"I got it," says Politico. "Let's just make some stuff up, be hazy on the details, protect the alleged victims' identity and we'll capture the nation's attention."
What a crock.
Didn't we see this kind of BS back in '93 over the Clarence Thomas hearings at the onset of Slick Willie's presidency (y'all remember Clinton--our first black president)?
According to the non-reaction of the NAACP and SCLC and other pro-radical/liberal/militant black taxpayer funded associations, Cain must be guilty. After all, those groups are pretty quiet right now.
Maybe it was over the price of cigars they had to buy the new daddy?
But the "Rev" Jackson has some sexual harassment problems of his own right now. What--you hadn't heard that from the big media? Check it out.
So people are starting to really dig Herman Cain, his message is resonating, his popularity soaring, other candidates are attacking him and mimicking his proposals and the mainstream media just can't have that.
So, a plant piece.
Only, nobody's buying it.
I suspect if Al Gore had got off his ass sooner in '93 and given us the internet a little quicker, the same thing would've been said about Justice Clarence Thomas. Oh, except even back then nobody was really buying it, especially when it was proven what a notorious liar and goldbrick Anita Hill was--and is.
So how does this all make the mainstream media irrelevant?
Simple. I've been waiting on a "story" like this to appear. I figure it would have no facts, only speculation. No basis, other than political envy, and that the so-called "research" for such a story could've been funded just as easily from Mitt Romney's "killing machine" as it could have been from the DNC.
It would come from some two-bit no-name reporter who will peddle the story upwards until someone's attention was garnered, then the story would be pitched.
Real news doesn't have to be pitched, and right now, the mainstream media is having to pitch the vast majority of their stories.
Like I said, irrelevant.
9 comments:
I have to disagree Tex. The media is still a powerful player - they own the 'stupid' demographic of the electorate. Anyone who doubts their power is invited to remember another black candidate that won his election based on hopey changiness. (And the way they're polishing that particular turd, he may win again!)
There are still millions that read but can't think and they ARE players that Cain will have to eventually reckon with.
Oh..it's the MEDIA'S fault, lol! Yeah, I'll bet Fox News is all over this!
Yep, gotcha leaks... gotta wonder how many man hours went into digging this up... And as little as this seems to be, Cain is a choir boy compared to Hart, Clinton, Kennedy and others... Oh wait, he's REPUBLICAN so it's ALL BAD!
liberal,
I'm just amazed that there is still enough light coming in the little skylight of that porta-potty at the OWS movement you're at for you to read all this stuff.
Either that or you have some nice backlighting on your smart phone.
If it wasn't for free WiFi, you'd really be up a creek. . .
--AOA
Herman Cain admits to payout in sexual harassment suit.
Hardly "made up" story that's fuzzy on detail, now that Cain admits to it.
Shaw,
It's called a nuisance settlement, and it's what a lot of successful people have had to pay out thanks to "progressive" ambulance chasing pukes who've perfected the slip-and-fall banana peel routine.
Essentially it means that it's cheaper to pay the extortionist than it is to continue paying the damned lawyers.
Best you stay up in Boston. Down here, we're working to pass "Loser Pays" legislation in regards to bullshit claims.
If the women making these claims against Cain were to try that after Loser Pays becomes law, and found that they had no case, then THEY have to pay all court costs PLUS attorney fees for both sides.
In other words, you better have a pretty damned good case if you're looking to go smear someone's name and try to leech a few bucks off them.
--AOA
I'm curious, AOA, about how you came into possession of the details of these harassment cases since the women had to sign a nondisclosure agreement after the NRA paid them off?
You claim the harassment issues are mere "nuisance settlements," so you must have evidence to back that up.
Three women so far, as "nuisance settlements" [and I've read there're more]. I'll show you my evidence when you show me yours.
I remember during the Clinton years these things were called "bimbo eruptions."
Shaw,
During the Clinton years, the allegations had witnesses (Arkansas State Troopers) and named complaintants.
And every once in a while, we even heard the word "rape" used by the wronged women.
With Cain, we can't even get a timeline, a name, or even a hint of what "impropriety" occurred.
If you can't see the difference, you must be a liberal. (to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy)
--AOA
"And every once in a while, we even heard the word "rape" used by the wronged women."
In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ...."
In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC. Broaddrick recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive.
IOW, not proven.
Troopergate
The allegations by state troopers Larry Patterson and Roger Perry were first reported by David Brock in the American Spectator in 1993, then confirmed the next day in The Los Angeles Times.
The story mentioned a woman named Paula, a reference to Paula Jones, who later sued Clinton for sexual harassment in Jones v. Clinton.
Brock has since apologized to Clinton, saying the exposé based on the troopers was politically motivated "bad journalism" and said "The troopers were greedy and had slimy motives."
In his book, Blinded by the Right, David Brock claimed that in order to maintain journalistic integrity, he agreed to write the Troopergate article only if the four troopers whom he interviewed were not paid. In 1998, a conservative fundraiser admitted that he had paid each of the troopers $6,700 after the articles were published. The payments were made behind Brock's back. Following the admission, Brock publicly apologized to President Clinton for his Troopergate story, which he stated was written not "in the interest of good government or serious journalism," but as part of an "anti-Clinton crusade."
Curious. Why were the troopers paid to simply tell the truth?
You eagerly believe the allegations of Broaddick and the troopers, both of whose claims are tainted, but refuse to see any merit in the Cain allegations?
If you can't see the hypocrisy, then you must be a conservative. (to paraphrase anyone who isn't conservative.)
Post a Comment