Posted on 11/02/2011 7:05:00 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[snip] I can’t understand why our side is giving the Politico/Cain story any sunlight.
I’m not a Cain guy. There is a lot to like about him, and I could easily see myself voting for him against President Obama — which is the same thing I say about several of the GOP candidates, none of whom has won me over yet. But this sorry Politico episode seems to me to have little to do with Cain and everything to do with how content we are to live in the Left’s world.
This controversy is the perfect storm of (a) media hypocrisy: given the bar set by Clinton/Edwards/Ted Kennedy/et al., the worst possible case of what Cain is accused of — if you draw every conceivable negative inference against him — doesn’t come close to being a story, yet the lefty media energetically dig into Cain after having buried the exponentially worse Democrat scandals; (b) the special bull’s-eye fitted on black conservatives: their example of self-reliance and independent thinking makes them such a threat to the “social justice” narrative that, when it comes to destroying them, anything goes; (c) sexual harassment: a social-engineering caprice the arbitrary standards of which can turn routine — not admirable, often unsavory, but entirely unremarkable — human behavior into legal ruin; and (d) the litigious nanny state: with human life hyper-regulated and legal fees hyper-expensive, ordinary human behavior becomes grist for extortionate lawsuits that parties settle on the cheap because the cost of fighting is prohibitive — and later, these parties end up sounding like jackasses if asked about the suits, at least in part because, if you say something strong in your defense, you risk violating the standard reciprocal confidentiality provision and thus reopening the whole expensive, embarrassing business.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The Left, through the infamous Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and their buddies in the trial lawyer bar, create this culture where employers would rather pay someone a few months’ salary severance (a, gasp!, “five-figure settlement”), or even millions of dollars, to get rid of them than have to fight blatantly false charges.
Then, when it suits them (i.e., when the target is, say, NOT Bill Clinton), the Left uses the fact of these “shut up” settlements as a political bludgeon to say, see, that man, that company must be awful, someone actually made a SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM against him!!
But do yourself a favor and skip the vanity article. Just read the comments and chime in.
So have I . . .
I think I’ll just go ahead and say it. No predictions on whether it will doom him or not, but ...
The reason this story has legs now is simple. He was not consistent with his message. Didn’t know. Agreement vs. settlement. Did know.
He knew it was coming and didn’t just say “yes, I knew about the settlements; the allegations against me are baseless, and they were severanced from the NRA with x number of weeks pay. As is typical with all severance agreements, there is a non-disclosure clause, and I will respect that.”
Simple, true, and verifiable.
A presidential candidate who does not know that inconsistent responses to the media are like blood in the water? Who is advising him?
I don’t see that Herman Cain is “avoiding” anything.
There’s just not much to say.
The complaints were investigated and found unsubstantiated. The accusers were terminated and, as usual, given severance pay.
That is all.
To the extent that other alleged anonymous “accusers” are coming forward, well, golly, this is the political silly season.
I think I head Hannity say today or yesterday, “Hermain Cain should have said I cannot talk about this because I am bound by the confidentiallty agreement, and they would have ended it, for now”.
WTF does that even mean Sean? Seems all all those stupid idiots you talk to and subject me to on your show are starting to rub off on you big time...
I agree and had to turn him off this afternoon. His tone was such that he was giving the allegations credibility.
We could take a lesson from the left when these things happen and just ignore it, don't report it and don't talk about it.
Gee, I thought by now people would realize the Left always use what they do against decent people and that seems to go for the RINOS too. They have the worst of all, Bill Clinton the rapist.
We are not dealing with facts and law now. This is gossip and character assassination. Cain needs to get in front of this and admit some indiscretions or however he wants to frame it. Otherwise these orchestrated eruptions will continue until he is damaged beyond repair.
I so agree. We should be discussing what the candidates really stand for.
We’re our own worst enemy, time and again.
Who is advising Cain on these matters? Any attorney will advise clients not to discuss the case with anyone but them. And being the case is closed, and he is running for public office that advice should apply even more so. He is doing what comes natural, trying to explain his way out of it one interview at a time, yet doing so puts him at high risk implicating himself, and the more he talks about it the more likely a innocent inconsistency between statements will plant the seed of doubt. From day one, he should of directed all questions to his attorney.
I seriously like Cain, but he needs to stop discussing this right away with the public, and have a talk with his attorney.
Great advice for Cain on this video - You have the Right to Remain Silent - DO IT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Remember, when the trial lawyers were probing the new and lucrative 'harrassment' angle, almost anything could be considered 'harassment'. (They were still feeling out the limits of how much could be made off of what.)
The initial stories (being wiped out by the headlines) claimed in the text there was nothing overt, but the women in question 'felt uncomfortable', whatever that entails.
In short, it was a question of how they took the comment or gesture, not one of how it was intended.
As a business owner, I would have been glad to be rid of people who were going to create trouble at the drop of a hat. No organization can function effectively walking on eggshells. A settlement and non-disclosure agreement beats what may have been a lawsuit with a real hefty price tag in the future if someone had made a remark they could really get traction with, just as a strategic move.
I think this crap was blown out of proportion to begin with, and that is just getting worse.
In the meantime, we have Fast and Furious and all the other DOJ and associated taxpayer-funded firearm deliveries to criminals, we have the milking of huge (half-billion dollar) taxpayer funded loans to failing businesses which continued to fail--at our expense--with political connections and disappearing dollars, we have a national economy in the toilet, the Euro on its way down the pipe, and a host of other, literally earth-shaking developments and they are using the airtime to pump this?
If someone had some facts instead of all the inuendo and supposition, they might have a story.
As for the puke-licking minions of the MSM, they have managed to drop below the 'Bat Boy' credibility level with me. If they told me the sky is blue, I'd have to go check.
What indiscretions?
So far we have the FACTS that allegations were made, they were investigated and found unsubstantiated, the case was closed without action against Cain (he was exonerated), and the accusers were terminated from their employment, with the usual severance pay and the usual confidentiality agreements.
So, again: what indiscretions?
There is nothing more for Cain to say about this incident. He should say he has responded to it and move on.
Exactly.
Of course, and I’m sure you agree, IF (big IF) the incident in fact impugns the candidate’s character or conduct, then we have to count that against him.
But if we evaluate the situation and, as here, see the candidate’s character is intact, then we need to drop it and move on.
One of the accusers now says she *thinks* Cain is lying:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2801812/posts
How much more evidence do you want?
Agreement v. settlement? Are you serious?
First of all, how would Cain know this? He was NOT a party to the action between the complainants and the NRA. He would only know through some kind of hearsay.
Further, this case was so inconsequential and business-as-usual that (1) the HR director at the time said she was unfamiliar with any complaints having been filed against Cain, and (2) the lawyer for the complainant said he couldn't remember her name, or WHO the complaint had been against, that he had accomplished the case with a few phone calls and that was it.
These type of terminations happen EVERY DAY. No one would pay the least bit of attention to it. Especially since there is also evidence that the woman was likely to leave or be fired anyway.
She thinks???
If she doesn't know, there really is nothing to see here.
Yep. From the article:
“She is offended by Cain’s proclamations that he was falsely accused and thinks he is lying.”
Have you ever seen anything so bizarre?
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.