Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Little

Axlerod?

Rate this topic

12 posts in this topic


Ann Coulter.  He has been doing stuff like this for years.



 



Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country — Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. — but never in Chicago.



So it’s curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.



Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O’Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley’s chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain’s personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).



The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain’s short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he’s alleged to have been a sexual predator.



After O’Grady’s name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain’s personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them — by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)



And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we’ve suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of … Chicago.



Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod’s very building? Right again: Cain’s latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.



Bialek’s accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.



Within 24 hours of Bialek’s press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she’s a “gold-digger,” that she was constantly in financial trouble — having filed for personal bankruptcy twice — and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod’s apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama’s “hired muscle.”



Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she’s Obama’s next Cabinet pick.



The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.



John Brooks, Chicago’s former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn’t resign. He resigned — and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.



Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book Guilty: Liberal 'Victims’ and Their Assault on America, the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator — allowing him to run for president — is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama’s Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama’s Republican opponent.



One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.



But then The Chicago Tribune — where Axelrod used to work — began publishing claims that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.



From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a “wife beater.” He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.



Hull’s substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.



Luckily for Axelrod, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced.



The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.



But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan’s ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.



Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.



Axelrod’s courthouse moles obtained the “sealed” records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially “unseal” them — over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.



Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!



A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).



With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama’s Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.



And that’s how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)



Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.



In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull’s sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.”



Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had “an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story.”



This time, Obama’s little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with this type of accusation is that you are presumed to be guilty. In this instance, at least one of the complainants seems to be more that a little suspect....about what uou'd expect for someone who pops out of the woodwork. Cain, after initially being caught completely unprepared has done better lately. That he would seek to challenge Obama without having anticipated such an attack is beyond me. The Hull scandal was a shame; a good man destroyed when Obama could't win at the ballot box. There seems to be a pattern here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I've noticed something else. ALL of these accusations seem to be coming from a 2 year window when he was President of the NRA. In other words, he has no track record elsewhere. So it seems that he became Pres. of the NRA and just started chasing women, groping them, etc., etc. and then stopped doing it when he left. At least there is no record of him having the same behavior in his other high level posts. It would seem to me that if he behaved like this, there would be other instances along his career time line, Maybe he just had a bad batch of viagra while he was at the NRA.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this AM that Newt is now in second place behind Romney.

A McClatchy-Marist poll of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents finds that Mitt Romney’s poll numbers remain steady – he generally garners the support of about a quarter of the Republican and Republican-leaning voters. That puts him in the lead, with Mr. Gingrich in second and former front-runner Herman Cain close behind.

I stole that snippet above from Political Wire.

 

How long till Newt starts catching flack for something in his past?

By Wednesday, if his numbers start to rise any higher up the rankings is my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just read this AM that Newt is now in second place behind Romney.

A McClatchy-Marist poll of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents finds that Mitt Romney’s poll numbers remain steady – he generally garners the support of about a quarter of the Republican and Republican-leaning voters. That puts him in the lead, with Mr. Gingrich in second and former front-runner Herman Cain close behind.

I stole that snippet above from Political Wire.

How long till Newt starts catching flack for something in his past?

By Wednesday, if his numbers start to rise any higher up the rankings is my guess.

 

Romney may well be the eventual candidate; he would be a good match for 'The One' in debate and is organized to run a good general election campaign. Newt has made some very questionable decisions in his past and he is running in a party where three marriages might call his judgment into question. He is one of the brighter and more articulate candidates in recent memory. I'm not certain that he will not self immolate as the pressure on him grows; I do believe that he will survive an Axelrod smear campaign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney may well be the eventual candidate; he would be a good match for 'The One' in debate and is organized to run a good general election campaign. Newt has made some very questionable decisions in his past and he is running in a party where three marriages might call his judgment into question. He is one of the brighter and more articulate candidates in recent memory. I'm not certain that he will not self immolate as the pressure on him grows; I do believe that he will survive an Axelrod smear campaign

 

Romney has no chance unless it's Romney, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Paul until the end.

 

end of story.

 

Unless you can tell me that he's going to pick up supporters as candidates drop out.

Not gonna happen.

 

Well, maybe Hunstman's 10 supporters.

 

But Bachmann? Nope. Santorum? No way. Paul? Hah.

 

Romney might win Iowa, but after that, Bachmann and Santorum are gone. That's 5 to 10 percent going to Cain and Perry and Paul and Gingrich.

If Perry loses New Hampshire, he's gone. Romney goes from 1st to 3rd behind Gingrich and Cain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul is the crazy uncle of repub field. Newt must deal with his own flip flops; remember he was a leader in seeking a health insurance mandate at one point. Three marriages, infidelities and unpaid bills. Yeah, I think Romney wlil gain supporters. Perry has discredited himself. Cain has to overcome serious allegations, to say nothing of a complete lack of political experience. Gingrich may become formidable by subtraction. Personally, I'd prefer Newt but I'd vote for any of the above vs. Obama. So would you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul is the crazy uncle of repub field. Newt must deal with his own flip flops; remember he was a leader in seeking a health insurance mandate at one point. Three marriages, infidelities and unpaid bills. Yeah, I think Romney wlil gain supporters. Perry has discredited himself. Cain has to overcome serious allegations, to say nothing of a complete lack of political experience. Gingrich may become formidable by subtraction. Personally, I'd prefer Newt but I'd vote for any of the above vs. Obama. So would you.

 

That's the sad part.

How many Republican voters will stay home if presented with Obama vs Romney?

That would truly be voting for the lesser of two leftys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the sad part.

How many Republican voters will stay home if presented with Obama vs Romney?

That would truly be voting for the lesser of two leftys.

 

Few will stay home. An uncast vote is a vote for four more years of liberal drift. My guess is that most end up voting and that Romney ends up being an effective president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul is the crazy uncle of repub field. Newt must deal with his own flip flops; remember he was a leader in seeking a health insurance mandate at one point. Three marriages, infidelities and unpaid bills. Yeah, I think Romney wlil gain supporters. Perry has discredited himself. Cain has to overcome serious allegations, to say nothing of a complete lack of political experience. Gingrich may become formidable by subtraction. Personally, I'd prefer Newt but I'd vote for any of the above vs. Obama. So would you.

 

What candidates supporters will go to Romney?

 

LIke I said, Bachmann and Santorum will be gone after Iowa. Tell me why their supporters would go to Romney?

Perry will be gone after New Hampshire if he doesn't win in the first two states. Maybe a small percentage of his supporters will go to Romney, but most will go to Cain or Gingrich.

Ron Paul isn't picking up supporters along the way. Sadly, that's how things are.

However, Cain and Gingrich will pick up support. And right there, that puts Romney in 2nd place.

 

South Carolina is that third state. Romney's chances are over there.

 

It's between Cain and Gingrich.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.