« | »

Sharon Bialek Has An Interesting Background

From the Chicago ABC affiliate, WLS-TV:

Who is Cain accuser Sharon Bialek?

Chuck Goudie
November 7, 2011

(MUNDELEIN, Ill.) (WLS) — Sharon Bialek, who lives in suburban Mundelein, said Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain reached under her skirt 14 years ago when she asked him about a job.

In this Intelligence Report: Who is Sharon Bialek? The Chicago-area woman has an extensive corporate and personal history in the area going back to the early 1990s.

It was her hope for a new job that Bialek says brought her to Herman Cain that day in 1997.

Bialek’s resume and a trail of public records indicates that changing jobs has been a regular occurrence for the Chicagoan. She has worked for at least nine different employers over the past 17 years and appears to have struggled financially.

The public record on Bialek begins in 1991 when she filed personal bankruptcy for the first time while living in Des Plaines.

Between 1993 and 1996 Bialek worked for four different companies in promotion and marketing positions.

In 1996, and part of 1997, Bialek was at the National Restaurant Association. After being let go from that job in mid-1997, she says that she went to Washington, D.C., to meet with Cain, president of the association, because she needed a job.

Ms. Bialek was unemployed and living in Chicago. But she had the time and money to go to Washington, DC, rent a hotel room two blocks from the White House, to approach the CEO of the NRA for a job?

She had been employed by the NRA for less than eight months in a low level position, and she thought the CEO would help her?

In 1999, Bialek’s son Nicholas was born and a paternity lawsuit was filed by the father, a media executive.

A media executive who reportedly works for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

In 2001 came Bialek’s second personal bankruptcy, filed after sizable legal bills.

She had two bankruptcies in a span of 10 years?

That year she was hired by WGN radio where she worked until 2004 when she took a marketing job and then a job at WCKG radio.

Along the way, according to her attorney, Bialek also held positions with Revlon and Easter Seals.

As the article noted, that is at least nine jobs in seventeen years.

Bialek currently lives in Mundelein with fiance Mark Harwood.

"She’s of the same political persuasion as Herman Cain," Harwood said. "There was no money on the table to go and have an interview. This is truly about an American girl who’s got a big heart and wants to do the right thing."

If she is a conservative Republican, why did she hire Gloria Allred?

Also, if she is so concerned about sexual harassment, why didn’t she mention this when Mr. Cain ran for the Presidency in 2000, or when he ran for the Senate in Georgia (Zell Miller’s seat) back in 2004?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, November 8th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

29 Responses to “Sharon Bialek Has An Interesting Background”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Sounds exactly right. Mushy background, hard to pin down, broken field runner with multiple story lines, lots of wriggle room, can’t hold herself together, head full of conflicting thoughts feelings and outlook. A lost soul in The Search For Significance. And shazzam … somebody’s Dirt Crew managed to find her, dangle the right bait and she’ll perform hoping this is her ticket to being noticed and important.

    Just like the degenerate yo yos on Maury Povich and Springer. Will debase and humiliate themselves for a chance to be on he TeeVee.

    • The Redneck says:

      Just like such notables as Anita Hill and Cindy al-Sheehan.

      Once they’re not useful anymore, they get tossed to the side–and I hope the realization is a very, very bitter one.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    As Michelle noted yesterday, Allred started fishing for clients 6 days ago: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/190851-gloria-allred-cains-claim-is-almost-unimaginable That’s almost on par with the day that Levin made a crack about expecting to see Gloria join this circus before it’s through.

    A very sick man asked on PMSLSD if the Tea Party would be able to handle a white woman making these charges on our ‘new black friend.’ Apparently this sub-human commentator was so eager to get on tv and hurl some racist bile that he completely missed the fact this woman ‘claims’ to be a Tea Partier.

    So by the media’s established templates, clearly what this is actually is a case where a racist TP woman wants to smear a black man, and the sexist TP old white males want to smear her partly to mask their racism.


    Theater of the Absurd once again, starring the Liberal and Rebulican Establishments.

  3. River0 says:

    This is too rich: Gloria says her client’s name is pronounced “Buy-a-lick”. It’s only too obvious that the Regime Media needed a pretty face to draw the nation’s attention away from the massive malfeasance of the Anti-Christ in the Black Ops House.

    Who can protect themselves from the un-witnessed allegations of a man or woman bent on media attention? Nobody can.

  4. JohnMG says:

    ….”She’s of the same political persuasion as Herman Cain,…..”

    Let’s see. How many times has Cain filed for bankruptcy? How many times has Cain abdicated his responsibility toward debt and other fiscal matters? How many times has Cain attempted a shake-down? How many conservatives would share the same sidewalk with Allred, much less employ her to attack another conservative?

    Yep. They sure sound like kindred spirits to me. /sarc/

  5. Melly says:

    I wondered how Conservatives/Republicans would handle female accusers. We’ve commented for years on the bimbo busting techniques of the Clinton Administration and the methods of destruction the media uses against female accusers. It’s interesting. I’ll tell you one thing. I, like many others, thought very little of the accusations facing Cain even of Ms. Bialek’s statement. I watched Cain on Kimmel last night though. Kimmel asked Cain if he should hire Gloria Allred. Cain wanted to really tell Kimmel what he thought of Allred and decide not to as his advisors would not recommend it. What he did say was the following: Let me put it to you this way: I can’t think of anything I would hire her to do,” Cain laughed, referring to Allred. “I can’t think of a thing.” I reacted to Cain’s statement as a woman and thought it was inappropriate for a Presidential candidate to speak in such a manner. I can now plainly see how he might conduct himself in mixed company. Cain’s whole handling of this situation indicates to me that he has very little experience in crisis management. And as for Gloria Allred, it’s thanks to her that Democrat Congressman Weiner resigned in disgrace. Her client coming forth w/ details of her association with Weiner was the impetus for Weiner to resign. Well, that just my opinion.

    • JohnMG says:

      So am I to conclude that defending one’s self from character assasination, in order to impugn someone’s reputation (Cain’s) for political purposes should be free to flourish without regard to the reputation of the accuser?

    • proreason says:

      I read that comment and didn’t see the spin you put on it. But you are probably right. Not a very presidential thing to say,

      re jmg’s response, I would say that any attacks on the character of the accuser are better left to supporters and surrogates.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Thank you for bringing up Allred and Weiner, Melly, because I think there’s some revisionist History going on in that situation.

      – Weiner had already been disgraced and caught in lies by the time of Gloria’s emergence.
      – He was refusing to resign, and to my knowledge there was no Conservative populist drive to call for his resignation. I think our attitude at the time was that it was lewd and inappropriate, but in terms of damaging the country was penuts compared to what others in Washington are responsible. Plus, I wasn’t exactly sure where exactly Weiner had broken the Law.

      Therefore I submit that Harpy Queen Gloria was called upon by fellow Democrats who knew Weiner’s contact, to squash a low-level fellow Democrat grunt who was damaging their brand.

      I don’t think she has a principled bone in that body but believe there is more than sufficient reason to suspect every time she shows up its at the behest of the Left’s political agenda.

      The obvious question: just how is it that they all end up finding Gloria specifically to speak for them?

    • JohnMG says:


      In a fair hearing type setting, leaving one’s defense to one’s surrogates may be advisable. In this case, there is no way to win the debate. If he left it to others and remained silent, that would be spun as tacit admission of guilt. If he responds personally, he’s being vicious and nasty. It’s a “gotcha” situation. (Have you stopped beating your wife yet?) I would find it different had he responded with a question of his own, such as; Have you checked yourself into re-hab yet?

      The left has this framed to their preference, abetted by a willing, complicit media. We all say we want someone with whom the common man can identify. When one comes along and this kind of crap befalls him/her, we pine for someone with the more polished, nuanced approach. Personally, I haven’t settled on a candidate yet, but I’m really sick of what has become a one-sided game of ‘trash thine enemy’ in which we have to play, but the other side has the only rule book and we can’t look at it.

      This is not to say I fault many of the comments for all have valid points. It’s just so frustrating to be swimming against the current all the time. Obama flips off an opponent and other’s with whom he disagrees, he makes snide comments, he goes on tlk shows and the late night comedy circuit making all sorts of outrageous statements, he insults other world leaders (recently Netanyehu)…….all with impunity. Allred’s comment about ‘stimulus package’ goes un-challenged, yet we expect Cain not to fight back in kind? That’s not a reasonable expectation. The man would not have triumphed against the odds he did if he wasn’t capable AND determined.

      These people seek to destroy him by any means. He should be allowed (and given the moral lee-way) to respond with equal force. Alas, that’s not the way this will play out. Know this, however. Never will good conservative people ever attempt to stem the tide of this socialist onslaught if this baseless savaging is allowed to go forward.

    • retire05 says:

      JohnMG, no, but to be really blunt about it, the accusers reputation has nothing to do with the accusations.

      I remember when the Monica Lewinsky story surfaced. She was villified. She was called names, by those who supported Clinton, that are not fit to print. At the time, I viewed her as a slightly immature, stary-eyed young woman who was smitten over a man just like any groupie is. Bill Clinton, in my view, used that immaturity and her idol worship of him, to his advantage. And all the while, the press was doing what they could to not report the actual story, but to demonize, and personally destroy Ms. Lewinsky. The treatment for her was no different than the treatment given to the other women who accused Clinton of wrong doing.

      For years, we conservatives have complained how the left rallies around their own who are accused of any sexual. I remember how the entire body of Democrats in Congress stood on the steps of Congress to give their support to Garry Studs. I don’t remember the Republicans doing that for Mark Foley. I also remember that the press set out to destroy the victims with Clinton. And we complained about that then.

      Now it seems we have become guilty of the very thing we complain about when it comes to Democrats. An unproven source is now claiming to have information on Cain’s public accuser. We dig into her personal life, her finances, her job history (to my knowledge, she did not work for the NRA, but an affiliate). Has the tactic of destoying the life, and reputation, of the accuser, ever the tactic of the left, now become the tactic of conservatives? Hopefully not. Joe the Plumber has not been that long ago, and his only crime was to ask a simple question.

      I don’t know if Cain is guilty of these accusations, by any of the women. But neither do you. You were not there. You were not present, worked for the NRA or had any other access to the information at the time. But this much I do know: when the first accusation was leaked by Politico (who was actually the 2nd woman to settle) Cain immediately denied knowing the particulars on Fox that Monday morning. As if, by a miracle, Cain’s memory of the event was quite clear, even relaying to Greta not only what he [claims to have] said to the woman, but that there was a settlement. Cain also went on to tell Greta that Woman #2 was a bad employee. That, JohnMG, is slander. It had no bearing on the allegations, and it was pointless for Cain to even go there, yet go there, he did. And I know that his story progressed as the days went on, only to have him try to redirect the scandal to another candidate, and then to others. I know that Cain was familiar with the charges levied against him at the NRA, familiar with the settlements, and knew of those accusations when he ran for POTUS just a few months later, in 2000.

      If we are to believe Cain, who said he dropped out of the 2000 race because he did not understand the money, and organization, that would be required to run a national campaign, does that not speak to his ability to manage? A man who had been a high powered lobbyist in D.C., certainly must have had discussions with the politicians he came into contact with on a daily basis of the pitfalls and hazards of running a campaign. Or did he really drop out in 2000 because the accusations (in 1998 and 1999) were so fresh?

      Cain knew this was coming, or at least he should have known. Just as Mark Block should have known. But unlike Clinton, who was prepared for the onslaught, Cain handled this badly. As Mark Block was on Fox apologizing the Curt Anderson, Cain was on the Hannity radio show still blaming Perry due to Anderson. Team Cain, if anything, seems to be in total disarray.

      I do not know who is telling the truth, but neither do you. But I do know this: sexual harassment charges, as well as rape charges, are often not even reported. Once they are, the women understand that they will be demonized, drug through the mud, called names, their families, friends and neighbors will be harassed by a cruel press, which adds to the problem that most victims tend to blame themselves for being abused. Their finances, personal relationships and every aspect of their lives will be put out on full view. Ask any prosecuting attorney how hard it is to get women to testify in rape cases. It is almost impossible because they women are told what they are going to go through, and what they go through is not pretty and not something you would ever want a female member of your family to have to endure.

      I for one object to the piling on that is going to happen to this woman. I object to the fact that conservative talk show hosts, Rush, Hannity, Levin, who don’t know any more than we do and who are not privy to the actual documentation, have circled the wagons around Cain, just as liberals did with Gerry Studs and Bill Clinton. I understand the whole “innocent until proven guily” concept, but if we are going to demand proof from the women that Cain actually did what they claim, then should we not demand proof from Cain of his claims such as there were internal investigations at NRA and the claims were found “baseless.”

    • tranquil.night says:

      And now, a quick laughtrack break, brought to you by the Messiah:

      “I bowled a 129 (cheers).. It was like the Special Olympics or something (wild laughter from audience).”

      As Jay said, Very good.

      Now, motives matter. So does context. One can question both without actively seeking to tarnish the reputation of the accuser. Especially what are supposed to be objective journalists.

      (Cue the laughtrack again).

    • JohnMG says:

      Well, so far it’s working out well for the perps since they’ve managed to now bring Cain’s reputation into question and we have a couple of bloggers who assume him guilty until proven innocent. Remember, SHE came forward in the company of a well known trash-talking lawyer inviting this type of interchange with her own brand of ‘stimulus package’ inuendo.

      Guess we’ve forgotten Tawana Brawley already. The Duke LaCrosse fiasco, a pick-your-hatchet-job fiasco involving any number of hacks. I don’t recall taking any sides in this matter other than to say what would you expect anyone to do who has already been and convicted in the press. It is a natural response (for most of us) to fight when cornered. You can’t deny this, Retire, for I’ve seen your reactions to the Perry-bashing. And I don’t necessarily find that unusual. It should just be fair, that’s all.

    • retire05 says:

      JohnMG, what we do know is that we don’t know if Herman Cain is being truthful and the women are ALL lying, or if the women are being truthful and Herman Cain is lying. I am not sitting as judge and jury toward Cain. I am saying, as you should be, I just don’t know the truth of the claims. Do you? And if so, based on what? One’s choice of a famous lawyer? How do you feel about Bapol Coale obviously having a close relationship with Herman Cain?

      Yes, I have defended Rick Perry over the “rock” story. Mainly because WaPo, who claimed to be in possession of pictures of the rock, would not print them. But you cannot deny this, unlike Team Cain, Team Perry was on top of the story and never changed their comments.

      Does believing Cain, based on nothing but his own comments, and the comments of Mark Block, justify the personal destruction of the women involved? Does it justify the comments I have read made about these women on GatewayPundit? Comments that shouldn’t even be in rap songs? How does one wrong justify another? How does the politics of personal destruction meet with your approval because it is being used against someone you don’t believe?

      If this is what conservatives have become, clones of what we have complained about for decades, we have become no better than those we have complained about.

    • tranquil.night says:

      This is the State of Conservatism at the moment:

      A man’s eligibility for political office is now going to be decided by hypothetical he-said/she-saids and whether the media thinks he handled their non-stop attempts to destroy him properly.

      Not his ideas, or his effectiveness at articulating the failures of the current government.

      Don’t lump the whole movement and all of Cain’s defenders to whatever some numbnuts online commenters are saying, Retire.

      Good job team!

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”How does the politics of personal destruction meet with your approval because it is being used against someone you don’t believe?…..”

      I don’t recall saying that it did. What I have said is that fairness has gone out the window along with objective reporting. So if that which is reported is calculated to lead the audience to a predetermined conclusion, how can anyone defend themselves. I don’t think the guardasil thing was fair either but the clowns insisted on using it to bring a candidate down. There is enough invective being thrown around as it is.

      But facts are stubborn things. It would appear that Ms. B has a proven record which she must have known would be closely scrutinized. So if Cain should have known about in advance, should she not also have been prepared for the circus she helped create? After all, Politico ambushed him with a hit piece (yes he knew they had the allegations–but he didn’t know they would come after him in the fashion they did) and, talk about piling on, there has been an incessant clamor for what seems like all my considerable life–almost all of it unsubstantiated. But the timing of it has been impeccable.

      There was a time when such things would be discussed, pondered, and concluded like adults, and sensationalism would have played no part in it. No more.

      I just want it to be a fair vetting, and so far it hasn’t been. I’m not taking sides. Can you say the same?

    • BigOil says:

      I believe the principle that should be applied to Herman Cain is innocent until proven guilty. There is still not a shred of hard evidence against him.

      Since Cain has the guts to put himself out there as a black conservative – willing to put up with an unimaginable onslaught from people who want to destroy our republic – it seems to me he deserves our support.

      If we toss Cain under the bus prematurely, I suspect conservative leaders will pass on running the gauntlet in the future. Then we can sit back and enjoy all the socialism/marxism/fascism we can stand.

    • TerryAnne says:

      retire05 – how about this: Cain has been in the running for President for how long now? Several months. Why is it that these accusers are appearing now that Cain has moved to the front of the pack of GOP candidates?

      Cain has never been my pick, since I have always believed he’s too inexperienced and is in it for the attention. However, the media spin on this is such that someone living on Pluto could see it and I find it beyond reprehensible the way Cain is being treated. I’m with TN, that this is what the GOP/Republican/Conservative party has become.

    • retire05 says:

      TerryAnne, this is not Herman Cain’s first rodeo. He ran, for a short time, for POTUS in 2000. He ran again, for the Senate, in 2004. In 2000, just a year (in one case) and two years (in the other case) Cain dropped out of the race because he said that he was unaware of the money, and organization, that was required to run a national campaign. Now, this has to create questions in your mind. Cain has spent the last three years (1996-1999) hobnobbing with elected officials in Washington, D.C. as the head of a major lobbying firm. He also had been the CEO of a major U.S. company. Are we to believe that this man, who is currently running on his business acumen, and who had been working closely with elected officials in D.C., was unaware of the hazards and pitfalls of a national campaign and the organization that would be required to run that campaign? Money, and organization, are exactly why candidates create exploratory committees.

      Cain also ran for the Senate in 2004. He claims he told Curt Anderson about the problems at NRA. If that is the case, and he is being honest about that (although he has now added the caveat that he may NOT have told Anderson, after all) he was aware that these issues at NRA would come out and be a problem. So, why was Team Cain not on top of this story from the git-go? They were not blindsided. Politico contacted Team Cain for a statement ten days before the story ran. Team Cain refused to respond.

      Frankly, at this point, considering that a story that should have had a 48 hour shelf life is still front page headlines, Cain is [unfortunately] damaged goods. It may not be his fault, but politics is not bean bag. Cain has made some grevious errors in how this has been handled. I hope that much can be admitted by his supporters. Now, all he is doing is sucking the oxygen out of the air, being the main topic everyone is talking about. Instead of talking about how Senator Cornyn took Eric Holder to the wood shed yesterday over the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, or how Obama was caught on a hot mike dissing the Prime Minister of Israel, it is all Herman Cain.

      JohnMG, I don’t know who is being truthful. Neither do you. But you say you want vetting. Does that include destroying the personal lives of the accusers? Does it make it right to slander the accusers to redirect attention away from Herman Cain? Have we become a nation that the only way we can prove our innocense against charges of midconduct is to destroy people in the process? Do you not remember what was done to Clinton’s accusers? Would you be as quick to defend Herman Cain if he still had a (D) behind his name? And no, I am not taking sides. I admit that I don’t know who is lying (although I know someone is, either Cain or all five women who have accused him of wrong doing). But I DO know that this is not going to do the GOP any good and will only soil the message which is DEFEAT OBAMA.

      Big Oil, you point out that Herman Cain is a [black] conservative. Why does that have any bearing on this whole issue? You use the same excuse (Cain’s skin tone) that every Democrat has ever used when it comes to the scandals on their side. Herman Cain is an American. End of story. I do not believe that he is being attacked, if this is what is really going on, because of his skin tone. I believe this is because he is a top-tier candidate. And the left is going to attack ANYONE on the GOP side who become top-tier. As conservatives, we cannot decry the use of the race card, and then use it ourselves. It has no place in the dialog. NONE.

      I don’t know who is lying and who is telling the truth, so I am not going to sit in judgement of the character of Herman Cain, or his accusers. But I do know this; his campaign is in total disarray. Yesterday, Mark Block claimed that Woman #2’s (Karen Kraushaar) son worked at Politico and that Team Cain had confirmed that. Last night, on his Twitter account, Josh Kraushaar, the man who was accused by Mark Block of being Karen Kraushaar’s son, tweeted that he has not worked for Politico since 2010, now works for the National Journal, and is not related to the woman at all. Mark Block goes on Fox and demands that Rick Perry apologize to Herman Cain for leakign the story. Days later, Block is once again on Fox, apologizing to Curt Anderson, for accusing him of being the leaker. At the same time, on the same day, Cain is on the Hannity radio show, blaming Curt Anderson and Rick Perry. Bill O’Reilly said on his TV show that Cain repeated the same charge against Perry on Monday night and is not backing off that claim. If Herman Cain is running on the precept that when in office he will appoint the very best as his advisors, he has already failed miserable with Mark Block. Why is no one talking about Block’s own personal history? Ummmm?

      Why is Team Cain is such disarray? Why is Mark Block making accusations that are not proven, only to have to back off from them while Cain continues to say they are true? Why does Cain feel the need to, unlike John McCain when he was accused by the NYSlimes of having an affair, have his lawyer attest to his character before Cain takes to the podium? John McCain stood there, wife by his side, and took the press on personally, not with a high dollar bottom feeding lawyer at his side. Cain slams one woman for hiring a bottom feeding lawyer, yet he does the same thing. Lin Wood is just a specialized tort lawyer, no different that Allred. It is also being reported that Cain has established a strong friendship with Bapol Coale, Greta Van Sustern’s husband, and Coale is a real piece of work and another tort law bottom feeder.

      I am trying to look at the whole picture. Most of you are just concentrating on headlines.

      So now you have to decide; do you want this story to continue, allowing Cain to suck up the headlines, or it is time for Cain to drop out so we can get beyond this story, (because it is never really going to go away) while the press ignores the Fast and Furious scandal, the Solyndra, and other such scandals, and the hot mike of Obama making sordid remarks about the PM of Israel? Does it ever reach a point where a candidate must fall on his/her sword for the good of the party, and the nation?

    • BigOil says:

      Retire – While most conservatives do not care that Cain is black, liberals are fixated on it. Sure liberals will attack all conservatives – but they reserve a special level of demonization for minority and black conservatives. Clarence Thomas being the most obvious relevent example. Keeping their 95% voting block corralled on the plantation is their primary concern. Being cognizant of liberals demonization of black conservatives is not playing the race card, it is simply acknowledging reality and understanding the enemies tactics.

      “Have we become a nation that the only way we can prove our innocense against charges of midconduct is to destroy people in the process?”
      Why should anyone have to prove their innocence against an accuser? If we take the burden of proof off of the accuser, our society would degrade further into chaos.

    • proreason says:

      Well BigOil, Blacks and women. And, just a wild guess, hispanics named Rubio.

  6. tranquil.night says:

    Bialek: “It’s deplorable that Mr. Cain finds this a laughing matter” (while appearing on a comedy show).

    Allred: “Mr. Cain offered her his idea of a stimulus package” (universal laughter).

    Bialek: “I did not file a formal complaint/case in and told nobody the details in 14 years because I wasn’t employed by the NRA and didn’t think I had a path of recourse.”

    Let it sink in.

  7. proreason says:

    They will have to do better than Ms. Bialek. Even without the information about her chaotic life, her story isn’t very believable, and when you throw in Gloria Almarxist, well, that about does it. If Cain was a player in those days, doncha think he would have been a bit more cirmspect than upgrading a woman’s hotel room and interviewing her in the bar? sheez

    There are some indications he might have liked the girls a little more than a future presidential canidate ought to have, but it’s going to take some real evidence to prove it. .

  8. proreason says:

    I’m beginning to think that maybe the marxists are more behind this than I thought. From the beginning, I thought that it was Ruling Class republican operatives, but it seems like it would be over by now if that were true (plus Romney made a dumb unforced error a few hours ago).

    The fact that it is going on and on and on suggests that it is a play by Obama, since the duration takes all media attention off him while damaging the overall Republican brand. Plus, he is so hypocritical that he won’t mind using it to play the race card later; i.e., look at how the Republican racists took down their own black candidate.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Remember what was breaking for the month and a half Gloria was defending the Tiger Woods babe, and the media was wall to wall finding all these mistresses?

      That’s right: ClimateGate and Dopenhagen, where the New One World Order of global redistributionism/fascism under the guise of Enviromentalism crashed in a fiery blaze.

  9. DW says:

    The media is horribly biased in favour of the left -and that’s not fair.
    People who make baseless accusations against conservatives invariably get a pass -and that’s not fair.
    Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to conservatives in sexual harassment cases -and that’s not fair.
    People like Steve Gilbert blow their brains out trying to cut through all the leftist crap we’re deluged with and yet for all their efforts, elections are still decided by people who get their political commentary from watching Saturday Night Live -and that’s really not fair.

    And in spite of all that, I have to say that I agree with retire05 on this one.

    Ms. Bialek’s work and financial history simply do not matter.
    Show me a connection to the DNC or one of Mr. Cain’s rivals, and I’m listening.
    Show me a prior example of her making false accusations and I’m all ears.

    But dragging her whole personal history out in the open and inviting everyone to have at her…nope. That’s just not on.
    Because it’s not a very long step from there to saying “well, the bitch deserved it because she was wearing a miniskirt.”

    Unfortunately, we on the right side of the aisle, have to be whiter than white -even if we’re black.
    Fighting fire with fire works great -when you’re firefighting. Trying to outsleaze the left doesn’t work -won’t work -can’t work – – because they control the message.

    And no, it’s not fair. But there it is.
    Just my .02 worth. Your mileage may vary.

    • yadayada says:

      “Unfortunately, we on the right side of the aisle, have to be whiter than white -even if we’re black. Fighting fire with fire works great -when you’re firefighting. Trying to outsleaze the left doesn’t work -won’t work -can’t work – – because they control the message.
      And no, it’s not fair. But there it is.”

      and there you have it.
      though it’s not so much controlling the message as it is controlling the access to the message. most people don’t have the time to dig deep so “news” is usually gathered in the short skewed tidbits on tv at 6:00 and 10:00 or 8 seconds on the radio en route to work. that is where the left lives. oh, also– it’s nearly impossible to outsleaze someone when you really have no experience being a sleaze and your foe lives in the sewer and vacations in a septic tank.

  10. artboyusa says:

    “Also, if she is so concerned about sexual harassment, why didn’t she mention this when Mr. Cain ran for the Presidency in 2000, or when he ran for the Senate in Georgia (Zell Miller’s seat) back in 2004?…” because he wasn’t tied in the polls with the annointed Republican candidate then and threatening to disrupt the carefully scripted narrative of this election, which is that earnest but dull Mittens Romney plays Wendell Wilkie to Obama’s FDR, who surges from behind to a dramatic win, thus validating his presidency and the confidence entrusted in him by the people who really run this country and plan to keep running it, no matter what.

  11. Reality Bytes says:

    Sharon – just the kinda girl that’ll break into your house & cook your kids rabbit.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »