Herman Cain is Reckless and Arrogant

If you read between the lines of the various news reports about the Cain operation, the picture becomes clearer to me every day. The latest dust up about the sexual harassment of employees confirms it.

Leading up to the sex scandal, we had the clues. Now I know it to be so, that Herman Cain is an ass, and he's reckless.

The first clue came just after Cain placed poorly in the Iowa straw polls. We heard from disgruntled former Cain staffers:

Jim Zeiler, the regional field director who was one of the five disgruntled staffers who left, explained his decision with a devastating assessment of Cain, saying the candidate was more interested in jet-setting than running a campaign that incorporates traditional grass-roots techniques.
"He’s not inquisitive. He wants to be in front of the adoring crowds, but he doesn’t seem to be interested in the issues," said Zeiler, a former regional field director for Cain’s campaign.
(Source: Politico, "Cain's campaign crash continues at Ames")

Mr. Zeiler was a disgruntled former staffer. This kind of tripe is expected in today's coarse society. No one gets asked to leave, or quits in anger, without throwing the former boss under the bus. If you've ever employed people, you know this. A good friend of mine, an employer in the retail industry, told me that his strategy when interviewing potential new hires is to ask himself "How long will it be before this person screws me," not if he/she will screw me. The "screw" is inevitable.

So, it's easy to dismiss this accusation as the disgruntled ex-employee getting his last jab. The "screw."

Since Cain staffer Jim Zeiler has left, however, we have seen how Herman Cain isn't very sharp on the issues. He certainly isn’t 'presidential material smart.' I only posted five gaffes here. I have 10-20 more. Electric fences, anyone? Do you think he's serious about learning the issues? I don't. My radar was still searching, though.

Next, we hear that Herman Cain doesn't want staffers to speak to him unless those staffers are spoken to them by Cain first. Apparently this rule is enforced when staffers are chauffeuring the candidate around. The New York Times sources that accusation from an intercepted email in the reporter's hands that originated from campaign leadership. Was it from "The Smoking Man"?

For goodness sake, the poor drivers for Cain are probably star-struck young interns or volunteers. Do barely paid, or volunteer campaign workers deserve to be treated that way?

To be fair, Cain explained that he does tell people driving him to shut up when he's preparing for a speech. In this Right Scoop video, he's all chuckles about it. I thought that it was reasonable. Maybe. My radar was honing in, though.

I re-read the Times article tonight, in light of the sex scandal. The article details more arrogant behavior.

Two staffers said they were asked by Cain's campaign to sign non-disclosure statements. What?
Despite having a skeleton staff, Cain spent no time organizing with them, or communicating with them (was he too good for them?)
Campaign staff expressed disillusionment over Cain's preference to promote his book instead of tend to basic campaign tactics. Once again, a problem of communication with his skeleton campaign staff.
Lack of commitment to campaign workers. It costs nothing to procure email addresses for campaign staff. Cain wouldn't do that. What kind of team building is that? Apparently Cain didn't want to communicate; he refused to supply nearly free email addresses from which he could communicate with staff. Maybe he thought the people on his staff were throwaways, and insignificant to him?
Then, there is the witness of supporter Bill Hemrick, who organized a campaign meet-and-greet for potential donors, all eligible to give the Cain campaign the maximum $2500 gift. Cain didn't bother to show up, and,
After courting Hemrick to join his campaign, Cain completely dismissed him, after Cain embarrassed this potential supporter by ignoring his meet and greet. He learned that he'd been passed over for the position in the campaign from a newspaper report.
At the Iowa Faith and Freedom forum, Cain barricaded himself in his tour bus before and after, failing to work the crowd like his opponents did. Cain apparently has a rock star attitude.

Does this sound like someone who should be leading in the GOP nomination polls?

After all of the staff revelations, we now have the sex scandal. Viewing the scandal in a vacuum, it's easy to run to Cain's defense. My initial reaction was that this was Clearance Thomas 2.0, and we cannot let this stand. This is Herman Cain, a conservative black man deserving of our support against the evil marauders in the mainstream media.

However, when viewed through the prism of earlier reports of Cain's egomaniacal behavior, the sex scandal makes perfect sense. My radar locked on.

Cain is arrogant and reckless. He mistreats people working for him. Why would not Cain's penchant for employee mistreatment also include sexual harassment? This is especially true of the powerful, arrogant CEO versus the weak, insignificant female employees.

What is more, regardless of Cain's waffling denials of the sex scandal's ingredients, there are not one, but two incidents. One would think that a powerful, calculating CEO would figure out what went wrong the first time, and avoid a second accusation.

Two accusations reinforces my point, that Cain is arrogant and reckless. He doesn't believe the rules apply to him. Why not invite a young employee to his hotel room?

Radar locked. Fox One!

Herman Cain is not ready to be our Republican standard bearer.

Read more at The Rick Perry Report

I am not convinced that Herman is totaly innocent of these sex scandal charges

That's your prerogative.

But may I suggest that you concede your failure to be persuaded of Cain's innocence is based solely on your gut instinct, because you have zero evidence that the contemporary process that exonerated him was insufficent to determine the true facts, or that the process was corrupt?

This is what I mean as I've been using the term "celebrity crime" mentality on this thread. It's become the social norm -- flakked by the nihlist Left -- for people to think they can understand and evaluate the evidence in a case -- which evidence, by the way, they have never seen and may only have LSM reports on which to rely -- better than the fact-finders (juries and judges) and the appellate courts that actually heard the witnesses, saw the physical evidence, heard the comprehensive legal arguments (not bungled Cliff Notes in the press).

Hence, people who have never served on a jury of a murder trial, have not heard one witness' testimony or read one brief, etc. sit around looking at their navel and saying "I think Casey Anthony is guilty/innocent," "I think Amanda Knox is innocent because she's good-looking," "I think so-and-so should/should not get the death pentaly because of something I read in the NYT."

That's just embarrassing on its face.

Sure, have opinions about whatever you want. But at least concede all you're going on is a gut feeling based on extremely limited and probably highly biased information.

I mean: exactly no one writing about these cases in the medio or blabbering about them on tv have, um, read the briefs and reviewed the evidence that was before, say, the United States Supreme Court when it made its ruling.

I see nothing in the Cain situation that is out of the ordinary in regard to these types of cases, nor do I see anything that calls into question the process that addressed the complaint at the time and which completely exonerated Mr. Cain.

I do see some complainers who took the money and ran, rather than taking their chances in court. And I do know that this is often the route companies take once someone self-identifies as a false complainer or a hypersensitive ninny.

“Texas makes a PROFIT off the illegals that enter college so it is not a taxpayer issue. “

Prove that. Running a university requires a LOT of money. The out-of-state-tuition rate per student is the normal rate and what it costs to attend. The difference between in-state ($5K) and out-of-state ($16K) tuition costs is over $11K per student per year. That money comes from the TAXPAYER. Perry STOLE that money from citizens and handed it over to ILLEGAL ALIENS. What is so hard to understand about that ?

As far as the veto goes, it doesn’t matter whether they WOULD HAVE overridden it or not. First, because we’ll never know, since Perry didn’t test their resolve. Second, you know as well as I do that the Executive office lets the Legislature know where it stands on such issues well in advance, and it would not have passed the legislature with GOP support if Perry had not already expressed his own support. Third, because no LEADER should ever agree to something he knows is wrong just to be ‘popular’.

Trying to ‘blame’ the legislature for this bill would mean you think he is a weak Executive. So ... is he an Open Borders & Amnesty supporter, or ... was he just too weak an Executive to stop this Open Borders & Amnesty law ?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.