Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Cain Update: Meet The Accuser

A picture is emerging of Cain’s newest harasser Sharon Bailek. It’s an ugly picture of a liar and “a gold digger” with serious financial problems who is seeking celebrity.

Would you hug your rapist?
Let’s start with the most obvious. At the presser, Bailek broke down in tears about the harassment she claims. What she describes is actually felony sexual assault. Yet, last month, Bailek went to see Cain speak at a Tea Party function in Chicago. Bailek first claims she didn’t know he would be there. Then she said she confronted him: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”

Yet, radio host Amy Jacobson said that everyone knew Cain would be there. And it’s inconceivable Bailek could go to a Tea Party conference where the front-running candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency was scheduled to speak and somehow not know he was coming.

Jacobson also said Bailek told her at the time she was anxious to meet Cain again and “had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago.” Jacobson also confirmed that Bailek “never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.” As for the encounter itself, Jacobson said: “It looked sort of flirtatious. I mean they were hugging.” That’s confirmed by the photo where Bailek poses with her supposed attempted-rapist (see update below).
Her story makes no sense.
Now let’s look at her story. It’s nonsense. Bailek claims she called Cain to see if he would rehire her after she had been laid off. Her boyfriend got her a hotel room. Cain upgraded the room to a huge suite. She went to dinner with Cain. He asked her why she was there. She told him to get rehired. They left dinner and got into the car, where Cain put his hand on her skirt and tried to force her head toward his crotch. She refused. Cain said, “you want a job, don't you?” She refused. The end.

Now let me ask some questions.
1. How did Cain know where she was staying to upgrade her?

2. Assume you are a businesswoman who has just been laid off and you want to beg the boss for your job back. The boss says “ok, get a hotel room and we’ll meet over dinner.” Does this sound like something a businesswoman would agree to? No.

3. Why does Cain ask her at dinner why they are there? Presumably, he would know before he agreed to the dinner? (Reason: this is poorly written fiction.)

4. What happened in the gap between him asking why they are at dinner and them getting in the car? Presumably, there was a lengthy discussion about her job and Cain must have said something like “sure” or “no way”? Or did he just twirl his moustache and say, “I’ll tell you in the car, sexy.” Again, this is poorly written fiction with a poorly thought-through timeline.

5. If Cain is the sexual predator they claim, and he did reach up her skirt and push her head toward his crotch against her will, why would he suddenly stop when she told him no?
This is fiction. Moreover, what she is describing is a date, not a business meeting. It sounds like she was trying to sleep her way back into the job.

But I think there’s something else going on her. This sounds like a set up. The boyfriend getting her the room, the plan to meet Cain for a sexy dinner at an Italian restaurant.... it all sounds like Bailek and her boyfriend planned to blackmail Cain or the NRA. Don’t forget, its likely she knew about the rumors of the first settlement, so it’s hardly a stretch to see someone like Bailek trying to get her own settlement. What do I mean “someone like Bailek”? Read on.
But she’s a respectable woman, right?
According to her celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Sharon Bailek is a respectable single-mother from Chicago who has spent her life working in marketing. Here are some facts she forgot to mention. Specifically, Bailek is a deadbeat.

A friend described Bailek thusly to the New York Post: “the reality of her situation is she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about money.” The friend continues:
“This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.”
The friend added that she is running from bill collectors, even as she lives in a posh suburb, and that she’s been fired from most of her jobs. Is there any support for this? Yes.
● She’s had 9 jobs in 17 years.
● She filed bankruptcy in 1991.
● She filed bankruptcy in 2001, claiming only $5,000 in assets.
● She has a long history of tax evasion and missed credit card payments.
● In 2009, the IRS filed a tax lien against her for $5,200.
● In August 2011, the Illinois Dept. of Revenue placed a lien against her for $4,300 going all the way back to 2004.
● Other creditors have taken legal action against her including one suit in Cook County, where a $3,000 judgment was gotten against her.
● She has also brought a paternity suit against the father of her child.
I’ve had many sleazeball and malingering clients, but even they rarely have this much financial carnage in wake. And I have no doubt her claims are about obtaining celebrity and getting a book deal or a film deal or a television show to get rich.
Serial Harasser or Serial Harassment Claimer?
One of problem with the allegations against Cain is that they paint the picture of Cain as a serial harasser. If you believe the unsupported and undetailed MSM version, then you will believe that Cain “harassed” four women, with each one increasing in intensity until you get to the point of the sexual assault Bailek describes. Yet, strangely, there are no allegations from other jobs or other people in Cain’s life. These allegations make Cain out as a sexual predator for a period of a couple months and then he suddenly never does it again. That’s nonsense -- especially given the Snidely Whiplash way they’ve described Cain.

But here’s something interesting about Bailek. She accused a former boyfriend of harassing her when he demanded back $4,500 she loaned him. Thus, she has a history of making harassment allegations when it suits her financial interests.
But she said this before she had a motive, right?
Allred claims she has affidavits from two friends who claim Bailek told them about this harassment at the time. Thus, we’re supposed to believe her allegations are real because she apparently mentioned them before she had a motive. But. . .

First, never trust evidence from friends or family that supports a witness. People lie for their friends. That’s why no sane jury believes those people.

Secondly, if this was true, then why didn’t she tell her father or her fiancé of several years until this week? Maybe she only shared this “hurtful” incident with her closest girlfriends? Well, no. The first “friend” is her boyfriend at the time, i.e. her co-conspirator. The second friend is a “businessman friend.”

Moreover, why didn’t she tell her father or fiancé when Cain first ran for president or any time over the last year? And why didn’t she tell them before, during or after the Chicago meeting. . . where she hugged and flirted with Cain? She claims now that she went to confront him to see if he was man enough to admit what he’d done. Yet, we’re supposed to believe she didn’t tell her fiancé what she did? That’s bullsh*t.

Finally, let’s dispel this idea that she had no motive at the time. If it was a set up against Cain or the NRA, then she had plenty of motive to tell people at the time -- particularly her co-conspirator boyfriend. And if it was a date rebuffed, then she still had a motive to tell the boyfriend, to keep him from getting upset at her trying to jump ship to Cain. And even if truly was a business meeting, then she has a motive to save face.

This woman is a fraud.

** Update: I've been told the women in the photo above might actually be Amy Jacobson. I can't say either way, but it actually changes nothing in the analysis. Jacobson (who supports Bailek) has confirmed that Bailek flirted with and hugged Cain. The lack of photographic evidence (if that's the case) doesn't change that.

** Update 2: For a fascinating take on the David Axelrod connection, check out this article by Ann Coulter: LINK.


111 comments:

AndrewPrice said...

I just saw Cain's interview and he denies all of this.

Sadly, Romney and Santorum appear to be jumping on the lynching bandwagon. Romney called Bailek's allegations "particularly disturbing" and said they should be "taken seriously." Which is just another reason not to like him and his wet-noodle spine.

And Beeker said he found the allegations "particularly troubling".... much like I find Beeker himself.

Patti said...

I had two initial reactions that made me conclude she's lying:

#1) she read her account of the harassment instead of a more powerful retelling from memory (she wouldn't forget, no matter how nervous she might be). not only did she read the retelling, she read quotes, like she was reading a story she had no connection to. so weird and off the mark.

#2: she's been on the media circuit smiling, joking, having a ball. if i had been harassed by a possible candidate for president, i'd be out for blood. no laughs, no smiles: this is serious business, bucko.

as cheech and chong said many years ago (paraphrasing): if it looks like dog sh*t, if it smells like dog sh*t...it's dog sh*t.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I've had the exact same thoughts! :)

First, her whole story sound to me like somebody wrote it. It's poorly assembled with strange gaps. It's bad fiction. And the fact she had to read it is serious proof that she didn't "know it" but was instead repeating what she had prepared.

Secondly, she sure is loving the limelight for someone who claims to be all broken up about events from 14 years ago.

This woman is looking to become a celebrity, pure and simple.

Tam said...

I'll be interested to see what the polls and Cain's fundraising reflect in the next few days.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, Me too. Several of the people I've spoken too have actually started donating to him once this whole scandal began because they didn't like him being smeared.

I tend to think the MSM has pushed way too far and these latest allegations, rather than helping the MSM's case, are simply solidifying the idea that the whole thing is a fraud.

I also think they made a mistake picking this Bailek women as the face of their cabal because she's clearly lying. You don't go hug your attempted rapist...

DUQ said...

The woman is a liar. She wants to be famous so she can make money and meet celebrities.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, That's my take.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I am surprised that you and most others missed a telling comment.

Question: When did the phrase "stimulus package" entered the national Lexicon?
Answer: It was shortly before Barack entered Office.

Why is this woman attributing a comment to Cain when it didn't come into common usage after the supposed attack happen?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's a really good point and adds to the idea this is pure fiction. It sounds to me like she sat down with someone and they came up with a script to try to overcome the problems with the prior accusers' stories and to make it sound punchy. Then she ran with that. And it doesn't make sense because she didn't think it through and she made a lot of common story-telling mistakes.

Attributing a word choice to him which didn't come into common use until later fits right in with that.

Good catch!


(P.S. The Cain press conference will begin shortly.)

Tam said...

Joel, I think that was Gloria Allred's failed attempt at humor. I thought the phrase came about when Allred was describing what her client described to her, not an actual quote attributed to Cain. I could be wrong...if you're right, then it just adds more stink to the pile o'crap.

Tennessee Jed said...

ah come on, Andrew . . . .just because of facts you aren't going to believe her? Plus, Gloria Alred is probably the most selfless fighter for the downtrodden that has ever walked the earth.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I'm not sure. There's been so much on this that keeping track of it all is difficult.

It wouldn't surprise me that this was Allred's way of being funny. And if it was, then I feel sexually harassed by her: inappropriate humor involving inuendo = sexual harassment.

Tennessee Jed said...

I think Alred made up the stimulus package thing and was talking about a different kind os "stimulus package" altogether. ;-)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I know you're kidding, but for the record, Gloria Allred is a turd. When people say "kill all the lawyers," she should be first in line.

As for not believing Bailek because of the facts... yeah, I'm funny that way. I prefer my truth to be truthful.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I'm trying to remember back to her dog and pony show and I think you're right. And in that case, I repeat that I feel sexually harassed by Allred:

inappropriate humor involving sexual innuendo = sexual harassment

Joel Farnham said...

It occurred to me last night when I heard that part of her statement. It is crude humor attributed to Cain. The problem is that it wasn't used by any one prior to Obama. She said he attempted to molest her using that phrase when no one was using "stimulus package" for any reference.

Adding it to Bailek's statement makes it an embellishment that in turn makes it into a lie. Which then Bailek's lie ... er, whole statement can be thrown out of the court of public opinion. Or at the least, subject her statement to a whole of salt. ;-)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I have to dig up a transcript of the conference because I honestly don't remember exactly how it was used. But you are right that if the implication was that's a quote from Cain, then it's more proof this whole thing is fiction.... not that we need a lot more proof.

And let me say, I expect there will be more proof. Not only do I suspect there's a lot more dirt on her and a lot more people in her wake, but if they are making this up, then she will stat changing her story to fit public opinion.

AndrewPrice said...

In other news, there's now a supposed fifth one who claims that Cain told her to get the name of a woman in the audience.... no doubt to harass her.

Yawn.


Apparently, the MSM has never read The Boy Who Cried Wolf 10,000 Times.

Ed said...

This is all total horse poop. This woman sees her chance to score some money and save her financial butt.

Her whole story trying to explain how she ran into Cain and ended up hugging him is horse poop too.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, a few people today have been saying that the "hugging" incident was actually what Bielak intended to do, to confront him and make him confess "what he did."

Okay, I guess that's halfway possible. But why would she hug him, in that case? Was that also supposed to be part of the "confrontation"?

Also, I'm interested to know why this woman, who claims to be a Republican, would hire Gloria Allred, of all people. As we've made abundantly clear, it's not like there aren't any conservative blogs out there who would just eat this up. Why not spill her secrets to them? This fish stinks from the head down.

Tam said...

So far so good, from Cain's attorney. Give 'em hell...

AndrewPrice said...

Tam -- his attorney is ripping the MSM and the accusers apart! :)

Brilliant speech.

Tam said...

agreed...BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT!!! I hope Cain's follow up is just as good.

CrispyRice said...

This is a great speech so far!

Two thumbs up!

AndrewPrice said...

PERIOD.

AndrewPrice said...

I really like this speech. He's making a point out of it, not just denying the allegations.

Tam said...

I heart Herman Cain!

T-Rav said...

Can you imagine if the media had vetted Barack Obama with this level of intensity in 2008? Eh, I guess those were trivial distractions from the big issues or something.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I agree.

T-Rav, Are you watching this?

AndrewPrice said...

"a troubled woman."

"statements... many of which exceed common sense and they certainly exceed the decency of America."

Excellent!

T-Rav said...

Oh, sorry. Am I supposed to have the sockpuppets out?

Yes, I'm watching, I'm just trying to analyze it first before really getting into it.

AndrewPrice said...

"some members of your profession have even stalked my family"

BOOM!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, no don't need the sockpuppet, I just wanted to make sure you were watching.

This is a hell of a speech!

Tam said...

I love his eye contact. Beautiful work.

T-Rav said...

A lie detector test?! What the @#$%!!!!

Tam said...

WITH FACTS! BOOM, BABY!!!!

AndrewPrice said...

"with FACTS... not accusations"

T-Rav said...

This is the one thing nobody wants to discuss. What is the actual P-R-O-O-F that ANY of this actually happened? Where is the smoking gun? Or even something resembling a smoking gun? Heck, give me a smoking slingshot and we'll thrash it out.

CrispyRice said...

They want Herman to take a lie detector while people like Clinton got off with "oh those sluts and nuts" and they never even looked twice a thing Obama did??!?!?!?

Excuse me while I cuss and my head explodes!

Joel Farnham said...

Uh.. Hot Air, is now citing Reuter's online poll that shows Republicans view Cain 40% less favorably.

Hmm. Internet poll. That is AllahPundit's way of reaching for anything that possibly can legitimize his treatment of Cain.

Anyone still think Hot Air isn't in the tank for this hi-tech lynching?

AndrewPrice said...

Interestingly, the media is being surprisingly tame.

Tam said...

Maybe that's what happens when they gett whipped.

AndrewPrice said...

Brilliant way to give her a motive without saying it directly -- common sense tells you...

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, That could be. But he definitely is controlling them at the moment.

T-Rav said...

Joel, was it an Internet poll? I hadn't noticed that.

Great. And HotAir is usually careful to point out flawed polls.

AndrewPrice said...

"Is it possible that your story might change?"

What kind of question is that?

AndrewPrice said...

Wow, what an asshole... "tell us what she accused you of."

T-Rav said...

Wow, so that's not a biased question at all.

Tam said...

Home run in my opinion.

AndrewPrice said...

That was brilliant!

1. He made the point this was a smear.

2. He flat out denied everything.

3. He made the point that what is relevant are the issues, not the smears.

4. He took down the media by accusing them of being unprofessional.

T-Rav said...

Okay, I thought the prepared remarks were pretty good. It might have been better if he'd denied or given his version of specific alleged incidents, rather than give a blanket denial--but then if nothing happened, I guess there's no point in that.

In handling the questions from reporters, however, I thought he did very well and showed his communications ability at its best.

AndrewPrice said...

Which is not to say the press didn't piss me off -- especially that "I spoke to the witness, tell us what she says you did because I won't..."

That's total crap.



Also, I find it interesting that I no longer want to hear from any journalist about this. They are all a disgrace. So I'm back on the ScyFi Channel. Interesting.

LawHawkRFD said...

I just got back from the trading post, and Cain was on TV (on tape from earlier today?). I haven't changed my opinion of the man, I seriously question the allegations against him, and I think he's fielding loaded questions very well.

That said, I know a lot of our readers disagreed with me last week about this being over. I was too far into dirty Democratic politics in the 60s to have believed that the attack dogs would relent quickly. They have lived up to my lowest expectations.

I think he will come out of this fine, but don't think the vicious MSM will give up their prejudices and just go away. They will continue to bring up the allegations without any regard for truth or even logic.

T-Rav said...

A talk-radio guy just made an important point, along the lines of "Rule of life: You don't generally take friendly photographs with people who tried to grab your crotches."

Here's the thing, as I see it--Let's say that this woman was sexually harassed, and was determined to get close to Cain and lure him into a false sense of security, then set off this bomb in order to destroy him. She waited for 14 YEARS to do this? Did she know that he would one day be running for President, even back in the '90s?

I guess, maybe you could say she was trying to get on with her life and forget the whole thing, but the prospect of this horrible rapist becoming President was just too much and she had to speak the truth. But even if she was following that line of thinking, that still doesn't make sense. Was Cain a benign threat as a rich and powerful CEO? Or what about when he was running for Senate and would have had governmental power behind him if successful? Was that also a benign threat? Was it only now, after all that, that she felt the truth had to be known? How much sense does that make?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I think you're confusing things.

The photo of them hugging was a month ago -- and she claims that she actually confronted him then.

As for waiting 14 years, there's zero evidence from the time except her claim, which she could have made up 5 days ago. The "proof" she offered was Cain's business card from back then, which she could have gotten any time in the office.

So I'm not following your point?

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I don't think anyone thought this was over, we just don't think it will hurt him. The MSM will keep "finding" these women for months and then will suddenly re-discover this crisis in the general election. But I think the public no longer believes any of this.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel and T-Rav, I haven't seen the poll, do you have a link?

Joel Farnham said...

Hot Air



Reuters

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I thought what she was alleging happened 14 years ago or thereabouts. Maybe I'm confusing her with someone else (very possible at this point).

What I was trying and apparently failing to say was that even if you take Ms. Bailek at her word, the story's logic doesn't hold together. But since I may have got the details wrong, maybe that post should be disregarded.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, I don't want to think about that, but it's worth remembering. I wouldn't put anything past the Dems, up to and including stuffing a dead hobo in the trunk of Cain's car and then making an anonymous call to the press.

Joel Farnham said...

Cain is getting money right and left. I know this has got to be upsetting to the Media, Rove, Cain haters, and the Democrats.

I wonder when they will conclude that the American People are stupid.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, No, you're right. What she's alleging happened 14 years ago. But she didn't say anything back then except to her boyfriend and some businessman friend... if you believe that.

The next time it gets mentioned is a month ago, when she ran into Cain. She claimed she didn't know he would be there and she claims she read him the riot act. Both of those allegations are denied by the radio host (Jacobson) who say she flirted with him and hugged him. Then there is the photo (above) of them holding each other. You don't do that with someone you claim tried to rape you.

BUT even worse, she didn't tell her boyfriend about these incidents for another 4 weeks, even after she claims she confronted Cain.

It's nonsense.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Thanks for the links, I'll look into that. I wonder if it's the same poll just repackaged as before of if it's a new one?


On the money, I think the public sees this as a smear and is responding in kind. I have to tell you though, I literally can't stand to watch the establishment journalists acting like asses about this. They really are out of touch with reality.

Joel Farnham said...

Okay, here is a new meme.

"These allegations can be considered a body of evidence."

BevfromNYC said...

I read somewhere today that she lives (or lived) in the same building in Chicago as Axelrod. I will try and find the source.

My spidey sense is that if anything happened in that cab, she initiated it and he rebuffed her. At the time to get her job back, but sociopaths remember for future reference. In comes Axelrod and she mentions she knows Cain and then suddenly she remembers that horrible night...for a price.

T-Rav said...

Okay, I thought so. That's what I was trying to get at, that there's really no way to explain away her conduct. I don't personally know victims of this sort of thing, but I'm still going to say that people who have been sexually harassed don't behave like that.

BevfromNYC said...

Spidey sense #2 - How did Allred know about her? Who contacted whom?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Wow, I just read the Allahpundit article. He's a fool. He's making amazing leaps in logic all premised on the idea that she is absolutely telling the truth. It's circular reasoning, it ignores all the facts, and it judges her credible based on his believe that he thinks she's credible... no more logic needed.

That's pathetic.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I do know victims of this sort of thing (and people who've been wrongly accused). I've represented a couple. And if she came to me with this story, I would never take her on as a client because he story simply doesn't add up.

It sounds to me like she made a move on Cain, he rebuffed her. She forgot about it. Then she suddenly saw her chance. So she grabbed a high profile Hollywood lawyer with the intent of maximizing her market potential.

BevfromNYC said...

T-Rav - I know many women (including myself) who have been sexually harassed and the very last thing on earth that they would do is go up and hug their harasser. Walk in the other direction? Yes. Kick them in the...YES! Hug them and have my photo taken with them? NO!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I'd heard that, but I also heard it was debunked. But then Drudge linked to it. So I'm not sure what's going on there, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if she ran around telling everyone "I know Herman Cain... I know Herman Cain" and a Democratic operative found her and connected her to the right people (Allred) to milk this story for money.

T-Rav said...

Bev, here's the link on the Bailek-Axelrod connection:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/08/cain_accuser_lives_in_same_building_as_david_axelrod.html

Also, the other named accuser (Karen something?) is currently employed by the Treasury Department. I don't know if that means anything or not, but, you know.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, The ones I've known didn't even want to be in the same courthouse as their harassers. NONE of them would have hugged their accuser and posed for a photo.

And none of them wanted to go on television either.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, What that means is that:

1. Her job cannot be threatened by coming forward, as she claimed the other day.

2. She is most likely a hardcore Democrat.

3. She will despise private sector people like Cain, and her biggest fear would be that he would take over and start laying people off.

Here's your link: LINK

T-Rav said...

Andrew and Bev, if I have the story right, the original claim was that Bailek had been involved in some kind of a legal suit with David Axelrod. But apparently people had him confused with a different man with that name (the middle initials on the documents are different). I think that might have been the confusion. This living in the same building, though, does appear to have been verified, although Bailek claims they didn't know each other.

Also, I'm just going to throw this out here, and Bev (or Crispy, or Tam, or rla, etc.) please let me know if I'm talking out my @#$% on this. But if I was a woman who had been sexually assaulted (and I can only imagine the sense of violation involved there), I would not be standing with him for a photograph and smiling. I would be treating him to a full can of mace and/or calling up a boyfriend to come beat him to a pulp. Again, I have no way of knowing if that's how the average woman would react, but it sounds more reasonable to me than what this weirdo's done.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Two points.

1. That is the same tired Reuters/Ipsos poll that is an unscientific internet poll. Citing that is shameful (just like Allahpundit's reliance on Ben Smith of Politico as a source).

2. Note something interesting about the Gallup poll/graph he uses. He uses it to say that Cain's popularity is falling from the scandal, as shown in the graph. BUT then he says (paraphrase) "but it's even worse than this because this poll was taken before the scandal went public."

In other words, he's using a poll that was taken before these events went public as evidence that the scandal has hurt Cain. He's either a total fool or he's doing a hatchet job.

I would say it's time to rename Allahpundit as UsefulIdiotpundit.

BevfromNYC said...

T-Rav - I can only speak for myself and the other women I know. And I would not ever have my photo take all smiley face with someone that had treated me like that.

BTW - this is the same problem I had with Anita Hill. She claimed Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her to no end YET she followed him around the country when he changed jobs! No woman who had been harassed as she claimed would do that. There's be a huge sigh of relief!

AndrewPrice said...

Here's another new poll showing that Cain has not lost ground. Imagine that. NBC has him even with Romney at 28 Romney/27 Cain.

LINK.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S.S. T-Rav, There's another debate tomorrow night so warm up the sockpuppets!

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

It really is interesting that so few reputable people are in the media. I count as part of the media Ace, AllahPundit, Rove, Red State, and Fox News. Now, I know that Greta Vansusteren is a liberal and Sean Hannity is a conservative. Those are the only two who come to mind that have a good reputation.

The rest, uh, either I don't know or they are bad like Geraldo and Shep Smith.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks for the update Andrew.
Good work!

Hot Air is now Hot Err in my book.
Thanks for exposing them, Joel.
I suspected that Allahpundit was of a like mind as Ace although, as far as I know, he hasn't, up to this point, came out and said it directly.

Jumping to conclusions that are devoid of evidence and accepting this gold diggers statements as facts (and worse, letting the left wing media set the (false) narrative) is something those without integrity do.

Good to see Jim Treacher telling the other commenters that are with Politico and Gloria Allred how asinine they are to believe this smear job.

Rather than honestly debating why they think their candidate should be nominated they resort to dishonest, leftist tactics for political expediency.

BTW, is anyone else sick n' tired of hearing that Romney is the only candidate that's electable?
His fans need new material. They're starting to sound like the Paulbots.

T-Rav said...

I personally don't see anything significant in the Gallup poll. The longer trend clearly shows a steady pattern of Cain's support rising and falling by a margin of several points, over and over again. His support peaks have been growing, for obvious reasons, but I do not as yet see signs of his campaign crumbling.

Another debate tomorrow? Oh boy. I'll put the sockpuppets on notice! :-)

Writer X said...

The more Bailek speaks, the better Cain looks.

This is like a bad romance novel with enough plot holes to make a reader throw the book across a room.

And, Gloria Allred? Need I say more??

Joel Farnham said...

You are Welcome Ben.

There is always room for arguments for and against any one candidate. The integrity of a specific pundit is paramount when arguing a position. AllahPundit, in the past, has chided people about using online polls to bolster their arguments and he is right. He has no excuse for using an online poll. It then follows that he is being disingenuous. That loses his integrity.

Any thing more said by AllahPundit then should be taken with the knowledge that he will resort to lying with polls. He should be ignored unless you have independent knowledge backing his position.

It doesn't mean don't go to Hot Air anymore. Just don't go there for any serious discussion.

BTW: I knew AllahPundit is full of Hot Air. I just couldn't prove it until today.

StanH said...

Herman did great. He still has a grueling campaign ahead, and I agree with Lawhawk, this is just the opening sleaze attack from the right and the left. Mr. Cain is a threat to the establishment, therefore for now he’s my guy.

Tam said...

T-Rav, if I were sexually harrassed or assaulted, I would first of all avoid running into the guy if I could, and I would most likely not go anywhere near the possible potential vicinity of the perpetrator without a boyfriend, male friend, brother-in-law, father, or other intimidating posse of some kind. If it were at work and I had no choice, I would never find myself alone around him, and I would certainly not intentionally seek his attention at a social event.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Hot Err! LOL!

You're welcome. I think it's important to point out the facts and the problems, since so few others (especially in the MSM) are doing that.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I agree. You can't pick out a single data point and come up with anything meaningful in these polls, it's the long term trends that matter and right now, there's nothing to indicate any change in the long term, consistent rise in his support. In fact, it's not even slowing down at this point.

AndrewPrice said...

Write X, Yeah, Allred is a joke and bringing her in only highlights how much this woman is after celebrity rather than justice.

And I agree, the more she speaks, the more obvious it becomes that she's making this up.

T-Rav said...

Bev and Tam, thanks for the feedback. Again, let me stress, I don't have personal familiarity with this sort of thing, but this just doesn't seem like normal human behavior. Besides, who waits 14 years after being sexually harassed by someone in power to speak out about it, and then hires Gloria Allred?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Well said. When someone tells you that something is wrong and then goes ahead and does that to support their own side, they damage their own credibility and you have to doubt everything they say after that. I think a lot of pundits on the right should be losing their credibility with conservatives over this.

Also, I think this should really wake up Tea Party people because some of these sites claimed to be radical conservatives and adopted the Tea Party mantra, but are now using the same old establishment tricks and relying on establishment smears to take down one of the only Tea Party candidates in the race and replace him with an establishment crony.

In particular, I'm talking about establishment types like Rove and Fox, and many of the blogs that made their name opposing McCain for not being conservative enough, but which are now proving not to be as conservative or honorable as they liked to pretend.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I agree. I think Herman was great. I didn't listen to the pundits because I'm sure they just read their pre-written comments about how Cain screwed up. But I think anyone who saw it will know better.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, You should have been in law school in the 1990s, it would have blown your mind. That was the age of the "anything can be sexual harassment" idea being pushed by a large number of truly angry, truly insane, truly despicable liberal womyn... like Allred. Forget evidence, forget logic, forget presumptions of innocence, honesty, fairness or even rationality.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, a few years ago I wouldn't have believed that. Surely people are smarter than that. But then, in class this afternoon I got to hear about how ultimate truth does not exist and there is no such thing as normal, blah blah blah, and so it's not so hard to see how people with minds thus warped could spout such crap.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, You wouldn't believe the things liberals believe. And I'm not kidding. The ridiculousness of the things they say and believe is stunning and goes way beyond the theoretical example you've provided.

I've seen black kids from rich families in law school whine about being held down because of slavery and racism... what more do they want? They can't say, they just know they don't have it because whitey keeps them from having it. Punctuation oppresses blacks -- I've honestly heard that. I've seen girls who believe that our very language oppresses them and holds them down -- using a generic "he" for example is "meant to brainwash womyn and keep them in their place" so are words like "history" which naturally exclude women. I've heard how "all sex is rape" and women should be allowed to say NO after the fact, once they've had a chance to reconsider. They believe all discrimination is evil, yet we should use discrimination to rectify it. We should use harsh speech codes and re-education to silence improper opinions to ensure free speech. We need to stop hate, but we should hate the rich and the Jews. It goes on and on.

I wouldn't have believed anyone could be so retarded either when I was a kid, but they're out there... now they're in Zuccotti park raping each other (as you'll see in the morning).

T-Rav said...

Andrew, the language thing is more common than most people could imagine. The culprits are postmodernists who have decided that there is no right answer to anything, and attempts to categorize information are oppressive and one of the worst things to occur in human history. Heck, a few weeks ago I had to read a book saying that the manner of biological classification (mammals, etc.) proved male scientists sought to manipulate knowledge to keep women in a subordinate role. No, really. I could write a 5,000-word essay on how badly they have screwed up higher education, but it would just make me mad.

But I just love how these people (and I'm specifically thinking of people I know here at the university) can denounce the racism and sexism supposedly inherent in Western culture, and when we run a candidate like Cain, say that this just proves how bigoted white men are. The fools.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"I've heard how "all sex is rape" and women should be allowed to say NO after the fact, once they've had a chance to reconsider."

Do myn also have that option according to these wymyn?

It is mindboggling how they can believe all that crap.

And you're right about the hypocrisy.
Lefties are against property rights and free speech unless it's their property or speech.

These OWSer protests are a good microcosm of the results of leftism in all it's forms.

Who knew anarchists would have no qualms committing crimes against other anarchists? That's not fair!

Actually, I don't think most of these dweebs have a clue what anarchy even means.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"The culprits are postmodernists who have decided that there is no right answer to anything..."

And yet these PM nihilists always think they have all the right answers.

I reckon everyone passes their classes, since there is no right answer and even if there was who cares? There is no meaning in life.

They say "I think, therefore I am" never once considering "I am therefor I think."

Always bassackwards with those twits.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Men, like whites, have no rights. They've come up with a thing called oppression theory which says that those who are oppressed cannot be guilty of crimes or misconduct, whereas those who are in the majority cannot be innocent and have no rights against minorities.

Also, it's important to note that whether you are in the majority or minority depends on who you are squaring off against.

Men oppress women. BUT race overrules gender. So white women are hapless victims of white men, but are oppressors of black men.

Also, "majority" is a loaded word. A white person is in the majority no matter where you live -- even in a city like DC which is 98% black and run by blacks. The rich are also always in the majority even though they are 1%.

It's messed up thinking and frankly these people should all be taken out and shot. The world would be better off.

As for OWS, I find it incredible that this gathering of leftists has completely exposed the lie that is the left. They make all these fake complaints about how "white male society" is so evil and they want to do it better. So they all move into a park and it turns into Lord of the Flies. They have shown incredible depths of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, anti-poor people, etc. They are a seething cauldron of hate and violence.

So this is the perfect world they've been promising to make this whole time huh?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Sadly, most people have no idea how laughably insane the left has become. There is no other way to put it than "insane" in the classical sense.

These are people who lack a firm grasp on reality. They have deep-rooted personal problems which make them maladjusted. And to avoid self-reflection or consideration of why they are sick in the brain, they make up elaborate conspiracies and fantasy opponents who have targeted them in some way and thereby caused their presently unfortunate circumstance and personal inadequacies.

That's why they all trend toward Hitler over time, because they share the same persecution complexes. They just lack his talent at oratory (or his occasional grasp of reality) which let him remake Germany in his own image.... something they would very much like to repeat here.

And I don't even mean that ideologically. I mean it in the sense that a government by these people would be a roving pogrom, a tyrannical shambles acting out their worse hatreds all in the name of creating a utopia which is so contradictory and insane that it couldn't exist even in a controlled experiment.

But they hold jobs in universities so people assume they know what they're talking about.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, it's a twisted place, nowhere more so than in the Women's and Gender Studies Department, with African-American Studies running a very close second. Just a cursory glance at the stuff I've had to read (because it's important that historians know how history has been "gendered," or something) is enough to show that there is something very messed up with these people.

In other news, there were actually some elections tonight. Who knew?

Very quickly, Mississippi has elected Republican Phil Bryant as a successor to Haley Barbour. The GOP appears to now control every statewide office except for Attorney General, and may have captured the State House as well. A controversial anti-abortion proposal actually failed, but this bothers me less than it might have. The language in the bill was kind of vague and even some pro-life groups were against it.

Elsewhere, the Democrats held on to the governor's office in Kentucky. Worse, they defeated John Kasich's anti-collective bargaining law in Ohio :-( That's right, Wisconsin is now more conservative than Ohio. Oh well, the Buckeyes did vote no on a referendum on ObamaCare, so I guess there's that. And the Republicans are attempting to take control of the State Senate in Virginia; right now, one seat is still undecided with a hundred or so votes separating the two candidates. So it's kind of a wash night for us.

AndrewPrice said...

Good for Mississippi, bad for Kensucky. Unfortunately, I think KY is still a lot like WVa, where the locals see the Democrats as the party of granpappy, even though they hate everything the party stands for.

I don't know how to change that other than go house to house with some puppets to explain to the locals.

Maybe we could just run some ads: "Due to realignment, Democrats must now vote Republican if they wish to continue voting for the party of FDR, JFK and Reagan." That should do it.

tryanmax said...

One thing jumps right out at me about all these accusations against Cain that I haven't seen mention of. All of them supposedly took place in the '90's. Now, I may have been a dumb teenager in the '90's, but I have a pretty strong recollection that the get-rich-quick scheme du jour back then was to file a sexual-harassment suit. Heck, it was such a big deal at the time that Michael Crichton wrote a novel on the suject that got made into a movie starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore.

tryanmax said...

Or just casually remind them that Grandpappy is Dead!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That was definitely the Age of Harassment. It was alleged everywhere for all kinds of conduct -- usually as an attempt to prevent being fired or laid off. And to give you a sense of how frivolous most of it was, the courts were full of cases where people claimed things like "I once overheard two people telling a dirty joke in a private office" and "two of my coworkers were dating and that made me feel uncomfortable" and "my boss asked if I was married and that made me feel harassed."

And feminist groups were fighting to change the law to say that the conduct didn't even have to be objectively unreasonable, the "victim" just had to feel like they were made uncomfortable.

Not only did this destroy a lot of people before everyone caught on to what kind of garbage this was, but it also hurt people with legitimate claims because their allegations were lost among the millions of fake claims being made.


And don't forget, "them Democrats killed granpappy!"

darski said...

quote->Not only did this destroy a lot of people before everyone caught on to what kind of garbage this was, but it also hurt people with legitimate claims because their allegations were lost among the millions of fake claims being made.<-

Andrew - I would like to suggest that there was a purpose behind that process. I think they wanted to remove the place of facts and evidence from actual trials. It was some sort of 5th column of the Post modernists. They are sincerely against any form of or assertion for Truth.

tryanmax said...

Interesting, everything in this article is on the radio talkers' lips today. Where was all this skepticism about Ms. Sharon yesterday?

Grrrr! The new media is quickly becoming just like the legacy media...just beholden to the elite of a different party.

AndrewPrice said...

darski, There has definitely been an assault on ideas like "truth" from the left for years because that's the only way to overcome people's natural aversion to their stupidity. I think you're right that this was part of that.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, This scandal has very much exposed a lot of people in the new media as nothing more than MSM of a different stripe. They've used the same fake arguments, false logic, and smear tactics to promote their own causes.

I'm glad to hear they're at least coming around to the things we were talking about yesterday.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I don't know how to change that other than go house to house with some puppets to explain to the locals."

LOL! That's hilarious, Andrew!

Seriously, I got some relatives that are just like that.
They even agree with my wife and I that the democrats are screwed up and anti-liberty.
They complain about it all the time and bemoan the fact that there are no bluedogs left.

Then, on election day...they vote fror the democrats again.

I fell like saying "they wanna tax your moonshine and then take it away you freakin' idiots!"
But my wife won't let me.

I'm seriously considering the puppet idea though, lol!

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I've had the same discussion with people in West "by God" Virginia. They hate everything the Democrats stand for, believe everything the Republican party advocates, and yet keep voting Democratic. It's like a form of insanity.

Post a Comment