Alas, Poor Hermy! We Barely Knew Him

P

Perham1

2,500+ Posts
What do you really expect from a guy who said that he's never done anything inappropriate? That makes him either the world's worst liar or the world's most deluded man. Maybe both.

Didn't Hermy think this stuff would be an issue?

No wonder the GOP is in such a sorry state of affairs.
 
To show just how out of touch Hermy is with the whole GOP zeitgeist, get a load of this:

No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life," Lin Wood, Cain's attorney, wrote.

Wow. How many GOP'rs would agree with that?
 
Besides the fact that I know more about foreign policy and running a government them Cain does, there's the spectacle of this guy letting his wife go out and give extended TV interviews talking about what a great guy he is and how the Herman Cain she knows would never do the things he's being accused of.

Seriously.....how could you let her do that...? Dude ain't qualified in my book.
 
I'd take him over the current office holder, without question. Hell, I would even take Bill Clinton over the current office holder, ouch that hurt just saying that......
 
Didn't Hermy think this stuff would be an issue?
__________________________________________________

He was simply black for too long. He thought he would get a free pass like most democrats and it wouldnt come out until he was already in office and then nobody would care. at least he wasnt producing children on the side with a wife with cancer while everyone in the beltway knew about it.
 
Also, I never thought of multi-million dollar special federal prosecution and frivolous impeachment as being a free pass. Evidently you do or you just don't have much of a memory.
__________________________________________________

my memory tells me that he lied during a deposition and was a member of the bar. only a bunch of blowhard republicans made the affair an issue. otherwise, no investigation would have taken place and there would have been no impeachment.
 
The womanizing issues with Clinton were well known and documented before he was elected. Amazing that the national media gave it little attention though.
 
my memory tells me that he lied during a deposition ....

You're close, but not quite there.

The issue was not of "lying", but of "perjury".
 
Hmm, then you're not looking very hard. The latest lady has evidence on her cell phone of Big Herm contacting her. At 4:30 in the am, no less.
 
Not defending Cain in the least, but to me the denials and/or lying about the allegations are more of an issue than the acts themselves. How would JFK and LBJ have fared under the scrutiny that candidates face from the media today?

The voters will make their own judgements on his qualifications for POTUS, and if these moral issues override his other qualifications in their minds he won't win the nomination, simple as that.

Same deal with Newt's issues, or Mormonism, or anything else that applies to other candidates. Unfortunately you don't get to cherry pick attributes from all candidates to come up with the ideal nominee. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and hope for the best.
 
Back in the days when things were more private you could murder your way into the white house, set up a Warren Commission to whitewash the whole conspiracy, and get away with it.
 
Herman and his team's poor crisis management is the issue that differentiated what happened to him vs. what happened to Bill Clinton. Certainly Rick Perry and team have shown much better skills at that sort of thing this election cycle. Alas poor Rick has to overcome what is becoming a widespread perception that he's not especially smart and as long as you have to talk on the campaign trail, that's not something he'll be able put behind him.
 
Crocket - exactly. Its never the crime, its the cover up that kills off candidates. I love this quote "his other qualifications." He has none. And how he handled these crisis totally proved it. I told the board here that there was no way this guy was going to be a serious candidate. I really wonder what is going on in the minds of the GOP. And now Gingrich?

And Republicans started all of this with Bill Clinton. I think most implicitly understand they can't whine too much that it can now bite them in the butts. I wonder what they were thinking back then when they started all of this.
 
This was not a serious campaign at any point. Nobody would have the complete disasters he did if they really thought they could be president. He pumped his book, took your money and will now head to pasture never to be heard from again.
 
Even with your admission of ignorance you continue?

There is plenty of evidence. That's my point. You haven't seen it. That means you haven't bothered to keep up with the story. That's all. You act like the 4:30 call is all there is to it. Do yourself a favor and get your Cain learn on.
 
Ok prod, you have a very bad habit of either not reading what you yourself wrote, what others wrote, or just plain moving the goalposts.

To wit:

But based on the CNN article I saw yesterday and the 4:30 a.m. call that you claim "proves" something....

I never claimed this "proved" anything. It is approaching a dishonesty for you to say I did.

What you are still not understanding, it appears, is the definition of "evidence". If you didn't mean evidence, or if you don't understand the definition of the word, then you should have used another word.

You said there was little evidence. I showed that you were incorrect. There is much evidence just with the Ginger White claim. Dozens of phone calls, text messages, admissions of money being given to White, admission that Cain's wife didn't even know.

That is not proof, but it is evidence. Evidence you weren't aware of. Well, know you are.

So, the lesson of the morning for you is to learn the difference between evidence and proof, and what the link is between those two.
 
Fair enough, but if I'm using evidence and proof interchangeably, it'e because they've been used interchangeably in pretty much all of these posts. Do you really want to argue that there has been any legitimate consideration of innocence in any of these posts? Of course not - he was considered guilty by most of you the first time the allegations came out.

So fine, to be more specific - I have not seen any evidence that I believe proves anything, or outweighs the accusers background and baggage. And you keep talking about other evidence, but if that's the case, CNN is being negligent in its coverage. They've mentioned phone logs and texts, but as I understand that, none of those were made public other than the text that led them back to Cain's own number (which as I recall was the imfamous 4:30 a.m. call?) The rest of the evidence appears to be her own claims.
 
he was considered guilty by most of you the first time the allegations came out.

Really? How do you know this?

The first accusation? I'd give the benefit of the doubt to Cain. Second one, still to Cain. Third one, well now it's starting to look less than rosy for him. Fourth? And now Ginger White?
And on top of that Cain's bizarre responses.

You sound like a "fair and balanced" disciple, assigning both sides an even 50% no matter what the evidence shows.

You and evidence don't seem to get along very well. Meaning you are again incorrect in saying that the rest of the evidence appears to be White's own claims.That is simply not true.
 
hahahaha. Love your skepticism now. Where was it when you were pretty much falling for that voice analysis "proving" that Cain wasn't lying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top