Well. It seems that Herman Cain may very well be a dirtbag after all. Maybe not a harassing dirtbag, but likely a cheating one.
I say likely because after being accused of a 13 yr extra-marital affair by an Atlanta woman, the campaign issued this defacto-admission.
“Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault – which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.
Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.
Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”
Don’t ask, don’t tell?
Gimme a G. Gimme U. Gimme an I….
What kind of bizarro world do we live in where Newt freakin’ Gingrich is looking better each day but the honorable Rick Santorum can’t get above 2%?
At least Newt’s peccadilloes are old an out in the open, I hope.
So this is my choice now? Newt or Mitt? Wow, life sucks.
And btw, Newt made his most convincing argument yesterday saying “I am not perfect, but I am more conservative than Mitt. And I am electable.” Yes, yes, and maybe. But I don’t know if I trust Newt anymore than I trust Mitt, just for different reasons.
Cheaters and Liars.
Rick, you have my vote.
November 29, 2011 at 4:04 am
Hmm…the only consistent conservative candidate with strong personal integrity has been in the race all along: Ron Paul 2012.
November 29, 2011 at 4:35 am
Try living in Iowa…we've got one month to figure this out. It's THE topic of conversation with many friends and family.
November 29, 2011 at 4:42 am
I'm voting for Rick. Whether it be Perry or Santorum is still somewhat up in the air.
The sad thing about all this is that it is a shame for Cain's candidacy to blow up due to these charges when it should have blown up due to him being a completely inept candidate, though this press release is a symptom of that ineptness.
November 29, 2011 at 6:18 am
Of course I'd love Santorum – probably ain't gonna happen.
I live in a state where it doesn't matter what I think, the nomination will be decided long before I get a chance to say anything.
That said, it looks like Newt %8$*&%$* Gingrich is the only GOP possible I might be willing to actually vote FOR – as opposed to simply contra Obama.
I am giving him a third look. It is hard, as I have always despised him. I think the political games he played 30 years ago helped get us where we are with the state of American politics.
I like the way he talks. I like that he is willing to buck the GOP orthodoxy and talk about actual possible solution on immigration.
Most importantly, I know he was able to compromise and work with Clinton even while impeaching him. He got things done when he was speaker even with a democrat in the White House.
I don't trust him. I don't trust him. but … I don't trust any of them.
November 29, 2011 at 6:52 am
Begin gnashing of teeth and general wailing… Aaaargh!
November 29, 2011 at 11:21 am
Newt made some serious moral gaffes in the past. Very serious. Have you heard he converted to the Catholic faith? Was the conversion real? I hope so, because that would mean he was sorry for his sins.
At this point, he is the only candidate who looks even a little bit presidential, acts even a little bit presidential, and sounds even a little bit presidential. I want to be voting FOR someone, not just voting for someone who isn't Obama.
At this point, Newt has my vote.
November 29, 2011 at 11:26 am
My main problem with Newt is not so much his past as his present. Newt has shown time and again that he is no consistent conservative. He can also be quite smug. A bad combo.
November 29, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I think Newt is far more consistently conservative than Romney. His problem is that he's a technocrat. There is no problem, no matter how small, that Newt doesn't have a complicated solution for. So while he's not a big government conservative like Bush or a flip-flopper like Mitt, he still thinks in "government can solve our problems" terms. I'd happily vote for him in a general and he's my third choice right now, but I'm not hopping aboard the Gingrich Express quite yet.
November 29, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Paul
You stated my thoughts very well.
November 29, 2011 at 3:44 pm
@Paul – I agree with that too. I'm also starting to look BACK at Perry AGAIN…UGH (yes – very glad I don't live in Iowa right now)
But I also see Newt evolving away from some of his "helpful gov't" positions. Yes, he sees a role for gov't but not, generally, a large role. Which is spot on. I think he is mostly conservative for sure. In fact, I don't mind that he experiments with different approaches. He throws out what doesn't work. Sometimes he's wrong, but then he admits it and tries another way. I sort of appreciate that.
But one of my concerns about Newt is his tendency to be too micro. Jimmy Carter (among his many other problems) suffered from detail-itis as well. He did NOT do this as Speaker, though. The flip side of that is that while he comes up with some extremely nuanced solutions to things – they are quite often very good ideas.
I share his philosophy of block granting Medicare to the States to let them each figure out what works best. I like his proposal to make SS voluntary. Issues like these are quite conservative.
I don't have a problem with his personal sins. Everyone is a sinner and everyone is allowed their shot at redemption. I do trust his conversion and take him at his word for it.
Alas…Santorum is still too… hate to say it: unlikeable. And I like him. I like his positions on life and many other things BUT… Talk about smug? Santorum really comes across as both smug and often arrogant. He does not come across as a leader/executive, but as a good legislator – which is exactly what he was. There is also something about the way, in debates, he would take too much time while whining and bullying that was not just un-presidential, but smacked of some kind of tyrannical tendency to me. (Maybe I am crazy – who knows, but I believe it is this part of his personality that is turning people off, rather than his firm pro-life positions.)
As for Cain. Can we leave any room to believe that these accusations are un-true? I want to believe they are false. But it sure doesn't look good.
Last: for the Paulbots out there. There was a very good and serious article posted yesterday at the Center for Security Policy by Frank Gaffney that is worth a read. While it is not all-encompassing, it gives you a very brief idea of just ONE OF MANY reasons why he is a non-starter. link here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18872.xml
Allowing the states to decide on abortion is also more than I need to know to never vote for him for anything.
November 29, 2011 at 4:07 pm
That's the great thing about Ron Paul–though I'm not a fan–he doesn't give off the Girlz, Girlz, Girlz vibe. You can pretty much count on that. Bush 41 was pretty reliable that way too.
November 29, 2011 at 4:33 pm
When are the readers of this blog going to wake up and see that Newt is the "flavor" of the month after Michele, Rick Perry is a Al Gore lackey who believed in injecting girls with a vaccine or Herman Cain with his 999 (666) maybe and now Newt who believes in global Warming, or Mitt the flip flopper. I agree with the comment that only Ron Paul (who is not perfect) is the only one who has been consistent right now.
November 29, 2011 at 4:37 pm
SANTORUM 2012! I've been saying that for MONTHS!! None of the others can hold a candle to him.
November 29, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Oh here we go again. Who cares if Ron Paul is consistent if he is always wrong? Just ONE issue: How do you support a person who puts the 10th Amendment over LIFE?! I am sorry but the right to life is a FEDERAL issue for crying out loud.
Maybe you should also take a look at the link above. Those who support isolationism will only bring more war. Sigh….
November 29, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Used to post:
We're pretty much on the same wavelength, and I like the way you put it about Newt. The Carter comparison is very apt. If you look at it historically, the best presidents have been those who think in broader terms and articulate a a general philosophy. Technocrats like Carter, Hoover, and others were terrible failures because they failed to prioritize and delegate.
I'm with you on Santorum, but at the same time I am trying to block some of that stuff out. Sure he comes off as a bit whiny, but to me that doesn't negate the fact that he's the best candidate from a conservative perspective. At the moment, I'm leaning towards the other Rick, though by the time the primary elections come to Maryland it might be all moot anyway.
November 29, 2011 at 4:56 pm
UTP:
The CSP article sets up its straw men nicely – the term "isolationist" is theirs, I believe, not Paul's.
It also does a good job papering over the real problem with the USA being the "imperator mundi." By insisting on an American presence in Europe and Asia (and now apparently Africa too) we've allowed the countries we occupy on those continents to spend themselves into domestic oblivion. This is really Buchanan's argument more than Paul's, I suppose, but had these countries been given the responsibility to develop their own defenses, they would not have been "nannied" into bankruptcy by depending on US troops. And even now the IOU's are beginning to wash up on American shores….
Like it or not, I believe that Paul and Buchanan are calling the conservatives to a greater consistency of thought – to the extent that a smaller government is good for the domestic goose it is also be good for the foreign gander.
It would be interesting to see to what extent Paul would agree with Buchanan on returning to a revised version of the pre-Jacksonian era "American System" which kept American jobs and American businesses in the US the goverment's top priority. The effect, of course, was a stronger economy and greater dependency by foreign nations on US goods – and I think everyone can agree that it's a heck of a lot more appealing to make money than it is to make war.
By the way, did the Center for Security ever officially distance itself from one of it's member's calling for making G. W. Bush president for life? Just curious.
JOB
November 29, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Addendum: Apparently they did.
http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1290/conservative-group-calls-bush
JOB
November 29, 2011 at 6:46 pm
@ Paul: My problem with papering over those personality traits is that I fear they may be in seriously conflict with the leadership skills needed for POTUS. But I remain undecided here. Which is weird at this stage of the game.
@JOB: As much as I would really (truly) like to get into a very long and detailed back and forth on how and why Ron Paul is completely wrong, I don't have the time, so I am going to take my last stab and get out. (I also suspect that most people already "get" how/why RP is so wrong.)
There is a small percentage of the public who, IMO, either lack a serious education in international history/the history of conflict, or choose to ignore it when analyzing Paul's positions.
I am pretty sure this is where the term Paulbot comes into play. We have folks out there, who, no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented to them, aren't going to consider, for a moment, that they may be wrong about R.P. You may fall into this category – I don't know. Nevertheless, this makes debate, unfortunately, pointless.
For what it is worth, you throw up your own straw man comment about CSP. (Gimmie a break) They are among the very best and wisest group of folks on foreign and national security policy in existence, and their commentary on R.P is spot on. In the (decades?) that I have read their work I can not recall a time when they were off-base on a policy issue.
You state that The Center for Security Policy is using the term "isolationist" and R.P. does not call himself that. So what? Just because I don't call myself a jerk doesn't mean I am not, in fact, a jerk. (Maybe sometimes – heh) Ron Paul is, in fact, an isolationist. So is Pat Buchanan. Using other terms such as "non-interventionist" or "non-imperialist" don't change the fact that these are policies of purposeful weakness and disengagement from the world in a MEANINGFUL manner. It is a philosophy based on a serious misunderstanding of:
1. What motivates our enemies.
2. What our military is truly capable of.
World history teaches us that begging, strong words and chit chat do nothing to prevent aggression. Fear give pause to a bully. Sadly nothing much else does. Yes, this means bases and troops overseas. Yes, it means a real Navy. Yes, is means real conventional force projection capability. Yes, is means fighting smaller wars to prevent larger nuclear holocausts. Yes, it means that we don't get to call "time out" and take a conflict break whenever we don't want to play anymore. And, yes, it means that we must sacrifice dearly and tragically at times. Welcome to the fallen world. We'll see how much longer it lasts.
Lastly – really – lastly:
You also completely ignored my comment about LIFE and Paul. He claims to be pro-life, but would subjugate the legality of abortion (prostitution, drug abuse, etc.) to the 10th Amendment. Since when does a Catholic believe that it's okay to subjugate the issue of murder to subsidiarity – to perhaps be allowed here and there? So long as the people in that state are "cool with it" so are we? I think not.
Not one baby!
Not ONE LIFE should be lost to this fallacious and morally vacuous thinking!
November 29, 2011 at 7:02 pm
On Rick Santorum, this comment at another blog is kind of crude and mean, but also probably gets to a fundamental truth:
Rick Santorum lost his senate seat to a man who is quite probably mentally retarded. That's probably why his candidacy never caught fire.
November 29, 2011 at 10:44 pm
@Used to post: I am the last person on the planet to be a Ron Paul supporter (I am not obsessed with Jews, the gold standard, and nutty conspiracy theories). But let's be fair on the issue of abortion.
Ron Paul feels Roe v Wade should be overturned. Then the states would make law (and many would restrict abortion), as it was before the 1970's. Then, he believes there should be a human life amendment to the constitution.
This is a fair description of the strategy that just about *any* pro-life activist hopes for. He's not 'putting the 10th amendment above life'. A President is obligated to uphold the 10th amendment (as is Congress, and our court system). That's why he's behind a human life amendment.
On many other issues… yeah he's a nincompoop.