Posted on 10/31/2011 6:56:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What better day than Halloween – famous for ghosts, ghouls and goblins – to deal with skeletons. And this week we’re going to find out if Herman Cain has any real skeletons in his closet. By this time I’m sure you’ve already seen the damning headline which Politico launched on Sunday night. Rather than reprinting all of the details here we can best summarize it with the lede.
During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO. The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.
When this news first broke and we began immediately dissecting it on Twitter, I was mostly cautioning everyone among both Cain’s supporters and detractors to slow walk this one. Stories such as this, ripe with the juiciest buzzwords, are serious poison pills which can leave pundits looking very silly when they finish blowing up. One of the main problems is that the story, while apparently fairly well sourced and researched over a period of time, fails to deliver some of the bedrock facts which would help nail this down one way or the other. Of course, while I wish the reporters from Politico had showed us a little more leg, so to speak, I can also understand how the sources could leave them tongue tied in key areas.
Some things to consider before you jump too quickly into this maelstrom center on the types of accusations being levied. As Da Techguy points out, when you are a successful businessman in a position of power with a lot of money in play, you can attract lawsuits. It’s just a fact of life. I’m not in any way implying the two women in question were disingenuous in their accusations – we simply don’t have enough details to say either way at this point. But such things do happen in the real world, and sometimes large organizations will pay somebody off to just make a problem go away and avoid a prolonged freak show. The payments in question here are apparently in the “five figure” range, so that would be a cheap parachute to grab, IF that’s what happened.
There are also many levels of “sexual harassment” which fall well short of sexual assault. (Which has not even been alleged here, we should point out.) Again, we’re lacking the details of what is alleged to have been done. While not excusing anything, there’s a bit of a difference between grabbing someone’s private areas and, for example, a wink and a nod at an inappropriate moment which somebody might interpret as being more suggestive than it was intended. Politico doesn’t give us enough specifics to see where the alleged activity falls on that scale, so it’s too soon to say one way or the other.
But even with all of that said, this looks pretty bad, and Cain’s supporters may want to be careful in how exuberant they are in his defense. The responses we saw both last night and this morning make it look as if there is either some serious fire under all of this smoke or the Cain campaign is incompetent beyond description. It is now confirmed that Politico was working on this story and in contact with Cain’s people for ten days before they went to press. In all that time, surely somebody must have sat down with the candidate and said, “Look… the storm is coming. This is going to go public. We have to be ready with an answer.”
The answer they wound up going with was nothing short of disastrous, taking the form of an attempt at blaming the liberal media for reporting on it rather than denying or clarifying the story in a less damaging light. Cain’s campaign spokesperson called in to Geraldo and flatly refused to answer the “did this or did this not happen” question, saying instead that the media should contact the restaurant association. The question was put to Herman Cain himself, who glared silently at the camera for an uncomfortable period before saying, “… have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”
If there’s a worse answer out there, I’m hard pressed to think what it might be, other than grabbing the reporter by the crotch and running away. With a week and a half to prepare, they had to be able to deliver better than this, and thus far it’s all been fumbles coming out of the gate.
I’m seeing some other defenses and postures coming from Cain supporters this morning which should really be avoided. The first is the knee-jerk reaction to say, “But… but… BILL CLINTON!” Yes, we all know what nasty business Bubba got up to. But if the past several years have taught us anything, it’s that liberals have beclowned themselves to the point of Bad Joke Status by responding to every criticism of President Obama with, “But.. but… BUSH!” Pointing out someone else who did something worse doesn’t alter what your guy has done.
The second – and probably worse – line I’m seeing is an attempt to conflate this situation with that of Clarence Thomas. Aside from both cases involving a prominent black man they have little to nothing in common. Anita Hill emerged from obscurity years after the fact to level undocumented charges which couldn’t be effectively substantiated only when Thomas was on the verge of ascending to the highest court in the land. The two women in question here apparently brought forth their complaints in a timely fashion and sought a resolution. They then seem to have remained silent on this and were not the ones who brought up the charges we’re seeing this week. This gives them a lot more credibility than Anita Hill.
So who did leak this particular story? I’ve already received a number of e-mails from correspondents suggesting a variety of theories. One popular one is that the Cain campaign leaked it themselves to “rip the band aid off quickly” and get this out of the way well in advance of the general election. While that can be an effective strategy for candidates, I call baloney on it in this case. If this had come from the Cain campaign they would have been far better prepared with a response as opposed to the train wreck currently unfolding in the press.
Was it either Romney or Perry? Possible, I suppose, and if that’s the case Politico’s reporters would never out their original tipster. But somebody else might let it slip, so it would be a hugely risky move.
The best bet – and this is only a guess, mind you – is that somebody connected to the National Restaurant Association in some fashion who has an ax to grind with Cain decided to whisper in Politco’s ear. Or perhaps just somebody familiar with the case from the 90′s who wanted to feel important and be the hero for some reporters and make a big splash. Hard to say, really.
But, to wrap this up, from what we’ve seen thus far I think Politico has the goods on this one and they’ve got more that they’re not letting out of the bag yet. (If they ever plan to do so at all.) There are too many people weighing in on the story for this to be complete fiction at this point, so Cain’s defenders should be cautious about trying to lay this entirely at the feet of the liberal media. The question at this point is whether this will merely be a thorn in Cain’s side or a gaping breach in the hull of his campaign’s ship. We should know soon enough… probably after a week or ten days gives the story enough time to soak in nationally and then get a few new rounds of polling completed.
NOTE: See also Ed Morrissey’s analysis of this breaking story this morning.
Early thoughts? If there is even the tiniest bit of truth to what is being alleged, we are darned lucky it comes out NOW rather than in one years time. I like Cain, but this needs to be thoroughly exposed for what it is.
Someone must have made them a better offer.
We live in a country where you can be slapped with a sexual harrassment lawsuit for telling a woman her hair looks nice or saying something “provocative” like, “Good morning, young lady.”
These trolls have a clear intent to bring down republican candidates who have risen in the polls. Obama Rat trolls should be identified and outted.
First with Bachman, then with Perry, now with Cain (and of course, always with Romney), the Obama Rats use a deceptively simple approach.
They camp out on a thread that seems to support a candidate, Cain for example.
They use one-liners and ad hominem insults to attack that candidate, while implying that they support another candidate, for instance, Perry. Then when one visits the Perry threads, that same poster rarely, if ever, appears. When he does, the appearance is luke warm, and mainly directed toward tearing down some other candidate. When challenged, the Obama Rat trolls avoid supporting the candidate they imply that they support.
In addition, the Obama Rats seem to use many of the same talking points, often referring to Mike Huckabee, or some other candidate from the past. They use virulent attacks on individual posters, who disagree with them, to try to drive that poster off the thread.
One need only research the history of comments from suspected Obama Rats to see the pattern.
Obviously, we each have different views on the candidates. Those differing views are worthy of debate.
However, unless a poster starts finding positive points with a candidate, any candidate, with as much vigor as he tears down other candidates, then he is just another shrill Obama Rat troll, not worthy of debate. He should be identified and outted.
Then Cain can simply say the accusations were a pile of crap and he opposed any settlement with the women. Done.
I've worked in the corporate world long enough to see a few people accused of this sort of thing. I have never heard of a mandated insurance settlement in such a situation. I've actually never seen one of these accusations hold up through an investigation.
The DNC and obama campaign would wait until just before election day to spring it if it was them. With two parties eliminated, you only have one left. You be the judge.
Do you have any evidence it came from the Perry campaign? It could have come from the Bachmann campaign, they would have a lot to gain from this (maybe getting to the upper single digits). One possible theory is it could have come from....the Cain campaign to dump this story out early.
Apparently the Cain has not denied the story we will have to see more about this when he’s on with Judy Woodruff this afternoon.
....”The current president is acting like the King of the United States by governing with executive orders to go around congress and this is what the news media thinks is important!!!”.....
Of course...they want a story, any story, that distracts from anything negative about Obama. Even the obvious about him they will not run with...and the show has only just begun.
The whole idea is creating chaos within the candidate pool and it’s working....and to keep it in front of the viewers eyes. It makes our side look ridiculous which of course is the point.
I expect nothing but trash from the media....it’s all nothing but tabloid news...actually worse because they claim otherwise.
I agree. At the time it was very common for companies to settle such accusations out of court. Guilty or not.
I am a female and witnessed several women make false claims or trumped up allegations to get pay outs back in the day.
National Restaurant Association...... part of SEIU ?
National Restaurant Association...... part of SEIU ?
>> National Restaurant Association...... part of SEIU ? >>
Most definitely NOT.
CAins going to take the wind out of this story in the “cain way”...he’ll likely agree there was an issue and then do as politicians do.
The question is how long the public is going to insist on being fed scandals...I fear until the next one devised and pushed by the media.
“While the allegations were unfounded, the company decided to settle with her because it was cheaper than going to court.”
And that, in a nutshell is what has happened to American society: people would rather do what’s convenient than what’s right. I’ve spent 26 years as a litigator in one area or another, and the area that frustrated me the most was insurance defense, where we were directed to settle cases for “nuisance value” that should, could and would have been won.
“Loser pays”, anyone? I’m liking the idea more and more.
Colonel, USAFR
If that’s the case, then by all means Cain should come out and discuss it in that manner.
The key to this, of course, is how does Cain handle the situation. If they truly had a 10 day heads up, as of now they have mumbled and fumbled it. Stories like this catch fire quickly, and an astute political team has to tamp it out quickly. Otherwise it’s cuts by a 1000 knives.
Do not people choose to be angry or uncomfortable? Is it my fault if someone else makes that choice? Just suppose cross dressers, transsexuals and queers make me angry and uncomfortable? Do I have a right to ban that type of behavior? Hell, I don't even have the right to keep the law from extending special legal privileges to a lifestyle choice which make me angry and uncomfortable, do I?
True story. Back in the 1970's when I worked my first factory job out of high school, our shift manager was a rather loutish middle-aged guy who made inappropriate and suggestive jokes to the females who worked on the line. The younger women (about my age) were generally appalled. The older women (nearer my mother's age) generally went along with it and even laughed. Things eventually reached a boiling point and both sides tried to pull me in as a witness for their point of view when the shift manager's boss came to resolve the dispute.
Eventually, I got called into the shift manager bosses office where I was questioned at length. I did not care to take a side. I simply related one incident where the shift manager had targeted my ethnicity for ridicule. I immediately told him that such talk was not appropriate. He gave me sort of a half apology and it never happened again. "We all make mistakes," I told the big boss, "it is how we deal with them that matters." Most of the line workers would not speak to me for the next two weeks because they thought I had sided with one faction or the other. It made me really uncomfortable because I really needed the job for college.
Then one day, when I reported for work, about one-third of the line workers and the shift manager had been replaced.
It turned out the boss had talked to every worker and simply weeded out those who were most interested in perpetuating trouble and kept those who were most interested in working. It became a much better place to work from that day forward.
While the allegations were unfounded, the company decided to settle with her because it was cheaper than going to court.”
A perfectly rational decision in the real world, of course...but also showing why substantial private sector experience makes it hard to become a candidate for public office.
At this point, we don’t know. The Ron Paul supporters are a pretty aggressive bunch so I’m not discoutning anything out right now.. At this point, it’s up for grabs and the Cain campaign will have to address it and stamp it out.
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.