Up for Debate: Is Herman Cain done?

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 10:05pm

Presidential candidate Herman Cain — who can't seem to avoid allegations of improper conduct — is "reassessing" his campaign. Is this the end of his campaign? Could it endure? Was it ever a legitimate threat?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

99 Comments on this post:

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 9:51

yogi - In answer to your 7:44 question on proof of his "lie". The "birth certificate" was examined by several computer experts.
=======================================================
Who, When, Where, what were the qualifications & what was their final decision? If you have proof of this claim, post a site for the information. Not one of your propaganda, hogwash sites, but a legitimate one, showing "PROOF".

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 9:54

yogi - None of your business, whether I work or not! This computer belongs to me & no one else.

By: dargent7 on 11/30/11 at 10:04

Yogi @ 9:29am: You don't have a CLUE what typewriters they had in Honolulu in 1961.
Smith-Corona? Royal? You have NO idea, so stop just re-gurgitating garbage you read from others' web sites.
You're being fed this horseshit by some web site you Birthers use.
The same was said of GW Bush about his National Guard service.
The "fonts" didn't match the one's used at that time.
Nonsense. With Bush, no one could remember him.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 10:08

dargent7 said

"L'ner: This Sunday the Titans play your Bills in Buffalo.
How about flying some of us "bored nutz" in with that fat postal pension you have?"

Yeah, anyway. According to yogi you're living in high cotton with that 1% pension of yours......

By: yogiman on 11/30/11 at 10:14

Okay, bfra,

Let's go back to the beginning. Go onto the internet and get a copy of the Constitution and read Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5, which states :

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States."

Now, look into the laws in which decisions were made to explain what a natural born citizen is. Look further into the laws. Once a natural born citizen looses their citizenship when they become citizens of another nation (remember Barry being adopted by his Indonesian stepfather so he could go to school there?). When that adoption took place, Barack lost his American citizenship. Once you give your citizenship up, you can only become a naturalized citizen if you later want to regain your American citizenship.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 10:16

Ingleweird said

"Godfathers has a new special deal:

Buy one lie for $9.99, get four more lies for free!"

Hey, you think Ms. White got free bread sticks?

By: yogiman on 11/30/11 at 10:21

As I have said, children, time will tell. It's hard to educate an idiot. I can only presume you are in favor of the socialist "guvmunt" we now have that's going into communism. Good luck to you in your futures.

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 10:25

Nemo, tell yogi to "shut up", he has NO PROOF, just his own mental instability. I'll leave it up to Nemo, because he does it better than I can. LOL

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 10:26

The state of the GOP.....

Dick Morris: "I Hope And Pray That [Cain] Can Stay In The Race" Because "It's A Very Positive Thing That He's Doing"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201111300002

By: dargent7 on 11/30/11 at 10:26

The irony is that a Black man, Cain, is being brought down by a woman named, White.
There must be a God.

By: dargent7 on 11/30/11 at 10:32

I swear, whenever I tune into FOX & Friends, there's always Ann Coulter, Michele Maulkin, Dana Perino, Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, Karl Rove, Dick Morris....and The Donald... on the phone.
Didn't Dick have a penchant for biting hookers on balconys during his Clinton years?

By: BenDover on 11/30/11 at 10:33

And a guy named Dick has a foot fetish... Ooo lala ...

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 10:42

d7 - Just watched an interview with Ms White, they had a print out of her phone records. Cain will still dogging her phone in our current month. Of course, yogi, will say the printer was obsolete or off brand and can't be ligit.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 10:47

bfra said

"d7 - Just watched an interview with Ms White, they had a print out of her phone records. Cain will still dogging her phone in our current month. Of course, yogi, will say the printer was obsolete or off brand and can't be ligit."

Was it a long form statement?

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 10:52

brrrrk - LOL Couldn't tell, but he sure did like her phone #!

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 10:54

Just noticed, I typed will instead of was! Sorry about that.

By: yogiman on 11/30/11 at 11:04

Question: How was Mrs. White's phone list technically identified as Herman Cain's calls? Any of you see his name on them? I didn't.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 11:22

yogiman said

"Question: How was Mrs. White's phone list technically identified as Herman Cain's calls? Any of you see his name on them? I didn't."

They called the number that Ms. White identified as Cain's and low and behold, Cain answered the phone. I know, that's pretty high tech for you. Maybe if you watched something besides Fox.................

By: yogiman on 11/30/11 at 11:52

You're right, brrrrk, I didn't see it on Fox News. Where I saw it they did not show anyone calling the number she gave and getting Herman Cain on it.

The issue returns then: Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to use the Oval Office in the white House for his sexual pleasures after he became President but it's wrong for Herman Cain have an affair in his private life before he decided to run for the office? Is that the only time Bill Clinton ever "cheated" on his wife? HA!

It looks both parties aren't equal.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 12:27

yogiman said

"The issue returns then: Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to use the Oval Office in the white House for his sexual pleasures after he became President but it's wrong for Herman Cain have an affair in his private life before he decided to run for the office? Is that the only time Bill Clinton ever "cheated" on his wife? HA!

It looks both parties aren't equal."

As I recall, Clinton never ran spouting the pro-family/pro-fidelity rhetoric as Cain has. As my "to-the-point" aunt Pauline once said to my cousin Fred, her long haired son, "If you're gonna look like Jesus, you better damned well act like him." It's the hypocrisy yogi. And for what it matters, and for all your bitchin' about Clinton, it seems like your more then willing to line up behind Cain..... so where's your integrity?

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 12:35

brrrrk - Yogi is scratching head and saying, what dat?

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 1:23

bfra said

"brrrrk - Yogi is scratching head and saying, what dat?"

Like most on the right these days, yogi wears his "integrity" on his sleeve when it serves his purpose, then hides it under a bushel basket when it doesn't.

By: BenDover on 11/30/11 at 2:15

To tout a high set of moral values and then fall short of them... does that make you a hypocrite or a failure? I think there's a higher threshold for a hypocrite though that doesn't stop the charge.

Cain? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know the details yet. It does smell a lot like at least a failure to live up to standards he touts though.

Is Clinton less of a moral failure because he claims no standards in the first place? (that's a hypothetical because he in fact did claim the standards but the question seems relevant).

Liberals are quick to open the valve on the hypocrisy fire hose though. It's one of their favorite weapons
.

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 2:15

How true! yogi, more than most.

By: govskeptic on 11/30/11 at 2:48

Most if not all liberal members of congress never mention
their own morals if any for what reason? First, maybe they don't have
any core ones or maybe just so that when they get caught doing
anything there won't be a hypocrisy charge. They prefer the
absolutely ridiculous and self assigned posture of super intelligence
over morals for their followers/voters!

By: govskeptic on 11/30/11 at 2:49

Most if not all liberal members of congress never mention
their own morals if any for what reason? First, maybe they don't have
any core ones or maybe just so that when they get caught doing
anything there won't be a hypocrisy charge. They prefer the
absolutely ridiculous and self assigned posture of super intelligence
over morals for their followers/voters!

By: yogiman on 11/30/11 at 2:49

I'm sure it doesn't mean anything to you of the "Barry's Kids" group, but, as Barry's Kids, can any of you explain why the US Government's E-Verify System wouldn't accept Barry's Social Security number? Could it be because his name and address doesn't match the one it has registered? Can any of you explain why he has used so many Social Security numbers?

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 2:54

BenDover said

Is Clinton less of a moral failure because he claims no standards in the first place?

Bull! Talk about opening the valve. Just because someone doesn't wear their morals on their sleeve, or demand that others measure up to some ubiquitous set of moral standards, does not imply the lack of morals. The problem with the right is that they set moral standards that even their own candidates can't measure up to; often getting caught with their pants (literally) down around their ankles. If the right were "true believers" in their moral standards, they should be calling not only for Cain to step down, but the Newt-ster as well. Speaking of Newt, any one familiar with the story of Newt getting in BJ from his mistress in a car while his two young children were standing just outside the car? NOW.... there's morals you can believe in.............

By: yogiman on 11/30/11 at 2:59

Well, brrrrk,

Since you "insist" I prove what I'm posting, how about you proving what you just stated about Newt Gingrich. I never heard that story before.

Did you just make it up like 'I do' because you don't like him?

Sure looks like it.

By: BenDover on 11/30/11 at 3:08

Now wait a minute brrrrk... you're making my point for me. Clinton did attest to higher standards but my use of him as a 'for instance' was based on your earlier point excusing him from the scrutiny that should be applied to others based on your hypocrisy argument. Is spin just some guttural reaction from you or am I missing the logic?

Hypocrites are a subset of people with moral failures. Not having values in the first place makes you no less of a moral failure any more than failing to live up to your own high moral standard makes you a hypocrite.

By: BenDover on 11/30/11 at 3:11

If anything Clinton was a bigger hypocrite because he lauded family values and was able to completely compartmentalize that and go absolute horn-dog with no conscious about it.

The distinction is your perception of Clinton's views was not inconsistent with his actions so he gets a pass.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 3:23

yogiman on 11/30/11 at 2:59

"Since you "insist" I prove what I'm posting, how about you proving what you just stated about Newt Gingrich. I never heard that story before."

This is just for you yogi.......

"Kip Carter, who lived a few doors down from the couple [and was also Newts campaign treasurer at one time], saw more than he wanted to. 'We had been out working a football game --I think it was the Bowdon game-- and we would split up. It was a Friday night. I had Newt's daughters, Jackie Sue and Kathy, with me. We were all supposed to meet back at this professor's house. It was a milk-and-cookies kind of shakedown thing, buck up the troops. I was cutting across the yard to go up the driveway. There was a car there. As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys' wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me his little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then.' "

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair4.html

By: dargent7 on 11/30/11 at 3:27

Now, wait a Goddamn minute.
Clinton had his affairs while Governor of Arkansas.
Cain was CEO of Godfather's, a subsidary of Pillsbury.
It was proven, Paula Jones got a raise after refusing to massage Clinton's "johnson".
Cain's women, all4, got a year's severance to "go away".
Both are denying the women's claims who have come forward.
But this is 2011, not 1990, and we've, "evolved".
Clinton got damn lucky. Cain is caught in the cross-hairs.
Congress didn't "throw him out" (Clinton) because half of the ass-holes in Congress are having affairs themselves, on their 2nd and 3rd wives, and even they cannot be that hypocritical.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 3:31

BenDover said

"The distinction is your perception of Clinton's views was not inconsistent with his actions so he gets a pass."

No, the distinction is that Clinton didn't use morals as a political cudgel to beat up the opposition..... whereas the right constantly does; to their own detriment I might add.

By: dargent7 on 11/30/11 at 3:41

brrrrk @ 3:23pm:
I really don't care if Gingrich was getting a hummer next door, in a car, or on the roof.
Why did America (Republicans) decide to excoriate president Clinton from getting one in the Oval Office?
Now, if Clinton had Lewinsky demoted, fired, then....go after him.
Not with wire-taps from that Linda Trip who looked like a WWF wrestler.
It's all degrees of transgressions.

By: yogiman on 11/30/11 at 3:47

brrrrk,

Go to wnd.com/index.php?fa=Page.view&pageId=297273 and check the Kenyan government's question about Barack Obama.

By: dargent7 on 11/30/11 at 4:02

So, we're all in agreement.
A "BJ" is definitly all, "upper case".
Reminds me of, "Upper Case", who worked the streets of Detroit.
She personally re-invented the art of Dentistry.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 4:25

yogiman on 11/30/11 at 3:47

"Go to wnd.com/index.php?fa=Page.view&pageId=297273 and check the Kenyan government's question about Barack Obama."

World Net Daily? No agenda there.... I didn't even have to go there to know what they said...

By: BenDover on 11/30/11 at 4:32

No brrrk... it's just when Clinton would talk about family values you don't give a damn because you thought he was lying to the religious rubes in society to get elected because he had to. Same thing when Obama talks about his faith.... you believe, like most of the left, that he really doesn't mean it and is lying because the idiot rubes of society can't handle the truth and he would never get elected otherwise.

This understanding between the liberals and their base allows for you to dismiss objective moral malfeasance on the part of liberals in the presidency and congress; and then knee-jerk yourself out of your recliner anytime you hear of a conservative who falls short on values. It's Alinsky #4 for and it's taught to every aspiring liberal either formally Dismissive Rationalization 101 or by example in forums like these.

The thing is though falling short of your value goals is one thing but lying about having them in the first place is the acme of hypocrisy.

That is all.

By: yogiman on 11/30/11 at 4:43

brrrrk,

You're actually showing your lake of intelligence on this site.

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 4:46

yogi, you using the word "intelligence" is a joke!

By: bfra on 11/30/11 at 4:48

yogi - BTW what or where is "lake of intelligence"?

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 4:49

BenDover said

"No brrrk... it's just when Clinton would talk about family values you don't give a damn because you thought he was lying to the religious rubes in society to get elected because he had to. Same thing when Obama talks about his faith.... you believe, like most of the left, that he really doesn't mean it and is lying because the idiot rubes of society can't handle the truth and he would never get elected otherwise.

This understanding between the liberals and their base allows for you to dismiss objective moral malfeasance on the part of liberals in the presidency and congress; and then knee-jerk yourself out of your recliner anytime you hear of a conservative who falls short on values. It's Alinsky #4 for and it's taught to every aspiring liberal either formally Dismissive Rationalization 101 or by example in forums like these.

The thing is though falling short of your value goals is one thing but lying about having them in the first place is the acme of hypocrisy."

So let me get this straight. Because Republicans wear their morals on their sleeves (whether they believe in them or not), and they screw up, it's a failure? But if Democrats hold their moral philosophy to themselves, and screw up... it's because they don't have morals to begin with?

I've seen silly straws with fewer twists.... rationalization is rationalization. That is all.

By: brrrrk on 11/30/11 at 4:51

bfra said

"yogi - BTW what or where is "lake of intelligence"?"

Next to the Straits of My-Jello....

By: BenDover on 11/30/11 at 5:40

"So let me get this straight. Because Republicans wear their morals on their sleeves (whether they believe in them or not), and they screw up, it's a failure? But if Democrats hold their moral philosophy to themselves, and screw up... it's because they don't have morals to begin with?"

Not at all. There are Republican hypocrites and Democrats who are moral icons.

I did point out that the label of hypocrite doesn't necessarily fit because someone falls short of their value system and sometimes the label does fit when someone attests to a value system, ever how gingerly, based on totally political grounds and then turns out to be a horn-dog. This regardless of whether a large portion of his political party looks at his testimony of faith as a lie to appease the rubes with a wink and a nod in the first place. In fact it makes the party complicit in the hypocrisy in the first place equally guilty.

Why do you care, anyway, whether someone conforms to a value system you dismiss in the first place? If not for political opportunism, why?

By: pswindle on 11/30/11 at 7:04

Who cares!

By: PatrickBNA on 12/2/11 at 1:17

PatrickBNA
Interesting to see the contrast between Cain's situation and the golden years of the Clinton administration.

By: veriklawes on 3/7/12 at 5:13

Thank You for article.take care of yourself, and stay strong against what is ignorance in our society.

Law Schools in Massachusetts

By: veriklawes on 3/7/12 at 5:15

Thank you so much keep on keeping on.

Law Schools in Illinois