LOL!!! It's a damn shame that it has to come to this with the Republicans.Yea look positive on the whole thing.. he might be fondling women and so on.. but at least it is women and not boys and young men in bathrooms!
All have sexual scandals, criminal accusations and/or imorality in their closets? Is that what you're peddling?
"Don't want to pile on?" WTF.com!?!?? What does that mean? That they will ignore crimes, immorality and the like because they like they guy or are a friend of the guy? They certainly don't "not pile on" when it's a Dem. Just ask Anthony Weiner. It's just more partisanship that the Right is famous for.What it says is that they don't want to pile on.
Hell, Bush-41 didn't really make a big deal about Bill Clinton's womanizing in 1992, and neither did Bob Dole in 1996.
Let's put this whole thing in perspective. Cain was a "none of the above" vote. Or to put it in a way that a lib like yourself can understand, it was like Obama voting "Present".
We didn't like what we saw, and supporting Cain was a way of expressing distaste. We knew he wasn't going to be the nominee.
Now Gingrich appears to be getting serious, so Cain's support is waning. I think it would have waned without the women, but that probably didn't help.
What if it turns out (unlikely as it might seem) that all these women are lying or crazy. Not a one of them has produced a single bit of evidence.
You libs said every last one of the women who accused Clinton were lying, until Monica produced a stained dress. Then all but one were lying. And how dare you all ask.
And for a people who weren't planning on supporting Cain, they sure know how to act like they are. Are you suggesting that Republicans are all about playing games?
On the evidence, well now we have phone records. Now what?
It's a shame democrats do not hold their own to the same standards they hold republicans.
But you do realize that is one of the teaching of alinsky rules for radicals.
david vitter approves of your post........