Another Low in Campaign Coverage

Awwwww, poor, poor pitiful Far Right Wing Nuts! They can't believe their fellow Republicant's would "Swift Boat" each other!

Well, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Swift Boating comes natural to hard core wing-nuts They do not know how to play the game any other way.

In public, they prefer to blame the rumor mongering on the "Fair and Balanced" Liberal Press!

Salon.com has an interesting piece on how Cain's story has changed throughout the past 24 hours.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/herm...ges_his_story/

And you know full well the press didn't find this story on it's own. It was leaked by a rival Republican campaign. My guess is Perry's. Perry's and Romney's are the only campaigns well financed enough to have opposition research teams, and Romney isn't competing for the same voters as Cain. So that leaves Perry.

Even Mike Huckabee is smart enough to know that the story was leaked, although he doesn't speculate on who leaked it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1067168.html

Great headline in the Huffington Post on Cain's resurgent memory: "Oh! That Sexual Harassment Incident!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1068233.html

Unfortunately, this story is taking up all the oxygen on a much more important story about Cain likely committing a huge breach of Federal Campaign law that had been gaining traction over the weekend.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noq...132898423.html

Finally getting around to scanning some of the stories on Cain's shifting stories during the day (while I was out of the office and away from the computer). Talk about fucked up. I have no idea what happened between Mr. Cain and the two women in question. But his campaign's response shows just how unready this guy is for prime time. I'd think a candidate in a decent sized town running for dog catcher could do a better job of damage control.

Here is TPM's tick-tock of his responses:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

I’m trying to put together a Herman Cain harassment timeline. This is a work in progress because I’m having a hard time keep track of it all. So bear with me.

1. Politico allegations are false. Story is crap.

2. Yes, there were allegations. But they were false.

3. Yes there were allegations that were false and I don’t know what money was paid.

4. I don’t know whether money was paid. And it would be wrong for me to find out whether money was paid because it’s confidential.

5. There was a in-depth investigation. And I was cleared. But I don’t know anything about it.

6. Here’s the gesture that led to my getting accused of harassment.

7. Okay, I remember some discussion of a settlement number.

This baby is enough of a moving target I think we need to crowd source it. Which parts am I missing?

Now, Cain claims to have knowledge of what the settlement number is, at least in general:

“My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement…I don’t remember a number…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.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...-1.php?ref=fpa

Yeah.... Cain could really use some lessons from Eric Holder!!

Yeah.... Cain could really use some lessons from Eric Holder!! Originally Posted by MrGiz

Are you sayin' that Eric Holder was one of the original "Swift Boaters?"

Well, TTH, you are right that the campaign funding story is much more interesting and potentially damning. However, I reject your sources of Salon and Huff Post, being much like Politico, simply broadcasting arms of the Democrat Party.

And I wouldn't give up the names of the parties or the terms of the agreement. It will simply encourage more of the same type of irresponsible behavior on the part of "journalists". Maybe the women don't want the publicity.

And did I ever say it was the Democrats behind this? Duh, NO! I specifically said they were not. It is most likely the Perry campaign, but possibly one of the others. But I primarily think that the press can't handle a conservative black man gaining traction.

The campaign funding story is much more serious. I really want to see how that plays out. This story just plays to our "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" mentality.

BTW, I am NOT supporting Herman Cain. I sticking with Gary Johnson until the bitter end.

However, I reject your sources of Salon and Huff Post, being much like Politico, simply broadcasting arms of the Democrat Party. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So tell us, who do you trust?

But I primarily think that the press can't handle a conservative black man gaining traction.

Paranoid much?

I really don't trust any news source. If it is important to me, I will verify as much as I can from multiple sources. I do prefer smaller sources, since I think the major media are all part of the government/corporate complex. If you think that CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS and their ilk are telling you anything other than what the government wants you to hear, you are sadly mistaken. I do trust them for football scores and celebrity divorces, but other than that, it ain't necessarily so.

And finally, I trust me.

Well, TTH, you are right that the campaign funding story is much more interesting and potentially damning. However, I reject your sources of Salon and Huff Post, being much like Politico, simply broadcasting arms of the Democrat Party.

Well, what media outlets do you accept: Fox News? The Wall Street Journal? Both of them gave plenty of coverage to the story.

And I wouldn't give up the names of the parties or the terms of the agreement. It will simply encourage more of the same type of irresponsible behavior on the part of "journalists". Maybe the women don't want the publicity.

How is it irresponsible to report on a situation which may show Mr. Cain to have acted improperly? I don't know if the allegations were true and in my mind it doesn't mean too much, but wouldn't it be irresponsible to ignore the story? There is no news outlet that has done that. The voters who read about it will judge how important it is, not you or me.

And did I ever say it was the Democrats behind this? Duh, NO! I specifically said they were not. It is most likely the Perry campaign, but possibly one of the others.

This is what you wrote:

"So far, the Dems haven't jumped on Cain, but they have the media to do it for them." So technically you are right, but that doesn't put you in the clear.

As a true polemist, you deliberately ignored the obvious source of the story, rival Republican campaigns, in order to attack the press. What you should have written is that GOP candidates are attacking Cain by a smear campaign through anonymous press leaks which is a low and slimy tactic.

But I primarily think that the press can't handle a conservative black man gaining traction.

Please. This is unadulterated hokum. The press loves Herman Cain. He's a great story. He doesn't keep on message, he says provocative things and his campaign success says serious things about the state of the GOP and conservatism. I am amazed (and pleased) that a black candidate is so appealing to a group that is generally viewed as being less inclusive than the Dems. Bully for the GOP that Herman Cain can run for president under its banner.

In a very real sense a presidential campaign between two black candidates during the sesquicentennial of the Civil War between two black candidates would be the ultimate liberal triumph.

BTW, I am NOT supporting Herman Cain. I sticking with Gary Johnson until the bitter end.

I gotta admit that I don't know Gary Johnson. He needs more irresponsible press coverage.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

COG, You keep burying the lead. This has nothing to do with campaign coverage and everything to do with the GOP back-stabbing its own. Two recent polls (reported by the press) show that Cain is tied with Romney in Iowa and tied with Perry in Texas!!! That's the backdrop to this embarrassment to Cain.

Sure, it's a Republican rival. But if you can't pick up the press nuances in the story, declaring Cain guilty regardless of the facts, you need to pay closer attention. I stated in another thread, I trust very few news sources, and I verify as much as I can.

Gary Johnson would love any kind of press coverage! LOL! The simple fact is he is not a politician, and he isn't good on TV, so despite the fact that he is principled, decent, intelligent and strong, he doesn't stand a chance. Too bad.

I sticking with Gary Johnson until the bitter end. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The end has already ended.

Yeah.... Cain could really use some lessons from Eric Holder!! Originally Posted by MrGiz

Cain needs caning is wtf Cain needs!

Still interested in what Vince Foster has to do with any of this.

You know, there is a chance, albeit very small, that I have misread this entire thing. I've been perusing some of the coverage of this matter, and it looks like Cain is still gaining momentum. Given that the campaign funding issue has so far been eclipsed by this, and given the fact that the right wing loves its victims of the press, it is entirely possible that Cain leaked this thing himself. If he can make it look like the press is victimizing him, it will only increase his stature in the eyes of the right. And the press plays along, because charges of sexual impropriety are a lot more interesting than campaign funding violations. Now, when the campaign funding issue does get more traction, Cain will be able to say "There they go again" and dull the impact of that scandal.

This may be a brilliant political move on Cain's part. And it would prove he is dishonest enough to be the Republican nominee.

I apologize if I jumped the gun on this. It is possible that Cain is playing the media like a cheap violin.

COG, I can't imagine that Cain is that politically adept. Certainly his campaign hasn't shown that sort of nimbleness. And if your hypothesis (a conjecture, on your part, admittedly) was true, they wouldn't have bungled their response by trotting out five or six versions of their reply before settling on one (assuming that there still isn't yet another version coming down the pike).

Finally, as I predicted a few posts back, someone in now clamoring for Cain and the restaurant association to remove the confidentiality provision of the settlement. And it's not the press or another candidate asking -- it's one of the alleged victims (a smart play by whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/invest...s=rss_politics

It will be interesting to see how Cain handles this. The first level of defense is obviously to have the association deny the request without comment. But that will only intensify the pressure on Cain to act. At some point he'll have to fish or cut bait on whether he makes a similar request.

The first rule in campaign crisis management is to have the issue, no matter how bad it is, consume the fewest news cycles. Unless it is catastrophic. Then you let it bleed out over as long a period as possible. If this is really a tempest in a teapot, and Cain is smart, he'll tell the association to release everything that they have and start complaining when they don't. I don't think he's that smart, and I don't think this is a tempest in a teapot. His campaign just hasn't reacted the way that they would if this wasn't a big deal.

I witnessed the Lewinski scandal from the same seats y'all did. And while I wasn't in the huddle when the John Edwards campaign fell apart, I was standing on the sidelines, not in the stands. And this just has the whiff of something bigger from the way that the campaign seems spooked. Maybe it's just because they are rank amateurs playing in the big leagues. But it more likely is that they have something to be spooked about.