Various things I don’t believe
posted at 11:43 pm on November 2, 2011 by J.E. Dyer
[ Elections ]
1. That Herman Cain is a sexual harasser.
2. That Rick Perry had anything to do with the “leak” of “information” about sexual harassment complaints against Cain to Politico.
3. That Mitt Romney was behind the “leaks” either.
4. That the mythical ability to silence baseless innuendo, or spin it and come out smelling like a rose, or avoid it altogether, is a qualification for being president of the United States.
5. That the left-wing mainstream media act in good faith when they retail these allegations.
6. That media coverage of such allegations and innuendo is some form of vetted professional activity, rather than just a glorified form of slam book smears and middle-school cafeteria gossip.
7. That it is incumbent on any of us to take the endless effluvia of the media smear machine seriously.
8. That it is a sign of intelligence to thoughtfully consider these charges-without-evidence, rather than simply dismissing them.
9. That the whole circus matters to our choice of president, in terms of illuminating for us the character or abilities of any of the candidates.
10. That any of these cheap-allegation dramas is even about the candidates, rather than about us, and whether we have any judgment or discrimination when it comes to what we let the media fill our heads with.
If a competent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, today’s media can smear one – and then make it look like some innocent ham sandwich over there behind the counter did it. But the media can only do this because we cooperate with them, by simply accepting every negative, damning, evil thought they suggest to us.
Keeping the barrage up is virtually cost-free for them. They are not going to stop, no matter how conclusively it is proven that they are full of shinola. Accepting their cues, and spending day after day discussing things on their terms, is the actual problem. And that problem starts with us.
There is no corrective for this problem in the mechanics of politics or the media’s M.O. Politics and the media aren’t going to change. Period. We have to decide what our characters and priorities will consist of. Do we have the strength of mind to say this? – “Don’t bother me with your innuendo about Herman Cain. I want to talk issues. We need to cut spending, reduce regulation, and undo all of Obama’s dangerous executive orders. We need to restore a constitutional balance of power in the federal government. And that’s just for starters. Iran is closing in on a nuclear weapon. China is menacing all of Asia. European security is in jeopardy, and so is ours. That’s what I want to talk about. The future of the republic is at stake.”
Who cares if “they” think we’re stupid? Are we seriously going to let this election degenerate into a suicidal snark free-for-all because someone might think we’re stupid, if we don’t bite on every worm the media dangle on the hook?
Any one of us could be in Cain’s or Perry’s position – or Bachmann’s, or Palin’s, or that of any conservative front-runner past or present. Ronald Reagan himself wouldn’t have triumphed over this kind of media attack. He would have looked every bit as caught off guard and flat-footed. One thing the blogosphere does is amplify cheap, off-the-cuff opinions and send them echoing back to us in chorus, as if “everybody” now thinks Candidate X is toast and his character is in shreds. Is that really true? What obliges us to think so, other than the kind of fearful, triangulating approach to our personal opinions that we should have overcome by the time we got our high school diplomas?
Herman Cain hasn’t been convicted of sexual harassment, nor have charges been filed against him. It would be public record if these things had happened. It is not a sign of intelligence or moral discrimination for conservative voters to feast on vague allegations against our candidates, which we are told by third parties were made by persons whose names we don’t know, and which never resulted in prosecution or sanction. As a rule for life, that’s no way to think about morality, law, society, or other people’s characters.
And Cain’s not even my preferred candidate. But this applies to all of them. If we wait for cheap “bad news” about other people to cease flowing, we’ll be stuck obsessing over it for all eternity. It doesn’t have to be true or significant; it will just keep coming. How much we are preoccupied with evil allegations is up to us. We only think it’s the media doing this to us. In reality, we’re doing it to ourselves. We have the power to say no: we’re not playing any more. Until we do that, the MSM will have us by the short hairs.
Oh, and one more thing I don’t believe:
11. That Americans are too foolish and weak-minded to figure this out.
J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.
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
Amen. Great article, probably the best and most cogent one I’ve read today. Thanks.
Conservalicious on November 3, 2011 at 12:06 AM
I doff my hat to you ma’am. If I said it once, I’ll say it a thousand times, whoever wants to be the nominee should have you on their FP team.
AH_C on November 3, 2011 at 12:11 AM
Thank you J.E. I think you said a lot that needed to be said.
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 12:33 AM
Not quite. But it’s pretty damned close to a requirement. In the past hundred years, there have only been two exceptions: Coolidge and Reagan.
logis on November 3, 2011 at 8:53 AM
Things I do not beleive.
1. Herman Cain is a sexual harrasser, although he is a pretty pathetic joker.
2. That it matters who leaked or instigated what, but how the people involved acted under the situation. (Hint, he lied to us about it.)
3. See number 2.
4. That a person whose first instinct is to lie to his potential voters is a good person to vote for.
5. I agree with yours.
6. That the worse treatment of Republicans is always neccessarily bad for the Party. 7. That just because the media is against us that everything they bring up can simply be dismissed because, well, I like this candidate.
8. That it is a sign of wisdom to ignor the reactions of a person under fire when vying for a position of power where he will be placed under fire repeatedly and with enough power to cause serious harm to the world.
9. That character does not matter.
10. That people who write at “conservative” blogs are actually conservative.
11. That Americans are smart enough and wise enough to save this nation from certain doom.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM
And it maybe the only thing I read about Herman Cain today or comment on at HotAir for a while.
Well done, J.E., please have this moved to main page for all to see, and maybe send it over to Erick Erickson at RedState who stated last night that “Cain has a sex scandal”
To link to either RedState or Ace, who are in the tank for Rick Perry is despicable and makes HotAir a joke.
Knucklehead on November 3, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Oh, and one more thing I don’t believe:
12. Karl Rove.
He’s more of a person than a thing but they are both nouns… So, I’m sticking with it.
Fallon on November 3, 2011 at 11:09 AM
What I want to see is these women come forward immediately and say what they’ve got to say, or forever hold their peace and apologize to Herman Cain.
I am not willing to throw Cain under the bus until we have heard the allegations. It is very tempting and easy to slander someone from a position of anonymity. We all know this because we would see some of the ad hominem crap spewed on blogs if we were forced to use our real names.
No one yet knows just what the heck happened with Cain and these women, if anything. It is grossly unfair and un-American to draw ANY conclusions about Cain’s character, without his accusers even identifying themselves for vetting.
No one has the right, even under the PC shield of hurt feminist feelings, to destroy a man’s reputation like this, unless they are willing to completely come forward and swear out an affidavit to the world.
And lastly, I want to really hammer one point:
I refuse to knock Cain over his contradictory handling of this. For all we know, the complaints were 5% fact and 95% fiction, but the National Restaurant Association and/or Cain thought it would be easier and cleaner to just cut loose the complaining employees with a check, instead of tying up Cain’s time defending against accustaions that maybe weren’t completely on the up-and-up.
And so, if Cain is actually being unfairly tarred, I understand why he would try to avoid admitting things at first. How many of you have ever been pursued by a group of people who had a personal agenda to destroy you, though you knew you had done nothing wrong? I have – and it’s one of the most offensive, enraging, demoralizing things that can happen to a person – to get a mob after them, baying for blood, regardless of the truth.
It made me react erratically, because I was simultaneously outraged, hurt and resentful. I did not want to jump through my accusers’ hoops, because I knew that their motivation was dishonest. I wanted to simultaneously go live in the woods and get away from bad people, and pull out the intestines of my accusers and feed them to them.
Few things are as devastating as false public accusations from someone with an agenda that includes more than just the truth.
I am not saying that Cain’s accusers are lying; I am saying that we don’t know a damn thing, and that it’s disgraceful and self-defeating for us to cut Cain loose from such a serious endeavor as trying to turn America around, on the basis of anonymous charges. And if he’s reacting like this to a personal insult or attack, then let’s remember that it’s PERSONAL, and that he has the right to react however he wishes. But I do NOT equate his personal reactions to this obvious attempt to destroy him, to his judgment and reactions as a potential president.
In fact, perversely, the more odd and evasive his answers, the more I am inclined to believe Cain. I know that sounds backward, but again, until you’ve been hunted by a lynch mob, you don’t know how it feels….
cane_loader on November 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM
You and I are [presumably] both Americans. So you might as well find a rock to hid under until the first Wednesday of November ’12, you pathetic snivelling little jackwagon.
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Wow, what a grownup you are.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM
As I understand it, two of the three women who made allegations against Herman Cain cannot legally speak out without violating nondisclosure agreements that were part of the settlements. The third, speaking through her attorney, says she doesn’t want to be ‘another Anita Hill’. It also seems to me these women–all of them–have been branded as gold-digging and mercenary grievance artists when no proof of that sort has been offered up, either.
Do I believe Cain said or did something to spark these allegations? Yes. For decades, every person working within a corporate structure has been subjected to endless seminars and working groups and workshops regarding sexual harrassment at the workplace. Mid-level manager and executives are given even more training than the rank-and-file. More than anyone, the CEO of a given business is especially aware–even hyper-aware–of the importance of maintaining a professional distance and demeanor that would minimize the chances of such allegations ever being made.
Further, Cain’s initial claim that he couldn’t recall the details of those particular allegations or settlement cases begs immediate disbelief. A man or woman running for high office would know exactly what could damage their candidacy, and would be fully prepared with counter-measures when it came up, whatever ‘it’ might be. Those allegations have been hanging over Cain since the beginning, since his failed run for Senate. Imagine the late nights spent trying to figure out how to handle this sorry business.
Blaming the Perry campaign was a sly, disingenuous piece of work, an attempt to gain advantage by driving Perry even further down in the polls and effectively short-circuiting any hopes of a Perry resurgence. Was Team Perry the source of the leak? I doubt it. Romney? Nah. It doesn’t feel like a Romney hit. Romney’s people would’ve had witnesses ready to talk, along with a complete dossier and press packet containing pictures, tapes and transcripts.
So who benefits? Politico, of course, since breaking the story enhances its reputation. Who else? Not the Democrats. They very badly want a stumbling, uninformed novice like Cain facing off against Obama in a live, televised debate. If I was a Democratic Party strategist, I’d be dreaming happy dreams of a Cain candidacy in the general election.
Cain benefits. Better to leak these allegations now, while Cain’s riding high in the polls and the primaries are several weeks away. Blame Perry and kill his candidacy once and for all. Bask in the bounce as the GOP’s conservative base–some with clear memories of Clarence Thomas’ ordeal–coalesce around a good guy underdog who has been falsely persecuted by a blatantly biased MSM.
Mark Block deserves a bonus, in my view.
troyriser_gopftw on November 3, 2011 at 1:09 PM
And what a blithering moronic coward you are. You can lecture me when you figure out a way to do so constructively. Until then, you will continue to be an object of my ridicule.
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 1:56 PM
Enlighten me oh great on, where upon which have shown any credibility in your argument against my statement? Where should I look for the constructive criticism of your amazingly powerful utterances? Please, bring to me the light which shineth within your mind so I too can be as special (ed) as you are.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 2:21 PM
In case you hadn’t noticed, I was only “enlightening” you insofar as I was telling you what *I* believe. I know you’re so much better than all those other creintous “Americans” who will be the death of the American dream, so I’m sorry if I stepped on your wittle toes.
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 2:59 PM
Yeah, some how I find that to be beyond enlightening a person to what you beleive. It is gratuitous insulting for no other purpose than to insult. I made a statement about where I think 50%+1 of the population of this nation stands on important enough issues that they threaten this nations continuance. I do not think they have the intelligence nor the wisdom to turn this nation around.
I base this on two things. It has been heading the wrong way every election since Reagan left office. Even the supposed conservatives refuse to face down the largest threats to this nation, and instead spend their time chewing at the margins imagining that they save the country by cutting foriegn aid.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM
You’re absolutely right. So why are we arguing about unsourced allegations from nameless women directed at the only real conservative a plurality of voters seem comfortable voting for?
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 3:54 PM
To me the allegations are pointless and did not sway my feelings. It was how he answered the allegations. He imagined ignorance at first, as if you could easily forget being accused of this kind of offense, particularly when a settlement is involved. I would be so totally outraged that I would take the allegations public long before a settlement ensued if I was innocent. He lied to us. That is the argument, that is why he lost some of my respect for him, which was already borderline supportive.
Just like Perry calling us heartless hurt him emensly, Cain feigning ignorance is just as insulting to people of character. Now, I understand the whole idea of it is politics and blah blah blah, and I call BS on that. An honest man would have said, OK, its out in the open, here is what happened, and filled in every potential blank. Instead we are going to get a trickle of these outings as there are probably dozens of these women and dozens more who never came forward before because they thought it was isolated.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM
When I say dozens and never came forward, I mean most of them will be lying attention whores, but he left the door WIDE open for this kind of instance by trying to hide as much as he could. From here on out, accusers will have more credibility due to that action.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM
I believe Cain and his campaign have demonstrated a stunning level of incompetence in dealing with this story.
I believe pretending otherwise is in the unicorns and rainbows category.
Buy Danish on November 3, 2011 at 4:36 PM
I predict you’re going to have to vote for someone who demonstrates what you consider a stunning level of incompetence in dealing with smear attacks.
No one the GOP picks will be immune. Even Romney, assuming he polls better than Obama, will get the treatment (if he’s the nominee). He won’t handle it — whatever it is — any better than Cain has.
It isn’t possible to “deal with” things like this “competently.” If you think it is, give me one example of a Republican who came under such an attack and gracefully avoided twisting in the wind.
Rush Limbaugh had a good segment on this today. He pointed out that Bill Clinton dealt very effectively with real, documented charges against him by setting up a special team to attack and discredit the victims. He got away with it, Ted Kennedy got away with it, even John Edwards got away with it for a long time, because the media were complicit in their evasive tactics.
The problem most Republicans have is honesty, and an assumption that the exchange with the media and the public on such a topic is about communicating information. It’s not: it’s about who can lie, cheat, and have the least compunction. Only people who are good at the latter get off scot-free from smear-by-implication set-ups like this.
J.E. Dyer on November 3, 2011 at 5:03 PM
So Cain should have no problem. He showed no qualms about starting the whole fiasco with lies coming from his own mouth.
I also do not think that is the only way you come out unscathed. He could have simply brought out a full list of the dates and times he was accused, set the bar for exactly how many attention whores and money grubbers can come forward before their credibility instead of his becomes tarnished. As of right now, an unlimited number of these cretins can come forward and because he was not forthright upfront they have more credibility than they otherwise would have. Cain has shown he will play the game the way the media have honed it to their benefit and our detriment. The slow death by a million cuts.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Do you moonlight as a liberal pundit. Yeah, it’s been medically proven that everybody who undergoes certain accusations about their behavior cannot forget about it or will not remember more details later. Yup.
And if you remember something later, it’s just proof that you were lying about it before. Yup.
And if you believe the two above scenarios, you can call it a LIE–because you can’t be wrong in your judgments.
This is gliberal-level stuff. Glib rule-of-thumb piled upon glib rule-of-thumb. Now, you need to go to “If he can’t remember that, then how can we trust him to remember that the nuclear button is not a call button!!!!”, or some equal asininity.
Axeman on November 3, 2011 at 6:38 PM
So, accusations of sexual harassment to you fall into the not memorable category. Must happen to you all the time then I would guess. If someone brought up a really negative aspect of my past, I can scarcely think of a single instance where I would have forgotten about it. Considering the fact that he talked about it to his campaign people in 2003 seems to indicate that it was a topic he remembered past 2000. Then you have the private vetting that your backers would discuss with you, they would ask, any sexual scandals in the background we need to be prepared for? Yeah, likely he just totally forgot and never once thought about it after it was done, considering the vetting process that he knew he would go through as a Republican candidate for President.
I just do not understand why exactly it takes so much information to get people like you to face the truths that are backed by facts.
Not really all that long ago. You think in 2010 when he was making his plans to run for president he did not have another powow like that with another consultant. Yet I am supposed to believe that he cannot recall something.
Now this is not just the first time he has pulled garbage like this. Every time he makes a gaffe, it comes out that he meant the exact opposite of what he said. It is a constant effort trying to figure out what he meant when he is unscripted, because what he says is never what he meant. Those are called lies and untruths. When confronted with a problem your first instinct is to fake it or lie, that speaks to your character.
So you can take the whole, he probably did not really remember it argument and plan to use it next time, because this time is it not flying.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Nnnnnt. Wrong. Right off the bat, too. I don’t thing I made up my mind about that as apparently you have.
Didn’t know about the 2003 thing. Haven’t really heard that as part of the discussion, just how his statements about memory conflict and how that indicates he’s lying.
So, he tried to play politics and was not too good at it. Am I immediately supposed to jump to leaves-his-wife-on-a-hospital-bed? Or modeled-Obamacare-as-Governor? Or (not-really)fiscal-conservative? Or Ms. Hopelessly-behind-in-the-polls? Or forces-students-to-take-Gardicil-and-is-perhaps-too-close-to-the-company? Or I-don’t-care-if-Iraq-collapses-because-I-wouldn’t-have-gone-in?
I’d rather vote for the only guy–besides Newt–who seems to know that the media is a good part of the real opposition. And we won’t get anywhere for long without breaking down the media.
Your proof-by-incredulousness doesn’t win any points, but if Cain told somebody in 2003, then I have more reservations. They can build up, just like they did before I jumped ship on mandated-vaccinations Perry.
Axeman on November 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM
I am still not a anti-Cain person yet. But I think that we need to be honest in evaluating people who run for Office, particularly on our credibility as a party. He has not done anything that seriously offends me, although many small things that give me pause. On the other side, he has yet to show me that he really is a conservative.
Much like your take on Perry, I was a pro Perry guy before Perry entered the race. I was living in Houston area during the 2010 primary election cycle, and I was highly impressed with his conservative arguments and his hard line seemingly honest conservative stances, such as 10th Amendment and talk of Texas being able to leave the union if the federal government of the United States of America became too big of a burden on the state. Then the things about Illegal aliens, Gardasil executive order, a large amount of cronyism started to surface and he no longer seemed to be a conservative so much as a moderate acting as required in one of the reddest states in the union.
I went through the same process of liking Gingrich to seeing him as a progressive at heart with a strong enough mind to overcome his progressive tendencies. He starts looking at problems, usually brought to light from a progressive organization and begins working on a government solution for that problem. Like he did in sitting down with Pelosi on a couch. Eventually though, his education, intelligence and talking to conservative think tank people bring him solidly to the conservative side of the argument. It then becomes a question of when does he make his first policy proposals based on a situation. Early when he is progressive or later when it might seem he was late to the party but is on the side of conservatism.
Each of us needs to make our choice for president based on all of the available information. Sorry if I made arguments without laying out all of the information I was using, but some things I take for granted often.
I want my politicians vetted fully. I think much of the vetting sinks too low and is not of any value. Honestly, I am pretty heartless when it comes to accusations of sexual harassment, racism, and the like. If I was on the jury of someone accused of either, the circumstances had better be so blatantly obvious that a blind/deaf drunk living in the town nearby would have picked up on it or I would be voting not guilty. I do not buy the idea of man enforced thought crime, and both of these fit into that catagory. Sexual assault, abuse of power, assault/battery/murder, now those are crimes I can get behind man enforcing.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 7:43 PM
Well, you couldn’t have known where I was coming from when I just jumped into a conversation. Like I said, most of what I was hearing was embarrassment that Cain said conflicting things and some of the seat-of-the-pants dogmatizing that liberals do. And I’ve kept my ear out for serious allegations, which just really aren’t forthcoming.
Romney’s a toady of the press. Just like Huntsman, he panders to the “I’m not as bad as the Republicans to the right of me” sentiment that feeds the press. Everybody but Romney is in play for me–and if and when it’s Romney then it’ll be Romney, and I’ll hold my nose.
In 2008, I voted third party because I still wanted to vote for. McCain has sustained the press by playing their game–and we saw how far that got him. “Four more years of Bush”, “Angry John” although they excoriated Republicans as “dirty” who expressed reservations about his “anger issues” in 2000. And I knew that McCain had sucked up to the monster his entire career.
I’m really hoping that the Tea Party is going to keep anybody toeing the line, so that it really doesn’t matter.
Axeman on November 3, 2011 at 8:02 PM
PS: DEFEAT THE PRESS IN 2012!
Axeman on November 3, 2011 at 8:04 PM
Cain had 10 days notice to deal with this (and that’s assuming he didn’t know this was going to be an issue before he decided to run). Give me one example of a Republican who had 10 days warning (and then went on to bungle it so badly).
I don’t deny for one moment that’s true. We know there’s a double standard. It’s a fact of life. But Cain has tried to discredit people who he thinks are responsible for leaking this story. I pointed this out the first time I became aware he was doing this at the thread about his interview with Laura Ingraham. I was attacked by Hot Air commenters for making this observation. Cain later went on to speculate on Fox News. Why is it okay for him to make unsubstantiated allegations? I understand he is trying to protect himself but this is not the way to handle it.
Yes, but Cain did a poor job of communicating information (by repeatedly contradicting himself) and he then chose to ‘smear’ the people he thought were responsible. It’s a mess, that’s for sure…
Buy Danish on November 3, 2011 at 8:12 PM
But it’s not a mess, ipso facto, that automatically disqualifies him from getting my vote. I knew ten months ago what a piss-poor campaigner he was, and even back then I was hoping it wouldn’t come down to Cain-Perry-Romney. But here we are.
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 8:27 PM
There is a lot that Cain cannot come out and say about this because he is under a non disclosure agreement as well as the Women involved. Yet people expect him to be open about the whole thing and give out every detail leaving himself open to a lawsuit?
Conservalicious on November 3, 2011 at 8:53 PM
I understand that issue as well. But when he says he does not recall, it makes him a liar. Instead he should say the truth. The allegation does not give him enough information to determine if there is any legitimacy at all behind it or not. Or something along those lines. He should remember that there these old cases behind him in the closet, so saying he does not recall any such thing is not an honest answer. I know it is quite a stretch to imagine me pulling the lever for an honest candidate, why is that?
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 9:18 PM
No. I just expect him to be consistent when he responds.
Buy Danish on November 3, 2011 at 9:19 PM
Well I’m glad you know what really happened and what Cain is really thinking. Maybe you can tell us, because none of his would-be accusers seem to be willing to go on the record./
Douchebag.
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Following up my earlier comments, I see that AllahP has similar questions/concerns:
Buy Danish on November 3, 2011 at 10:39 PM
Did you get back to the name calling again. Funny how it is that you are unable to control your basest instinct. I gave a generic answer as to what he could have stated. It is not what I think is in his mind, it is a plausible true statement he could make. As has been obvious to anyone with a mental capability beyond that of a 5 year old, there are legal reasons why none of the accusers can give any more information than has already been put out there, in fact it was written up in the original article and in the headlines on this website about 3 times. Cain should not be under any such requirement if he did not do anything bad enough to require him to sign a non disclosure agreement. The women signed it as part of the agreement to just shut them up, what would Cain’s reasoning be to sign one, making it impossible for him to defend himself if baseless undisclosed source claims come out in the future. Does not sound very wise to me.
As I said, he lied, that part is the important aspect of it. It would not matter one iota at this point if the accusers never met the man and lived in china for the last 50 years. The end result is how Cain handled the issue, and in my book it detracts from his character.
I have not written him off as someone I would support in the general, but if you want me to, keep replying to my posts with your immature name calling and I will make the same call I did on Perry, that a man who draws such immoral people to their defense cannot in themselves be moral enough for me to support. It was not fully Perry’s missteps, although they are legion, it was the fact that his fanatic supporters, you were probably one, refused to face criticism honestly. I support people, and those same people I support, when they screw up, I evaluate it honestly. Try to be more honest.
astonerii on November 3, 2011 at 10:52 PM
I really don’t give a flying f**k who you support in the general. Especially not when you judge a candidate by the words of a lone supporter. You can write in a ham sandwich for all I care. With supporters like you, Cain doesn’t need enemies.
gryphon202 on November 3, 2011 at 10:55 PM
With phrases like that I am totally surprised you do not have so many people courting you that you would have trouble finding time to write here.
astonerii on November 4, 2011 at 12:04 AM
Sorry, but this one is wrong.
itsnotaboutme on November 4, 2011 at 8:07 AM
I’ll tell you the same thing I’ve said before:
You and I are Americans. So if you really do believe that, you can find a hole to hide in and let the adults do the heavy work of trying to save this republic.
gryphon202 on November 4, 2011 at 11:19 AM
astonerii on November 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM
Great post, JE. Only site I’d be more surprised to see it would be AoSHQ.
RachDubya on November 4, 2011 at 3:52 PM