Politico has the details, noting a rather large contradiction between Cain’s original statement on FOX News this morning – that he knew nothing about any settlements reached with these two women – and what he told Greta Van Susteren this afternoon:
But just a few hours later, in an interview with the cable network’s Greta Van Susteren, he recalled specific details about the allegations and one of the two settlements first reported by POLITICO.
“My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement…I don’t remember a number,” he said in a transcript portion published by Byron York. “But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement.” When van Susteren asked how much money was involved, Cain said: “Maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.
He also recalled the second woman in the POLITICO story, saying twice he knew of no “formal” complaint she’d made, according to the transcript.
This is a bit of a change from the stark denials Cain’s campaign issued yesterday of the story.
Cain also spoke about what he said was the basis of the allegations made by the other woman in the POLITICO story, describing it this way:
“She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying — and I was standing close to her — and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, ‘My wife comes up to my chin.’” At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. “And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable.”
Look, I’ve said since last night when the story broke that whatever happens regarding this story, the way the Cain campaign is handling it is exacerbating the problem. This is yet another in a series of missteps — but this time, the mistakes are on a much larger scale than talking about electric border fences. It appears that Cain lied this morning on FOX News, and suddenly remembered some pretty intricate details about the settlements he disavowed any knowledge of this morning.
UPDATE: Herman Cain on FOX News this morning: “If the Restaurant Association did a settlement, I am not even – I was not even aware of it. And I hope it wasn’t for much, because nothing happened.”
Herman Cain at the National Press Club this afternoon: “As for a settlement, I am unaware of any settlement.”
October 31st, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Chin chuffs don’t get 5 figure settlements. Just sayin’.
October 31st, 2011 at 4:59 pm
I don’t care about Cain except for how he can advance the conservative movement and from his moves over the past three weeks, he’s showing more and more a lack of competence. I don’t care what pretty labels you put on the man. Likable or not he is becoming damaged goods and it will only get worse if those microphones in the conservative media try to do for Cain what “conservatives” did for Rush. We saved Rush and his radio show. This is POTUS and we have to be vigilant about who is at the top representing the movement.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Time for the sensational end of the sensational Herman Cain.
Cain is going down in flames. Romney has a REALLY CLEAR path to the nomination. The person, in my view, who is most likely to emerge as the anti-Romney is Paul. He will go down in flames as well, but it is late enough in the cycle that he can become a legitimate, if low polling Conservative alternative.
Romney will win the nomination, lose the presidency, and Republicans will have a Nixon moment. In 2016, they’ll nominate someone MUCH more conservative, say Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:06 pm
FLIIIIPPPPPPPP FLOOOOOPPPPP.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Obviously this is not good for Herman. He should have not talked to the press until he got his story straight. Herman’s appeal was that he was likeable and not a politician. With this episode, he not only looks like a politician but the untrustworthly, most detested kind.
I’d be willing to cut him a little slack since he’s somewhat new at this and not put him in Bill Clinton’s camp quite yet but he’s definitely damaged himself.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I think same day reversals don’t really harm the guy. It’s like the 5 second rule for food dropped on the floor. I don’t believe the focus will be on the differing account since it is the same day.
Where it goes from here I don’t know, but I doubt he gets much grief for “remembering” better later the same day.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:10 pm
This has become a pattern hasn’t it?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Huh. Imagine that. The incompetent psycho-pseudo-journo boobs at Politico have to get out there and insist that their non-story is a real story, despite the fact that said boobs couldn’t name any sources except of those who backed up Cain’s character.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:12 pm
#3 John,
I disagree that this helps Romney. Romney needs the not-Romney vote splintered as many ways as possible.
If Cain implodes due to this and Perry continues to sink following his questionable speech on Friday, it provides an opportunity for someone like Gingrich to rise to the top and Gingrich is much harder to beat than a Cain/Perry/Bachmann trifecta.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Again, I think the “settlement” is a severance payment made by the employer for a mutually-agreed upon termination.
I think this whole incident is a non-issue. However, once again the campaign made this 1000% worse by the way they responded to it. Either the Cain campaign has some very poor advisors, or Cain is making some extremely poor decisions.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Herman Cain: “I have never sexually harassed anyone.”
Bill Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.”
October 31st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
9. I think that it is impossible for the Not-Mitt vote to coalesce around Perry (too damaged goods), Bachmann, or Santorum. I think the only ones who have a chance to catalyze the Not-Mitt vote are Gingrich, Paul, Cain, and maybe Huntsman. Huntsman is not doing himself any favors by going negative, and Cain slipped a bit with this weekend’s reaction to Chin-gate. Gingrich has momentum, albeit slow; Paul has not started yet.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
This dude is SUCH a liar.
How can anyone actually support an inexperienced, loose-lipped, bigoted, intellectually incurious, poorly organized candidate who is the ONLY Republican promising to raise taxes on the poor and middle class?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt! Newt!
October 31st, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Seems to me that, if there was a non-disclosure clause as a part of a settlement, Cain himself may well have feared mentioning any knowledge of the cases could bring the entire settlements down and restart the contingency lawyers’ legal cases. If it had been me, I would have wanted to make sure that saying anything concrete would not revive the otherwise settled matter.
Of course, since we don’t have loser-pays in this country, trial lawyers can encourage frivolous lawsuits to be filed on a contingency fee bases. The defendants have to pay through the nose for their own defense — even if they’ve done nothing wrong in the least. Settling out of court with a non-disclosure agreement is the easiest way to make this form of legalized extortion go away before real pecuniary damage is inflicted.
The failed wannabe screenplay auteurs at Politico need to get a clue.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I believe Cain, but he has done a terrible job of reacting to this. He should have been prepared.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:24 pm
11. Bill Clinton lied, ergo everyone else lies. Brilliant reasoning, if obscure…
October 31st, 2011 at 5:28 pm
I laugh, actually, I feel bad too, about the folks supporting serial adulterer and career hypocrite Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney.
It’s just hilarious.
Really a sad commentary on the mindset of some people.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:29 pm
This is a real flip flop.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Cain can not keep is story straight. Tele is correct, Cain has developed a pattern here.
Romney has developed his own strange pattern of not keeping things straight.
RED STATE Article:
Romney refused to support George Bush’s tax cuts in 2004, but in 2007 claimed he had always supported them. In 2002, Romney refused to sign the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, but in 2007, Romney signed it.
In 2002, Mitt Romney wanted heaving federal regulations on campaign finances. Back in 1994, Romney even wanted a cap on congressional election spending and wanted to ban political action committees. By 2007, Romney was attacking McCain-Feingold, which did much of what he previously had wanted.
In the 1992 Presidential Primary in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney voted for Paul Tsongas. He contributed to numerous Democrats and, in 1994 while running as a Republican, praised Bill Clinton as doing “a lot of things that make sense.”
More troubling, in 1994 Mitt Romney campaigned against the Contract With America calling it “too partisan.” He also insisted he was an independent during Ronald Reagan’s years in office, balking at Ted Kennedy’s attempts to connect Romney to Ronald Reagan. By 2005, Mitt Romney claimed Ronald Reagan was his political hero.
On the second amendment, Mitt Romney supported the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons ban in 1994, but by 2007, Mitt Romney opposed gun control measures. At one point in 2007, Mitt Romney claimed he owned a gun and then admitted he did not.
The list goes on and on from gays in the military to gay marriage to stem cell research to global warming. Romney has shown himself to be not a principled conservative, but, as Jon Huntsman described him, a well lubricated weather vane.
Conservatives do not dislike Mitt Romney. They just don’t trust him. His record is the very reason why. On every significant issue of the past decade, Mitt Romney has managed to be on every side of each issue except one — he has consistently been in favor of government dictated and government managed healthcare.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:32 pm
So what the man can NEVER get his stories straight — the man can SING!!!!!!
October 31st, 2011 at 5:33 pm
As predicted, phony “conservatives” like Coulter and Limbaugh are playing the race card as Pervert Cain self-destructs with Clintonesque lies, spin, and distortion.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:34 pm
18 – And apparently Mitt, the devout father of four that hasn’t drunk an ounce of alcohol in his life and who treats his word as his bind and has impeccable character, is the one “without a core” who “can’t be trusted”.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
20 – Still claiming to be honest and reasonable there Smack? What is it with you and your propensity to go into the gutter to trash people?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Newt, with all his flaws, is the only one with the chops that can fight and move the Conservative Movement forward.
Romney said the Contract For America was too partisan.
Newt led the fight.
No bigger contrast then that.
Newt 2012!!
October 31st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
20 — Consider the source of that article….Red State bans Romney supporters from their site! Yes, BANS THEM!!
How you can take anything they say as fact about Romney is beyond me!
One glaring lie that article is about gay marriage. Romney never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER supported gay marriage. NEVER!!!
October 31st, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Jax,
Actually, Mitt’s a father of five sons.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Smack, do you really want to get into Newt’s inconsistencies? Starting with his support of the individual mandate for health care on a NATIONAL level (which that scumbag Romney so artfully exposed for everyone to see).
Wasn’t health care your biggest argument against Romney earlier this year? How do you justify Newt’s much more invasive mandate?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:38 pm
#3 John,
Another thought. If Cain survives this but is somewhat damaged causing a drop in support but not a full-fledged collapse, then, yes, it benefits Romney. In that scenario, the Anti-Mitt Teavangelicals are still split at least three ways between Cain, Perry, and Bachmann and none of them alone is very strong. Further, this group holds down a potential rise for Newt who is only remaining threat.
Prior to this story, Cain was actually challenging Romney for frontrunner status. The perfect Romney outcome of all this would be if Cain loses about 8-10 percent of his support but weathers the storm with the bleed-off supporters going equally to Romney, Perry and Bachmann. Under those conditions, a clear path to the nomination for Romney could emerge from this.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:38 pm
27 – Oops … I was thinking that was probably wrong when I clicked on ‘submit’.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Jaxemer11,
Anyone who disagrees with your image of Mitt Romney is considered to be trashing your candidate.
Did Romney say Contract For America was too partisan, or not?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
25 -Just like he fought for a national healthcare mandate? Or against a philandering President (while doing the same thing)?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
25– And how did the Contract for America work out? Hmmmmm?
Perhaps it was too partisan. One thing Romney knows how to do is bring people together and convince others in taking a more conservative approach to thing. How else can one survive dealing with a state legislature that is 85% Democrat?
I for one am SICK of the partisan bickering between the parties. It’s time for someone to bridge the gap and get things done.
So Smack, let’s get this straight — you were for Pawlenty, then Romney, then Cain, now Newt?!
Do you have any core?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Good ol’ Red State. In 2008, it was known as FredState. Anyone not 100% in the tank for Fred Thompson was banned. That happened to me in 2007.
I came over here to Race4 about that time and have never left.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:42 pm
20
Pledges: Romney didn’t sign any pledges in 2002
Bush Tax cuts: Romney refused to support anything as a national issue as governor, and that included the Bush Tax Cuts and everything else. He was not opposed to the tax cuts, you dumbass.
Tsongas: Eric Ericson (Red State) is a huge Perry supporter. Well, guess what. Perry chaired Al Gore’s campaign in 1988.
Contract With America: big deal. He was pandering. Politicians pander.
2nd Amendment: Saying you own a gun does not mean you don’t oppose background checks and licensing.
gays in the military: Romney said it was up to the generals.
stem cell research: That goes along with abortion. You’re double counting, dumbass.
global warming: Romney never supported Cap and Trade once he studied its economics.
health care: Romney has never supported government managed health care, total bullshit.
NEVER trust anything Eric Ericson says. He’s a corrupt stooge
October 31st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I can only imagine the cartwheels Cain supporters would be doing right now if this was Romney. With that being said, this is bad for Cain – potentially very bad.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:44 pm
31 – The Contract With America was too partisan, and didn’t really accomplish anything. I don’t have any idea what Mitt said about it when it was introduced, but if he called it out as a partisan gimick, then I applaud him (because that is what it was).
My image of Mitt is formed from hours of studying his background and from talking with people who I know personally that know him personally. Your image comes from reading Red State and your own hateful imagination. Which one do you think is more reliable?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Really???? Whatever Christie fanboy.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
26 – That post is full of glaring lies and half-truths. But Smack accepts it as truth. That should tell you something about Smack.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
33#
Never for Cain.
I have told you that 3 times but you are not able to comprehend.
“25– And how did the Contract for America work out? Hmmmmm?”
That is exactly why you are a Rockefeller. Contract for America was a huge success. It was won with a fight against the Libs.
This is why I could not assimulate in the ROMBORG with the rest of you. You take Romney’s inabilty to have a record of fighting and winning against the Libs as some sort of Badge of Honor.
Welfare Reform under Gingrich was a huge success…that would not have been won under Romney because he wouldn’t have fought for it.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Smack, still waiting to hear about the health care mandate. That was what you harped on over and over again when TPaw was running. You always claimed not to be a RomNot, yet now here you are trashing Romney again and backing a candidate that is more tied to a national healthcare mandate than anyone running for President.
Are you a flip flopper?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:49 pm
38
I’m not a CC fanboy, I just feel like he’s positioned himself in a perfect way to take up the conservative mantle, regardless of weather he actually is conservative.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:49 pm
40 — Yes, it was such a rousing success that Clinton was awarded a second term after a stunning defeat in 1994.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:49 pm
35#
Wow, what a pretzel MC!!!
October 31st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
40 – Really? What did the CONTRACT With America do for us? Do you know what the word ‘Contract’ means?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Why the love fest with Newt, the serial cheater? Sure, he has some nice sound bytes, but Romney made him look like choppped liver when he tried to attack in the previous debate. Newt can’t even be faithful to his wife, and then he lied about it to no end. I want a guy I can look up to. Romney has turned around small companies, large corporations, state ecnonomies, state budgets, international Olympic Games, etc.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
What’s REALLY baffling about this is that the campaign had at least TEN DAYS of prep time. Politico notified them of the story almost 2 weeks ago and repeatedly attempted to get a response.
Then, Cain seemed stunned by the question by the reporter.
Then, the spokesman consistently repeated his non answer on Geraldo.
Then, Cain says he was falsely accused by knew nothing about a settlement.
Then, just a few HOURS later, he admits to knowing quite a bit about the settlement.
How is this man remotely qualified for president — totally setting aside the question of guilt? Baffling.
AND, he’s still rising on Intrade. What??
October 31st, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Jax,
Mitt is the only one who put it into law, and the only one defending the disaster of Romenycare.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:51 pm
44 – Smack, I know you are smarter than that. Why do you have to support lies in order to trash Romney?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Do you not have anything better to trash him with? You have to resort to twisting the truth?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:52 pm
46. Newt couldn’t even be faithful to his own wife, so he lost me. Maybe others can explain it away and justify it, but not me. He can fill other rolls, but notbe the president of the U.S. There is a higher moral bar for that posoition, imo.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:53 pm
48 – LOL … what a joke you are. So because Newt failed to accomplish his preferred policy of a national mandate he is better than someone that succeeded at accomplishing one that was actually constitutional? Great logic there.
If Newt had succeeded, would you be refusing to back him now?
October 31st, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“40 – Really? What did the CONTRACT With America do for us? Do you know what the word ‘Contract’ means?”
WOW!
October 31st, 2011 at 5:54 pm
49. Because you can’t attack Mitt on ethical or moral issues, liek you can Perry, Cain and Newt.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Apparently it is Newt’s imcompetence that makes him a “movement conservative”
October 31st, 2011 at 5:54 pm
53 – That isn’t an answer … FYI
October 31st, 2011 at 5:55 pm
The moment I realized this Story had legs was when Cain said he couldn’t remember any details of the Case. What? I am sorry, but sexual harrassment suits are probably the most memorable event in one’s life. Even if you’re innocent, you will easily recall that someone accused you of it. You’d have to be at the level of Bill Clinton to start forgetting these kinds of things. And Yet Clinton can probably rehearse all his shameful moments. These things tend to stay with you.
This memory lapse (so-called) is when I took a side against the Hermanator. Too bad. I really liked him. Now, I want him as far away from the oval office as possible. The man is dishonest.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:55 pm
51 – It’s OK. Newt is a “movement conservative” so he could kill his daughter and be acceptable to some people here.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:56 pm
VIDEO: Team Cain’s responses
Sunday
Cain to Politico reporter: Evades question, asks reporter “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”
Geraldo: “Do you deny that this ever happened?” Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon: Repeatedly evades question
Monday
Cain chief of staff Mark Block: “I am not personally aware of any settlement dealing with Mr. Cain.”
Cain at AEI forum: Refuses to answer question about the scandal
Cain on Fox News: “I’ve never sexually harassed anyone.”
Cain at National Press Club: “As far as a settlement, I am unaware of any sort of settlement.”
Cain in interview with Greta Van Susteren: Admits he knew about payoffs
October 31st, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Newt was my Congressman and I still like him and think he’s brilliant but he allowed all of his supporters to work really hard to get him re-elected only to announce a few weeks after his victory that he was resigning. Turns out he was about to be outed for cheating on his wife Mary Ann while pursuing Bill Clinton with a passion over simsilar indescretions.
I always felt betrayed by that. Many people gave up their time, their money, and their energy to get him re-elected and it was all for nothing. He flipped on us and changed his mind. If he didn’t want to, or knew he couldn’t because of stories that were about to come to light, continue to represent the 6th District of Georgia and be Speaker, he could have at least dropped out before the election. Instead, he let everybody expend a lot of effort for nothing.
Romney might not be perfect but I think his character is head-and-shoulders above Newt’s and I don’t think he’d let people go all out to get him elected and then refuse to take office because he’s cheating on Ann. I’d be shocked if he did something like that.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:01 pm
#15….MarqueQ talking about a candidate not named Romney
#17….MarqueQ complaining about somebody who uses the same logic/tactics that he uses against Romney
October 31st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
October 31st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“I did not send that tweet.”
October 31st, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Bachmann failed, Perry self-destructed, now it seems Cain isn’t going to stand up to vetting. Who’s next Gingrich? I doubt it, he has his own affair problems. Paul? No way. Sanitorum & Huntman can’t get their campaigns off the ground. I think unless Romney has a affair, he’s going to gently climb into first practically everywhere, and keep it. Romney’s at 68.5% on intrade and the next closest is Rick Perry at 12%. That’s 8 to 1 odds on Perry, and better odds on the others. Any takers?
October 31st, 2011 at 6:07 pm
#20…..SMACK, if you think Newt has keep his story straight, you need to go into rehab.
Just the last debate Newt was forced to admit he was for mandates before Romney was for mandates.
Yeah, that’s right, ol’ Smackaroo is a big hater of mandates, no?
No you’re pimping for the Grandfather of Obamacare and the Cheater in Chief?
Brawhahahahah…At least TEX was consistant…
October 31st, 2011 at 6:18 pm
64-
Pretty much sums it up. Which means….
Oh crap. I might have to make good on that pledge to jump into the Great Salt Lake.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Sad that this is happening to a nice guy, but better to be vetted now than in the general. Obviously “likeable” isn’t the most important quality for our nominee.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:24 pm
I think the tea party will give Santorum a chance. He has had some great debate moments. But he will never get the kind of support that Cain or Perry have had. But maybe Smack is right and there will be a great swelling of support for Gingrich, but I don’t see it. People know he is not socially conservative and I think the tea party is very socially conservative.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Affirmative Action sock puppet: Are you now giving us examples of non-affirmative-action candidates in 62 and 63?
Your moniker withers under the absurdity of each of your posts.
But at least we all now know that you’ll be voting for the white guy come hell or high water. Because you’re disaffirmative towards identity politics. *yawn* *snore*
October 31st, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Smack, I just want to say that you’re cool and all, but this whole “let’s bash Romney constantly on every single thread” thing isn’t really doing much for you, Newt Gingrich, or this site.
I like Smack when he’s being Smack, i.e. making jokes and saying interesting stuff.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:29 pm
If Romney winds up the hapless nominee, there’ll be furtively sourced reports from credentialed journalists tying Mitt to Warren Jeffs.
How will your hero deal with that? Try proving a negative just for fun. Your celebratory lap-dances are wildly premature.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:30 pm
http://data.greenvilleonline.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/31/state-gop-women-pick-cain-gingrich-newt-wins-in-upstate/
South Carolina Federation of Republican Women confab in downtown Greenville:
1. Herman Cain 24%
2. Newt Gingrich 19%
3. Mitt Romney 17.3%
October 31st, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Hey, does anyone know what it means when a commenter’s name is bold-red?
October 31st, 2011 at 6:31 pm
So he remembers something but not that a settlement was made? If you remember the details you’ll remember there was a settlement. I don’t know any establishment that will pay a settlement on behalf of a mistake that was made by an individual and not let them know about it.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:32 pm
ATTENTION FELLOW ROMBOTS
Stop attacking Herman Cain. We need him in this race. We need him to keep Perry dead.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:33 pm
73
It means you’ve clicked the link on their name.
I like my name to be red so I can locate what I said so I can find what people said back to me.
I also click people whose posts I like to read.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Newt Gingrich 10.31.2011
“I condemn the decision of the UNESCO to admit Palestine as a member state, and applaud the State Department for immediately moving to cut off funding. This is a hostile action on the part of United Nations bureaucrats and the Palestinian leadership to circumvent the peace process with Israel illegitimately, and the United States must immediately cut off funding to any other UN entity that illegally recognizes Palestine.”
“The vast anti-Israel faction at the United Nations will now try to use this vote as a first step toward full Palestinian recognition, giving voice to a government that counts terrorist organization Hamas as a key participant. The United States must be prepared to suspend all funding to the United Nations if the General Assembly moves to recognize a Palestinian state under the control of Hamas.”
October 31st, 2011 at 6:35 pm
75. I guess that applies to me, too. I absolutely agree it’s best for us if Cain stays at or near the top.
But, I can’t help expressing my shock and dismay at his utter inability to give a straight answer to the most basic of questions. Say one thing in the morning and completely contradict it a few hours later? Crazy!
And it angers me.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:35 pm
“Stop attacking Herman Cain. We need him in this race. We need him to keep Perry dead.”
So, exactly when are we SUPPOSED to take out Cain?
October 31st, 2011 at 6:36 pm
76. Thanks! (yours is red!
)
October 31st, 2011 at 6:37 pm
ATTENTION ROCKEFELLER ROMBOTS
Keep attacking Herman Cain. We need him dead in this race. We need him to drop so Newt can rise!!
October 31st, 2011 at 6:37 pm
79
We won’t. The voters will.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:38 pm
79. I’m thinking not until Perry has dropped out or has been battered so badly he can’t get back up.
Probably not until the first 5 states vote.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:42 pm
“We won’t. The voters will.”
Screw that. I want to see Mitt win Iowa.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:43 pm
72.Smack1968 Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 6:30 pm
http://data.greenvilleonline.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/31/state-gop-women-pick-cain-gingrich-newt-wins-in-upstate/
South Carolina Federation of Republican Women confab in downtown Greenville:
1. Herman Cain 24%
2. Newt Gingrich 19%
3. Mitt Romney 17.3%
Women love The Cain
October 31st, 2011 at 6:46 pm
#75 Mass Conn,
See my post at #29. We need Cain weakened a bit but still a part of a Cain/Perry/Bachmann group of Anti-Mitts. If this harms Cain but doesn’t destroy him, that’s perfect for Romney.
I like Cain personally so I am not saying that is what I want but strategically that is what is best for Romney.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Good read about Cain today. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281777/grace-under-fire-robert-costa?pg=1
October 31st, 2011 at 6:50 pm
It looks like upstate SC women love Newt!
….according to the votes….
October 31st, 2011 at 6:53 pm
71 – If that is the best they can do, then I don’t think we have much to worry about. Is that the best you can come up with?
October 31st, 2011 at 7:07 pm
@Bret_Baier: Don’t forget to tune in for #CenterSeat with @THEHermanCain tomorrow night on @SpecialReport
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
All the candidates have been doing this appearance except, of course for Romney.
October 31st, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Cain is at 6.3% on Intrade. Anybody want to increase their money 15 fold? Anybody?
October 31st, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Can someone tell me what the “baggage” is for Newt? What did he do wrong as Speaker? Was he kicked out?
October 31st, 2011 at 7:36 pm
I’m watching Monica Crowley on Sean Hannity interviewing Newt Gringrich. The two need to get a room.
October 31st, 2011 at 7:43 pm
93
I know! That was ridiculous!
October 31st, 2011 at 7:58 pm
93 – Saw that.
Frankly I say chop away if you’re a Romney supporter. Romney and his crew are disciplined enough to stay above all of this. If we don’t say anything, you sure as hell know that the Republican “conservatives” aren’t. No one gets this up in arms about the misrepresentations about Romney so why give others the benefit of the doubt?
I say put it in their faces and show them what hypocrites look like. This holier than crap business from the anti-Romney’s is ridiculously hypocritical. You’re all a bunch of sanctimonious wanna be’s in the tea party/Rush crowd. How quick to spare “a true conservative” who lives questionably. You would think people like Rush would be a little more humble in how they treat people who are for the conservative movement regardless of where they were in the past. Especially since we all we to bat for him to save is a** and the future of his show. At this point I would rather be a sinner than a hypocrite.
October 31st, 2011 at 8:11 pm
[...] Cain Reverses Course – Remembers Details of Settlement He Originally Claimed No Knowledge Of [...]
October 31st, 2011 at 8:20 pm
cain is playing a trick or treat on us!
October 31st, 2011 at 8:25 pm
[...] Cain Reverses Course – Remembers Details of Settlement He Originally Claimed No Knowledge Of [...]
October 31st, 2011 at 9:41 pm
@93 – Wife #4?
October 31st, 2011 at 11:53 pm
[...] looking back at the events of the day, while there are some details that can be quibbled over, Cain has come out of this okay. People who liked him and supported him [...]
December 9th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Woah this blog is great i really like reading your posts. Stay up the good work! You recognize, a lot of people are looking around for this info, you can aid them greatly.
December 26th, 2011 at 7:48 am
Chivas…
[...]Cain Reverses Course – Remembers Details of Settlement He Originally Claimed No Knowledge Of | Race 4 2012[...]…