The Triumph Of The Swill

This weekend saw the collapse of Herman Cain’s presidential campaign. And it’s incumbent on us to put down for the record just what happened, before the fabulists get their lies on the record. And they’re already frantically scribbling.

Cain, remember, was not brought down by sexual impropriety. He was brought down by unsubstantiated allegations of sexual impropriety, allegations never admitted to or proven. The media decided that it only had the resources to report either the quantity or the quality of the accusations, and chose to focus on how new ones emerged just as investigations into the prior one started showing how they weren’t very sturdy.

The theme was established quickly: Cain was a serial horndog and predator, and each new allegation simply reinforced that. With the theme in place, it was quite easy to keep repeating that theme, to “go with the flow” instead of seeing if the basic story had any substance.

Contrast the treatment the Cain allegations received with how similar charges were handled against Anthony Wiener, John Edwards, or Bill Clinton. In those cases, they were ignored as long as possible — it took forces outside the mainstream media (blogs, the National Enquirer, and Matt Drudge respectively) to force those stories to the forefront. (I still say Drudge and the Enquirer ought to have won Pulitzer Prizes for their work.)

This is absolute, irrefutable, undeniable proof of the double standard of the mainstream media. There was never any serious effort to prove or disprove the accusations against Cain — which were quite shaky on the surface. Instead, they were allowed to stand unchallenged.

Actually, it was worse than that. They were repeated, over and over, with the less-than-slick denials, implying that they were valid. The meme was established — Cain was a lying, irrepressible horndog and serial predator.

Contrast that with how the mainstream media treated the allegations of impropriety against Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, or Bill Clinton. The accusations were mostly ignored — when they weren’t dismissed outright. It took forces outside the mainstream media to find the evidence that they were correct before the media would acknowledge they were legitimate. (I still think Drudge and the National Enquirer deserve Pulitzers for their work on Lewinsky and Edwards respectively.)

Hell, going outside the realm of sex scandals, imagine if the media had shown the same skepticism towards Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 they showed Cain. Hillary’s numerous fabrications (Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hilary, she came under sniper fire in Tuzla, etc.) and Obama’s sketchy contacts (Rezko, Wright, Ayers, et al) would have been disqualifying traits. Instead, they worked overtime to bury them. In essence, they were told by the candidates and their campaigns “those are nothing” and chose to take their word for it.

This is not how it’s supposed to work. This is a betrayal of the very essence of the ideals behind freedom of the press. And we need to stop falling for it.

Trump Jumps The Shark
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • Anonymous

    Cain made the choice to “suspend” his campaign, not the media.  By the way, “suspending” his campaign rather than ending it allows him to continue to raise and spend money for campaign purposes.  

    Cain’s been accused by several women by now.  For every one of these accusations, like a lot of things in law and life, the “proof” is only the credibility of the accuser.  In Cain’s case, the accusers.   Thousands of people are in prison based on the word of one person whom the jury believed. If you’re pissed off about Cain, think about the guy serving 20 to life in prison for a rape he didn’t commit, based on “she said.”

    Cain settled his sexual harassment case by paying off the accuser and a confidentiality agreement.  He didn’t face a jury.

    Now, he has the chance to face the jury of public opinion – he could make a forceful and unequivocal denial and stay in the race. 

    Why wouldn’t he do that?

    • Anonymous

      Chico, you remind me of a point that I meant to make:

      What WOULD have been an “acceptable” response for Cain?

      Trick question — to those opposing him, there is no correct answer. The accusation is sufficient.


      • Anonymous

        Cain could go on 60 Minutes with his wife, confess to mistakes in his marriage (or make a fiery denial) and say it was time to get back to the issues.

        Somebody else did that about this time in the election cycle, just before the NH primary, he did OK.

        • Anonymous

          So, Chico, you’d recommend he emulate Bill Clinton, who did just that — and lied about it? You’re saying he should follow the example of an actual philanderer? You’re cool with being lied to, as long as it’s done smoothly?

          Thanks for proving my point.


          • Anonymous

            You left out the part about the “vast right wing consipracy”

          • Anonymous

            He may be an actual philanderer.  You don’t know. 

            Clinton did not deny Gennifer Flowers (who was the only issue then) in that interview, he just evaded by saying “mistakes were made.” 

            I also said Cain could unequivocally deny the accusations, I guess you missed that.

            And yes, as Jwb10001 points out, he could say there’s a vast [left] wing conspiracy.  This place shows there are people who would believe that.

            The point is, Cain’s quitting, not being forced out.  He’s cutting his losses and running.

          • retired.military

            “This place shows there are people who would believe that.”
            The media’s handling of this proves it.

      • Anonymous

        What WOULD have been an “acceptable” response for Cain?

        Do not lie about a Politico reporter.  Do not make unsubstantiated allegations about a competing campaign without proof.
        Immediately seek from the National Restaurant Association permission to discuss the settlements and allegations surrounding them.
        Do not publicly muse about taking legal action when there would be absolutely no basis for it.
        Come clean about all potential allegations as soon as the first hint of them start circulating.
        Demonstrate extreme competence at campaigning and a towering command of issues.
        Do not peevishly accuse the press of conspiring against you.

        Before Politico published the initial stories, the Cain campaign had eleven days to get out in front of the story and take control of it.  The campaign’s failure to do so speaks to Cain’s incompetence as a manager and his unsuitability for the presidency.

      • Anonymous

        Trick question — to those opposing him, there is no correct answer. The accusation is sufficient.

        Baloney.  I admire in any candidate the ability to manage a crisis, regardless of whether I support that politician.

        • Anonymous

          There’s something to be said for that. There’s also something to be said for standing up against these kinds of attacks, and denouncing those who cheerfully engage in them with no proof.


          • Anonymous

            And what is that supposed to mean, Jay Tea? Are you saying the media should do something? Or that I, personally, should do something?

          • Anonymous

            Again, accusations are “proof” if people choose to believe them and there is no credible counter, as thousands in prison know.

          • jim_m

            Translated: accusations are proof when it’s a conservative, but theaccused are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law if they are a lefty.


          • Translated: Chico’s right, but maybe I can get in one more ad hominem attack anyway.

            But at least he signed his name to it.

          • jim_m

            And my summation of Chica’s comment was wrong in what way?

            If you have a substantive complaint we’d all appreciate hearing one from you.  For once.

          • I don’t have any complaints. Just pointing out your failure to address Chico’s point – so you attacked the person instead.

            You didn’t summarize what he said, you ignored what he said and just dumped more poo. How childish.

            “Again, accusations are “proof” if people choose to believe them and
            there is no credible counter, as thousands in prison know.”

            He’s right. Cain has failed to prove it didn’t happen, so the accusation becomes “real” if people believe it.

            That’s true on both sides of the aisle, left and right. Has nothing to do with “Chica’s” comment. You, on the other hand, can’t even use his name without turning it into a whine. Calling him “Chica” is something a grade school kid would do. Why don’t you act like an adult instead?

            “Again, accusations are “proof” if people choose to believe them and
            there is no credible counter, as thousands in prison know.”

            What about that isn’t true?

          • jim_m

            He is right that people treat accusations as proof.  I was pointing out how that is OK with him when the target is a conservative and that when the target is a lefty he demands not just evidence but conviction before he will accept it.

            THAT was my point, the double standard that is maintained by the left.

            I didn’t deny that his post was correct I pointed out the double standard.

          • Anonymous

            I was pointing out how that is OK with him when the target is a
            conservative and that when the target is a lefty he demands not just
            evidence but conviction before he will accept it.

            I’ve never said any such thing, jim, and I defy you to find such a quote.   I’m not even saying Cain did anything wrong, I’m just saying he quit and ran from the battle.

            Politics is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion.

          • retired.military

            Stephen you said in another thread that Cain was guilty.  Unequivacally guilty.  Now here you are saying Chico is right when Chico is saying that Cain may be innocent and it depends on who you believe.
            So which is it.  Is he guity or only possibly guilty. 

            If it is the latter you have condemned an innocent black man for something he didnt do.  Something that could be looked up on as racism.

          • Jay

            Translated: accusations are proof when it’s a conservative, but theaccused are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law if they are a lefty.

            Jim, in what way did Herman Cain truly defend himself without blustering about from the accusations?

            The Allred case, we can dismiss.  I don’t trust that one except for Allred trying to muscle in and gain some fame.

            But should we seriously dismiss the case of the lifetime Republican IRS agent who is risking her job over that accusation?

            And can you dismiss a 13 year relationship that was not disclosed to his wife?

            It’s not about being conservative, radical, or liberal.  It’s about how Herman Cain dealt with the problems of the allegations.  And quite frankly, from his words and actions, that’s piss poorly.

          • jim_m

            I was responding to Chica’s ridiculous assertion and not to the Cain situation in particular. 

            I realize that individuals may make their own conclusions about the guilt or innocence of any party, but it is a little rich to hear Chico touting how it’s OK to make the conclusion that it is OK in this circumstance when in the past he has defended lefties on the basis that accusations are not proof. 

            Heck people on the left have defended leftist pols when we have real evidence and not just empty and ill defined allegations of wrongdoing. 

            That’s the hypocrisy.  That the left are willing to accept allegations as true without evidence when it is against a conservative and unwilling to accept evidence without a conviction when it is a leftist in the dock.

          • Translated: I ignored what he said and just poo’ed on the comment thread.

            Grow up Jim_M, please.

          • jim_m

            If you bothered to read you would discover that I did address Jay’s comment by explaining that I was not making the sort of comment that he was thinking and that I was not addressing the Cain issue at all.

            If you cannot be bothered to read please do not comment.

          • Anonymous

            Cain’s quitting.  How is that being found guilty?

            Cain hasn’t even really denied any of these accusations. 

            Chico or the press are not “convicting” Cain.

            Cain’s pleading “no contest” by quitting.

          • retired.military

            “there is no credible counter”

            Except the MSM who gladly stood up and carried the water for Clinton, Edwards, and Wiener  until the buckets got too full of shit to carry anymore.

          • Jay

            Edwards ran on a movement of being completely honest.  He was forthrightly honest about his campaign and his scandal and effectively ducked out.

            Wiener posted a picture of his wiener on the internet then lied about it.  There was no way the media was going to let that go.

            Clinton got impeached.  The media ran the damn story 24-7 because no president before had done such a horn dog move. He was not removed as President.  So what exactly is the problem that supposedly the media didn’t see nor have the people decide to hear about?

            All of the people you’ve mentioned got karmic retribution.  In fact, Edwards’ campaign is akin to Cain’s except that it was 1 girl, not 5.  Somehow, you’re making this argument about how the media loved these people when it exposed their lapses in better judgement.

      • Anonymous

        “What WOULD have been an “acceptable” response for Cain?”
        He could have disputed the “facts” .
        Oh wait, THERE WERE NO “facts”
        And the information that came to light tended to support his his version of what happened. Not to mention that questions about his accuser’s motivations – and her lawyers – were never asked by the major media.
        The posters we have here, who show up mindlessly repeating the drive by media’s distortions, displaying their lack of knowledge about the entire incident; pretty much tells you all you need to know.

    • “Cain settled his sexual harassment case by paying off the accuser and a confidentiality agreement.”

      No, he didn’t. The restaurant association handled it. Cain didn’t sign anything, and he certainly didn’t pay anyone. This is the kind of sloppy thinking that the media intentionally perpetuates.

      Accuser’s lawyer: Cain didn’t sign settlement, which was reached after he left the NRA. Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

      • Anonymous

        Um, wasn’t he a defendant, named personally?  And wasn’t he the chief of the restaurant association?

        Sloppy thinking?  I’m glad I don’t have to twist my mind into those contortions.

        • Jay

          IIRC, Cain says he had nothing to do with the settlement.  They settled in his name, but it implies quite a bit of guilt even though there’s no wrongdoing, as he’s finding out the hard way.

          • Cain was the CEO of the organization but he claims he knew nothing about the settlement.

            Probably just another lie. He’s good at that, that and selling pizzas and getting donations from morons.

          • retired.military

            Yes and another unfounded accusation from Stephen.  Gee it is okay for libs to make unfounded accusations but if republicans do it than it is wrong.

          • Jay

            RM, I think you’re lapsing.  I recall that Cain DID say he knew nothing about the initial settlements.  Link

            He was the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza.  Link

            Cain was running a book tour while running for President.  Link

            Again, where are the unfounded accusations?

          • retired.military

            “Probably just another lie”

            A lie is a deliberate mistruth.

            Has anyone proven that Cain  made deliberate mistruths about any of this as of yet?

            I havent seen it.

            For instance the rule of the thumb for Bush by conservatives he believe it when he stated that there WMDs so no lie.  Yet Clinton knew he had stained Lewinskis dress and lied all day long to cover it up.

          • Yes, they have. You have seen it, you just

    • retired.military

      “Cain settled his sexual harassment case by paying off the accuser and a confidentiality agreement. He didn’t face a jury.”

      As opposed to Clinton who committed perjury, subjorned perjury and only after the blue dress showed up admitted to anything.

      • Why are you changing the subject away form Cain?

  • jim_m

    The frightening thing is when you consider how long has the media actually been covering for leftist politicians and giving us a false narrative.  The NYT has been doing it since at the very least the 1950’s.  How much damage has a leftist media done to the west? How many millions have suffered and died because the NYT and others have covered for murderous dictators like Stalin and Hussein?  And now that we know what do we do to hold them to account?

    • Anonymous

      What do you do? Um, you don’t have to read the NYT. “Millions have suffered and died?” A bit over-the-top, chap. The power of the mighty New York Times, wow. Like it was the only newspaper in the world.

      I doubt the NYT could have done anything about Stalin in any event. As for Hussein, Judy Miller did her best to whip up the WMD story with bullshit.

      • jim_m

        That’s right Chica, I’m glad that you can remember the tired leftist whine that media never influences people when the media is advocating for something the left deeply desires.

        So the NYT would not have had any influence on public opinion if they had accurately reported on how Stalin was deliberately starving millions of people to death in the Ukraine? 

        And funny how in the next blog post it is mentioned that Eason Jordan covered for Hussein so CNN could maintain their all precious “Access” and that would never had any effect on how the US dealt with his government and could never have impacted how he brutalized that nation.  Honest coverage would have revealed how Iraq was gaming the Oil for Food Program and could have lead to other actions from the UN that might have avoided war. 

        But Chica will just shrug it off because leftist media NEVER influences people.  Just remember that when you are donating to the limit for obama’s campaign that his campaign ads are wasted because they won’t influence anyone.


        • Anonymous

          You suffer from the delusion that the role of the press is to marshal public opinion so the US can “do something.”

          • jim_m

            Nope. Not at all.

            I suffer from the belief that the press ought to actually live up to their self avowed image of objective reporters of fact.

            You are the delusional one I’d you think that lefty journalists are not entering the field for ant purpose other than “to change the world”. The WSJ did a report several years ago showing that the vast majority of students in j school had that motivation. People are going into journalism to be activists while they claim to be neutral.

            Just as I said above, you claim that the media have no influence whenit makes you look bad but when it doesn’t you advocate for media activism. Make up your mind. You’re trying to have it both ways.

          • Anonymous

            The press sometimes has influence, sometimes not.  There are also many points of view.  That’s a free press.  I don’t expect everyone to hew to my ideas all of the time.

            And I don’t say “we” need to “hold them to account,” other than not buying their rags if I don’t like them.  That kind of talk is reminiscent of days gone by.

          • jim_m

            I’m not clear that I ever said that we should hold the to account in any way but calling them out and not buying their product. 

          • retired.military

            The role of the press is to REPORT THE FACTS.  Not bias it to their own viewpoints.  That is why they have protection under the constitution.

          • Anonymous

            “Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”

            Does not say anything about reporting the facts, “not bias.”

            The media can say whatever they want, not what Dictator Retired Military wants them to say.


  • Anonymous

    The Clinton bit is a nonstarter.  I was actually in the media (small-market daily newspapers) in the mid 1990s, and the wires were constantly crawling with the latest bit of scandal from the Clinton administration.  

    • jim_m

      The wires crawling with it isn’t the same as major outlets covering it.  Nor is it the same as addressing it as serious, but instead characterizing it as right wing distraction and pettiness.  The media carried the “It’s just about sex” meme for well over a year.  The media still ignores that he was disbarred for perjury.  Nothing to see here, it’s just about sex.

      Both my mother and sister are journalists and there is a big difference between mentioning a story and actually covering it fairly and honestly.

      The media has either ignored stories detrimental to left wing pols or it has covered those stories for the sole purpose of minimizing them.

      • Anonymous

        “Wires were crawling with it” does translate into outlets across the country slapping those stories into the paper. Trust me, I know. You have to fill the newshole and bring eyeballs to advertisers, and a political scandal does that.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, if the media covered Clinton’s scandalous behaviour, he would have been impeached.

      • Anonymous

        Chico, I’m a bit rusty on the history. Was Clinton’s impeachment before or after Drudge broke the Lewinsky story that Newsweek had spiked?


      • jim_m

        I seemto recall that he was impeached and later disbarred fir perjury and obstructing a federal investigation. Isn’t Scooter Libby currently serving time for the same thing?

        Oh, you say that Clinton only lied about sex. But then you are saying that it is ok to lie in a civil case ti avoid penalty? And who decided when it’s ok? You and your corrupt leftist media friends? No thanks.

        • Anonymous

          Scooter Libby got no time, his sentence was commuted by Bush.

          The investigation that Libby lied to a federal agent about was about revealing the identity of a CIA officer.

          • Anonymous

            Which he didn’t actually do, he was just contradicted about finer details. The guy who did out Plame — Richard Armitage — was never charged with anything.

            The best description of Libby’s offense was “lying about telling the truth about a liar,” which referred to Libby talking about Joe Wilson.


          • Anonymous

            He was found guilty by a jury of his peers of a federal felony. There’s no debate about that.

          • retired.military

            Yet when it comes to Cain that isnt nescessary from your viewpoint.

          • Anonymous

            Cain’s under a felony charge?  I didn’t know that. Of course he should get a trial and be presumed innocent. I thought he just quit running for president.

          • retired.military

            Which was done by armitage who after the left found out strangely had no desire to haul the leaker off in cuffs any longer.

  • Another point that JT has left out is: How could all of these women that are living hand to mouth afford to get high powered lawyers; like Gloria Allred? They sure as hell couldn’t — from what I have heard and read — pony up those larges sums of cash. Someone has to be footing the bill, because lawyers like Allred don’t come cheap. From what I understand, Allred does not work on a pro bono (for Chico and Crickmore: Free) basis at all and she also expects the client to pony up the fee in advance. I have my suspicions that the media and campaign operatives for Obama/DNC (same entities) are the ones that ponied up the funds. They just didn’t want Herman Cain to take the black vote away from Obama.

    • Anonymous

      Are you kidding me?  Allred is a media whore. 

  • The media didn’t make Cain lie his ass off about the settlements, did they?  He changed his story hourly the first day, even though he had ten days’ notice the story was coming.  Oh, Politico didn’t tell him the details, so he couldn’t prepare?  REALLY?  So the man had so many sexual allegations in the past he couldn’t know which ones were going to in the story?

    And this last woman, you believe he kept the relationship secret from his wife for thirteen years, but did nothing wrong?  You believe he gave her enough money that when asked how much he said “On advice of my attorney, I can’t answer that” but did nothing wrong?

    Just how stupid and gullible are you?

    And he “suspended” his campaign so he can use the $7 million to pay himself a salary and his travel expenses, perfectly legally – just ask Christine O’Donnell how easy it is to live off the suckers’ money.

    Cain was never a serious candidate.  He intended to use his campaign to sell more books and increase his speaking fees.  When it took off after Perry imploded and Palin demurred, he chose not to hire enough staff to compete in the early states, wouldn’t schedule more appearances in them, wouldn’t rework his book tour schedule.  It should have been a clue for anyone with half a brain.  And several seasoned observers said just that.

    The media isn’t “fair” on scandals.  That’s a given.  That doesn’t mean Republicans are justified in taking the Clinton approach of attacking the reporters and smearing the accusers every time.  It means we have to be better than the Democrats, our skeletons will be found.  Cain’s were.  But for those drunk on the Black Walnut flavor Kool-Aid, nothing mattered.

    The TRUTH his Cain’s poll standing and fundraising went UP after the allegations were published.  They began to sink after his interview with the Milwaukee paper, where for the umpteenth time he couldn’t answer a simply question on policy.  He stared like a deer in the headlights.  Previously he had botched answers on any number of issues a Presidential candidate should be familiar with.  Heck, he couldn’t even clearly explain his own position on abortion, given two tries with no time limit.

    I defended Cain when the report first surfaced.  But the minute he started changing his story every interview, I recognized he was lying, as would anyone not blinded by love.

    Say, he never did take the polygraph he promised, did he?  Wonder why?

    • Anonymous

      You, Adjoran, have made these points about Cain repeatedly, ever since this story broke. Yet Wizbang authors keep right on writing these same “we’re-the-victim” whiny-ass articles, and the usual gang keeps right on me-tooing them.

      Despite your explaining it in plain English OVER AND OVER AGAIN, they refuse to acknowledge the plain truth you lay out so, well,… plainly.

      Doesn’t it make you question your choice of ideological compadres?

      • jim_m

        Hmmm.   I’ll agree that most of what has been focused on is a perceived (and not wrong so) unfairness in how the media handles scandals for conservative figures versus how they handle it for lefties.  There is a double standard and what makes it all the more offensive is the left’s inability to acknowledge what is a glaring truth.

        That being said, Adjoran is right that Cain has tanked as he has demonstrated an inability to answer any basic policy questions much beyond 999.  All that is required is a straight forward, simple answer. 

        Perhaps the problem is that conservatives are not as easily satisfied as liberals are.  Liberals become all gushy when a lefty pol blathers on and on using all sorts of words they looked up in Roget’s Thesaurus this morning, yet succeeding in saying nothing.  The left mistakes this ability to say a lot of words with no meaningful content as intelligence (John Kerry).  The right sees it for what it is: BS.

        • herddog505

          Conservatives have not exactly covered themselves with intellectual glory so far.  Rather, the general trend has been to squeal like teenage girls over a precession of candidates who’ve turned out to be flashes in the pan.  Bachmann got a lot of early support, then tanked after Gardasil.  Then it was Perry’s turn… until people found out that he stammers like Barry on stage.  Cain did great… and then the accusations came along and he completely fumbled his handling of them.  Newt’s the right’s new Justin Bieber.  Given his baggage, how long will THAT last?  Maybe Santorum will replace him?  Hell, Romney may well win by default even though nobody really likes him.  Even Paul, widely regarded as an outright kook, is rising in the polls.

          The only good thing that one can say about conservatives in all of this is what you touch on: they taking “vetting” seriously.  A candidate’s flaws are revealed, seen to be serious, and his poll numbers drop accordingly.  This is in contrast to Barry in ’08: he wasn’t vetted at all, and it wouldn’t have mattered even if he had been.  Dems STILL cling to the idea that he’s some sort of genius even though he can barely order his wagyu and arugula without TOTUS.

          This election is shaping up to be VERY bad in that damned few people are going to vote FOR a candidate.  Rather, they’ll vote AGAINST the other guy.  I suspect that the GOP could choose a random name from the list of registered Republicans in Podunk County and he’d get every Republican vote just because Republicans detest Barry that much.  For their part, the dems MUST demonize the GOP candidate because Barry has been such a disaster that nobody in their right mind* would vote FOR four more years of his corrupt, feckless administration.

          A sad time for our country.


          (*) Yes, I know: the majority of democrat voters cannot be considered “in their right mind” at any time; otherwise, they wouldn’t be democrats in the first place.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, Cain apologists  probably feels blinded by love, or more generally their tribalism to the Republican brand, as Bruce Henry infers. And Jay still  insists Cain is being treated unfairly? It is Cain who seems completely unfair, vilifying  women who with corroborating professionals including Republican consultants, have described what Cain was really like from Cairo to Louisville. Of course Jay would rather believe what a  conservative politician says or writes  about himself, which no one apart from Republican appartachik, or those so blinded take seriously. I don`t  know anyone who knows anything about human nature or the male libido from Cain’s ilk, would have believed Cain over these women from the outset. Says perhaps how misoygynistic  or misguided most of those who see Cain still, as honorable and therefore wronged are? When he started demonizing his first accuser, that is when he lost!! What did he think would happen knowing all the women he ‘had hit upon’, (and may have succeeded) would do? Bill Clinton had his reputation damaged too, but had other attributes i.e he was a Govenor and knew something about foreign affairs.

       Jay talks about Dems getting off lightly,  but then there is Anita Hill ( and other women) versus Justice Douglas, the latter he also supports similarly. but Douglas wouldn’t have his video receipts disclosed., just like a lie detector test…You need another candidate Jay!

      • Anonymous

        Douglas??  Lay off the sauce buddy!! You mean “Thomas!”

        • Anonymous

          Douglas liked the ladies too.

  • Anonymous

    Whole scam is null and void however, i vote against the rino

  • Pingback: Cowardice or Culpability: Pick One | Daily Pundit()

  • Stupidest thing I have read all day. You idiots really beleive that Cain who paid off two women, called and texted one 61 times. THAT IS SIXTY ONE TIMES! admits his wife didn’t know about her, has 5 women accusing him and somehow he is innocent.

    You think Clinton was treated Oh so much better. My god you’d think Monica lewisnky was a name no one had ever heard. Why do I come here and subject myself to this shit. I know their are smart conservatives inthe world they are just not on this site.

    • Anonymous

      If paying off a woman is a sign of guilt- does that mean Bill Clinton is guilty of raping Juanita Broaddrick or that Clinton sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey?

      Clinton also was accused of misbehavior by:  Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, and Dolly Kyle Browning.  And don’t forget Clinton forcing a subordinate intern into sexual acts.  

      Clinton paid off Paula Jones $850,000 (to Cain’s $40,000 total for two women) so he must be 20 times as guilty as Cain. 

      By your standards of guilt, shouldn’t Hillary have to step down because she covered up her husband being a serial sexual predator and rapist?

      Finally, could you list the 5 women who accused Cain and what they said he did?  Only two that I can remember are named.

  • Anonymous

    The real issue is that right wingers are professional victims of the media. It’s the excuse for most of the failings of their candidates and their ideas.

    It’s actually kind of disgusting. Have some cheese with your whine(s)?