Cain campaign: We’re sticking with Mark Block

posted at 10:25 am on November 10, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Washington Times reporter Kerry Picket reached out to the Herman Cain campaign after an avalanche of criticism over the handling of the response to sexual harassment claims over the last two weeks, which increased markedly after campaign manager Mark Block falsely asserted that he had “confirmed” that one of the accusers was related to a Politico reporter.  The reporter had left Politico more than a year earlier, and turned out to be no relation to the accuser.  Despite calls for Block to leave the campaign from Tom Tancredo, a former Cain staffer, and conservative pundits (The Hill’s story also quotes me), Cain’s team says they will stick with Block:

A highly placed Cain source sent the Water Cooler an e-mail: “This is a hysterically funny rumor. The Inside the Beltway crowd is in the midst of a nervous breakdown regarding the success the Cain campaign is having with the American people. Mr. Cain believes in the old adage, ‘You continue to dance with the one that brung ya’ to the dance.’”

Loyalty is an admirable quality, but flat-out incompetence and the failure to correct it is not, especially in an executive.  Herman Cain may very well be innocent of these accusations, but Mark Block offered two unsubstantiated accusations in less than a week, both of which the campaign had to retract, in response to the allegations.  If Block went off the reservation to do that, the proper remedy for an executive would be to replace him immediately, especially after Block’s pompous declaration that he had “confirmed” that Josh Kraushaar worked for Politico and that he was Karen Kraushaar’s son.  Not only were neither true, a simple Google search would have shown that Josh Kraushaar works for National Journal, a competing publication, and has since 2010.

This is misguided loyalty, anyway.  Mark Block may have helped Herman Cain campaign, but Block didn’t “bring” Cain to the top of the polling.  Cain did that himself by convincing Republican voters that his executive skills are so excellent and his track record of rescue operations in the private sector so compelling that it validates a nomination for someone who has never won an election before now.  Cain’s refusal to deal with Block’s embarrassing performance undermines both of those arguments; if he can’t recognize when an adviser has become a detriment to his campaign’s credibility and recognize the crisis in front of him, what confidence will voters have in his ability to handle those tasks as President?  That is a valid concern for any primary candidate, but Cain’s unique pitch and resumé makes it a central issue for his candidacy.

Erick Erickson writes today that Cain needs to fire Block immediately, and to keep going until he’s cleaned house entirely:

It is abundantly obvious to a lot of us Herman that you are not living up to your own words. You said you would surround yourself with the best people — the competent people to help you.

Last week, J.D. Gordon had a disastrous performance on a Blackberry on Geraldo’s show. His performance set the tone for the Monday news shows, all of which pointed out that your own communications vice president would not deny the story.

Then Mark Block went on TV to blame Curt Anderson only to walk it back the next day.

This week, Mark Block again went on TV, said he had verified the identify of a reporter as the son of your accuser, and got it totally wrong. But he said it was verified. It was a lie.

Herman, you said you’d surround yourself with the best people and you’ve surrounded yourself with Class A failures. The problems you are facing are problems of campaign staffing. You’ve failed to live up to your own standard of hiring the best people.

I still believe you can win. But to do so, you must fire your staff and start over.

That should have already happened by now.  It should have happened with Block as soon as his “confirmed” assertion about Josh Kraushaar was proven utterly false.  The fact that Cain isn’t dealing with the problem is Cain’s biggest problem now.

Update: Cain’s defenders in the comments section are mainly saying that Cain doesn’t answer to media types like … Erick and me.  Well, of course not in the literal sense — we aren’t running his campaign.  But he’s running for President, which would make him accountable to everyone.  Furthermore, he wants to get our votes, and has to make the case that he’s competent enough to convince us.  I’m not dictating to Cain what he must do; I’m telling him what I think he should do if he wants to convince me that he’s serious and competent.

If the defense of Cain is that we’re being big meanies for pointing out his campaign failings, then I think we’re missing the point of having a primary process.  It’s not to glorify all candidates, or any of them.  It’s to pick the person with the best policies who has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in November 2012.  If this campaign keeps Mark Block on board after his misrepresentations, it’s not serious enough to warrant support.  In other words, to quote The Godfather, “It’s not personal, Sonny.  It’s business.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

were the final straw for me

Oops – I mean in my terms of support for Block – not Cain.

batter on November 10, 2011 at 1:16 PM

You can goggle it. Harry Belefonte among others, called both Condi and Colin Powell this epithet for working in the George W Bush administration. They didn’t get a pass.

Dr Evil on November 10, 2011 at 1:08 PM


Let’s not forget Belafontes doozie about Cain being a “bad apple” and a “false negro.”

We’re going to have a pretty robust list once this election is over with.

Demosthenes on November 10, 2011 at 1:27 PM

As for Block the topic of this post maybe the reason he’s staying is simple, because there is no one to replace him?

Dr Evil on November 10, 2011 at 1:04 PM

The establishment “consultants” won’t touch him with a 10 foot poll. Herman Cain scares the crap out of all of them and it’s their job to take him down because you just can’t have someone who’s not polished or an insider.

Rick Perry and Newts flat tax plans don’t really “fix” the tax code problem but just adds more layers of crap on top of the crap and confusion that’s already there. Herman’s 9-9-9, although flawed to some, literally strips away the IRS, hurts the tax attorney’s and I think that scares the crap out of “establishment” and the money grabbing lobbyists in D.C.

Knucklehead on November 10, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Cain said racism was behind the attacks on him. To some degree it is exactly that.

Well, congratu-freaking-lations!! You just gave Barrack Obama the stick he needs to beat up the GOP from here until St Swithun’s Day…

“Mr President, the GOP is criticizing you for your handling Fast and Furious. Any comment?”

“Well, that’s racism.”

“Do you have any evidence of racial animus behind these attacks?”

“Well, no, I don’t have any evidence. But look what they did to Herman Cain. Racism was behind those attacks too.”

Herman Cain made a very irresponsible accusation by allowing race to get tossed into the mixture. And once that sh!t gets stirred in, it’s mighty tough to stir it back out.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Btw: when is Herb gonna apologize to Perry for falsely accusing him of being the one who leaked things to politico?
*crickets*

annoyinglittletwerp

Right after Perry apologizes to Romney for saying he was the one who leaked it.

xblade on November 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM

also Mark Folley…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Mark Foley was not accused of sexual harassment. He was outted as a gay man for soliciting prostitution in a public bathroom. Try again.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM

You can goggle it. Harry Belefonte among others, called both Condi and Colin Powell this epithet for working in the George W Bush administration. They didn’t get a pass.

Dr Evil on November 10, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Harry Belafonte’s a loon, but mainstream??? his reach is probably within the 80s demographics, and those crazy, die-hard leftists most likely…besides, he’s a private individual not an institution, I am sure he can say whatever he wants, it’s for him to show himself for the bigot, idiot leftist he is…but whose opinion he informs really? …

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Mark Foley was not accused of sexual harassment. He was outted as a gay man for soliciting prostitution in a public bathroom. Try again.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM

really, genius??? try this below:

‘The Mark Foley scandal, which broke in late September 2006, centers on soliciting e-mails and sexually suggestive instant messages sent by Mark Foley, a Republican Congressman from Florida, to teenaged boys who had formerly served as congressional pages’…that is called sexual harassment…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Jimver, your desperate spinning to pretend there is no liberal racism involved is pathetic. Just admit you are wrong and move on.

Herman Cain made a very irresponsible accusation by allowing race to get tossed into the mixture. And once that sh!t gets stirred in, it’s mighty tough to stir it back out.

JohnGalt23

It’s fact whether or not you like it. Heck, even with obama there are some people that hate him just because of his race. Again, facts you may not like, but too bad.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM

oh, yeah, and another one for you, he was wahite too, and Democrat btw : Eric Massa…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Mark Foley was not accused of sexual harassment. He was outted as a gay man for soliciting prostitution in a public bathroom. Try again.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I’m thinking you may have Mark Foley confused with Larry Craig.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Well, congratu-freaking-lations!! You just gave Barrack Obama the stick he needs to beat up the GOP from here until St Swithun’s Day…

Right….I mean, it’s not like they haven’t been swinging that stick for 3-4 years now or anything, lol.

xblade on November 10, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I’m thinking you may have Mark Foley confused with Larry Craig.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I stand corrected. But the essence of my argument remains the same: Mark Foley was accused of soliciting house pages via text messaging. He was not accused of “sexual harassment.”

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM

oh, yeah, and another one for you, he was wahite too, and Democrat btw : Eric Massa…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Massa? I had to look that one up. Is that what you consider “tried in the press?” You set the bar awfully low for that assertion. We’ll be talking about Herman Cain’s 2012 presidential bid long after Massa is a footnote in a college history textbook.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:42 PM

It’s fact whether or not you like it. Heck, even with obama there are some people that hate him just because of his race. Again, facts you may not like, but too bad.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Trouble distinguishing between facts and speculation I see…

________________________________________________________________

Fact: The NRA settled two claims of sexual harrassment made against their CEO in the late 1990′s for monetary amounts, termination, and NDA’s. Fact.

Speculation: Herman Cain grabbed their junk.

________________________________________________________________

Fact: Sharon Bialek has twice filed for bankruptcy.

Speculation: Sharon Bialek is coming forward for money.

________________________________________________________________

Fact: Herman Cain is black.

Speculation: Herman Cain is getting unfavorable media coverage because he is black.

________________________________________________________________

Starting to see the difference?

Starting to see why Herman claims of racism are irresponsible?

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 1:44 PM

It’s fact whether or not you like it. Heck, even with obama there are some people that hate him just because of his race. Again, facts you may not like, but too bad.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I agree with that, I never said that there are not racially motivated attacks on candidates, from the left or right. and yes, there were racilly-tinted and not too flattering pics of obama on obscure conservative websites…but you want to tell me that had they had this sex scandal on any white republican candidate/male,they wouldn’t have given them the same treatment as they did to Cain??? seriously? I really am incredulous that someone can actually believe this…say, it was Perry or Romney that they had this kind of dirt on…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:45 PM

‘The Mark Foley scandal, which broke in late September 2006, centers on soliciting e-mails and sexually suggestive instant messages sent by Mark Foley, a Republican Congressman from Florida, to teenaged boys who had formerly served as congressional pages’…that is called sexual harassment…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Um, not so much. “Sexual harassment” would have occurred if Mark Foley offered them a job or promotion for accepting his advances, or denied them such for refusing them. I had Mark Foley confused with Larry Craig, but in Foley’s instance it’s not even clear that a crime, let alone an actionable tort, was alleged.

Lots of white men have been accused of “sexual impropriety” of one sort or another. Newt Gingrich is a perfect example of that. But I’m not talking about sexual impropriety. I’m asking you specifically how many white men have been tried in the court of public opinion for specific allegations of sexual harassment. You’ll have to stretch the definitions of “tried in the press” and “sexual harassment” pretty damn far in order to come up with something.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Bah… my last post (this page) seems to be moderation queue limbo.

Demosthenes on November 10, 2011 at 1:46 PM

That sounds really good. Using debate and dialogue to convince someone your position is the correct one. I understand now.

a capella on November 10, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Yes, that’s the correct way when you’re dealing with rational people who are actually interested in such things.

But as HondaV65 has made clear, Perry and his supporters are out to destroy Cain and will do anything necessary to get it.

You can bet Perry will work behind the scenes to destroy Cain and good on him if he does that!

HondaV65 on November 10, 2011 at 10:54 AM

That’s not a rational response on their part.

It is the Israel point: you cannot negotiate for your life with people who don’t recognize your right to exist. Since they are not going to stop until you are dead, your only choice is to either die or eliminate them as a threat.

Since Perry’s supporters are not going to stop until they destroy Cain, and refuse to listen to reason, debate and dialogue are inappropriate.

northdallasthirty on November 10, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Mark Foley was accused of soliciting house pages via text messaging. He was not accused of “sexual harassment.”

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Were it not for the fact that Congress exempts itself from laws/regulations against such activity (and many other activites), I would think that what Foley did could be considered the most obvious form of sexual harrassment.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 1:47 PM

I agree with that, I never said that there are not racially motivated attacks on candidates, from the left or right. and yes, there were racilly-tinted and not too flattering pics of obama on obscure conservative websites…but you want to tell me that had they had this sex scandal on any white republican candidate/male,they wouldn’t have given them the same treatment as they did to Cain??? seriously? I really am incredulous that someone can actually believe this…say, it was Perry or Romney that they had this kind of dirt on…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I’ll say it again: They don’t “have anything” on Cain. They lied about him. Period. And no, I don’t believe they would have trotted out “sexual harassment” against a white candidate. They have other lies for whit3y, like Perry’s racist “n!ggerhead” rock.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Were it not for the fact that Congress exempts itself from laws/regulations against such activity (and many other activites), I would think that what Foley did could be considered the most obvious form of sexual harrassment.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Prior to the Anita Hill debacle, that would have depended on if Foley had offered them jobs/promotions for accepting his advances, or denied them such for refusing his advances. Now, “harassment” is whatever makes someone feel uncomfortable.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:48 PM

My post lives!

Thanks, Ed.

Demosthenes on November 10, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Prior to the Anita Hill debacle, that would have depended on if Foley had offered them jobs/promotions for accepting his advances, or denied them such for refusing his advances. Now, “harassment” is whatever makes someone feel uncomfortable.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:48 PM

I think the legal argument might go somehting like: Due to the vast differential in their realitive power within the institution, any sexual advance by a Congressman to a page/intern can be interpreted as leveraging that power differential to coerce the page/intern in sex.

Whether I agree with that stance or not, I suspect that is how the argument would go. And there is no small amount of persuasiveness in it.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 1:54 PM

I think the legal argument might go somehting like: Due to the vast differential in their realitive power within the institution, any sexual advance by a Congressman to a page/intern can be interpreted as leveraging that power differential to coerce the page/intern in sex.

Whether I agree with that stance or not, I suspect that is how the argument would go. And there is no small amount of persuasiveness in it.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 1:54 PM

It’s not just in Congress that those kinds of arguments are made. That sort of debate takes place in courtrooms constantly. But we’re not in a courtroom this time, and in the court of public opinion the jurors aren’t held to any standards of evidence — for better or worse.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Um, not so much. “Sexual harassment” would have occurred if Mark Foley offered them a job or promotion for accepting his advances, or denied them such for refusing them. I had Mark Foley confused with Larry Craig, but in Foley’s instance it’s not even clear that a crime, let alone an actionable tort, was alleged.

Lots of white men have been accused of “sexual impropriety” of one sort or another. Newt Gingrich is a perfect example of that. But I’m not talking about sexual impropriety. I’m asking you specifically how many white men have been tried in the court of public opinion for specific allegations of sexual harassment. You’ll have to stretch the definitions of “tried in the press” and “sexual harassment” pretty damn far in order to come up with something.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:45 PM

hahaha, really? does Clinton ring a bell?? and I rest my case…and yes he was white and a notorious womanizer and a democrat, and a president and pretty sure male too…btw, am sure Clinton was a much more known public figure than Cain lol :)….

as for this: ‘Sexual harassment” would have occurred if Mark Foley offered them a job or promotion for accepting his advances, or denied them such for refusing them’…

yeah, that’s your idea of sexual harassment…it sounds directly from Clinton’s little book of sexual horros :-)…remember that infamous ‘define sexual relationship’ :-)….

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Since Perry’s supporters are not going to stop until they destroy Cain, and refuse to listen to reason, debate and dialogue are inappropriate.

northdallasthirty on November 10, 2011 at 1:47 PM

You don’t get to respond to one person, in this thread, and pretend he represents all Perry supporters, he represent’s himself. Accusing all Perry supporters of doing the same thing is dishonest.

Dr Evil on November 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM

hahaha, really? does Clinton ring a bell?? and I rest my case…and yes he was white and a notorious womanizer and a democrat, and a president and pretty sure male too…btw, am sure Clinton was a much more known public figure than Cain lol :)….

as for this: ‘Sexual harassment” would have occurred if Mark Foley offered them a job or promotion for accepting his advances, or denied them such for refusing them’…

yeah, that’s your idea of sexual harassment…it sounds directly from Clinton’s little book of sexual horros :-)…remember that infamous ‘define sexual relationship’ :-)….

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Again, Clinton wasn’t tried in the press. They press actively covered for him until the blue dress was tested. I’m not asserting that white men never get accused of sexual harassment. I’m asserting that I am aware of no white man who ever got treatment from the press like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain have on the basis of painfully flimsy sexual harassment allegations.

As it stands, your arguments are so full of non-sequitur, I could put you in a bucket and use you as chum for the Oxford Club sharks.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Speculation: Herman Cain is getting unfavorable media coverage because he is black.

Fact: That is not what Cain or myself have said.
Fact: Liberals are going after him for having left their plantation. In other words, liberal racism.

Fact: They are also going after him because he is currently the front runner.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:01 PM

You don’t get to respond to one person, in this thread, and pretend he represents all Perry supporters, he represent’s himself. Accusing all Perry supporters of doing the same thing is dishonest.

Dr Evil on November 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I believe he quoted that Perry himself is out to destroy Cain as well.

Meanwhile, feel free to smack him down yourself. The Cain supporters have done an excellent job on this thread of calling for people to keep racism out of things. Perry supporters could learn a thing or two from that about being able to criticize their own candidate and other supporters.

northdallasthirty on November 10, 2011 at 2:07 PM

At the very least Cain has made some (unwanted) passes on a bunch of women.

echosyst

He has? When did this come out, because apparently I missed it.

That wasn’t tried in the media, idiot. The media actively tried to cover it up until they no longer could thanks to the stellar reporting of the National Enquirer. Try again.

gryphon202

More importantly, it had nothing to do with sexual harassment.

oh, and how about Eliott Spitzer, genius???…another sex scandal of a ;white man’ covered to great detail in the media…

jimver

Maybe you shouldn’t question anyone’s intellectual capabilities considering the shortcomings of your own. She didn’t say anything about sex scandals, she asked about white guys accused of sexual harassment, which doesn’t apply to John Edwards or Elliot Spitzer.

xblade on November 10, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Fact: Liberals are going after him for having left their plantation. In other words, liberal racism.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Fact, huh?

Perhaps you’d care to attach a name to these “liberals” who are “going after him”.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Again, Clinton wasn’t tried in the press. They press actively covered for him until the blue dress was tested. As it stands, your arguments are so full of non-sequitur, I could put you in a bucket and use you as chum for the Oxford Club sharks.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Clinton wasn’t tried in the press???…ever heard of Drudge, genius :-)…it’s what made it what it is today…check the press (both electronic and print) of that time, and you might disocver that you lived in a parallel universe all this while…that or you really are completely delusional…

good to know that you think your argument is logical, you are probably the only one who thinks that anyways…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 2:13 PM

It’s not just in Congress that those kinds of arguments are made. That sort of debate takes place in courtrooms constantly. But we’re not in a courtroom this time, and in the court of public opinion the jurors aren’t held to any standards of evidence — for better or worse.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 1:56 PM

I agree it’s not just in Congress… just that Congress most likely has exempted itself from action for any such cause. Which would explain why Mark Foley never has “harrassment” attached to him. It was more the propriety of picking up young men in the halls of Congress that sank him.

But had Mark Foley done exactly the same thing as a mid-manager at Pillsbury, I think we would be calling that sexual harrassment.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Johngalt (facepalm)

How about looking at the news stations in the LSM that is reporting on this? Did you really think that was a clever response?

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:13 PM

How about looking at the news stations in the LSM that is reporting on this? Did you really think that was a clever response?

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:13 PM

And once again, find me one… ONE… of these outlets that didn;t cream Gingrich, a white man, in 1998.

Face it. Race has nothing to do with it, and Cain was irresponsible for stirring it in.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Clinton wasn’t tried in the press???…ever heard of Drudge, genius :-)…it’s what made it what it is today…check the press (both electronic and print) of that time, and you might disocver that you lived in a parallel universe all this while…that or you really are completely delusional…

good to know that you think your argument is logical, you are probably the only one who thinks that anyways…

jimver

Your memory is deliberately selective. They protected him until the release of the info didn’t matter. You know, until AFTER he was elected? You need to admit you were wrong and move on. This is like clubbing a baby seal for us.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Right after Perry apologizes to Romney for saying he was the one who leaked it.

xblade on November 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Or after the Witness Wilson apologizes to the Cain camp.

kringeesmom on November 10, 2011 at 2:17 PM

And once again, find me one… ONE… of these outlets that didn;t cream Gingrich, a white man, in 1998.

Face it. Race has nothing to do with it, and Cain was irresponsible for stirring it in.

JohnGalt23

Now I’m just laughing. Because they went after Newt it proves beyond all doubt that liberal racism has nothing to do with them going after Cain? Too funny. I’ve seen you make a lot of stupid posts, but that one has to be in the top 10.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Clinton wasn’t tried in the press???…ever heard of Drudge, genius :-)…it’s what made it what it is today…check the press (both electronic and print) of that time, and you might disocver that you lived in a parallel universe all this while…that or you really are completely delusional…

good to know that you think your argument is logical, you are probably the only one who thinks that anyways…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Um, I wouldn’t characterize that as being “tried in the press.” It was reporting of evidence against Clinton during an ongoing court action (re: Paula Jones). But now we’re blurring the line between assertion and opinion.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 2:24 PM

This is like clubbing a baby seal for us.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:17 PM

who is ‘us’, a collective mind of sorts?…that figures…Galt pointed in one of his posts above to Newt’s case too… I supposed media gave him a pass and protected him too, he wasn’t ‘publicly tried in the press’ as a white male candidate as opoosed to a black one?…’collective’ doesn’t necessarily means better informed or smarter…just the gang mentality…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 2:25 PM

And once again, find me one… ONE… of these outlets that didn;t cream Gingrich, a white man, in 1998.

Face it. Race has nothing to do with it, and Cain was irresponsible for stirring it in.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 2:16 PM

And Gingrich wasn’t accused of sexual harassment either. He was accused of serial infidelity, which incidentally did turn out to be true. but whatevs.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I see Jimver. The fact there is more than one of us showing how pathetic your arguments are somehow invalidates what we say?

Too funny.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Because they went after Newt it proves beyond all doubt that liberal racism has nothing to do with them going after Cain? Too funny. I’ve seen you make a lot of stupid posts, but that one has to be in the top 10.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Oh, so I’m supposed to prove… not to the preponderance of the evidence… not to beyond a reasonable doubt.. but in fact to beyond all doubt that charges that history has proven in the cases of Bill O’Reilly, Bill Clinton, Bob Packwood, Mark Foley and others to arouse the ire of the press, are in fact, not inspired by the color of ol’ Herm’s skin?

Go

To

Bed!!

You’ve clearly had enough.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 2:28 PM

And Gingrich wasn’t accused of sexual harassment either. He was accused of serial infidelity, which incidentally did turn out to be true. but whatevs.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 2:26 PM

And Bill O’Reilly? Bob Packwood?

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Ummmm John YOU claimed there was no racism involved. How about proving it?
I gave examples showing how it was. The fact you can’t face facts isn’t my problem.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Ummmm John YOU claimed there was no racism involved. How about proving it?
I gave examples showing how it was. The fact you can’t face facts isn’t my problem.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:32 PM

You gave no facts. You can’t tell the difference between facts and specualtion. You’ve proven that.

And yes, that press outlets that are tearing Herman Cain apart for allegations of sexual harrassment did the same thing to white men like Bill O’Reilly and Bob Packwood is, in fact evidence that this isn’t about race.

Now, you implied it shold be proven beyond all doubt. That’s ridiculous. But apparently you don’t know that.

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 2:37 PM

I’m holding you to your standard.Unsurprising a newt-bot can’t meet what they set.
I showed you examples of how liberals act towards black Conservatives. You know you are wrong and cannot admit it and I know this is SOP for you.
Like I said before, Herman Cain’s race is a factor in the left’s attack on him. I know this and so do you.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Cain had a real opportunity to not only look like a decisive leader, but also to take a big step toward putting this behind him by getting rid of Block.

What now of the argument that an inexperienced Cain will surround himself with the best and the brightest? People who actually know what they are doing? Block is a shoot-first, ask questions later buffoon.

We’ve already got a “loyal” guy in the WH, who sticks with his buddies, regardless of competence. And isn’t that working out well?

Meredith on November 10, 2011 at 2:43 PM

northdallasthirty on November 10, 2011 at 2:07 PM

He has a right to his opinion, and point of view – you don’t get to tar and feather all Perry supporters with one Perry supporters comments. Who are “All” these Perry supporters you keep referring to when you respond to the same poster over and over again? Attributing things to them I haven’t read any of them state.

Dr Evil on November 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Well, people wanted a nonpolitician and here it is. Loyalty is not something one finds too much of in politics.

This isn’t a big issue, just as Perry’s flub isn’t a big issue. Sure they can make an ad out of it, but so can Perry make an ad over Obama’s flubs.

People get too caught up in the superficials rather than what the basics are: Are these men able to do the job? All that goes with it? If it’s yes, then they deserve our support.

kim roy on November 10, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Now, you implied it shold be proven beyond all doubt. That’s ridiculous. But apparently you don’t know that.

JohnGalt23

Ummm no, you have. You have claimed that liberal racism has nothing to do with it 100%. I’ve proven otherwise.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:45 PM

This certainly doesn’t help Herman Cain. In fact, it reflects much more poorly on Mr Cain than the sex allegations. It undermines one of the core rationales for his candidacy.

Part of the justification for entertaining a man with little political experience is the assumption that, as a good executive, he would surround himself with the good personnel that are the hidden backbone of any successful administration.

If Cain doesn’t take this propensity to make unsubstantiated accusations seriously, it means he has a cronyism problem, along with this “highly placed source” who disrespectfully categorizes conservatives across the country as “the Beltway media.”

HitNRun on November 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Clinton wasn’t tried in the press???…ever heard of Drudge, genius :-)…it’s what made it what it is today…check the press (both electronic and print) of that time, and you might disocver that you lived in a parallel universe all this while…that or you really are completely delusional…

good to know that you think your argument is logical, you are probably the only one who thinks that anyways…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Um, I wouldn’t characterize that as being “tried in the press.” It was reporting of evidence against Clinton during an ongoing court action (re: Paula Jones). But now we’re blurring the line between assertion and opinion.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 2:24 PM

gryphon is totally correct.

The Press sat on the story (see “Newsweek”) and only “reported” it after Drudge broke it.

And they were guilty of plenty of covering up for Clinton after they were forced to break the story. And would have happily continued to do so if not for the Blue Dress.

One favorite example is how the Democrat Media never once mentioned that Clinton’s own Justice Department had a few years earlier successfully prosecuted a female Federal employee for lying under oath about sex.

And let’s not forget how that Democrat Media turned Ken Starr into Satan Incarnate.

From wiki:

Rick Kaplan served as president of CNN from 1997 to 2000. He is a personal friend, since 1977, of Bill Clinton, who was President of the United States during Kaplan’s tenure. According to the Media Research Center, Kaplan’s friendship, and political affinity, with Clinton affected the way the network covered the Monica Lewinsky scandal: “As the Lewinsky scandal broke, Kaplan leapt into action at CNN with two-hour specials attacking any and all Clinton critics. The programs included ‘Media Madness,’ which asked ‘what the hell are you people doing’ probing Bill Clinton’s sex life?; and ‘Investigating the Investigator,’ which described Ken Starr as ‘suspect’ over his ‘religious and Republican roots.’”

That’s not trying Clinton in the Press, it’s Trying the guy appointed to investigate him as if he’s the Guilty Party.

Del Dolemonte on November 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Loyalty is good whwn it’s deserved. That doesn’t seem to be the case with Block.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM

That’s not trying Clinton in the Press, it’s Trying the guy appointed to investigate him as if he’s the Guilty Party.

Del Dolemonte

Thank you. I remember that. Let’s not forget the story didn’t really break until long after he was safely elected.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:53 PM

And Bill O’Reilly? Bob Packwood?

JohnGalt23 on November 10, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Again, neither of those gentlemen I would assert as having been “tried in the press.” YMMV.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Loyalty is good whwn it’s deserved. That doesn’t seem to be the case with Block.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Very true. I’m about to the point myself where I’d like to see Block get removed from any and all positions of prominence within the Cain campaign. Unfortunately, I think that would just add more fuel to the media fire.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 3:25 PM

I still can’t get past the fact that Bialek lives in Axelrod’s building.

And before Allah descends, yes, it is THAT Axelrod. She was asked about it here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/08/cain_accuser_lives_in_same_building_as_david_axelrod.html

(It’s her former attorney David Axelrod who is not THAT Axelrod.)

Missy on November 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I still can’t get past the fact that Bialek lives in Axelrod’s building.

Missy on November 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM

which proves beyond doubt that it’s a grand left-wing conspiracy…and did I mention ‘white’ too…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM

which proves beyond doubt that it’s a grand left-wing conspiracy…and did I mention ‘white’ too…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM

…and I give just as much credence to the “grand left-wing conspiracy” theory as I do the idea that Herman Cain is a confirmed liar.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 3:52 PM

which proves beyond doubt that it’s a grand left-wing conspiracy…and did I mention ‘white’ too…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Of course it doesn’t prove anything of the sort. Do not put words in my mouth.

Missy on November 10, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Let’s not forget the story didn’t really break until long after he was safely elected.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 2:53 PM

…I cannot argue with you there, the ‘story’ should have been outed and covered by the press in its inception phase, when it was only a dirty thought in Clintont’s mind…thus sparing the rest of the world the ensuing so-little-covered-by-the-press Clinton sexual scandal and the whole impeachment process that followed :-)…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Loyalty to a Blockheaded campaign manager who does your campaign damage on an almost daily basis is not an admirable quality in my estimation. All it does is suggest to me yet again that Cain isn’t taking this seriously and is in the race for reasons other than taking the nomination and presidency.

It’s not just Block’s clumsy ineptitude. The campaign is being looked at for campaign law violations. It seems Block may have diverted money from his non-profit to pay campaign expenses. Activities much like that got him a three-year suspension from running campaigns in Wisconsin. He’s also had trouble with the IRS and two DUI arrests.

He’s a lousy campaign manager with a checkered history and undeserving of loyalty.

SukieTawdry on November 10, 2011 at 3:54 PM

It’s to pick the person with the best policies who has the best chance of beating Barack Obama in November 2012

Hey Ed, I think as a die hard McCain supporter you’re the last person I would ever think to listen to about picking the best people for anything. McCain never had any real chance of winning; yet you championed him over others, despite his abhorrent track record. You present yourself as a conservative, but if you actually believe what you said about McCain that makes you a sellout or shows a rather large gap in judgment about what constitutes a good candidate.

I wouldn’t like being lectured about how to be a good husband by Bill Clinton, and I don’t think I want to be lectured by a John McCain shill about what constitutes choosing the best candidate for an election.

austinnelly on November 10, 2011 at 3:59 PM

which proves beyond doubt that it’s a grand left-wing conspiracy…and did I mention ‘white’ too…

jimver on November 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Good thing that Cain doesn’t have to prove his innocence or something.

Heh.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 4:01 PM

I wouldn’t like being lectured about how to be a good husband by Bill Clinton, and I don’t think I want to be lectured by a John McCain shill about what constitutes choosing the best candidate for an election.

austinnelly on November 10, 2011 at 3:59 PM

So, why are you here?

DarkCurrent on November 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

What a hill for a campaign to die on…

SuperCool on November 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

What does Block have on him?

Ronnie on November 10, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Cain campaign: We’re sticking with Mark Block

Of course you are … he’s no dumber than the candidate or the rest of the staff.

What does Block have on him?

Ronnie on November 10, 2011 at 8:32 PM

The truth, I’m guessing.

Jaibones on November 10, 2011 at 8:41 PM

I still can’t get past the fact that Bialek lives in Axelrod’s building.

Missy on November 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM

You should try harder. Meanwhile, I suggest you look up “Lake Point Tower” in Chicago, and then tell us all about how Bialek and Axelrod are hatching plots by the pool.

The building has about as many people as Memphis.

Jaibones on November 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM

You should try harder. Meanwhile, I suggest you look up “Lake Point Tower” in Chicago, and then tell us all about how Bialek and Axelrod are hatching plots by the pool.

The building has about as many people as Memphis.

Jaibones on November 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM

We (Cain supporters) have about as much evidence of a leftist conspiracy as you (Cain detractors) have that Cain did anything inappropriate at all, ever. So nice try there.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I’m glad he’s keeping him. I’d miss him if he left now! He’ll continue helping Cain’s numbers drop (and yes, they are dropping; just check out RCP), so I won’t complain.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 10, 2011 at 9:37 PM

I’m glad he’s keeping him. I’d miss him if he left now! He’ll continue helping Cain’s numbers drop (and yes, they are dropping; just check out RCP), so I won’t complain.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 10, 2011 at 9:37 PM

That’s just mean!

AsianGirlInTights on November 10, 2011 at 9:42 PM

This is a big mistake, I predict it will hurt his campaign more than all of the women put together.

kg598301 on November 10, 2011 at 9:57 PM

999 is a joke, Cain’s foreign policy is a joke and his campaign’s impotence in taking on these smears are a joke; especially when they tried to shift the blame to the Perry campaign using the same vague innuendo Politico used in the original hit piece. Real classy there guys.

This field stinks.

Gingrich 2012

Daemonocracy on November 10, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Heck, even with obama there are some people that hate him just because of his race. Again, facts you may not like, but too bad.

Hard Right on November 10, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Which race would that be, you pathetic loser? The black Kenyan, the white Kansan, or the brown Arab?

Criticism of a candidate for President with two acknowledged sexual harassment settlements by his previous employer should not be terribly unexpected, and would not seem to have anything to do with race.

Another race-victim duped by the Democrats.

Jaibones on November 10, 2011 at 10:57 PM

We (Cain supporters) have about as much evidence of a leftist conspiracy as you (Cain detractors) have that Cain did anything inappropriate at all, ever. So nice try there.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 9:35 PM

How many times has one of your employers paid off another employee as a result of her accusation that you grabbed her junk? That strikes me as credible “evidence”. “So nice try there.”

Jaibones on November 10, 2011 at 11:00 PM

How many times has one of your employers paid off another employee as a result of her accusation that you grabbed her junk? That strikes me as credible “evidence”. “So nice try there.”

Jaibones on November 10, 2011 at 11:00 PM

You need to read Thomas Sowell’s column on the matter. He’s more articulate than I am. And I stand by my statement. If a $45,000 payment makes Sowell suspect, then I believe Kraushaar’s financial problems and suspect financial history make her just as suspect in my eyes. You can cherry-pick all you want, but there you go.

gryphon202 on November 10, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I am a huge fan of Sowell, and I did read his opinion. But others have made that point already, that an eloquent black conservative is the greatest threat to the Democrat-black-vote-plantation, and I have been making that point for 10 years here in Chicago, where the Chicago Tribune simply refuses to print the work of black conservatives, ever, which I believe is based in a fear that their stable of talentless black liberal-DNC hacks would look silly by comparison.

The point is valid and worthy, and I agree with it. I just don’t think it has any application to this case. Coulter’s suggestion that one of the four women accusers lives in “David Axelrod’s apartment building” is hilarious…the building is Lake Point Tower. I mocked that there are more residents in LPT than in Memphis. It’s huge.

And it isn’t that the Democrats and Axelrod are above this — they aren’t. They are the sleaziest scum in political history; they are a RICO organization. And maybe one of their tools did expose these records — but they didn’t create them; they already existed. And only a fool with delusions of grandeur would think he can just bluster his way out of this the way Cain has.

You guys should really deal with the facts of this situation — Cain had two subordinates leave his company after making credible and serious allegations of sexual misconduct against him, such that organization management agreed to pay them each settlements. This is exceedingly rare, and is an indictment all by itself. And all of his supporters’ worship of him (for what reason I cannot fathom) will not change that 10 year old fact.

Jaibones on November 11, 2011 at 6:37 AM

Right after Perry apologizes to Romney for saying he was the one who leaked it.

xblade on November 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM

He doesn’t have to. Here’s what Ray Sullivan of Perry’s campaign actually said:

“I wouldn’t put it past them,” he said, stating that blog posts have noted that Cain’s successor at the Restaurant Association “is a big Romney donor.”

“There are much closer connections between the Restaurant Association, Cain and the Romney camp than there are with us,” he said.”

All did was suggest that since Perry didn’t leak it, Cain might want to look elsewhere for someone to blame, and stated why.

kg598301 on November 11, 2011 at 6:58 AM

Well that’s it for me, Herb is officially off my list. Perry is still my #1 pick, Newt is now #2. I will only vote for Romney if he’s the sole alternative to BO.

kg598301 on November 11, 2011 at 9:19 AM

(It’s her former attorney David Axelrod who is not THAT Axelrod.)

Missy on November 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM

FYI: He wasn’t HER attorney. He was the attorney suing her at one point.

MadisonConservative on November 11, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3