keep in mind, you had just had the Ellworth v. Burlington decision, that had vastly expanded the definition of harrassment to the point where the complaintant didn't even have to show she had suffered in any way. Clinton just chucked out the equivlent to everything he made in his second term and was 10 million in debt.

Someone at the NRA said, "We can make this bullshit go away for $45,000? Where do we sign?"

Still, I think this is serious enough for the GOP to reject Cain, on the notion that the GOP nominee, like Caesar's wife, should be above reproach.

According to Cain the accusation was "baseless" and "un-corroborated."

I doubt if that were true there would be a settlement, or pay off, if you will.

 

[KissMy]

Cain accuser & her lawyer may be habitual extortionist sexual harassment complainers.

Cain Accuser filed another complaint in next job

A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.

Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar's complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.

To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

 

[JoeB131]

According to Cain the accusation was "baseless" and "un-corroborated."

I doubt if that were true there would be a settlement, or pay off, if you will.

Was that your attitude when Slick Willie paid Paula Jones three times what she originally asked for?

And if you lived in the real world where we have real jobs and make a living, you'd know people do that all the time.

Sorry, it just happens. Because lawsuits are expensive and juries are unpredictable. All it takes is one loser on the jury to turn a "baseless" Lawsuit into a expensive liability.

Insurance companies are the biggest culprits. They know the legal fees for prevailing usually outweigh the costs of settling.

Now, I'm keeping an open mind. If these women can corroborate their claims, that's good enough for me.

And I think Cain is manifestly unqualified even without this issue.

 

[candycorn]

I don't know if he got caught up in a lie or not. I disagree with that part. What I will agree with is that he had 3 or 4 opportunities to explain his side of the argument and went from "never" to "once" to where we are now talking about an "agreement" vs a "settlement". You don't "agree" to fork over a year's salary if there are no basis for the charge Herm. If nobody is buying your story, you should stop changing it.

I kind of imagine him like that old SNL character. "A Settlement... Yeah, A settlement. That's the ticket."

I do disagree with the notion that a settlement really is an admission. (I mean, come on, that's not what you libs were singing in 1999 when Clinton paid Paula $850,000.) The reality is, most companies would rather settle than risk their fortunes on the judgment of 12 slugs too stupid to get out of jury duty.

This was probably more acute in 1999. Keep in mind, you had just had the Ellworth v. Burlington decision, that had vastly expanded the definition of harrassment to the point where the complaintant didn't even have to show she had suffered in any way. Clinton just chucked out the equivlent to everything he made in his second term and was 10 million in debt.

Someone at the NRA said, "We can make this bullshit go away for $45,000? Where do we sign?"

Still, I think this is serious enough for the GOP to reject Cain, on the notion that the GOP nominee, like Caesar's wife, should be above reproach.

According to Cain the accusation was "baseless" and "un-corroborated."

I doubt if that were true there would be a settlement, or pay off, if you will.

So they're now calling the accuser--REMEMBER NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN--a serial extortionist? Okay....you were that weak to pay off this extortionist? So much for his business acumen.

As more voices are added to the chorus, I tend to think there is something to these allegations. However, like almost all of these matters, I would be willing to wager that the truth of what happened is somewhere in the middle. Not as blatant as the accusers would have you believe but not as insignificant as Mr. Cain would insinuate. Hence the opportunistic tone of the allegations and hence the "agreement" err "settlement"...I forget which one he wants us to believe it is.

As for the MSM's supposedly biased role in this; I call bullshit.

Gary Hart...remember him? Gary was practically driven from the race due to the rumors about he and Donna Rice. The Enquirer did the hatchet job on Mr. Hart. Had that same report surfaced in 2008 instead of 1988, you'd see wall to wall coverage of it as well. Ask Anthony Weiner about the favorable press coverage...or Elliot Spitzer.

Mr. Cain has been inconsistent in his response. That is a fact. That inconsistency and his attempt to characterize the nature of the pay out as being something other than what it was is really sort of sad.

For the persons involved in this; it is far from their finest hour. For the press, the same can be said.

 

[JoeB131]

ONe more time. If you make the mistake of hiring one of these people, usually payoffs are the most painless way to get rid of them.

This is why we need "loser pays" tort reform.

Oh, wait. Texas did that. It's why they have created 40% of the new jobs!

 

[Too Tall]

can anyone point out a time when the press wasnt like this?

They weren't like this when Clinton was running the first time.