Originally Posted by RichieLion

Good; you're paying attention. Now if you read back you'll see that all your previous Cain comments were purely emotional and not evidential. and then that your assessment of my comments were gratuitous and without substance.

I realize of course that you won't see this, but it's not ultimately important that you do.

Your self-righteous indignation is embarassing richie. I never said anything inflammatory about cain, other than my opinion that he was not a viable candidate. You got bent out of shape only because I challenged your self-aggrandized perception of your importance in chastising others on the board.

I think it's interesting that Gloria Allred was not there at Ginger White's side, salivating for camera time and money from Ginger, too.

Certainly a top-notch lawyer like Allred could uncover things like hotel, airplane and cell-phone records that show they were together for 13 years.....like the National Enquirer photos of John Edwards entering and leaving the hotel, pregnant Rielle, and later evidence of a fake plot to get Andrew Young to say he was the father of the baby, until it came time for DNA testing....

"Young said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential contender in 2008, asked him to steal one of his daughter's soiled diapers as part of a DNA strategy.

Tune in to ABC News' "20/20" and "Nightline" Friday, Jan. 29 to see Andrew Young's exclusive groundbreaking interview. Then tune in to "Good Morning America" on the following Monday, Feb. 1, when Young will appear for his first live interview.

"Get a doctor to fake the DNA results," Young said Edwards told him. "And he asked me ... to steal a diaper from the baby so he could secretly do a DNA test to find out if this [was] indeed his child."

Young said he ignored the request.

Edwards released a statement today finally admitting that he is the father of Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn..."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/...6#.TtzmFWBHBMo

Although it's possible Cain did the things the women accused him of, there really isn't much proof of the lengthy 13-year affair with White at this point. The double standard could not be more blatant:

"Bill Clinton's accusers had gifts, taped phone conversations with him and a semen-stained dress.

Gennifer Flowers produced taped telephone calls with Clinton totaling thousands of words between them, with him counseling her on how to deny their affair: "If they ever hit you with it, just say no, and go on. There's nothing they can do ... But when they -- if somebody contacts you, I need to know ... All you got to do is deny it."

Paula Jones had multiple same-day witnesses -- including the state troopers who worked for Clinton and had already told the press about a "Paula" they brought to Clinton's hotel room. And that was for a single incident.

Monica Lewinsky had lots of gifts from Clinton, including a hat pin, two brooches, a marble bear figurine, a T-shirt from Martha's Vineyard and Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass," all of which she mysteriously placed with Clinton's secretary, Betty Currie, during the investigation, as well as a semen-stained dress, which Monica kept.

Ginger White claims she had a 13-year affair with Cain -- and all she has are two books with inscriptions that could have been written to an auto mechanic who waited in line at a Cain book signing. Even her business partner during the alleged affair says White never mentioned Cain's name..."

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-30.html

Time will tell....but in the meantime, I think it's scary how the concepts of libel and slander mean nothing to so many on the left.

The serial adultery wing of the GOP holds together. Herman Cain will endorse Newt Gingrich today.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Your self-righteous indignation is embarassing richie. I never said anything inflammatory about cain, other than my opinion that he was not a viable candidate. You got bent out of shape only because I challenged your self-aggrandized perception of your importance in chastising others on the board.

All your comments indicated your support and acceptance of the witch hunt and that cannot be disputed. Your analysis of me is entertaining and imaginative. I'll criticize anyone who interprets gossip as fact. Here on this forum or right to your face; including the childish post right above this one.

Originally Posted by billethkid

Cain was in fact a threat to Obama's ability to be the sole black candidate and carrying the majority of the black vote. Regardless the degree of threat or not, Cain would have pulled black votes away from Obama.

Cain would have completely negated Obama and his staff to use the race card for select issues.

To label Cain as a non threat is not at all accurate. A testimony to his threat was the expedient method in which all Cain's accusers, have hidden away satisfied with life until now.

Obama and the party have only one real reaction to Cains departure from the race (pun intended)........whew!!!! Thank GOD or whoever.

btk

I would have loved to see a debate between Cain and Obama. Repeated "999 I'm doing fine" versus an intelligent, well spoken individual. No contest.....Cain Train derailed.

beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholders....and wishful thinkers!!

You know what they say about opinions...eh?

btk

The PG was NEVER a serious contender for the nomination.

Expect to see Herb in TV very soon selling his book, which was always his motive.

PT Barnum was right.

our current POTUS bears out Barnum's cliche'.

btk

Osama Bin Laden would 'prolly disagree - you know, the guy Junior couldn't seem to find for 7 years....

IMHO Cain clearly was not prepared to run because if he had then the sexual harassment and 13 year affair would have been effectively addressed. Cain is a good motivational speaker and possess good corporate leadership skills but is that enough to deal with the partisan politics in Washington? His 9-9-9 plan was catchy but would have never ben implemented. However it did get other candidates to move in that direction to address our messed up tax system. Debating whether the allegations were true or untrue is a moot point.

As to the race isue I venture a guess and say I beleieve the country is pretty much over that issue because they discovered it only came back to bite them. I believe voters are focused more on issues and candidates detailed plans on solving this country's issues

Originally Posted by rubicon

IMHO Cain clearly was not prepared to run because if he had then the sexual harassment and 13 year affair would have been effectively addressed. Cain is a good motivational speaker and possess good corporate leadership skills but is that enough to deal with the partisan politics in Washington? His 9-9-9 plan was catchy but would have never ben implemented. However it did get other candidates to move in that direction to address our messed up tax system. Debating whether the allegations were true or untrue is a moot point.

As to the race isue I venture a guess and say I beleieve the country is pretty much over that issue because they discovered it only came back to bite them. I believe voters are focused more on issues and candidates detailed plans on solving this country's issues

Well stated rubicon! You make your case without trying to insult or belittle other posters, and make it well.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Sorry I don't measure up to your self-imposed standards, along with many others on this board. As for coulter, your comment is foolish in assuming that I find no truth in what she says. I find bits of truth in what she says when I can stomach the venom. What I would like it to say about me is that I find her vulgar and disgusting and would prefer people who can comment without being strident.

I'm on board with this. Ann has lots to say that I agree with, but the way she says it drives people crazy on both sides, for and against her. Again, I like what her message is ., but she delivers the message like a drunk X girlfriend on a rant.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

It's not likely that I'll change my view of Gingrich anytime soon.

Having said that, if he's the GOP nominee, I'll vote for him. My thought process will likely be very much the same as I had for the 2008 election. I voted for Obama as the "lesser of two evils". Did I think he really represented "hope and change"? No. But after McCain sold out to the far right and his handlers, and even though he was a multiple incident cancer survivor picked an unqualified person as his VP running mate, he lost me. My thought at the time--and I said it here several times--was if Obama doesn't work out, I simply won't vote for him again.

The President isn't as bad as many here would have him, but still not a good enough leader for a country that desperately needs leadership. He's been hampered by a dysfunctional Congress, but I can't write off all that has been done or not done to that excuse. So I'll be voting for his opponent. And again I'll say--if that person (Mitt or Newt) is elected and doesn't work out, I'll be voting for someone else in 2016.

Ditto: I voted for Obama and that was the first time in my life that I voted for a Democrat. I was set to vote for McCain until I heard Palin talk and jumped over the fence. Now, if Romney and Palin are on the ticket, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney or Newt Palin would work. I know, I AM WISHY WASHY, but remember, I am in a very large group of folks that will vote the way I do.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Ditto: I voted for Obama and that was the first time in my life that I voted for a Democrat. I was set to vote for McCain until I heard Palin talk and jumped over the fence. Now, if Romney and Palin are on the ticket, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney or Newt Palin would work. I know, I AM WISHY WASHY, but remember, I am in a very large group of folks that will vote the way I do.

Voting on perceived merit rather than following a party line like a sheep to slaughter is not wishy washy but intelligent independent thinking. As you may imagine, I too am in that group.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Voting on perceived merit rather than following a party line like a sheep to slaughter is not wishy washy but intelligent independent thinking. As you may imagine, I too am in that group.

I agree and would like to add "voting on perceived motives". So often, people do not count the candidates' motives into the equation.

Is the candidate looking only for personal and then party power?

Or are they secure enough in themselves and their financial position that they are not on the track of "He can't get enough" (power and money).

A true leader possesses selflessness at the top of the list of character traits.

And I think it is selfish and LAZY to vote straight party line, as so many do on both sides.