► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Herman Cain’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Who is Behind the High-Tech Lynching of Herman Cain?

by 1389AD ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Republican Party, The Political Right at November 6th, 2011 - 3:00 pm

Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Perry

It is not about the women

The female(s) who are allegedly leaking this story are not acting on their own. Even though they have been paid in some way, they are not prostitutes in the most literal sense. Yes, demanding money in return for consensual sex is prostitution, and yes, that activity is legal or decriminalized in some jurisdictions. But demanding money after LYING about sexual acts is something entirely different: it is extortion. Extortion has also been effectively decriminalized in the US, provided that the perp is savvy enough to use our corrupt legal and regulatory system as a tool to extract money from whomever has the deepest pockets.

It is all about the “establishment Republicans”

There is no dirty trick that these RINOs won’t pull, and no lie that they won’t tell, in their quest to foist a “moderate” (actually leftist) Republican on an unwilling electorate.

Cast of Characters in the Lynching of Herman Cain

By Donna Garner

11.3.11

Chris Wilson of Wilson Research Strategies has said publicly that while he was working for Herman Cain at the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in the late 1990’s that he personally saw Cain sexually harass a woman at a restaurant in Virginia although Wilson has not said exactly what he believes constituted his claim of “harassment.”

WHO IS CHRIS WILSON?

Chris Wilson was the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Texas under then-governor George W. Bush. Chris Wilson worked very closely with Karl Rove. Rove was known to us in Texas as the “master of dirty political tricks. ” I suspect that Rove taught Chris Wilson the art of deception.

KARL ROVE

Karl Rove has been accused of being the source behind countless dirty tricks, whisper campaigns, smear tactics, and character assassinations.

I have dealt personally with Karl Rove. I well remember in 1997 when we classroom teachers in Texas had written our own state curriculum standards document (Texas Alternative Document) and were gaining wide support in the national press because no classroom teachers (before or since) had ever written their own standards document. We classroom teachers did not believe the standards being steamrolled by the Texas Education Agency and the Governor’s office were good for Texas students.

In the spring of 1997, Karl Rove was brought in by Gov. George W. Bush’s staff to quiet down the controversy because Bush was on his way to the White House and was being touted as the “education President.” Karl Rove believed that Bush could not afford any bad publicity, and evidently Rove’s task was “to make it go away.”

Suddenly those State Board of Education (SBOE) members who had supported our TAD document began getting phone calls from their largest campaign contributors threatening to withdraw their support unless they backed the Governor’s document.

One of our main SBOE supporters who made his living as a healthcare provider suddenly had his office visited by both state and federal auditing agencies simultaneously. They managed to tie up his total attention for weeks during the exact time that the SBOE members needed to be focusing their attention on the all-consuming work of adopting new curriculum standards for the state of Texas. The auditors found nothing illegal.

At one particular SBOE meeting, several of the SBOE members were told by the hotel management that their room assignments had suddenly been changed. The next day the information they had exchanged in a highly confidential phone call was made known publicly and neither of them had been the ones to leak it.

Back to the Herman Cain “lynching” —

MIKE TOOMEY

Chris Wilson was hired by Mike Toomey to do Gov. Rick Perry’s polling. Mike Toomey was Gov. Perry’s chief of staff who was behind the HPV Merck/Gardasil scandal. Mike Toomey turned out to be a lobbyist for Merck.

CHRIS WILSON TIED TO TONY FABRIZIO

In 1995 Chris Wilson left the Republican Party of Texas (and Karl Rove) and went to work for pollster Tony Fabrizio.

NEW CAMPAIGN TEAM FOR RICK PERRY

Because Gov. Perry’s Presidential campaign was losing steam, several weeks ago (10.24.11) his team decided to hire Curt Anderson, Tony Fabrizio, et al. “Coincidentally,” it appears that Politico began working on its 10.30.11 sexual harassment hit piece against Herman Cain at about that very same time.

WHO IS CURT ANDERSON?

Who is Curt Anderson? Herman Cain told Forbes that he recalled personally telling Curt Anderson in 2003 about the sexual harassment charges at the NRA but that they were baseless. Cain felt Curt Anderson as a pollster for the NRA needed to know about the allegations.

HALEY BARBOUR

Another big coincidence? Curt Anderson was the political director at the Republican National Committee under Haley Barbour. Haley Barbour was a member of the ad team for Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2007/2008.

On 11.2.11 two days after the Politico story broke on 10.30.11, Haley Barbour went on nationwide TV and began to pressure Cain to get the NRA to release its confidentiality agreement, thus giving the “woman” a chance to grab the national microphone.

MY SUMMATION

I am not the brightest bulb in the lamp, but I can connect the dots. So can most thinking Americans.

The Republican candidates are in a heated campaign leading up to the primaries. Out of nowhere has stepped Herman Cain as the frontrunner. He is not an “establishment” sort of guy.

Chris Wilson, the “witness” (Karl Rove’s understudy, recommended to Rick Perry by unscrupulous Mike Toomey) is now working with Curt Anderson (newly hired by Perry) and Tony Fabrizio (newly hired by Perry). Fabrizio is connected to Haley Barbour (worked on Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2007/2008). Barbour is the one who is trying to pressure the Cain campaign to release the “woman accuser” so that the Politico story will grow legs and eventually “lynch” Herman Cain.

COMMENTS FROM ATTORNEYS

Yesterday an attorney friend who has broad experience in such cases told me that if these “women” actually had grounds for sexual harassment charges, they would have gone after Herman Cain for millions of dollars; however, but they did not.

Another good friend sent the following to me, and I believe this piece also should help those of us who are trying to look at this situation logically:

11.2.11

Donna —

A few years ago I met an attorney who specialized in sexual harassment cases and had represented several women who had filed sexual harassment charges against a male co-employee (often a supervisor). We talked for quite a while about that and I learned a couple of interesting things:

1. Pre-Clarence Thomas, [before the Anita Hill “lynching” of Clarence Thomas in 1991] the attorney felt that the sexual harassment laws made sense and she gladly represented a number of female clients.

Post-Clarence Thomas, she refused to represent most women that came to her because the charges were what she called “frivolous and ridiculous” — that “hostile environment” could represent something as benign as an argument and/or several other nonsexual behaviors.

2. I asked her if she ever represented any men pre- or post-Clarence Thomas. She said no — that men were generally laughed out of the courtroom regardless of the validity of the charges.

WHO DID IT?

To my way of thinking either the Perry campaign, the Romney campaign, or both may be behind this “lynching” of Herman Cain.

I will also add that it is possible neither Rick Perry nor Mitt Romney may know what dirty tricks (if any) their campaigners may be doing once hired and working behind closed doors in various parts of the country. Therefore, Perry/Romney are not lying when they say they know nothing about this story. However, some of the campaigners working for them may know quite a bit about it.

Resource for parts of my article:

11.2.11 “Former Texas GOP operative says he knows about Cain harassment but wasn’t source for story” by Wayne Slater, Dallas Morning News: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/perry-watch/headlines/20111102-former-texas-gop-operative-says-he-knows-about-cain-harassment-but-wasnt-source-for-story.ece

Donna Garner
Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

 

Oh, and by the way, “establishment Republicans” hate being called what they are.

Rush Limbaugh: Establishment Republicans Want to Redefine the Term “Conservative”

September 21, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, this is a little Inside Baseball, but it’s important because he who controls the language ends up winning the debate, and it might seem like a small thing, but I have learned and I have been given to understand that the “establishment Republicans” hate the term. They don’t like being called “establishment Republicans,” and they are trying to change the term to “establishment conservatives” and in the process co-opt the definition of “conservative” and conservatism. It’s not something that you’ll notice if you watch cable news or even read. You have to be able to see the stitches on the fastball, you have to be able to read between the lines, and you have to know some stuff going on behind the scenes (and, of course, I am in a position to know these kinds of things).

So don’t doubt me on this. The establishment Republicans are the establishment Republicans. The Republican leadership is the Republican establishment, meaning the elites. They hate it and they are in the process of trying to redefine who conservatives are and what it is — and if they succeed, the conservatism that you and I hold dear will no longer be the definition of conservatism. If they succeed, the current thinking of the Republican establishment will be what is called modern day conservatism. Don’t doubt me on this. It sounds like a small thing, but in a daily ebb and flow you’ll not even see any news about this, but it’s in important because it’s crucial who controls the language, who controls the way words are defined.

You and I know that the establishment Republicans don’t like conservatives. They didn’t like Reagan. They were embarrassed of Reagan. They were embarrassed of us. They didn’t like the Moral Majority, they didn’t like the Christian right, they don’t like the pro-lifers. They don’t like the social conservatives at all. They’re embarrassed by us, in many ways, with their other buddies, the establishment Democrats — which combined gives us the Washington establishment, and they very much prefer to be members of that club than ours. But they know that it doesn’t help them to be called “establishment Republicans.” So they’re trying to take the term “conservative” and co-opt it and define it as they behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics.

END TRANSCRIPT

Also see:

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Republican Party, The Political Right | 108 Comments »

A High Tech Lynching

by huckfunn ( 11 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Censorship, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Hate Speech, Headlines, Liberal Fascism, Media, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at November 5th, 2011 - 8:21 am

Americans For Herman Cain has a new hard-hitting TV commercial that exposes the MSM for what they are; a politically biased, bigoted tool of the democrat party. The ad speaks for itself.

Watch this video on YouTube.

 

 

 

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Censorship, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Hate Speech, Headlines, Liberal Fascism, Media, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives | 11 Comments »

Washington Post Poll: Cain Rises Despite Scandal

by Iron Fist ( 14 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines at November 4th, 2011 - 8:22 am

This is good news:

Businessman Herman Cain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney are running nearly even atop the field of 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows, with most Republicans dismissing the harassment allegations that over the past week have roiled Cain’s campaign.

Seven in 10 Republicans say reports that Cain made unwanted advances toward two employees when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s–allegations which have been stiffly rebutted by Cain’s campaign–do not matter when it comes to picking a candidate.

The post makes much of the 3 in 10 who care, but you can’t really expect unbiased reporting from the Washington Post.

Tags: ,
Posted in Headlines | 14 Comments »

The state of the 2012 presidential race

by Mojambo ( 85 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Elections 2010, Elections 2012, Media, Mitt Romney, Tea Parties, The Political Right at November 2nd, 2011 - 8:00 pm

The Sultan Knish makes clear that the belief that we are guaranteed a win next year because Obama’s policies are so unpopular is a fool’s paradise.  Obama has gone back to running as an insurgent even though he is the incumbent president and is reverting to the us v. them tactics of his community organizer days. As the Knish points out “Obama’s original victory was implausible, it took extensive work, planning and money.  The idea that it can’t happen again should be buried deep right now. It happened once. It can happen again if we let it. The other side is not going to play by any rules, it is not going to run a conventional campaign, it will pull every dirty trick it can think of and change the game as many times as it takes to win.”  We need to make this campaign a campaign of ideas not funny soundbites.  Don’t get  complacent over the 2010 victories and for the love of God do not even contemplate Newt Gingrich!

by Daniel Greenfield

The race for the Republican nomination has all the appeal of a three-legged sack race by a bunch of blindfolded angry drunks– and it’s not entirely the fault of the candidates. Elections used to be events, now they’re a permanent process that begins some time after the last election wraps up. The long round of debates is the slow long road to the primaries that succeeds in making everyone seem unequal to the task.

After the battle of 2010, conservatives were looking for a candidate to raise the standard and lead a charge on Washington D.C., instead we’re stuck with a bunch of politicians with feet of clay and clumsy soundbites. The debate isn’t about ideas, not about what needs to be done in Washington D.C. or even what the candidates believe, it’s a bunch of personality clashes between men who want the job, but lack the combination of ideas, competence and inspiration to make it happen.

We have inspirational candidates, we have candidates with ideas and we have candidates who project competence– but we don’t have all three in the same man or woman, and so we’re left having to pick and choose between the negatives.

[…]

While Obama is assembling a campaign built around class warfare, there is no serious challenge coming from his opponents which means the left is achieving its mission of creating an Anti-Tea Party to take back the debate. The victories of 2010 rewarded the insurgent party. Now Obama’s people are determined to present him as the insurgent fighting against a GOP congress and big business. It’s a narrative tailored to peel away enough independents and conservative Democrats to score a win and it may work.

There’s been a little too much complacency after the victories of the midterm election and the weak numbers for the White House have convinced some politicians that they’re fighting over a carcass. They’re not.

Obama’s original victory was implausible, it took extensive work, planning and money. The idea that it can’t happen again should be buried deep right now. It happened once. It can happen again if we let it. The other side is not going to play by any rules, it is not going to run a conventional campaign, it will pull every dirty trick it can think of and change the game as many times as it takes to win.

OWS should be a wake up call that this election will not be a cakewalk. The failures of the coffee party and every alternative to the Tea Party created a dangerous complacency. Now the mobs are abroad and the game is being changed… and this is just the first phase of what will be the ugliest campaign ever fought.

[…]

For the people who make a living analyzing all the insider games that can be fascinating, but it’s also a dangerous sidetrack to avoid. The media has already done a good job of getting the candidates to clumsily take a few swings at each other and we aren’t any better for it. Pawlenty’s problem wasn’t that he didn’t take a swing at Romney, it was that he wasn’t a compelling standard-bearer. The Perry-Romney exchange was flat out embarrassing for everyone involved. Cain has emerged in the lead because he is vocal, unapologetic and eager to communicate his message. The same reasons that Bachmann at one point had the lead.

What we need is a standard bearer who merges that unapologetic and enthusiastic message with a sense of leadership. That’s what Ronald Reagan delivered in his time. There’s no use in wishing for a Reagan, but it’s also important to remember that leaders don’t emerge out of nowhere, they are shaped by the expectations of the people.

The media would like to reduce the Republican candidates to a bunch of clowns, so far they have gotten their way with the help of a conservative media all too eager to drive traffic with another controversy. But what they want and what we need are too different things. We don’t need viral videos and controversies– what we need are men and women who speak strongly about what is wrong with this country and what needs to be changed.

Short term victories can be scored with gimmicks, but the long term battle is not going to be won on those terms. Once the race begins in earnest voters will look to two men to see which of them has the answer. The media will do its best to make one of those men look like an idiot, a bigot, a buffoon and a complete failure. And it will do it best to make the other man who actually is an idiot and a failure look like an inspirational genius.

Will the public buy it? Last time around they bought into the idea that inexperience is an asset and that a state senator from one of the most corrupt states in America was more qualified to take the helm during a national emergency than a respected senator and veteran. They also bought into the idea that Sarah Palin was a dunce and Joe Biden was a respected expert on foreign policy.

That doesn’t mean the race is hopeless, it means that it’s our race to lose. And it’s going to be lost or won on ideas, not on personalities.

[…]

The media is not afraid of Cain, Perry, Romney, Gingrich or the rest of the gang. None of them are Reagan and even if they were, the media could still destroy them. What they are afraid of is ideas. Men come and go, but principles count. The left isn’t in this because they believe in one man, but because they believe in the revolution. It’s the rise of “right-wing populism” that they are afraid of. They are arrogant elitists who look down on everyone else and condescend to them and fear them.

What keeps them up at night is a man who can step forward, lay out all the common sense ideas that they have worked so hard to discredit in front of the public and step off the stage to their cheers. They know it can happen and they expect it to happen because they know quite well how unpopular the menu of ideas on the left side of the plate are.

What frightens them is a conservative who doesn’t look for common ground with them, but looks at them with good-natured contempt and tears up their arguments into small pieces with a few words. The words don’t have to be well-chosen, the candidate doesn’t have to be an articulate speaker, but he has to be a standard bearer for the deep rooted common sense beliefs of the country. That abiding sense of right and wrong that the left has worked so hard to pervert, distorted, mock and bury away as a last resort.

It’s confidence that is the key ingredient. That is what many thought they saw in Perry. Maybe it’s still there. It’s what many see in Cain and what others see in Bachmann and Gingrich. For all their flaws they carry that confidence with them. And if they can overcome those flaws and focus on the issues, then they might make a difference.

The power of the left is built on the illusion of consensus, and that illusion only works when there is no disagreement or those who disagree are shunted to the side as liars and buffoons. Their consensus is unnatural and it only operates in the absence of dissent. Like the naked emperor traipsing down the street and expecting no one to notice, all it takes is a loud enough cry to wake people up again and to burst the illusion of a consensus.

The left is not vulnerable in its personalities, at least it hasn’t been since the Dukakis disaster, it is vulnerable in its ideas which run counter to what most people believe is so. The more indefensible they are, the weaker they are.

The perception that we will win because people dislike Obama should be put to rest now. That may help us, but it will not win it for us. All that the other side has to do is convince the public to dislike our candidate even more. We will only win if we deserve to win by making this an election of ideas, not a smirking contest. Only when there is a clear dividing line drawn down the middle and when the left is hit on the consequences of its policies over and over again, while the alternative is made clear will we win.

Read the rest: The State of the Race

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Conservatism, Elections 2010, Elections 2012, Media, Mitt Romney, Tea Parties, The Political Right | 85 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »