Herman Cain’s Almost MSNBC Walk-Off…

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein writes about Herman Cain not liking the heat and almost leaving the kitchen at 30 Rock…

When the crew went to commercial break, things combusted. Fellow panelist Ben White, the Wall Street correspondent for Politico, said that he told Cain during the break that when the panel returned he would press him on the fact that his 999 tax plan “raises taxes on 84% and 1000 percent on poor.”

The former presidential candidate, according to White’s twitter feed, “Said he’d walk if I did.”

A source who was there confirmed to The Huffington Post that Cain did stand up to leave after White asked him a question during the break.

Ultimately Cain, who had been booked to discuss the presidential campaign, was talked into staying for a second segment. But that part of the interview was conspicuous in that only one person got to pose questions to Cain: Wagner.

About these ads

25 Responses to “Herman Cain’s Almost MSNBC Walk-Off…”

  1. Latest example of “But I’m accustomed to Fox”-syndrome. Tho I’m not sure how closely he was questioned on that by CNN, either.

  2. missy5537 Says:

    So is this true or not – that his plan “raises taxes on 84% and 1000 percent on poor.ā€? It’s a poorly written phrase, but is it true in any sense?

  3. “So, you don’t wanna talk about the only thing your campaign was about? Fine, let’s talk about why you called all those women liars when it was patently obvious you’re a dirty old man..”

  4. missy5537 Says:

    I’m pretty sure Marianne Gingrich wasn’t lying about the “open marriage” thing, either. Newt’s eight year affair with Barbie makes that quite plausible.

  5. Both men should have stuck with “no comment”. Being an abusive bastard to womem, then calling them liars..not nice.

  6. imnotblue Says:

    Has anything come from Cain’s accusers since he dropped out? That bothers me. They shout and make news, and when he drops out, everyone “stops” paying attention. Just means they weren’t really that interested to begin with, only the political effect.

  7. Once Cain dropped out and stopped calling them liars, there was no more reason for them to talk. If you recall, the reasoning for going to the media was that Cain was smearing them.

  8. imnotblue Says:

    Um… no.

    They came forward first, the Cain said what they were saying was “untrue.” Is that the “smearing” you think was happening?

    But the thought was that he had done something illegal. If so, where are the charges? Why no followup?

    Or was just a personal attack against Cain, which played on racial prejudices/stereotypes, because the left couldn’t just outwardly call him a racist (unlike their strategy towards everyone else)?

  9. NO, THEY DIDN’T. Someone got hold of the harassment charges, then Cain spent a week calling them “false allegations”, which you can’t do after you’ve settled. This revisionist crap is ridiculous.

  10. imnotblue Says:

    As I recall, Joe, there was only one instance where the compant settled… but multiple women.

    What happened to them?

  11. So are you going to admit you had it wrong, or just pretend you didn’t say it?

    The women stopped talking because Cain did..I explained this already. None of them were eager to go through this crap. The blonde got mad because he kept calling the other women liars. It wasn’t right.

  12. Oh, Wagner so should have let Ben Smith skewer Cain. Otherwise, why bother having Herman on TV at all?!?!

  13. The women were trotted out for the purpose of derailing Cain’s campaign. All but one could have kept their mouths shut and nobody would have known anything, and even the first woman from the leaked non-disclosure could have chosen a lower profile had she wanted to.

    I believe I have that accurate. Still, other than some vague and entirely unprovable theory, I see no plausible reason to question their motivations for coming forward. Sometimes it just is what it is and maybe Herman Cain just wanted to sell some books.

  14. Herman Cain spent the first day after the charges were leaked changing his story 5 times, then the rest of the week claiming the women were liars. I’m not gonna put up with a revisionist memory of this event. The story was one day and gone if he hadn’t kept talking.

  15. Regardless of who was telling the truth about the sexual harassment, in the end, Cain got what he deserved – dropkicked from presidential race.

  16. Yes, but now he’s back and I have to put up with people with people who have conveniently forgotten that he’s the one who dragged the story out. Ya know, ’cause elite media liberal bias you betcha.

  17. I don’t disagree that Cain screwed up the handling of it, Joe.

  18. Thanks, Doc.

  19. savefarris Says:

    Iā€™m not gonna put up with a revisionist memory of this event.

    For someone who doesn’t put up with revisionist history, you sure do dabble in it. You seem to forget that the day 1 Politico story was literally fact-free. The reporters then went on MSNBC and dared Cain to fill in the blanks, knowing there was a gag order in place and by responding, he’d be in violation of it.

    Complete and utter reprehensible actions by the “journalists” at Politico. But joe thinks it’s okay because it was all in service of destroying a black man joe didn’t like…

  20. You are incorrect. The story was delivered to Politico, and they published. A candidate for President with an harassment charge on his record is newsworthy. Politico was under no obligation to dig into the case history and determine guilt. The story was that the candidate had settled. Period. If he had simply acknowledged the the settlement on its terms – no discussion of it – the story would have been over.

    As for you egregiously throwing Cain’s color into the end of your comment, f*ck you.

  21. Btw, if someone told Politico that Sen. Obama settled a sexual harassment case, and they withheld it, all hell would have broken loose if it came out after the election. I explained all this at the time. Your ‘poor victimized conservative’ revisionist history is crap.

  22. savefarris Says:

    If someone told Politico about Obama, you know d*mn well that Politico would have felt “obligated to dig into the case history and determine guilt.”

    That’s precisely the point. When the MSM hears an accusation about Dems (and Obama in particular), they bend over backwards looking for reasons NOT to publish. When the rumor is of a Republican (and especially a Republican of ethnic descent), they let fly without even so much as a spell check. Look no further than the recent Reuters/Rubio kerfuffle as proof.

    If he had simply acknowledged the the settlement on its terms ā€“ no discussion of it ā€“ the story would have been over.

    But he couldn’t. And Politico knew it. Which is why their actions are so reprehensible.

  23. imnotblue Says:

    The story was that the candidate had settled.

    Yeah… except that’s not true. He didn’t settle, his company settled.

    At my company, a man who was completely incompetent, decided the best thing for his career was to become a freelancer. When he didn’t get any work after quitting, he sued my boss and the company. They settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. My boss only found out about all this AFTER the papers were signed. A spot on his record, that he had nothing to do with.

    The point being, Cain may not have known anything about the settlement.

    Also, the woman in that instance wasn’t the one talking. Those were other women, who were paraded in to say similar things, with no evidence. The left ate them up, regurgitated their stories as true (without research), and then cast them aside when the deed was done.

    _______

    If something like that happened around Obama, you would be here saying “we don’t understand Black culture,” just like you tried to do over the Rev. Wright story. You’d spin and spin, and deflect best you could… and call anyone who didn’t agree a “racist.”

    It’s not some “poor victimized conservative” it’s that we’ve all seen your (and so many on the left) dishonesty and willingness to lie before. It’s not “victimization,” it’s just called “noticing a pattern.”

  24. I notice a pattern: Herman Cain has a gropey pattern, and dropped out of the race before more women complained about it. Shuckey duckey.

  25. imnotblue Says:

    And there we are again. You believe, with no actual evidence, because you choose to believe.

    Present your evidence that those women were telling the truth. Links please.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 231 other followers

%d bloggers like this: