So let’s talk about Herman Cain.

I had all these links saved up to do a proper post-mortem except now there’s a new complaint from a person being “represented” by Gloria Allred. Egads.

Yes, I know there’s a chance Herman Cain is a lecherous jerk. We’ve had those for presidents before and lived through it. Heck, Bill Clinton is still lauded as some wunderkind because he happened to preside over a good economy.

But here’s my question: Is it the accusations that are derailing Herman Cain or is it his inability to stand against the less-than-balanced news forces such as Politico?

Heck, the Chicago Tribune is doing its part to even out this argument. Of course the Sun Times posted an account of the happy Tea Party event Bialek recently shared with Cain. (That woman in the photo is not Bialek. Cain says he didn’t recall Bialek, so this story is meant to tell you otherwise.)

How interesting that, you know, Chicago would figure into this picture.

There’s no doubt in my mind it’s a hit job. Someone doesn’t want to run against another black man. And that pretty much draws you a Chicago-styled picture, doesn’t it?

Interestingly, it is a Republican primary in which Cain is running. Now I predict a number of you lefties will line up to whine about violating a woman, etc., etc. It’s lost on me. A violated woman doesn’t wait 14 years until the price is right AND THEN SUBJECT HERSELF TO GLORIA ALLRED AND A ROUSING ROUND OF MEDIA INTERVIEWS to set the story straight.

We’ve got a pattern all right – a pattern of desperation by those growing concerned by the increasing popularity of a candidate that just might be competition.

Pooh on all you so-called conservatives who think Cain should bow out. Pooh on all you others to the right shaking your head and saying Romney will be the nominee and gosh there was nothing we could do about it and Obama will win in 2012 but that’s okay because in 2016 we’ll get a real conservative nominee.

Seriously. Stick it in your ear. Because I’m telling you that if Cain weathers this storm he’s going to be unstoppable.

And I’m more than willing to let this one play out just in case he pulls it off.


  1. Scandals only have merit if true. Rumors never have merit. Gossip is trash talk. mostly the press thrives on scandals. opposition parties gain nothing except for the lie and the blame. today, people make money for information and interviews about scandals. Pres. Grover Cleveland survived by admitting paternity. Pres. Richard Nixon failed with the lie. sometimes the truth hurts but the mind is clear. one year remains for those who seek the presidency to be destroyed by the press. i.e., g. romney; g.hart; e.muskie; a.stevenson; b.goldwater; n. rockerfeller, etc. a pretty good list of also rans.

  2. Randy in Richmond says:

    Well said Cindy.

    The Bialek accusation does not pass the smell test. When Gloria Allred has to describe the political affiliation of her client prior to that client opening her mouth, red flags fly.

  3. Cain had a ton of problems even before all of this.

    1) His 9-9-9 plan was exposed as essentially a campaign gimmick that is neither good policy nor politically viable. And when pressed on the details of the plan, he gave canned lines (Question: “How do you think Americans will react to paying a total of up to 19% sales tax in some areas of the country” Cain: “In my plan, the payroll tax is going away!”) rather than answer the questions.

    2) His fundraising has been weak.

    3) He has no meaningful endorsements. There are plenty of new Tea Party congressmen who would not be opposed to a president who is completely outside of politics. If Cain is so great, why are they not running en masse to endorse him?

    4) He’s committed so many gaffes. He changed his position on abortion several times in a single week. He had no idea what the “Right of Return” was. And when the scandal broke, he told one story and when that crumbled around him, he changed his mind and told a new one.

    So no, I think Cain has to weather quite a few storms, not just one.

    I do agree that to the extent the scandal does not completely ruin him, it could help Cain as it will divert attention away from all of his other weaknesses.

  4. a candidate for office must have a strong/loyal base. we know about the president because he has shown his hand. but what about the rest ? this could go to the convention which i always liked in both parties. what critical state or loyal group do the candidates have. the abolitionists had theirs, the doves had theirs, the prohibitionists had theirs, the southern dems had theirs, and more.

  5. The Lorax says:

    I keep seeing the Clinton comparison, but I don’t see how you can equate adultery to sexual harrassment. One is consensual, one is not. One is immoral, the other is immoral and illegal.

  6. randy, randy. political affiliation is not important to a lawyer, believe it or not. not everything in the world is USA partisan politics. get over it ! look at the few people on this blog site. the rest of the world could care less. as a lawyer and a judge the facts of the case prevailed, not the race, creed, gender or the political thoughts of a client. wake up my friend, the world is bigger than what you can absord in one short day. at best, this is a soap opera.

  7. BrkfldDad says:

    Lorax – are you aware that adultery is a felony in Wisconsin and was a crime in DC until repealed in 2004? You sound just like Clinton in justifying the adultery.

  8. Adultery is a felony in Wisconsin? When was the last time that law was enforced … eighteen hundred and what?

  9. What kind of conservative are you? Accusations of sexual harassment are okay? Seems to me that you will believe any defense that Cain offers and none of the accusations because your blinders are on.
    In last night’s Kimmel show he said that he would never hire Gloria Allred for anything and his tone implied that he was speaking of sexual favors. What kind of presidential candidate would ever use a sexual allusion following an accusation of sexual harassment?
    Some conservatives may find him a hoot but I find him boorish and sophomoric.

    How much smoke do you need to see before you recognize the house is on fire?

  10. Dale: Really? Stick around and you’ll figure it out.

    Milton: You are such a newbie.

    Lorax: Sometimes adultery is what happens before sexual harassment is claimed. And FYI, I’ve been sexually harassed for almost thirty years by the standards that are tossed around today, from a teacher to a boss to a priest. That’s not to say the teacher or the priest were bad guys – that’s just how bizarre the charge can be these days. (The boss was one of the biggest jerks I’ve ever known in my life, just in case you were wondering.)

  11. Randy in Richmond says:

    If political affiliation does not matter to lawyers, why did Allred (a 1 %er) bring it up ?

  12. Randy in Richmond says:

    I was unaware that Hillary and Chelsea consented to Bill’s 2 year affair with Monica.

    And when we on the right speak of Bill Clinton’s womanizing, we include Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones, among others.

  13. Anonpolito says:

    Herman Cain’s campaign should produce a video of Gary Hart giving Herman Cain a lie detector test while Mark Block smokes a cigarette behind them. That could easily go viral.

    Disclaimer: The above is only meant as satire and does not in anyway insinuate Herman Cain’s guilt or innocence.

  14. I’m not justifying Clinton’s actions, it’s just not an apt comparison. Adultery and sexual assault are not the same thing. One involved two consenting adults, the other requires a violation of consent.

    Randy, I was unaware that Gloria Cain consented to Herman’s Hermit Hands snaking up the leg of another woman.

    Nice try, though!

  15. ho ho. santa is early. over the global spectrum of the legal profession the political affiliation is of no personal concern to a many/most/more lawyers. i did not view the lawyer’s interview but each lawyer has an individual persona. so when choosing one take your choice. only the narrow minded would call someone a 1,5,10,40, 60, 100 percenter. maybe i should rate my family, friends and acquaintances. give me a formula. slogans are meant to be catchy, not a human rating system. phohibition was a battle between the “drys” and the “wets” and proven nothing except that crime sometimes pays for those who take advantage of a law hell bent on slogans.

  16. Randy in Richmond says:

    Come on Lorax. Clinton’s (a 1 %er) shenanigans are well documented. Cain’s is a she said–he said. My point is prove it happened at all–which has not been done.

    It has been shown that the head of the National Restaurant Association, at an international event, went out to eat at a — you guessed it — a restaurant, with one of the accusers and others.

    If, when, it’s proven that Mr. Cain (a 1 %er) has lied about the accusations made thus far I will put him in the same category as Clinton.

    Could you please link to where it is documented a sexual assult took place.

  17. Anonymous says:

    “only the narrow minded would call someone a 1,5,10,40, 60, 100 percenter.”

    Who could possibly disagree with that?

  18. The Lorax says:

    Your patronizing request for a “link” is classic comeuppance, Randy. At this point in the Clinton scandal, there was no proof either, but I imagine that Mr. Richmond wasn’t calling for a measured response. But maybe I’m wrong about you, RR!

  19. Randy in Richmond says:

    If asking for a link for a direct statement is patronizing, color me guilty.

    I didn’t think you had a link. It’s an allegation. It might be proven true. We’ll see.

  20. Me! Anonymous. I think it’s very clever and love how well Randy in Richmond keeps it going.

    Lorax: Clinton confessed to the Lewisnsky affair. I agree with Randy: We’ll see. But I wouldn’t bet the farm.

  21. Randy in Richmond says:

    Dick, which way do you want it?

    On October 27th you said in describing the protestors:

    “there is good in everyone, many believe. look for more “goofballs” around the world who want a fair deal. they are not “commies”. “terrorists”, “left or right wingers”, “druggies” or !!!!!!!. they are fellow americans who wish to express their ideals with their voice instead of the MONEY they lack”

    And here you say:
    only the narrow minded would call someone a 1,5,10,40, 60, 100 percenter. maybe i should rate my family, friends and acquaintances. give me a formula. slogans are meant to be catchy, not a human rating system”

    Have you read the protesters T-shirts, Dick ?

    And Anon:
    In answer to your question, the person who said it.

  22. Clinton didn’t admit right away – that’s why he was impeached, for lying under oath – not, as many believe, for getting quickie in the Oval.

    But where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

  23. when you quote me preface it with the question and issue the quote relates to. i.e., are you for war ? no. are you for defending your country in war? yes. (catch= quote me if you can.

  24. I owe an apology to Cindy. I read Ann Coulter’s piece yesterday connecting Bialek to David Axelrod through their common apartment building. In addition, Ann comments on the similarity of events related to Obama’s ascendancy.
    This has changed my thoughts on Herman Cain’s character and I will give him the benefit of doubt.

    I apologize to Cindy. There may be just smoke and mirrors instead of a fire.

  25. Sweet!

    Here’s the article referenced in the comment above:

  26. as i said “gossip is trash talk”. political reporters on both sides get paid to keep the negative flow of information going.