Cain’s wife: My husband respects women

posted at 12:10 pm on November 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Gloria Cain has broken her silence on allegations against her husband and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual misconduct while at the National Restaurant Association. Mrs. Cain will appear on Greta van Susteren’s On the Record tonight in a prerecorded interview, insisting that “my husband respects women,” and that he would have to have a “split personality” for these charges to be true. Fox has offered a preview of Mrs. Cain’s remarks, which other news services have also picked up:


Gloria Cain, wife of Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, says claims of sex harassment against her husband left her wondering who his accusers are talking about.

“To hear such graphic allegations and know that that would have been something that was totally disrespectful of her as a woman, and I know that’s not the person he is. He totally respects women,” Gloria Cain told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren in an interview that will air Monday night at 10 p.m. ET.

Four women have accused the businessman of sexually harassing them when he led the National Restaurant Association between 1996-1999. The most recent accuser, Sharon Bialek, is the only one to go on record publicly.

“I looked at especially this last lady and the things that she said, and I’m thinking, ‘He would have to have a split personality to do the things that she said,’” Gloria Cain said of Bialek.

Cain could use the support. According to a new poll — sponsored in part by Politico, the news outlet that broke the story about two severance packages at NRA allegedly related to sexual harassment — the charges are starting to erode his standing in the race, although he still leads in the survey:

Herman Cain sits atop the Republican presidential field in the new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll released Monday.

A deeper look at the numbers, however, suggests recently revealed past sexual harassment claims against Cain have caused some voters to reconsider their support. A high-profile press conference held by one accuser, Sharon Bialek, and her attorney Gloria Allred last Monday seems to have been a tipping point.

Among likely Republican voters surveyed Sunday, Nov. 6, Cain led the field with 40 percent. On Monday, he was third with 22 percent. By Wednesday, just 19 percent of those surveyed said they supported Cain for the nomination.

“It does appear that the stories are certainly hurting him,” said Republican pollster Ed Goeas of The Tarrance Group, who helped conduct the bipartisan poll. “As this moves forward, I think it does become more and more a deal-breaker.”

Unfortunately for Cain, his wife’s appearance might get trumped by a press conference in Shreveport, Louisiana, being called by Bialek attorney Gloria Allred. Allred claims that a “witness” has come forward to support Bialek’s allegation:

A new witness in the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal has hired powerhouse attorney, Gloria Allred, and will be holding a press conference on Monday afternoon in Shreveport, Louisiana, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting. …

The new witness is a pediatrician, and a former boyfriend of Bialek’s. The doctor was with Bialek when he met Cain. Bialek told her then-boyfriend that Cain had inappropriately touched her shortly after the alleged incident took place in Washington D.C. Cain has said, “I don’t even know who this woman is.”

That’s not a witness in the sense of corroborating the actual incident. It’s more of a character witness that can attest that Bialek didn’t just make up the story recently, assuming one believes the “witness.” In that sense, it sounds quite a bit like the Anita Hill inquiry, where people who actually worked with Clarence Thomas attested to his character and acquaintances of Hill attested to contemporaneous comments about the allegations. It extends the he-said-she-said aspect of the allegations but doesn’t actually settle much, in a legal sense anyway.

How about the political sense? As Matt Lewis found out yesterday on Howard Kurtz’ Reliable Sources, no one is apparently allowed to question whether the allegations are actually true:

In other words, the reliable sources in the media will assume Cain’s guilt and report from that perspective, and any suggestion that we wait to see what proof gets offered is almost literally unheard of in polite media circles. I’m pretty sure Matt must have felt as though he’d fallen down the rabbit hole at the end of this segment:

By citing the “stained blue dress” — which, as Howard Kurtz rightly pointed out is a very high burden of proof — I may have given the wrong impression. Perhaps a better example would have been the pictures of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap, aboard the “Monkey Business”? Regardless, my point is that unless or until the public is presented with some sort of tangible evidence — a picture, a receipt, a witness … something! — Cain may be damaged by the allegations, but will likely not be destroyed.

The proper assumption for journalists — it occurs to me — is to say we simply don’t know if Cain is innocent or guilty. This is not to say that one can never come to a conclusion prior to a court decision. I think, for example, most everyone assumes former Penn State coach Gary Sandusky did what he is alleged to have done. But Cain’s situation is entirely different. And in such situations, it is prudent to treat both sides with respect. But it is fair to be skeptical of both sides. What one should not do, however, is to simply assume Cain is guilty.

Unless one has something to gain from doing otherwise, I’d agree.

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

My husband respects women

as much as W.C. Fields loved children.
Eh, this is a distraction from his many gaffes, contradictions, & vague debate answers.

itsnotaboutme on November 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Classy lady. Wouldn’t mind seeing her as FLOTUS if Herman would just get his crap together on something besides 9-9-9.

a capella on November 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM

She is clearly an ignorant black woman who isn’t authentically black or else she wouldn’t have blinders on about her husbands true nature. So says the media.

/

csdeven on November 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Cain is a victim of the racist Democrat party. :)

tx2654 on November 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Cain could use the support. According to a new poll — sponsored in part by Politico

I stopped reading the poll information right there. Can we have poll that shows how bad Politico got hurt with this hit job?

Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I feel bad for Gloria Cain. She’s being conned with the rest of the Cain cult.

She doesn’t even know her husband. Remember, she lived in Omaha while he was partying in DC every night for 3 years

And while he’s constantly traveling, she remains home.

Poor woman.

bigred on November 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Tomorrow, Allred will find the pubic hair on the coke can.

It will be the headline on Politico for the next three months.

Rebar on November 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM

The new witness is a pediatrician, and a former boyfriend of Bialek’s. The doctor was with Bialek when he met Cain. Bialek told her then-boyfriend that Cain had inappropriately touched her

Money quote is highlighted. Total hearsay.

ConservativePartyNow on November 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Bialek told her then-boyfriend that Cain had inappropriately touched her shortly after the alleged incident took place in Washington D.C

Wow. That’s some really important “witness” they got there.

/

mankai on November 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM

And in such situations, it is prudent to treat both sides with respect. But it is fair to be skeptical of both sides. What one should not do, however, is to simply assume Cain is guilty.

We should all act accordingly so let’s judge Cain’s accusers fairly. We should also realize that if Cain hadn’t botched the response to the SH charges and had a plan to deal with them we wouldn’t be getting this drip, drip, drip of evidence.

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM

No reference to baking cookies, or a veiled reference to Tammy Wynette from Mrs. Cain?

SouthernGent on November 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM

And while he’s constantly traveling, she remains home.

Poor woman.

bigred on November 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Yeah, I can’t stand to be away from my wife for a day.

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM

The opportunistic bimbos will be the least of Mr. Cain’s challenges.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM

A new witness in the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal has hired powerhouse attorney, Gloria Allred, and will be holding a press conference on Monday afternoon in Shreveport, Louisiana, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting. …

Why does one need to hire an expensive attorney to hold a press conference? And why spend your money if you aren’t going to get something in return?

rbj on November 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM

They need to open up those NRA files and release them. I can guarantee you that the low settlement amounts meant that there was little to no credibility of either accuser; they were niusance agreements and they were rampant in the 1990′s. Rampant.

Bialek looks like a tramp.

Key West Reader on November 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Where are the stories from the guy Bialek said she is living with that she is not??? Haven’t seen them anywhere..cept the GreenRoom…

kringeesmom on November 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

The Bialik 1.0 was that she shared no details with Doctor shack-up about Cain’s hand roaming up towards her genitals while her head was bowed down by force towards his black cock.

Will version 2.0 change that?

No matter, the word picture will be re-broadcast ad infinitum until the white men are ashamed of letting lusty black men steal their blue eyed blondes using money power.

The Leo Frank case in 1914 in Atlanta was a similar frame job using the same myths as proof.

jimw on November 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Obviously, she’s the best character witness for Cain. What about Mrs. Cain being a registered Democrat?

conservative pilgrim on November 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Yeah: Bialek told somebody something while she was setting up to get a payout. (possibly because she was doing so bad at office, she feared getting fired? How about releasing performance reviews of here for this period- good or bad?) hardly earth-shattering

But note something: you haven’t seen ANY of the women at a microphone since the release of the report on what the voice analysis software strongly suggested (Cain is telling the truth and Bialek was lying while she read her prepared statement- of actions it would take a fair contortionist to perform.) Funny how no one else is coming forward- except for women who left involuntarily from just one company, spanning 3 years of Cain’s long career.

michaelo on November 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I posted this on the headline thread about Bialek’s ex-boyfriend’s presser and I’ll repost here:

*Facepalm*

The Cain and Perry campaigns have both gone through crises. However, the response of the Cain campaign shows ineptitude and a candidate, who would have done better trying to win even a seat on his local council. Had he started small – even with a state Senate seat – he would have learnt how to respond to crises and dealt with this a long time ago.

The Perry campaign OTOH have demonstrated a top-notch A-game in how to handle crisis situations. First, the “racist rock” incident and then Perry’s debate flub. Many pundits are writing that the Perry campaign’s response will be a textbook example for years to come as to how to handle crises in political campaigns.

Want to know why Cain is still struggling with the SH allegations?

His denials have been too careful. They sound like the denials of a guilty man who is not sure how much proof his accusers have against him. He is therefore being careful so he can walk back his non-denial “denials” should he be proved to have lied.

Cain hasn’t convinced me that he is innocent. And apparently, he hasn’t convinced many others.

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Enough said.

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 12:38 PM

The liberals on that panel were typically stupid and vile. “Oh my God,” the woman uttered when Matt Lewis suggested that the charges against Cain were not dispositive or politically ruinous. He should have turned to her and simply asked, “so, you gave Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick the same benefit of the doubt when they accused Bill Clinton of, respectively, molestation and rape”?

rrpjr on November 14, 2011 at 12:39 PM

They need to open up those NRA files and release them.

Key West Reader on November 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

You are correct. This is exactly what Cain should have requested from the NRA during his press conference. The question is, why didn’t he? And why didn’t he request the hotel receipts from the alleged hotel on the date in question, showing that he did not upgrade the accuser’s suite?

These records may have settled the matter, if the situation was as Mr. Cain stated.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I don’t want to hear conservatives complain about anything regarding our government, because we always drop our own at the drop of a hat by the media. It’s sad. We don’t really stand for anything, if we can’t stand up with one our own under assault.

Yeah, some kind of coincidence that Allred trots out another “witness” to extend this story a third week on the day Cain’s wife speaks out. Yeah, some coincidence.

Speaking for myself, I ain’t buying none of this, because the timing of all these revelations is suspect. It was meant to do ope thing and one thing only: destroy Cain. I am not going to assist the Elites and media do that.

milemarker2020 on November 14, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Today a dude speaks. Everyone wants 15 min. of fame and trash in the news.

Schadenfreude on November 14, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Mrs. Cain is a lovely lady. I wish her and Herman luck having to deal with this.

BTW, here is a lovely picture of mo, what we now have in the wh. Warning, if lunch time you might want to wait to look! And to think, her new make up artist cost 15K per day! I think mo is getting over charged!

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/11/13/caption-this-22/
L

letget on November 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Obviously, she’s the best character witness for Cain. What about Mrs. Cain being a registered Democrat?

conservative pilgrim on November 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

That doesn’t mean shit. My dad hasn’t voted for a Democrat in my lifetime (I’m 33), and he never changed his party affiliation from Democrat. I told him once I thought he should because he’s as rock-ribbed a conservative as you’ll find, but he just laughed.

gryphon202 on November 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM

They need to open up those NRA files and release them.

Key West Reader on November 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

You are correct. This is exactly what Cain should have requested from the NRA during his press conference. The question is, why didn’t he? And why didn’t he request the hotel receipts from the alleged hotel on the date in question, showing that he did not upgrade the accuser’s suite?

These records may have settled the matter, if the situation was as Mr. Cain stated.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Did you miss when the NRA offered to release the women from all NDA’s? They STILL don’t wanna talk on the record. At least the four of them that haven’t already… Still not passing the smell test.

gryphon202 on November 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM

You are correct. This is exactly what Cain should have requested from the NRA during his press conference. The question is, why didn’t he?
SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM

This is why he’s dropping in polls. I have not been as influenced by the allegations as by his total bungling of the PR fallout. I liked Cain. But this is bad and incompetent executive performance, auguring a bad and incompetent White House.

rrpjr on November 14, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Enough said.

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Unfortunately for the rest of us, you’re unlikely to keep that promise.

Jim Treacher on November 14, 2011 at 12:46 PM

rbj on November 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Why does one need to hire an expensive attorney to hold a press conference?

Fashionable thing to do in Shreveport.

And why spend your money if you aren’t going to get something in return?

Perhaps he feels that telling the truth is its own reward.

JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM

gryphon202 on November 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM

I am referring to the “documents” of the NRA internal investigation into the allegations at the time of the alleged events. The NRA investigated these matters. Companies have documents on such investigations. These internal NRA documents have not been released.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM

gryphon202 on November 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Great anecdotal example and I’m glad your dad votes as a Conservative, but he isn’t running for POTUS. I find it interesting that she’s a registered Democrat. Is their marraige a Matlin/Carville one? Just wondering.

conservative pilgrim on November 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Sure thing. Now Newt is climbing back up after he was declared dead with no chance of recovery. Newt or Perry are fine with me.

Southernblogger on November 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Enough said.

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 12:38 PM

The portions of your screed that aren’t wishcasting have been blatantly plagiarized from Erick Erickson.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

KingGold on November 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Where are the stories from the guy Bialek said she is living with that she is not??? Haven’t seen them anywhere..cept the GreenRoom…

kringeesmom on November 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Yes, the part that impeaches the character of Sharon Bialek and the not so truthful stuff that Gloria Alred told us last week, remains hidden in the Green Room, while all the negative Herman Cain stuff gets top billing on the main page.

Time for another puff piece from Tina on the brain freeze heard around the world.

Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Maybe it was too much for me to believe that conservatives would stick by a embattled black man being assaulted by the Left and media for being conservative. No wonder the GOP is headed for the ash heap of history.

With friends like Hotair.com, why would any black or woman conservative want to run under the GOP banner? It’s clear, the media and the Left want to keep the GOP the party represented by old, white, rich guys, and by golly the GOP electorate is willing to oblige. Cain and Palin thank you for trying, but the GOP electorate only want candidates approved by the media. Idiots.

milemarker2020 on November 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM

We need to find another CONSERVATIVE that knows what they want to actually DO in the White House.

Great speaker, awesome success story, this story will not go away.

Newt is damaged…..WAY damaged old goods from the 90′s and Perry is a bumbler.

I’m ready to give Sanctimonius Santorum a look.

PappyD61 on November 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Enough said.
TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 12:38 PM

The portions of your screed that aren’t wishcasting have been blatantly plagiarized from Erick Erickson.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

KingGold on November 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Pray tell, do you understand what plagiarism is? Because I don’t think you do. Do tell me where I plagiarized from Erick Erickson.

And a word of advice to you: if you think your day as a Cainiac has started badly, it just got worse. :)

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 12:58 PM

He would have to have a split personality.

“I am not a witch.”
“I am not a crook.”

There’s a hole in the bucket that does not mend by comparison to a split personality, or denial of being a witch or a crook.

maverick muse on November 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM

A new witness in the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal…

See how they do it? Now the impression has been created, and re-inforced one paragraph later (“The new witness is a pediatrician…”), that (1) a witness exists, and therefore (2) the alleged act must have actually occurred since a witness exists. The lapdog media will run with this template, and the sheeple will suck it up (“…see, it DID happen, because there’s a witness”).

Of course, this isn’t a witness witness (to more or less quote Whoopie Goldberg), but just ignore that little problem for the moment. It’s all about controlling the language, and morphing it to your needs (in this case, co-opting the word “witness”). It’s no accident that Noam Chomsky, progressive super-hero, is a professor of linguistics.

bofh on November 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The portions of your screed that aren’t wishcasting have been blatantly plagiarized from Erick Erickson.You should be ashamed of yourself.

KingGold on November 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Geez. Really?
Doesn’t help Perry’s cause much. Makes some of his supporters just like Joe Biden. How about that?

a capella on November 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Mr. Cain can settle this matter in his favor by the following actions:

1. Request the NRA release all “documents” related to the internal investigations of the allegations.
2. Request the hotel release its records related to the accuser’s hotel accomodations, which will show whether or not there was an upgrade as the accuser alleges.
3. Volunteer(which he seemingly did in his news conference), and take a lie detector test from one of the best examiners in the country.
4. Challenge his accusers to take the lie detector test at his expense.

Why hasn’t he and his staff pursued this approach to resolve the matter?

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM

It’s no accident that Noam Chomsky, progressive super-hero, is a professor of linguistics.

bofh on November 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Good point and good post.

rrpjr on November 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Pray tell, do you understand what plagiarism is? Because I don’t think you do. Do tell me where I plagiarized from Erick Erickson.

And a word of advice to you: if you think your day as a Cainiac has started badly, it just got worse. :)

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Funny. I thought the Perry meme was that CNN polls are crap. Are there new talking points?

katy the mean old lady on November 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I have never gotten over my surprise of the number of my women friends that bought the entire Anita Hill story based on her gender alone. Of course, that was in the thick of the “Men Must Be Destroyed” era but I guess things done change much.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM

bofh on November 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Bingo. Just like the way Bialek is “the first accuser to tell her story,” rather than the first and so far only accuser to tell her story.

Jim Treacher on November 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Or rather, they want is to think she was the latest, not the first and only. Which she was, and is.

Jim Treacher on November 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

The portions of your screed that aren’t wishcasting have been blatantly plagiarized from Erick Erickson.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

KingGold on November 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Why am I not surprised? Rick Perry must be so proud.

Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Mr. Cain can settle this matter in his favor by the following actions:

1. Request the NRA release all “documents” related to the internal investigations of the allegations.

2. Request the hotel release its records related to the accuser’s hotel accomodations, which will show whether or not there was an upgrade as the accuser alleges.

3. Volunteer(which he seemingly did in his news conference), and take a lie detector test from one of the best examiners in the country.

4. Challenge his accusers to take the lie detector test at his expense.

Why hasn’t he and his staff pursued this approach to resolve the matter?

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Because of the following:

1) The accusers refuse to allow the NRA to release such documents

2) Bialek has refused to provide any date or specific details for the hotel records

Given 1 and 2, 3 and 4 are pointless wastes of money to appease bigots like yourself who have no interest in the facts and are simply trying to rationalize hatred of Cain.

Now, for Cain’s accusers like SheetAnchor, I demand the following:

1) Publicly demand that Bialek provide the receipt for her plane ticket, hotel room, limo rental, letters, and anything else that will positively back up her accusations

2) Publicly insist that Cain’s accusers authorize full release of the NRA investigation results

3) State that failure to do either of the above, as is already happening, demonstrates that these individuals are liars — as the rule already being applied to Cain is.

Then you’ll prove you’re not bigots. But in the process, you’ll blow a hole in your witch hunt, which is what you’re doing.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I feel bad for Gloria Cain. She’s being conned with the rest of the Cain cult.

She doesn’t even know her husband. Remember, she lived in Omaha while he was partying in DC every night for 3 years

And while he’s constantly traveling, she remains home.

Poor woman.

bigred

Prove him guilty or STFU troll.

Hard Right on November 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Perhaps he feels that telling the truth is its own reward.

JohnGalt23 on November 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Really? You actually believe that?

I’m not necessarily a fan of Cain. 9 9 9 would have to be a Constitutional Amendment for me to have any faith in it, and Cain seems very week on foreign policy. But to have these old accusations that can’t be proven or disproved smacks of character assassination. It’s very weak tea.

rbj on November 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Then you’ll prove you’re not bigots. But in the process, you’ll blow a hole in your witch hunt, which is what you’re doing.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

And one more time.

Knock it off with accusing people of being bigots.

Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

You are correct. So why hasn’t Mr. Cain pursued the actions you suggest as reflected below.

“1) Publicly demand that Bialek provide the receipt for her plane ticket, hotel room, limo rental, letters, and anything else that will positively back up her accusations

2) Publicly insist that Cain’s accusers authorize full release of the NRA investigation results

3) State that failure to do either of the above, as is already happening, demonstrates that these individuals are liars — as the rule already being applied to Cain is.”

The ad hominen attack is baseless. Mr. Cain is the one running for President. Thus, his accusers are not burdened with this matter, he is. If he wants to persuade an apparently large portion of Republican voters that the allegations are indeed false, then he better take action. Why isn’t he?

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM

I am referring to the “documents” of the NRA internal investigation into the allegations at the time of the alleged events. The NRA investigated these matters. Companies have documents on such investigations. These internal NRA documents have not been released.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Because the accusers won’t allow them to be.

Meanwhile, where are Bialek’s receipts, plane ticket — you know, proof that she was actually anywhere near Washington DC?

It’s funny how this works for you, SheetAnchor. No one has to provide any evidence to accuse. No one is held to the same standards as Cain. Why, it’s amazing how you just let white person after white person after white person say whatever they want and do whatever they want while that mean black man who hurt your Perry is progressively forced to jump over hurdle after hurdle after hurdle to prove his innocence.

And it doesn’t matter, since, as your fellow Perry supporter asteronii openly stated, you don’t care if Cain is exonerated or not, you still will always consider him guilty simply because he was accused.

That really shows you the bigots we’re dealing with here. All the Cain haters, like asteronii and its supporters Bill C, HondaV65, JohnGalt23, bigred, sheetanchor, Aslan’s Girl, and the like will always consider Cain guilty because he was accused, even if he is exonerated.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Mr. Cain is the one running for President. Thus, his accusers are not burdened with this matter, he is. If he wants to persuade an apparently large portion of Republican voters that the allegations are indeed false, then he better take action.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Just ask Larry Sinclair.

Jim Treacher on November 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM

I am expecting to see the Libs.(guilty till proven innocent if your a repub.) spin Gloria Cain’s comments into this type of headline or talking point:
“Mrs Cain says Cain has a split personality.”
In Democrat logic- since they “know” he is guilty, therefore they come to their “split personality” conclusion.

3dpuzzman on November 14, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Why am I not surprised? Rick Perry must be so proud.

Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

This is no more fair than the attacks on Mr. Cain and equally provable.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2011 at 1:26 PM

You are correct. So why hasn’t Mr. Cain pursued the actions you suggest as reflected below.

Better question: why won’t you?

That’s amazing. You blame Cain for not doing this, when you yourself won’t hold his accusers accountable.

If you truly cared, one would think you would be demanding this evidence from the accusers. But you don’t care about the accusers, you only care about destroying Cain. You don’t care how truthful they are, or what information they hide; you only want Cain destroyed.

Bigot.

The ad hominen attack is baseless. Mr. Cain is the one running for President. Thus, his accusers are not burdened with this matter, he is. If he wants to persuade an apparently large portion of Republican voters that the allegations are indeed false, then he better take action. Why isn’t he?

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Again, bigots like you cannot be persuaded. As I have already linked above, you and your fellow bigots like asteronii and its supporters Bill C, HondaV65, JohnGalt23, bigred, sheetanchor, Aslan’s Girl, and the like will always consider Cain guilty because he was accused, even if he is exonerated.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Knock it off with accusing people of being bigots.

Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM

No.

These people are irrational, Knucklehead. As I have already linked, they consider Cain guilty even if he is exonerated. That is bigotry in its most obvious and blatant form, and it needs to be called out as such publicly.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:31 PM

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:24 PM

You must be confusing me with another commenter. I have never supported Governor Perry, given his positions on Gardisal, Trans Texas Mexico Corridor, hate crimes legislation, and other policy issues since he has been Governor of Texas. Engaging in analysis of the matter, does not justify your charge of bigotry. You are making assumptions which have no foundation. Mr. Cain has not taken reasonable actions to refute the allegations. Unless, he does so, the allegations will likely continue to plague his candidacy.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Engaging in analysis of the matter, does not justify your charge of bigotry.

Um, no. “Analysis of the matter” would include all relevant variables and similar review.

Since you care nothing for and haven’t demanded any proof from the accusers, while making demand after demand after demand of Cain, it’s quite clear that you aren’t treating accuser and accused similarly.

Bigotry.

You are making assumptions which have no foundation.

I’ve cited examples and links of how you and your fellow Cain-haters not only have applied hilariously-hypocritical standards, but also direct quotations of how Cain is guilty whether or not he is exonerated, simply because he was accused.

That is quite sufficient foundation.

Mr. Cain has not taken reasonable actions to refute the allegations.

“Reasonable actions” which you refuse to apply to the accusers. Again, demonstration of bigotry.

Unless, he does so, the allegations will likely continue to plague his candidacy.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Of course. You and your fellow bigots have stated that you will never consider Cain innocent, always guilty, simply because the allegations were made.

Cain’s campaign will be forever “plagued” because bigots like yourself will never accept his innocence and will continue to scream that he is guilty even if he is exonerated — as you have already stated.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Gloria Cain comes off as a very classy lady. What a contrast between her, Bialek, and Allred.

J.E. Dyer on November 14, 2011 at 1:59 PM

To all those who fall for every smooth talking politician that comes down the pike: Herman Cain is playing you for saps.

NickDeringer on November 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Regardless of whether there is any truth to any of the stories, she sure seems like a sweetheart and it’s sad that she has to deal with any of it.

kg598301 on November 14, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Gloria Cain comes off as a very classy lady. What a contrast between her, Bialek, and Allred.

J.E. Dyer on November 14, 2011 at 1:59 PM

What a contrast between her and the current FLOTUS!

kg598301 on November 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Again, your comments regarding my moral character have no foundation. I have made no statements regarding Mr. Cain’s or anyone else’s race. You have no evidence whatsoever about my character.

Ad hominen attacks serve no purpose, and they do not further critical analysis. You have made race a factor, which in my assessment, it is not. The allegations are serious, have sufficient credibility, and have not been adequately addressed.

There may be some Republican voters who do not support Mr. Cain because he is black. Yet, his support among Republicans is generally broad according to recent polls, indicating that any bigoted attitudes are certainly among a small element of the Republican electorate.

Accusing people of being bigoted, without any evidence of such attitudes, does not further Mr. Cain’s candidacy, nor your argument. Anyone can assess the situation, without racial prejudice being a factor, in the same manner that anyone can disagree with the President on policy, without racial prejudice being a factor.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM

NickDeringer on November 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM

All of them leave much to be desired but your concern is appreciated.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Bialek told her then-boyfriend that Cain had inappropriately touched her shortly after the alleged incident took place in Washington D.C

My husband would have kicked his ass. Why didn’t “b.f.” follow up? What kind of man is he?

You know, it’s very important not to throw Cain to these liberal wolves. I don’t care if you think he’s got the chops to be prez or not, you should fight against this characterization and demand something more substantive.

Don’t throw Cain under the bus the way you let them throw Palin under the bus. And others, for that matter.

disa on November 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Why does one need to hire an expensive attorney to hold a press conference? And why spend your money if you aren’t going to get something in return?

rbj on November 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM

In this situation you need an attorney to avoid language which can be construed as libel. Having an attorney is not evidence of guilt. Col. Oliver North had an attorney during the Iran/Contra hearings.

Bialek looks like a tramp.

Key West Reader on November 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

James Carville, is that you?

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM

And one more time.

Knock it off with accusing people of being bigots.

Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Don’t feed the troll. Ignore him and he will go away.

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 2:40 PM

9 9 9 would have to be a Constitutional Amendment for me to have any faith in it,

rbj

Proof in the 16th amendment pudding: nothing written is how things go. Hear him out.

maverick muse on November 14, 2011 at 2:41 PM

“1) Publicly demand that Bialek provide the receipt for her plane ticket, hotel room, limo rental, letters, and anything else that will positively back up her accusations

2) Publicly insist that Cain’s accusers authorize full release of the NRA investigation results

3) State that failure to do either of the above, as is already happening, demonstrates that these individuals are liars — as the rule already being applied to Cain is.”

The ad hominen attack is baseless. Mr. Cain is the one running for President. Thus, his accusers are not burdened with this matter, he is. If he wants to persuade an apparently large portion of Republican voters that the allegations are indeed false, then he better take action. Why isn’t he?

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 1:21 PM

I just want full disclosure from both sides. Cain trotting out his wife is a distraction. These women need to ask for release of the NRA’s files on this matter. Dragging out these charges are in no one’s interest. (Except for Gloria Allred.)

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 2:43 PM

I said from the first accusation that Mrs. Cain should stay out of the fray, that it would end up being a mistake for Cain’s management to put her out as Herman’s defense.

Of course she’s a lady. That’s neither here nor there. Since The Good Wife if not long before, this trotting out of the wife is passé. Besides, once she enters the public dialog, she’s seen as fair game for target by the most decrepit propagandists. Furthermore, she should never have used a negative in order to “prove” Herman’s innocence.

maverick muse on November 14, 2011 at 2:51 PM

I just want full disclosure from both sides.

No, you don’t. You haven’t asked a thing of the accusers, nor have you accused them of lying since they refuse to allow release of the NRA’s materials.

Cain trotting out his wife is a distraction.

Funny, last week his failure to do so was proof to your fellow Cain haters like JohnGalt23 that he was guilty. Now that he’s done so, you flip-flop again and start whining that it’s a “distraction”.

These women need to ask for release of the NRA’s files on this matter.

What, you mean they haven’t already? Why, if you were applying the same standards to them, that would mean they were guilty and had something to hide.

Dragging out these charges are in no one’s interest. (Except for Gloria Allred.)

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 2:43 PM

I really love this mealy-mouthed whining you’re doing. Just like how when libs get caught, they start whining about how everyone does it, it’s in no one’s interest, etc.

What is happening here is that you and your fellow witch-hunters are getting caught. Your sources are blowing up, you’re dependent on a paid Obama activist for your proof of guilt, and you’ve already admitted publicly that the mere fact that Cain was accused is proof of guilt, regardless of whether he is exonerated or not.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Then you’ll prove you’re not bigots. But in the process, you’ll blow a hole in your witch hunt, which is what you’re doing.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

You know with all of your continued references to people being bigots and racist – one might think it is you who have the problem.

You know what they say – me thinks thou protests too much

gophergirl on November 14, 2011 at 2:59 PM

We’ve not seen the full interview and I could be wrong, but who else apart from me sees Mrs. Cain as not forcefully defending her husband.

Most wives will lash out and say “My husband never did those things.” Mrs. Cain is saying “My husband respects women and that doesn’t sound like him.”

Weak tea.

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Again, your comments regarding my moral character have no foundation. I have made no statements regarding Mr. Cain’s or anyone else’s race. You have no evidence whatsoever about my character.

Actually, I have provided several examples of how you treat people disparately, especially in terms of requiring them to provide evidence, that seem to be based on skin color.

I have also provided links demonstrating that you do not care about facts and that you and your fellow Cain haters will consider Cain guilty even if he is exonerated.

Ad hominen attacks serve no purpose, and they do not further critical analysis.

As are being made on Cain and Mrs. Cain by your fellow Cain haters. Again, you do not tolerate “ad hominem” attacks against white people, but seemingly have no problem with Cain and his wife being attacked by your fellow Cain haters in this fashion.

You have made race a factor, which in my assessment, it is not.

The evidence of your behavior suggests otherwise.

The allegations are serious, have sufficient credibility, and have not been adequately addressed.

SheetAnchor on November 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM

of course not. You and your fellow Cain haters have already stated that Cain is guilty because he was accused, and that you do not care about evidence and facts even if they exonerate him.

Again, this is bigotry. You need to come up with an explanation for why you do not hold Cain’s white accusers accountable. You need to come up with an explanation for why you support ad hominem attacks being made on black people. You need to explain why you and your fellow Cain haters are openly stating that accusation equals guilt and that Cain can never be exonerated in your eyes.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 3:06 PM

An ex boyfriend who wasn’t present at an alledged meeting is just third party heresay maybe Allred thinks that means something in the court of public opinion trying some one in the media but it get’s thrown out if “lawyer” tries to introduce it in court.

I am sure there are lawyers who read these post, can tell us all how lame it is to have a witness to a first hand conversation about an alleged meeting second hand and relating that second hand information. It means zilch unless the ex boyfriend (bias) was present at alleged meeting.

Dr Evil on November 14, 2011 at 3:07 PM

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Or maybe she is a lady. That is how they act. In case you ever come across one.

katy the mean old lady on November 14, 2011 at 3:09 PM

You know with all of your continued references to people being bigots and racist – one might think it is you who have the problem.

You know what they say – me thinks thou protests too much

gophergirl on November 14, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Yup, I do.

But honestly, that’s what you call it when it is blatantly obvious that people are holding a black man and his wife to standards that they are not holding his white accusers.

And it’s particularly amazing that these people are insisting that even if evidence exonerated the black man, he would still be guilty – a standard which they have demonstrated they do not apply to their preferred white candidate.

Can you explain that?

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 3:13 PM

We’ve not seen the full interview and I could be wrong, but who else apart from me sees Mrs. Cain as not forcefully defending her husband.

Most wives will lash out and say “My husband never did those things.” Mrs. Cain is saying “My husband respects women and that doesn’t sound like him.”

Weak tea.

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 3:03 PM

LOL.

Last week, the Cain-haters were insisting that Cain’s wife not publicly defending him was proof that he was guilty.

This week, they’re insisting Cain’s wife isn’t defending him forcefully enough, so it’s proof that he’s guilty.

Just as the week before last, they were insisting that refusal to release the NRA investigation details was proof of guilt — which reversed when Cain’s accusers refused to do so.

Or that not remembering all the details of an allegation was proof of guilt — which blew up when Cain’s accuser couldn’t remember all the details of her allegations.

They’re simply bigots who hate Cain. Period.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Just a minor point – Allred cannot represent both the woman and her boyfriend/fiance/whatever. It’s a clear conflict of interest and I would go so far as to say that under lawyer ethics rules, she probably cannot represent either one any longer once she does the press conference.

Do I expect the California Bar to care? Only when pigs fly over while pooping skittles.

platypus on November 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM

They’re simply bigots who hate Cain. Period.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Do you have anything new to report? :)

platypus on November 14, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I am sure there are lawyers who read these post, can tell us all how lame it is to have a witness to a first hand conversation about an alleged meeting second hand and relating that second hand information. It means zilch unless the ex boyfriend (bias) was present at alleged meeting.

Dr Evil on November 14, 2011 at 3:07 PM

The exboyfriend can corroborate that Cain met Bialek. Also, didn’t Jones have a co-worker that corroborated Jones’ story at the hotel by saying that Jones was approached by state troopers and that she appeared upset later?

We are judging Cain by standards which would never hold up in court but that doesn’t matter. This is the court of public opinion. The worst that happen to Cain is that he is not elected president. The worst that can happen to us is that we nominate a flawed candidate who hands Obama a second term.

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Do you have anything new to report? :)

platypus on November 14, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Don’t feed the troll, ignore him.

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Don’t feed the troll, ignore him.

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Are you sure? He’s been around here for quite awhile and he always seemed to make sense.

platypus on November 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM

The portions of your screed that aren’t wishcasting have been blatantly plagiarized from Erick Erickson.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
KingGold on November 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Why am I not surprised? Rick Perry must be so proud.
Knucklehead on November 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

The only thing it lacked was an “uh…uh…uh…oooops” ending.

whatcat on November 14, 2011 at 3:33 PM

I’m not on the Cain Train, but these charges are ridiculous. Are the Dems so afraid that they will lose their ability to use the race card that they have to try to destroy a decent man?

Connie on November 14, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Don’t feed the troll. Ignore him and he will go away.

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 2:40 PM

He is not a troll. He makes good arguments toward the ones he is arguing with, many of whom do clearly hate Cain and want him to be destroyed whether he is guilty of anything or not.

I have begun to believe that TheRightMan is a paid shill from the Perry campaign. If he’s repeating things here that Eric Erickson wrote, that makes me even more suspicious of him. He is a troll. .

JannyMae on November 14, 2011 at 3:44 PM

We are judging Cain by standards which would never hold up in court but that doesn’t matter.

Um, yeah it does. But that’s a nice admittance that you don’t have any evidence.

This is the court of public opinion. The worst that happen to Cain is that he is not elected president.

Excuse me? You and yours are accusing a man of sexually assaulting a woman. Where does he go to get his reputation back? Who’s going to hire him? His family is being attacked by this, and that doesn’t matter?

The worst that can happen to us is that we nominate a flawed candidate who hands Obama a second term.

Bill C on November 14, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Oh. My. God.

You really think that, don’t you?

You think that publicly slandering and destroying a man based on evidence that you yourself admit would never pass legal muster is appropriate?

You support and endorse doing this?

Or do you not care at all? Just say that you don’t care Cain is being slandered without any evidence. Just say that you support and endorse destroying a man’s reputation.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 3:45 PM

He is not a troll. He makes good arguments toward the ones he is arguing with, many of whom do clearly hate Cain and want him to be destroyed whether he is guilty of anything or not.

JannyMae on November 14, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Calling people bigots or racists is a good argument? I don’t care for Cain but it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. I just have a problem when people start calling me a racist because I don’t want to see him win.

gophergirl on November 14, 2011 at 3:48 PM

“They’re simply bigots who hate Cain. Period.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM”

It doesn’t make them bigots, just low heal biting snakes. People like Bill C who claim this is a court of public opinion are the type that keep the Weekly World Sun in business. He doesn’t care about evidence and the Monday morning quaterbacking on how he handled this is all a lie. The just want him out, not having the patience to wait for him to screw up in the foriegn policy debate, lol.

“The exboyfriend can corroborate that Cain met Bialek.”

Really can he Billy boy???? Evidence please??? Oh wait that doesn’t matter it is just a court of public opinion about events 15 years old, pathetic!

Africanus on November 14, 2011 at 3:48 PM

The exboyfriend can corroborate that Cain met Bialek. Also, didn’t Jones have a co-worker that corroborated Jones’ story at the hotel by saying that Jones was approached by state troopers and that she appeared upset later?
- BillC

No, the ex-boyfriend can claim that Bialek told him she met Cain. Nothing more.

Who is Jones?

JannyMae on November 14, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Calling people bigots or racists is a good argument? — Gophergirl

That isn’t what I said. If that’s all northdallasthirty had done, then I would agree with you. Would you consider the rest of what he has said, if he hasn’t used those terms? Apparently not….

JannyMae on November 14, 2011 at 3:52 PM

That isn’t what I said. If that’s all northdallasthirty had done, then I would agree with you. Would you consider the rest of what he has said, if he hasn’t used those terms? Apparently not….

JannyMae on November 14, 2011 at 3:52 PM

To be honest when someone continually uses those terms I don’t take what they say seriously. If you can’t make your argument without insulting people, then I don’t need to read it.

JMHO and all that.

gophergirl on November 14, 2011 at 3:58 PM

To be honest when someone continually uses those terms I don’t take what they say seriously. If you can’t make your argument without insulting people, then I don’t need to read it.

JMHO and all that.

gophergirl on November 14, 2011 at 3:58 PM

I see. So, then, um, what exactly was your beef with me? I was also supposed to disregard everything he said, because he insulted people? You just proved my point for me.

JannyMae on November 14, 2011 at 4:10 PM

They’re simply bigots who hate Cain. Period.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM

A bigot is defined as “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

- I am strongly partial to Republicans (vs. Democrats) and strongly partial to Perry (vs. the other GOP candidates) so I guess I am partially bigoted.

- I do not perceive anyone different because of their skin color (race) because I believe we are all created by the same God and blessed with different abilities. We can all achieve our dreams if we believe and work hard towards them.

- I am very tolerant of those who hold different views from mine and though we may disagree, we can respect each other’s viewpoints. However, I prefer arguments based on facts and sound reasoning and not insults.

Hope this satisfies you, Mr. “Everybody who doesn’t board the Cain train is a bigot”.

:)

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 4:13 PM

I have begun to believe that TheRightMan is a paid shill from the Perry campaign. If he’s repeating things here that Eric Erickson wrote, that makes me even more suspicious of him. He is a troll. .

JannyMae on November 14, 2011 at 3:44 PM

I sure wish the Perry campaign was paying me for the vociferous arguments I’ve been making on their behalf on Hot Air. Anyone on this forum that know the “right connections” that could get me paid – I could sure use the extra cash.

Sorry, JannyMae, I am just a passionate political junkie that sees Perry standing heads and shoulders above the rest of the GOP field in spite of his flaws. I argue for him hoping others will also see it before it becomes too late.

It is only Perry that has the strongest chance of beating Romney and can go on to beat Obama in the general. There is a reason why no one to date has risen as high as Perry did.

And what do you mean by I am “repeating things here that Erick Erickson wrote?” Care to explain?

TheRightMan on November 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I see. So, then, um, what exactly was your beef with me? I was also supposed to disregard everything he said, because he insulted people? You just proved my point for me.

JannyMae on November 14, 2011 at 4:10 PM

It makes it easier for them to ignore the arguments presented when they can take offense and go flouncing off for whatever reason.

And frankly, that’s all they have left at this point, given that they’ve acknowledged that they will consider Cain guilty regardless of what the evidence says, and that their only concern is destroying him as a candidate because they don’t like him.

When there’s proof out there of your bias in the situation, the only thing you can do is start whining about how mean the person who points it out is. It’s a trick that works for Obama, so they must be figuring it will work for them.

northdallasthirty on November 14, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2