Woman alleges long affair with Cain -<o> -==-< *wink* *wink*

We don't know that yet. I am sure there are more skeletons in those closets. Maybe a Bill/Herm/Random Mistress tri-fecta is the next news story to break.

 

Well seriously, if we don't mock him, who will? Certainly not you guys. Your job is to mock our folks. I'm surprised no one's brought up Edwards. Just shows the depth of the RW obsession with Billy.

 

Herman Cain, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, and all of their ilk aren't worth the time to mock--although, you have to admit, Weiner is just too much of a gift to be left wrapped. I was in Psychopathology class when he, erm, let it all hang out, and asked my (normally very staid) professor if Weiner fit a particular pathology that we were studying after briefly describing what had been done. My professor looked at me as if I were punking him and, after having my facts confirmed by other students, he asked, "and his name was . . . Weiner?" I swear, I thought we were going to need to find a paper bag for him to breathe into. I don't think my question ever got answered.

But seriously, I don't consider it my "job" to mock anyone. I have criticized Cain since day one, saying that the only candidate that looks "that good" has to have someone pretty good at burying the evidence. Sometimes I hate being proven right. But my opinion is still that we need to be consistent when holding people accountable. No person can say with a straight face that the acts of Barney Frank, a pimp, are irrelevant when holding the acts of Herman Cain, an adulterer, up as objects of scorn. The first is illegal, as well as being immoral. The second is legal and "merely" immoral." If the first is "irrelevant," then the second must be so minor as to be entirely beneath notice. However, if what Cain has done is a disgrace and worthy of mockery, then what Frank has done is equally if not more of a disgrace and is worthy of notice, if not prosecution.

Edited to add:

If anyone is "obsessed" with Bill Clinton it is because he was president, not representative, not senator, not candidate when the allegations were made public. Personally, I remember Clinton more for the good he did in office than I do for the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress--however--I think that it is impossible to entirely discount the dress, either. He will always be, to me, like the Hall of Fame player with an asterisk next to his name for some abuse or other--good, if not great with that asterisk, but oh, imagine what he could have been without it.

 

Now, that is a real funny. You really expect the liberals to be equally forgiving of both sides?

 

You're being the adult in the room. Again.

 

In a word: yes. Then again, I expect the same out of both sides, equally. Without equal standing, there is no grounds for debate.

Hall monitor. Srsly. Now, do you have a bathroom pass or do I have to call a teacher? ( )

 

I have to ask this but why is it that our political overlords are expected to be whiter than white when it comes to there personal life (By us) when in reality they are simply people with the same frailties and behaviours as our self's?
I can understand why we expect them to be honest (ish) and not sexual preditors or violent
but would you disbar a person from running a company for having a affair/been gay etc? We talk of President Clinton and Monika as if it was something earth shattering it isnt, it is human nature what has it to do with anyone else? It was not a National security issue was it LOL

 

De Orc, you're absolutely right. I had no problem with the Clinton affair; that was his personal life. The problem I had with Clinton was committing perjury in the Paula Jones case. There are no human beings who are pure so we can't expect our politicians to be. I despise the hypocrisy of the left, however, when they bring up the alleged frailties of Herman Cain, but somehow turn a blind eye to the escapades of Bill Clinton.

As far as I'm concerned with Herman Cain, if he had an affair, so what?

 

I quite agree Perjury is a diffrent game all together, while one never really expects a politician to tell the whole truth (it is against there constitution LOL) under oath is something else

Ps with exceptions such as matters of National security or if it was to put the lives of people at risk (Ie overseas undercover intel op's etc)

 

Most of us probably don't take a single incident as a deal breaker. However, when you are courting the religious right vote as part of your base, an extra-marital affair, in and of itself, will probably be an issue for your campaign.

And, in Cain's case, you couple an affair with sexual harassment (or sexual assault if one of the stories is true) allegations and you have something that I think is more than just of concern to those with a puritanical bent.

 

Well at least his wife isn't dying of cancer. As far as we know.

 

Yes...absolutely! We can excuse the behavior so long as we don't lie about it!! LOLOL

 

Yeah...now that Cain is toast, we can get along with the Newt front and center stage (as Romney isn't electable simply because of his religious association). I can't wait for the Newt and Bill Clinton to go at each other. Should be easy pickins' for Bill and the left wing. Bill can say "Yeah...I know all about the Newt". LOL Can't wait! The right wing just keeps settin' them up and the left can keep knockin' them down. The old "he did it too" and "look over there" mentality. Barney Frank now? Seriously???? You right wingers crack me up!!! LOLOL

 

bump