Skip to comments.Herman Cain Makes Sexual Harassment Taboo Again
Posted on 10/31/2011 6:22:58 PM PDT by Kaslin
Media Bias: The press is reporting that GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain was once accused of sexual harassment. OK, and Bill Clinton was elected to the White House not once but twice. So why is this even an issue?
Cain admits he was accused in the 1990s while president of the National Restaurant Association. But he says he was "falsely accused" and the charges are "totally baseless." He maintains that "nothing happened."
Even if something had happened, we wonder why the media are making such a big deal of this. Didn't the double election of Clinton eliminate sexual impropriety as an issue in politics? If it didn't, then the media's John Edwards cover-up should have.
Clinton's 1992 campaign could have been crushed when Gennifer Flowers said she had had a 12-year sexual relationship with him that began shortly after the two met in 1977. But Clinton was a media darling, and the Flowers scandal as well as additional charges from, and rumors about, other women during the race didn't matter to the press.
As Newsweek's Eleanor Clift said after the Flowers accusation: "Truth is, the press is willing to cut Clinton some slack because they like him and what he has to say." Nor did it matter to the voters. Swayed by the media's glowing coverage of Clinton, they elected him president in 1992.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
I hope Cain sticks it to the media and everyone else who condones the attacks on him, particularly Rove! I watched Rove attack Cain again on O’Reilly, and he looked guilty! No wonder BO’s ratings are slipping.
That was then, this is now.
The media’s got no more credibility to burn with a sizable percentage of the electorate, and they don’t care. They know they’re a joke with the right side of the bell curve, and they’ve written off that population.
A big chunk still get their view of the world from them, and they are going to try to heave Obama over the finish line by whipping that chunk into a frenzy. Added to voter fraud and votes from the hard left, and they think they can pull it off.
There are a lot of people in the media who believe they have the power to shape reality, to make reality. Pulling this off is a challenge and a thrill to them.
First, they are titillated by thoughts of HETEROSEXUAL SEX. I guess it's the forbidden fruit effect.
Secondly, they are still all Leftwingtards so they are always looking for signs of that horrid horror of all ~ HYPOCRISY. Mr. Cain is, as it turns out, a Baptist minister so I suppose he is imagined to be a non-sexual being by the gay guys or something.
This proves a couple of things ~ (1) homosexuals in the MSM are simply not good judges of anything, and (2) you can't apply your anti-Catholic stereotypes to Baptists, and vice versa. People see right through that stuff.
Bachelor's 31 Oct radio show was all about how the Cain staff knew this was coming and what did they do? They released video of one of them smoking. Cain is too relaxed therefore he is not fit to handle the responsibility of such a high office, this is over his head, he does not understand how important it is to handle this correctly . . . .
That of course negates our question, Hey! how come BJ can do much worse and you employees of the media say it's his private business?
.. asked another way, How come the state controlled un-American media (SCUM) can ignore Bill Clinton who did much worse and simply say, it's his private business?
.. asked yet another way, How come the these skid marks on Journalism's shorts (the employees of the MSM) can ignore Bill Clinton who did much worse and simply say, it's his private business?
I had to read the title a couple of times to get it... Must be late. If Ann Coulter believes Christie should be viewed differently because he is in a blue state, I guess conservative relativism is back. Just kidding, she is fantastic. I think I will celebrate this attack by donating tonight! Go Cain Train!
Whether they can or not, it's the only game in town so they have to pull out all the stops.
Yup. Of course, they pulled out all the stops in 2008, and in 2004 too. And in 2000. In 1996, they took a break while Dole slept his way to defeat.
They pretty much always pull out all the stops. Nowadays, the "stops" hold up the branch their tree house is build on, but that won't stop them.
Cain’s denial/denial this morning on Fox was great. It’s a real “mano y mano” step. Good on him.
The part I had trouble with was his stated not knowing whether any settlements, from said accusations, had been paid out by his former organization. Working with modern HR, any accusations of misconduct involving management and staff are HUGE issues. They do not go unnoticed or un-seriously-documented. There is serious time paid to the member of management recording their statements, recollections, and assertions. You’ll have a whole bunch of placid HR department folks giving you the once over for legal reasons.
How any money changed hands in such an instance of these kinds of allegations without his deep knowledge is a mystery to me. As President at the time, he would and should have had serious knowledge of it.
He’s acknowledged the accusations, but doesn’t seem to recall the resolution of them all while being the uppermost Executive at the time. That doesn’t make sense.
Except that in most organizations the independent team that would investigate would not divulge anything if the case was found to be without merit. You simply are told you are off the hook.
I speak with some experience on the matter.
I am sure that even as President of the company the details of the departure of the woman would have been kept confidential.
>>>Hes acknowledged the accusations, but doesnt seem to recall the resolution of them all while being the uppermost Executive at the time. That doesnt make sense.<<<
It makes absolute sense. Once the accusation is made, you need to go as far out of way as possible to avoid the appearance of influencing the process, which can easily be turned into intimidation, or worse. Herman did exactly what he should have done. Once the problem has been adjudicated, the parties probably signed an agreement not to talk about it, either, especially if the accusation is false. Herman was simply told the case was without merit and he moved on.
It also makes sense in terms of what the left does. One of Alinsky’s tactics is to use the values of the enemy against him. Cain has led an upstanding life, so the media frenzy is designed to undermine those values. In fact, the fact that the frenzy is based on a story without legs isn’t the issue - the issue is planting seeds of doubt in the minds of the voters about Cain’s integrity.
And some people I know wonder why I think of the left with such contempt. They can be so venal it makes you want to retch. As my father would have said, they’re “really sorry bastards.”
I’m sickened at seeing some freepers (Perrybots) join in on the media attack on Cain over this tripe.
To help Herman send him something http://www.hermancain.com/
but also like him at facebook.com.
Facebook likes are a new way to count buzz. Starting from way back, Herman has increased his likes by 8% in just the last week. Mitts has a huge lead in likes but he has been running for a long time.
I agree. I don't like seeing attacks on any of them. After all, one of them will be the republican contender. At this point, I favor Cain, but we still have a long time, and a lot can happen. Of course, it's ok to be critical, but folks are becoming obsessed with finding fault with any candidated they disagree with.
Isn't it interesting that it is 'not politically correct to mention a running politician's homosexual life style' but they (libs/MSM) can bring out the guns when it's about a Republican heterosexual?
Matter of fact - what's with the MSM and bringing up this crap every election cycle?
If it's true, why not print it before or after? (rhetorical question of course) ;~}