Free for All: 10/31/11

What’s on your mind?


118 Responses to “Free for All: 10/31/11”

  1. lonestar77 Says:

    Chuck Todd asked Cain’s COS about his relationship with the Koch Brothers. That’s nothing more than throwing a bone to the far-left. Todd actually looked a bit embarrassed to be asking such a profoundly stupid question. It came across as if he knew the question was meaningless but that he was forced to ask it.

    Perfect case of left-wing media bias. That type of question would never be asked of a dem. Chuck Todd embarrassed himself today.

  2. It’s getting harder for the few non-ridged lefties at MSNBC to stand even semi-erect. They all know what side of the bread is buttered. I respect them when they try to be fair as it is to their financial peril. Have to make a living, you know.

  3. Oh the weather outside is frightful,
    but OWS is just delightful.
    Hope the wind does blow and blow.
    Let it snow. Let it snow. Let it snow.

  4. LS; As you might expect i have a different POV on Todd’s question and the COS’s answer. I found the question legitimate and the answer somewhat evasive. It was not as evasive as the answer to the Cain sexual harassment charge question which was laughable.

    The funnest thing on the show was Todd shutting off the NYT reporter when she asked if drinks were served at the Perry event in NH. That was the question I had when I saw the video.

  5. Larry are’n you late for school?

  6. lonestar77 Says:

    I didn’t think the answers were evasive.

    Q. How many times have you met the Koch Broters?
    A. Maybe 4

    Q. When was the last time you saw them
    A. About a year ago.

    The left acts as if they’re wanted fugitives. There are many power left-wing groups that finance all types of websites, candidates, etc. and Dem. candidates are never asked about them.

    I think this is the truest form of media bias. Sure, the question is just a question. But, it’s the type of question that only gets asked of one side. Anyway, I thought Todd looked embarrassed to even be asking it.

    Todd alluded, in my opinion, to drinking when he asked about the time of night that the Perry speech took place. But, he did shoo her more direct comment away.

  7. Today the media will focus on its favorite topic: sex. Was Hermain Cain a sexual harasser? The talking heads are ready to rumble. Anita Hill is getting a fresh coat of paint. If anyone can find a coke can with a hair on it, please tweet @Maddow. She will have you on the show.

  8. LS: Q1 > Maybe
    Q2 > About
    ^ Weasel words.

    I agree Todd was hinting at something in questioning the timing. Lets hope that’s Perry’s excuse as otherwise he made the remarks sober, which is really troubling.

    My guess is that Cain will come clean this afternoon in his presser. It’s the only way he puts it behind him. Otherwise it’s drip drip drip like so many of these scandals before this one.

  9. lonestar77 Says:

    If the allegations I’ve seen are true, then Cain made physical gestures that weren’t overtly sexual and asked one woman up to his hotel room. Wow, I bet they were scarred for life. Well, until they got a nice check, that is.

  10. I can understand why the Supreme Court of the United States wouldn’t care to be bothered with such silliness. What I can’t understand is why organized “Atheists” would get a bone up their ass over such a thing.

    foxnewspolitics Supreme Court says it will NOT hear case of roadside crosses for fallen police in Utah; lower court ruling stands for American Atheists.

  11. imnotblue Says:

    fritz3 Says:
    October 31, 2011 at 8:28 am

    LS: Q1 > Maybe
    Q2 > About
    ^ Weasel words.

    That’s the second time in two days I’ve seen someone use the phrase, “weasel words.” Where did you first read that, fritz?

  12. lonestar77 Says:

    It’s a neat trick how the left has turned “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” into:
    “any mention, posting, or scenery depicting anything remotely religious shall be banned forever lest they make the people’s eyes bleed and their pee-pee’s hurt”.

  13. — weasel words —

    I first read it in a book about advertising, maybe 40-years-ago. But Fritz probably got it from Rachel. 😉

  14. Wait a second. Did this whole ‘Cain’ thing just ace-out Perry’s surprisingly adequate performance on Fox News Sunday? Man, that guy can’t do anything right..

  15. Like the right doesn’t link every Dem to Soros and talk about George Soros like he’s the antichrist.

    I heard that George Soros was an evil commie socialist fascist who wanted to destroy the world long before I ever heard of the Koch Brothers.

  16. ^ glad to see your reflexes are still predictable

  17. lonestar77 Says:

    When did Chuck Todd or anyone else at NBCBSABCNN ask anyone about George Soros?

  18. when you lean you can’t be clean

  19. @Lonestar77: I’m talking about the cable news network that gets the highest ratings.

  20. imnotblue Says:

    @ Andy

    I’m confused. Is FNC the irrelevant network that the left constantly says it is? Or is FNC the influential and important network, apparently the equal of all the other cable networks AND broadcast networks combined?

    It’s so hard to keep the talking point clear.

    Lone’s point is exactly right. When has the broadcast networks, or any network other than FNC, asked someone on the left about Soros?

  21. That’s why the Left does exeything in its power to discredit FNC and even tries to isolate it and shut it down. All those years where leftist editorial judgement kept so much from the public were over 15 years ago.

  22. Do a Google search, you’ll find plenty of instances of ABC, CBS, even MSNBC going after Soros. I’m not doing your research for you.

  23. Mr. Cain appears to be following the well worn path of John Edwards and many others in handling this ‘scandal’.

    As he will find out in the next week it’s never the actual scandal that does you in; it’s the cover-up. The actual scandal here is pretty weak but the evasions and bs that Cain and his campaign are putting out will guarantee this will go on for days.

    More of a problem in the long run are stories out of Wisconsin that ‘maybe’ (see LS, it’s a weasel word) 😉 Mark Block’s non-profit (allegedly – another weasel word) funded by the Koch brothers were paying expenses for Cain without declaring them to the FEC.

  24. lonestar77 Says:

    Andy’s just mad because his Jags got beat down yesterday. 🙂

    I was at the game and neither team played particularly well, although our defense was pretty solid.

  25. @lonestar: Time for Jack Del Rio to go.

  26. lonestar77 Says:

    From an outsiders perspective, he seems to get more out of what he has to work with than most coaches.

  27. Love that the settlement of Cain’s accusers is being described as “in the five figures”. Why not quote the exact amount unless $10,000 sounds too piddling? Insurance companies won’t even take nuisance suits to court if they can settle for $15,000 or less.

  28. @Lonestar: Jacksonville is a one man offense, always has been. And they don’t go all out to get offensive weapons because they have MoJo. Blaine Gabbert sucks, he wasn’t a great college QB. Cutting Garrard was a mistake.

  29. Martin Bashir is so much better without Martin Bashir.

  30. I’m just glad to have him off NIGHTLINE.

  31. i’m hearing way too much about how the accusations against Herman Cain ”aren’t that bad”. “Aren’t that bad because he didn’t actually assault them” isn’t exactly good. If he was in a position of authority amongst these women (that part isn’t clear to me yet) and used that power to verbally and physically impose himself on them in a sexual way so as to make them feel threatened, that is sexual harassment by the legal definition. Which Ann Coulter is clearly unaware of.

  32. I see, he was the President of this board, which made him the boss. I’m not convinced this remains a story for him for long, but the details ain’t pretty.

  33. imnotblue Says:

    ^ The accusations (at this time) do not include groping, threats, inappropriate touching, or anything like that.

    Compared to other presidential nominees, that makes them “not that bad.”

    Of course, I’m sure race has nothing to do with this.

  34. -The actual scandal here is pretty weak-

    Hardly a “scandal” at all, especially with anonymous sourcing. Seems to me “anonymous” is one of those weasel words.

  35. imnotblue Says:

    ^ Well it depends on who says it.

    If it’s a Republican or FOX News, then yes.

    A Democrat, or anyone else in the MSM, then it’s just good journalism, taking into account the feelings and responsibility of protecting the accusers.

  36. until details come out, ignore all the B.S. above.

  37. as to make them feel threatened, that is sexual harassment by the legal definition.

    True, but I have a real problem with the arbitrariness of the “feel” part of that. I’ve experienced someone of authority using sexual innuendos and outright propositions that could easily have met that definition. While there was certainly a threatening aspect to it, it’s part of being human and just because she was my boss doesn’t change that.

    The law should show a crystal clear line that’s the same for everyone and “feelings” should not enter into it.

  38. lonestar77 Says:

    I’ve seen “sexual harassment” in the workplace (from both sides) on numerous occasions. “Sexual harassment” is very broad ranging. To some people, a bad joke is enough to try and get someone fired. To another person, that same joke is enough to get an equally bad joke thrown back in their face. Unfortunately, in many cases, it’s not about the act but about the sensitivities, sometimes goals, of the harassed.

  39. Oh look, men who don’t understand the simple concept of sexual harassment. Shocked, I am.

    If you’re the boss, you can’t hit on an employee. Period. Touching them and inviting them to your hotel is definitely sexual harassment. And it takes nerve to complain about it. Women aren’t prone to jeapordizing their careers over one compliment from the boss..something happened hear enough times that two women were paid to let it go.

  40. ‘here’

    It’s Typo Monday again.

  41. Only a simpleton would say, “the simple concept of sexual harassment”.

  42. Only someone with their head in the sand would think sexual harassment is this super complex thing that can’t be defined. I defined it for you, and any judge would agree with me.

  43. Example: I’m the boss; I sign your checks; you’re a female who needs the job. I put my hjand on your shoulder, say “damn, you look hot in that dress”, and invite you to my apt. So now you have to ask yourself a question: Is the boss just being an ass, or is he letting me know that it would be in my best interests to play along if I want to keep my job?

    Sexual harassment.

  44. Does Al Sharpton have to SCREAM AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS and do his entire show through a bullhorn?

    How can people watch this crap?

  45. Oh Herman. “I had no knowledge of a settlement.” “We agreed to settle.” Pick one!

  46. Btw, Mr. Cain has confirmed the Politico story: He was accused of sexual harassment, and he settled to avoid prosecution. So what was all this crap all weekend about “thinly-sourced smears” and “liberal press”?

  47. We still don’t know all the facts. But that’s not a problem to the head of the lynch mob here. He has got the rope ready to go.

  48. If you can’t handle fair analysis of a campaign crisis without screaming “lynching”, well..

    You presume I’m only interested in the story because Cain is a Republican. You are incorrect. Presidential campaigns are my hobby..I follow all of them like some people follow baseball. It’s my favorite sport.

  49. what a narcissist. I’m sure any judge would agree.

  50. Come on folks, step up. Someone show me where my observations on the Cain story are incorrect.

  51. Looking forward to tonight’s premiere of Rock Center with Don Kirshner.

  52. -roadside crosses-
    They’re not atheists, they’re anti-Christian bigots first, then anti-theists. They want to exterminate Christianity, then all other religions and then, very likely, their adherents if they don’t become atheists. They’re a very small minority but they’re quite powerful and of course extremely loud and annoying. Of course, that’s how I see it.
    It’s probably going to get worse, probably to the point where the UK is at now.

  53. …then, very likely, their adherents if they don’t become atheists.

    That’s a bit of a stretch. They’re atheists with a bad attitude, not murderers.

  54. ^ ^ You’re absolutely right. A true athiest would not care.

  55. Joe, your observations may turn out to be right. I just think it is too early to be judgemental. All we know for sure is around twenty years ago charges of harasement were made and a settlement was paid to two women. That and so far Cain doesn’t seem to be handling the situation to the satisfaction of Cale news people.

  56. An atheist without a chip on his shoulder is called an agnostic,

  57. About twenty years ago there was a presidential contender who faced far more damning complaints and he, too, denied them every-which way. Both he and his wife went on to do great things.

    If Herman Cain committed a crime then charges should have been sought. But if the women accepted a cash payment for their grievances, be they true or false, then the proper thing for them to do at this point is STFU.

  58. An “agnostic” is one who is unconvinced one way or the other on the existence of a deity. An “atheist” is one who accepts, as a matter of faith, that there is not such an entity.

  59. The Cain story is about accusations that were settled out of court, and how he is handling them now. There’s nothing else to prove. Politico got the story, and Cain has acknowledged it. Politico doesn’t have to prove he actually committed the crime because they didn’t allege he did.

  60. Exactly. Silly distraction no matter who it is against and not a big deal. He will have some serious issues to get right real quick if he’s to stay in the running.

  61. so much for my joke.

  62. Wonder if Politico can find out what kind of grades Obama got in college?

  63. Al, it’s always the cover-up that’s gets ya. If no repulsive details emerge, Cain probably gets past this quickly – no small thanks to rival campaigns who refuse to touch the story – but man has he screwed up the response. He’s known Politico had it for 10 days, and still told conflicting stories today.

    The bigger problem is that he is hinting there’s more on the way. If two women turns into three, four, or five, well..

  64. Cain did screw up the response, although it could be argued that he handled in a more real way than a seasoned politician would have.

    If any of his Republican competitors go after him for this then they’re immediately burnt toast without reprieve from going straight to the garbage can.

  65. What the hell happened to Rick Perry Friday night?

  66. People say too many cocktails but he looks to me like he had one too many pre speech tokes. It kinda reminded me of Cheech and Chong.

  67. Yosemite Prez. Live free or die hard.

  68. joeremi Says:
    October 31, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Oh look, men who don’t understand the simple concept of sexual harassment. Shocked, I am.

    If you’re the boss, you can’t hit on an employee. Period. Touching them and inviting them to your hotel is definitely sexual harassment. And it takes nerve to complain about it. Women aren’t prone to jeapordizing their careers over one compliment from the boss..something happened hear enough times that two women were paid to let it go.

    Would it be possible for you to be any more arrogant? I’m sure you can find a way… but I can’t imagine how.

    So basically, it’s harassment if a male employee (especially a boss) talks or touches a female employee. Yes, that seems fair. And a great way to encourage men to hire women: “Hire this women, because if you don’t we’ll charge you with sexism. If you do, you better not talk to her, or we’ll charge you with harassment. Don’t even try to discipline her if she makes a mistake, because she might claim harassment, and it’s easier to fire you, than to challenge her statement.”

    What a “fair” world you think we should live in.

    All we know is that two women claimed something, and they were paid some unknown amount of money to go away. We don’t know if their story is true. We don’t know what made them “uncomfortable.” And we don’t know how much Cain actually knew about this incident.

    But other than that, let’s just assume things and attack him. After all, he’s a Conservative… so he probably deserves it. And because he’s Black, he deserves EXTRA scrutiny and punishment. Thankfully, because he’s on the right, the folks who like to scream “racism” at every little thing are ‘too busy’ to care.

  69. You’ve completely made up your own version of my explanation of sexual harassment. Judging from what I’ve heard in the press, and seen here, it would appear that very few conservatives know or care what it really is.

  70. The reporting and subsequent coverage of this sort of unsubstantiated accusation does a disservice to everyone, mostly women, who’ve had to put up with real and truly intimidating acts of harassment. When you’re worried about putting food on your children’s plate and some jackass tries to make keeping your job contingent on getting you in the sack… that’s plain evil. But overcompensating by making every inappropriate utterance or gesture into ‘harassment’ is also bad.

    The information reported is enough to justify having someone dig a little deeper but, as-is, it’s mighty-close to being a smear job.

    When the National Enquirer first reported on John Edward’s thing, the major news outlets left it alone. Rightly so, I’d say. Why didn’t Herman Cain deserve the same?

  71. John Edwards didn’t pay someone off to prevent prosecution for doing something threatening. Also, real journalists were unable to establish anything beyond innuendo about Edwards having an affair. The stories have no relationship to each other.

  72. No, it’s not a “smear job”. If you’re a reporter, and you find out a Presidential candidate settled a sexual harassment suit, you’re gonna hold it? No way, brother. If that information is on record somewhere, another reporter is gonna do his job. It’s what reporters are supposed to do: Report what they know.

  73. People get paid-off in order to avoid a lawsuit everyday. We do not know if there was any merit whatsoever to the claim made against Cain. Based upon the experiences of a few of my colleagues, settlements can be offered without the subject of the accusation having much say-so at all in the process.

  74. Reporters refrain from reporting things all the time. There’s a certain level of responsibility that goes with the job, and you don’t risk ruining someone’s reputation without hard facts.

  75. I don’t disagree, Al, but it’s still news, and it’s become much bigger news because of the Cain campaign’s Weiner-like reaction to it 10 days after they were told it was being worked on. All this “you’re attacking him because he’s conservative” nonsense is ridiculous. The guy’s company settled at least one sexual harassment claim, and he is acting like he knows there’s more coming. It’s news.

  76. Come on, Al, you’re smarter than that. Cain confirmed Politico’s story after bashing them all weekend. They had the facts.

  77. If it was a settlement arrived at out of court, it likely includes a non-disclosure clause for both sides, and whatever records about it that exist are probably locked up in some lawyer’s safe.

    For all we know the harassment accusation was retaliatory for being fired and the settlement included a muzzle on Cain against telling what really happened.

  78. Which misses the point. For all we know he’s innocent and these chicks are scum. For all we know, he’s a low down dirty old man. The point is, he’s a presidential candidate who settled a harassment suit. If a reporter gets that news, he has to report it. “Hey, that guy who’s President now paid women off to not bust him for being a creep. Maybe someone shoulda told us that before we voted, eh..”

  79. For all we know, someone was paid to unlawfully leak sequestered information. Politico’s reporters tracked it down but couldn’t get anyone to speak of it on the record. Who knows? Soon maybe the FBI will be conducting an investigation to determine if anyone is criminally liable for trying to unlawfully influence a presidential election.

    Usually when these sorts of things are reported they come with a whole lot more specificity. Seems like they tried to track things down, hit a dead end, and decided to publish what little they had anyway.

    For all we know, Cain is the scum-bag. Or he could be involved only because he was the big-cheese and details of the settlement prevent him from properly defending himself.

  80. “On the record” rarely gets you something like this. Someone told Politico it happened, then they spent 10 days working it to make sure they had something. They obviously felt they had enough to go on that assured them if Cain denied and called them liberal racist hatemongers, it would hold up.

  81. And it ain’t over. Those women are out there, and someone’s gonna find them. They’re not allowed to talk about the case, but there they’ll be, looking sad and hurt and saying “I can’t talk about it”.

  82. Bottom line, Herman Cain is now probably unelectable. He “didn’t say this” or he “shouldn’t have tried to blame” such and such is all academic. Unless blessed with a highly-skilled public relations team, how can a man defend himself against such an accusation? Doesn’t matter what really happened, he’s tainted with it.

    Justice Thomas was never able to clear himself of Anita Hill’s claim, either. Her accusations were made not in a judicial setting with rules of evidence, but in a public forum from which the accused can never recover. It’s wrong.

  83. Yeah, and Justice Thomas was accused by a very bright – and clearly distraught – woman of saying something very bizarre about a Coke can. Something no woman could possibly think up. Sometimes the facts are just plain obvious, fair or not.

    And you can spare me the “poor Cain” drama. He had 10 days to accept that the settlement was going to be revealed, and pick a response. Apparently he came up with 5, and decided to try them all out today.

  84. The hell with Cain… and Thomas, too – it’s poor us. There’s lots people in this country who would be fantastic in higher office. Very few of them will ever seriously consider going through it with these tactics in use.

  85. Nope. You’d have to be an idiot to run for President. Even Sarah Palin knew better..

  86. savefarris Says:

    “If you’re a reporter, and you find out a Presidential candidate [and/or current President] settled a sexual harassment suit, you’re gonna hold it? No way, brother. If that information is on record somewhere, another reporter is gonna do his job.”

    Michael Isikoff c. 1998 disagrees.

  87. and we all remember how the liberal media vigorously pusued the John Edwards scandal even after it was handed to them on a silver platter.

  88. Remember how the media rallied around Obama when they were terrified the revalation of the audacity of his racist pastor would cripple him? His “speech on race” the best speech since the Getteysburg Address they praised. Anybody remember a damn word it today?

  89. @LarryKelly: The National Enquirer broke the story, and it took them six months to do so.

    If it was so easy and it was handed to the media on a silver platter, why didn’t FOX “News” bust it wide open? After all, FOX is the network that’s saying that crap.

  90. It’s funny that Herman Cain supporters are now pulling the same race card, much more frequently than Obama supporters, that they complain about liberals using.

  91. You only see that.

  92. What’s “funny” is you didn’t care then but you care now.

  93. imnotblue Says:

    The difference between the Cain thing, and the Edwards thing is night and day. The media was told this MIGHT be a situation, for Edwards… so they didn’t report it, because they wanted all the facts first. For the Cain thing, they were told this might have actually happened, so they reported it right away, just in case, and to make sure all the information got out there!

    See! Different!

    Actually, a better comparison is between Bill Clinton and Herman Cain. Clinton was charged with harassment a number of times before his Presidential run… but that was ignored, or hushed, or told it wasn’t a big deal. That way, when he did it again in the White House, we were all told, “What do you expect?” and he was given a pass again.

    But it’s different for Cain. He’s a Republican. And Black. So… you know… different rules apply.

  94. Bill Clinton was a different era from now. Pre-internet, pre-Fox, pre-talkradio of any large significance. Rush was big, but wasn’t known to drive a news-cycle. Lewinsky was your basic dividing-line with the internet, and “conservative” media in general. It’s extremely difficult to compare the two, without your basic ‘apples and oranges’ conundrum.

  95. imnotblue Says:

    I disagree, laura. Clinton’s past was well known by local Arkansas media, and there were plenty of stories for the national media to go on. But by and large, they didn’t… and when they did, they didn’t make a big deal out of it.

    So the argument could be made that to expose Clinton for harassment, the MSM would have had to do LESS work, than Politico had to do to find out about Cain.

  96. savefarris Says:

    If it was so easy and it was handed to the media on a silver platter, why didn’t FOX “News” bust it wide open?

    They were too busy breaking the Bush 43 DUI story. You have to admit, that’s pretty odd behavior for the “Republican Party House Organ”…

  97. Gennifer Flowers was a huge story that the public decided didn’t matter after Hillary spoke up on 60 Minutes. And it wasn’t harassment. Lewinsky was covered for years. No harassment. Paula Jones was harassment, and the impetus for Lewinsky and impeachment. Me thinks you’re not old enough to actually remember this stuff.


    The charges and one of the first reports about Jones came in 1994.

    But you may be right, that info was after he was already President… BUT it was BEFORE his SECOND campaign.

    So why wasn’t it a bigger story then?

  99. It WAS a big story back then, but it was awash in other endless details about Whitewater and a couple other potential scandals I can’t remember now. Plus, as Laura said, this was before the constant updates we have now with the internet.

    But to say Bill Clinton got a pass from the press is extremely revisionist. He was under attack constantly. The “pass” came from the public. They simply liked him, and the harder the right came after him, the worse it backfired on the right. It was a strange time.

  100. Speaking of that “pass from the public”, you’re seeing that with Herman Cain right now. If no lurid details come out – and he SHUTS UP – this will be over soon. Innate likability gets you a long way in politics. See: Reagan, Clinton.

  101. When Monica raised her head, Clinton was well into his second term, and the good times were rolling. That plus he kept a lie going for six months that there was nothing to the story of that woman. By the time the blue dress flew at half mast, “this is wah” Carville and company had rallied the defenses and vilified the attackers. Good ol’ Bubba had survived. Side benefit: middle schoolers got to claim oral sex was not sex.

  102. If I had a point, and it’s hard to remember, it’s just that today’s news-cycle is literally a different century from Clinton v Bush/92. It’s about impossible to draw a straight-line comparison between coverage then and now.

    To the extent that the “MSM” could ignore stuff then, they really can’t now. Isikoff got aced-out of the Lewinsky story by Drudge, because the press hadn’t yet realized that they weren’t the only game in town. We have this little thing called ‘competition’, and the game changes.

    It is also the case that scandal-induced-vapors are much more difficult to elicit than they once were. People may still be deterred out of a concern for privacy, but the public at large is more frequently yawning at these revelations. That isn’t necessarily good, but it is.

  103. Isikoff also got aced-out by Drudge the same way the MSM got aced-out by The Enquirer over Edwards: Both situations were consensual sex by consenting adults, not legal trouble. When the entirety of the story is “man fools around on wife”, the journalist has to weigh whether it’s actually important that the public know. Drudge and The Enquirer had no such issues. Their goals were “scoop”, “notoriety”, and – in Drudge’s case – ideology.

  104. The same can be said of McCain’s “affair” being reported in the New York Times. “Ideology” goes all around.

  105. Of course. The McCain story – and KO’s hyperactive “breaking news” recitation of it – was ridiculous, and The NYT has taken a beating for it ever since.

  106. The chief executive of the country having sex in the workplace with an intern half his age has many more possible implications than your normal everyday affair. You don’t sit on that story. A judge didn’t in giving the special prosecutor jusistiction of the matter in addition to his other assignments. If you are a reporter you dont get to look at things with 13 years of hindsight.

  107. I don’t disagree with that, and think – especially in light of the Paula Jones suit – that Isikoff eventually would have gone with it. Regular reporters were working Edwards, too, but couldn’t nail down whether it was an affair with paternity involved at the time The Enquirer caught him in the hallway. That story would have eventually come out, too, especially if he had stayed in the race longer.

  108. Yep, the Edwards story would have come out eventually but that doesn’t minimise the restraint shown by most major news outlets including CNN & FNC. It was only after details emerged that they went with it.

    Somebody with some cash will offer to cover whatever potential loss the woman risks by violating any non-disclosures. Don’t know the details of it, of course, but I’d be surprised if Cain hasn’t already violated his end.

  109. Condi Rice on Hannitty & Hannity… damn she’s good.

  110. Damn, you’re right. I like how she compares this country’s racial experience with the difficulties of other developing democracies. It’s not a new thought, but she makes it sound so much more hopeful than most. And without the liberal edge of ‘We’re no better than them’.

  111. She even makes Hannity look good.

  112. ^ I thought the same but couldn’t get myself to mention that Hannity looked good, too.

    The way she explained it, the potential for Egypt and other Arab countries to become true democracies down the road even though they may first move hard toward Islamic governance is encouraging.

  113. Yeah, she was a damn site more encouraging than what I’m accustomed to hearing about that neighborhood. And it was nice seeing someone yank Sean’s leash on certain issues. Be nice if Fox had more people who think, and fewer who spout.

  114. dead island trainer…

    […]Free for All: 10/31/11 « Inside Cable News[…]…

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: