Skip to comments.Perry Camp Denies Leaking Cain Harassment Story, Fingers Romney Campaign
Posted on 11/02/2011 3:49:03 PM PDT by Perdogg
A spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perrys campaign is adamantly denying that members of the GOP presidential candidate's staff leaked a story has swamped Herman Cain's campaign this week. Instead, the Perry camp is pointing a finger at the campaign of another rival Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, as a possible source of the report about the sexual-harassment charges levelled a decade ago against Cain by female subordinates at the National Restaurant Association.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Wilson denies the leak, and Anderson demands an apology from Cain.
You are correct, Richard Miniter said Cain accused Perry.
Cain accused Anderson directly and Perry by association.
No matter which campaign leaked it, what they did was the worst kind of political slander and destruction of your political opponent that I’ve ever seen. This is unconscionable, especially for the GOP. This is something I would expect the Rats to do.
I am still with you, I think, except if that is the case, accusing a guy who worked on your campaign in 2004 of being a racist makes no sense. Charging him with leaking a story without any evidence makes no sense.
We are now supposed to believe that Cain, who claimed he had no real remembrance of anything, not only remembered this in 2004, but briefed his campaign. Or did he only brief this ONE GUY? If he briefed his whole campaign, how does he know that it wasn’t one of the other people? And how has he determined that it wasn’t one of the two women who actually think they were harmed by him, or one of their friends? Why would he assume it was a guy who worked for him before, and why call him a racist?
(By “call him a racist”, I mean that earlier Cain said this was a racially motivated attack, although he had no evidence for it, and now he’s named a specific person he said leaked it — which means he’s accusing that one guy of a racially motivated attack on him).
I know, I’m not supposed to ever parse words for Cain, or make any inferences based on what he has said, or expect that what he says in the morning is supposed to match up with what he says at night.
But I’m still pretending we should be able to put together 4 conversations from a candidate, and have them make sense together.
In your case, is it bad if I agree with you?
You don’t need proof for a suggestion, just evidence of some sort. If you had proof, you could say it.
There have been multiple threads posted here, some by Cain supporters, saying that they believed Romney was behind this. You couldn’t have missed them. SO obviously, there is some evidence for it, even if there isn’t an e-mail tying them to it. Not enough to accuse them directly, but certainly enough for one campaign to question why Cain is pointing at Perry and not at Romney (which appears to be the point).
Yep,sad but true. This is turning into a political version of the Gong Show.
On the other hand, Cain’s campaign manager was on TV tonight directly charging Perry with having done this. He wouldn’t do that without the Cain’s knowledge and permission.
And one of Perry’s people is pointing at Romney tonight, which also must have been done with Perry’s knowledge and permission.
Break out the popcorn boys and girls. The blowback on these two cyphers will be fun to watch. If they had anything credible they would have put it on the table rather than point fingers at each other.
Whole thing manufactured out of whole cloth. I guess they thought they could spook the black man. Didn’t work with Justice Thomas. Will not work with Cain.
Thank God for the internet. The perpetrators and their motives are already on display for all to see.
But wait, we haven’t heard from Snow White yet. Perhaps she has “witnessed” Cain inappropriate behavior.
“Well it took Herman 24 hours to even deny the harassment cases.
Whats up with THAT?”
Well sure it came out of the blue, essentially.
Perry’s people knew they had leaked it and had days themselves to have a denial ready.
Oh yeah, that's why.
For the opposition, it will be a real drinking game fest. I seriously do not know what is wrong with these people. I do not know what Cain did or didn't do and it really makes no difference in the end. Every single candidate should be doing what Rush told them and steering the conversation back to the economy and their plan to fix it. Like anyone seriously gives a crap about who admired someone's behind 15 years ago.
Meanwhile while Aunt Sally is lying in the ditch, millions of Americans are not working, the economy is broken, and our 401k plans are in tatters. Please tell us how you plan to drag aunt Sally out of that ditch and put to rest this crap fest which dems are mining for sound bites.
What does he do? Well, first, he writes down exactly what his campaign did this time, and NEVER DOES IT AGAIN.
But what can he do? You are right, there is to some degree no way to look perfect. But it is clear that you can keep and gain supporters with such charges filed, if they are either false or if there is no evidence so you can plausibly dismiss them.
You learn lessons from your past campaigns. (Cain can’t do that). You learn lessons from other past campaigns. Remember Gary Hart? He not only denied something that was happening, he actually challenged the media to look for things, saying they wouldn’t find anything. That was like throwing chum in the water.
Cain did the same, when he not only denied the allegations, but also pre-emptively said that if ANY other women came forward, they would ALL be liars. When you say you NEVER EVER DID something, the media will try to prove you wrong. That happened to George Allen in 2006, when he, trying to dismiss a random charge of racism that was absurd, and that even the media seemed to be ready to help him on, claimed he had NEVER said the “n-word”. Well, he was in college in the 70s-80s. People said the n-word. I regularly sang a song in boy scouts that included the n-word, it was insulting to blacks, we didn’t know it, it wasn’t how we meant it, but we did it.
So when he said “never”, the media felt obligated to find every person who ever thought Allen had said it.
OK, so what COULD have Cain said. Here’s one suggestion, if I had been his campaign chair, for a statement:
“As you know, I am a Christian, and a minister. As such, I have tried to live my life according to His precepts, but I am imperfect, as are we all. What I can say is that I never intentionally sexually harassed anyone. I do not believe my actions in these cases, or at any other time, would be considered sexual harrassment, and I certainly did not intend to harm these or any other women. I am sorry that actions I took that I believe to this day were appropriate were nonetheless interpreted by these women as harrassment, and apologize for my part. I wish these women well, and hope that my running for office has not exposed them unnecessarily, or caused them unwanted attention that they sought to avoid with their settlements.
Being bound by agreement and civility not to discuss these matters lightly, I would ask that if you have any additional questions, you would please submit them in writing to my campaign. I will have my legal team review them and, to the extent I am allowed and the questions are not of a purient nature, I will provide verbal and written responses later today.
Now, I wish to get back to the important business of saving this country from four more disastrous years of an Obama presidency. Thank you, and good day.
If it was done with Perry’s permission (and frankly, that one seemed like a defensive remark by a staffer, rather than part of a planned strategy, which the Block/Cain statement obviously was), then he’s dishonorable too.
NOBODY who does this garbage should get anybody’s vote. They have shown themselves to be childish, incompetent, dishonorable and devisive.
This may sound odd, but I actually agree with you — I kind of hope Cain has actual proof that his former staffer is a racist and leaked this information because Cain is black (that’s what Cain said earlier about the leak).
But remember, Cain has already shot from the hip before against Perry, accusing Perry of being “insensitive to blacks” for not “covering up” the rock that in fact had been covered up/painted over on Perry’s suggestion after the first time he saw it as a young adult.
Cain read the news story, and chose to attack Perry rather than get all the facts. So it is easy to believe Cain is making this up as well. And while the first time is “easily forgiven” because, after all, Cain IS black, and therefore gets to occasionally charge people with being racists because there are racists, given that he has also said he would never vote for Perry, he has a clear motive to lie now and point the finger at Perry.
And given that all the “smoking gun” evidence posted here today that could be pointed at a republican seemed to point at Romney, it seems very strange that Cain chose to attack Perry, and not Romney — unless you remember that Cain endorsed Romney in 2008, has said Romney would be a good choice for President, and has said he’d love to be Romney’s VP.
Oh, and his campaign explicitly stated they were going to attack the other conservatives, and leave Romney alone.
So all signs point to Cain being a man who doesn’t mind making false or unsupported accusations of racism or bad acts to advance his own causes. Which goes against his public image as a sweet likable guy.
His campaign earlier said they were going to take him off the trail a bit and give him a rest. Maybe they should have done so more quickly. His accusations have likely made it extremely difficult for him to get the 7-9% who now say they support Perry. And if they all jump to Gingrich, Cain is in serious trouble. Especially if Gingrich smokes him in the one-on-one debate.
Cain probably doesn’t know what evidence Cain has, but I’m sure he’ll dig it up somewhere sometime, or explain that he was just joking, or make fun of some country’s name and hope it distracts people.
Righ now, he has shown as much evidence as his own accusers have, and I take his accusations as seriously as I do the women who accused him of sexual harrassment.
But since this morning Cain said he was sure this was racially motivated, and now he’s accused a former staffer, he better damn well have some evidence that a guy who tried to get him elected to the senate is a racist trying to stop him from winning the presidency.
“divide and conquer - look in democrat cesspools for the culprits..”
Don’t have the Donks to blame for this. As another poster stated above, they have no need to go doing this now. This is “October Surprise” material.
No. This is a mix of desperation on someone’s part and the overall crude amateurism that vexes so many of the GOP field so far this cycle. We’ve got too many people here who have not really spent the time and effort to sort themselves out for a truly national campaign. They’re acting unprepared to run for POTUS because, well, they are.
And these are the people that are going to run and beat The One? Based upon...? We’re either fuddling through debates or inexplicably mucking up a bimbo eruption or trying to live down demons of health problem ridden wives past.
How many here jumped up and yelled with indignation when the first allegations of sexual impropriety were leveled against Clinton who now “stick by their man” when Cain is under growing question? Catch that double entendre in there?
Who here used Bachmann’s migraines as an issue against her to “move her out of the way for the real conservative” only to now excuse, ignore, and giggle away Perry’s rambling “unmarried uncle who loves musicals” moment in New Hampshire? Seriously.
There are lot of my fellow respected Freepers who need a moment of serious self-reflection, examination, and, interaction with reality. I say that lovingly.
Sometimes, the stars in their courses conspire against us.
Cain probably doesn't know what venue Cain might want to pursue. He just wants the spotlight on someone else, and since he hates Perry, that's where he's pointing it.
Both Romney and Perry are to blame in this story. Perry’s campaign leaked it, and Romney’s campaign picked up the story and ran with it. Not it is being found out that Emmunal and Obama were the original planters, and give the story to Perry.
“This is going to give us another four years of Obama, and thus the death knell of this once great nation :-(”
I’m not that pessimistic. I believe this will probably blow over.
But look on the bright side. Even if it turns out as you fear, there will be silver lining: the gop will finally go down as well.
Geraldine Ferraro was the equal of any man until financial proprieties came up--then it was `That`s my husband`s department, I`m just his wife, I don`t know anything about all that hard business stuff.` Hillary Clinton has made a career entirely on who she was married to, and when attacked it was `You`re attacking the man`s wife!` and `Boohoo, my husband cheated on me!`
There is no male equivalent to these dodges. It may not be fair, but until women reject them as excuses and don`t act like some jerk being a pig is the end of the world, they will always be seen as weak and needing an out, which they will use if things get too tough
If a woman becomes unravelled over TALK, maybe women workers need to be tested for emotionalstability.
i’m feeling the same.
here’s the quote you are speaking of:
Anderson, now an adviser to Perry, denied involvement in leaking the story, telling CBS News/National Journal: “I’ve known Herman Cain for about 7 years. I was one of several consultants on his Senate race in 2004 and was proud to help him. I’d never heard any of these allegations until I read them in Politico, nor does anything I read in the press change my opinion that Herman is an upstanding man and a gentleman. I have great respect for Herman and his character and I would never speak ill of him, on the record or off the record. That’s true today and it’s not going to change.”
“This feeding frenzy has destroyed the conservative effort in 12.”
Now THAT is not only an “inane” post, it is a defeatist post.
You’re posts are past inane.... I guess you must be a Romney supporter if you don’t think what’s going on is damaging.
As Kraut just said krat is an A-hole a wal street repubic just like bush was.
Now Rahm Emmanuel seems to have something to do with it.
I wish all three candidates would quit bitching about each other and focus on Clinton or Obama.
~~(By call him a racist, I mean that earlier Cain said this was a racially motivated attack, although he had no evidence for it, and now hes named a specific person he said leaked it which means hes accusing that one guy of a racially motivated attack on him).~~~
this is the dissapointing thing with me about Cain. he has played the race card twice now - the Perry hunting ranch rock, and now this. i wish sooo badly he would have stayed away from the race baiting the media piled on..
i miss Sarah..
Good point. Cain is the one doing the hit jobs.
Good point. Cain is the one doing the hit jobs.
Now you're just trolling. Perry had no significant role in Texas for Gore's 1988 campaign according to Gore's own campaign people from that year.
Cain pulls the race card at every turn. Couldn’t vote for the guy as it stands right now.
LOL... You can’t do any better than that???
LMAO @ your stupidity.
It certainly is damaging, but it is not the end of the world. Crybabies like you are the very reason we lose.
You’re not man enough to stand and fight... you would rather hurl insults at people you know nothing about. After 11 years on FR, I would expect you to at least act like a conservative.
Your posts are tripe.
I agree. If there were accusations and settlements in the cases mentioned so far, it would have come out. Better now than in the last few days of a general campaign like the GWB DUI story in 2000.
Cain makes the direct accusation, and Block not only makes the accusation, but calls the Perry campaign “dispicable” and says Rick Perry owes Cain an apology.
I think Cain owes Rick Perry an apology, and Block owes several people an apology.
Block by the way offered his “proof” — Anderson started working for the Perry campaign two weeks ago, and Politico started asking questions two weeks ago.
Apparently, Block believes that in order for someone to leak information, they have to first join a campaign. And believes a campaign would grill each person joining the campaign for dirt, and immediately send them over to a newspaper.
The problem Block may have are several. First, what he has is not evidence, it’s speculation. Second, Anderson can ask Politico to confirm that he is not the person they talked to — it is possible that if he did, they would confirm he wasn’t the source, which would prove Block was lying.
My guess is the Cain team’s problem (beyond being amateurish and inexperienced) is that several people associated with the NRA and who would be expected to back Cain are instead backing Perry, even after Perry is “toast” and Cain is the defacto nominee. Why?
And why did Anderson, who was a trusted advisor to Cain in 2003 (we assume, since Cain wants us to believe that Anderson was the ONLY person he confided in about his harrassment charge), decide to join the Perry team two weeks ago (well, I guess we should make sure Block isn’t lying about that as well), when Cain is the defacto nominee and Perry is “toast”?
What is is about Cain that makes these people want to help Perry?
I am somewhat disturbed by the pollster, although the pollster also insists he has not talked about this, and he has a witness who confirms that the pollster never talked about this incident. He is only talking now because the story has already broken. And he is only saying that there were multiple people who saw the incident.
Lastly, he doesn’t appear to be speaking in any way for the campaign. “Joining” a campaign as a pollster isn’t the same as being involved in decision-making. I think it would be classy for Perry to apologize for the comments made by the pollster, and publicly remind his campaign to remain focused.
On the other hand, given that an opposing candidate has directly accused his campaign of leaking something, with no evidence, and the campaign chief has called your campaign “dispicable”, I don’t fault Perry if he decides that “classy” isn’t called for at this point.
I also wish Perry’s staff hadn’t speculated about who leaked things. They should leave speculation to the speculators, and say they are not leaking stuff about Cain, they are focused on defeating Obama and saving our country.
What EXACTLY did they do? The "leak" was a simple one, if there even WAS a "leak" -- the exposure of a settlement between two women and the NRA dealing with an allegation of sexual harrassment against Cain.
The settlement is a fact. Cain has said so. The allegation is a fact. Cain has said so. The "speculation", and what is reprehensible, is the CHARGE the women made, if it is false. But the CHARGE was made in the 1990s, and has nothing to do with ANY political campaign.
Let's not confuse the two. The women filed complaints, and got settlements. I have no reason to believe Cain did anything wrong with those women, and at BEST (from the women's perspective) I'm willing to believe that they were overly sensitive and took something the wrong way. Those charges were from long ago, and clearly were not motivated by his presidential run, or encouraged by any political campaign.
The STORY was about FACTS, FACTS that multiple people knew about, and that were clearly "newsworthy". I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that a settlement in a harrassment case against a presidential candidate is a non-news-story.
I think it is something that can easily be handled by a competent campaign, and we'll never know if politico would have run the story if Cain had told them what he has finally told us. What they had was FACTS about a settlement, and a campaign which should clearly know about these facts, and was unwilling to discuss them in any way. That's news. Politico can be faulted for giving the women's "story" too much play, but the fact of the allegation and settlement are simple facts, and are fair game.
And if a political opponent knew about a settlement in an harrassment case, and mentioned it to the press so the press could investigate it, that wouldn't be the "most dispicable thing" ever. Realise there is no evidence that any campaign did this, but it's not at all like what was done to Palin.
Palin had false charges directly hurled at her. This story was about facts; the original complaints may have been false, but the story about the complaints wasn't.
Only if you think Cain is a serial liar. And you ignore all the evidence.
In the real world, we have Cain claiming he told people about the harrassment back in 2003, and we have the campaign admitting Politico told them about the story 10 days before the story ran, so it was not "out of the blue".
What WAS out of the blue was the baseless charge against Anderson. This morning Cain was claiming it was a race-based attack, but had no evidence, and a few hours later, he says it was leaked by Anderson, essentially calling Anderson a racist.
Cain is in the spotlight, there's a 3rd woman now, and a talk show host claims he witnessed inappropriate statements this year with two other women. And now Cain and his campaign manager attack Perry for it. Even though most people at FR have been providing evidence and pointing the finger at Romney.
But Cain won't point the finger at Romney. He wants to destroy Perry. Romney wants to destroy Perry. Cain and Romney are working to destroy Perry. Even though Perry is already "toast".
You’re funny. The only people “destroying” Perry are the voters being polled. Whatever happens with thissilly Cain “scandal”, Perry is going nowhere. Deal with it.
THere is nothing to leak, and no evidence ANY campaign leaked it, and no evidence Perry’s campaign had anything to do with it.
Both women knew the settlement, as did apparently other people at the NRA< and people Cain told it to in the past, and apparently people in his current campaign. There were people who observed the incidents, Cain notes that he turned the investigation over to others, and those others had staff, and there were lawyers involved, and lawyers staffs.
Cain has repeatedly used his presidency of the NRA as a campaign point, so of course the news media was going to ask around for anything bad that happened in the NRA during his time there. The question isn’t “how did the story leak”, but rather “how could Cain be so stupid as to believe nobody would ever find out about it”?
I can’t believe intelligent freepers actually think that the media couldn’t learn about this just from asking people in the NRA about it. Clinton couldn’t keep the blue dress from getting out, and it was just him and Monica, and he thought Monica WANTED to stay quiet.
It’s clear the women talked to their friends, and I’m sure their friends remember the stories. And now Cain is national news. THAT is what changed in the past month. And you all think one of those women, or friends of the women, would NEVER think to pick up a phone, call someone, and say “Hey, I see this Cain guy is like going to win the republican nomination. Did you know that he was accused of sexual harrassment? Yea, there was a settlement and everything”.
Really? You think instead that it had to be some political campaign that would dig up the story?
(I don’t mean “you” as in the person I’m replying to, I mean the generic “you”).
Well played, Charles. I really like Cain, what he stands for and yes, his character. However, he seems not ready for Prime Time. If I were running for office, I’d hire the meanest, roughest, most ruthless private investigator out there to examine MY background. Heck, I’d hire Larry Flynt! That way I’d KNOW what could POSSIBLY come out in an election, and how I would deal with any questions that would (inevitably) arise. The dems are masters of sheet sniffing and garbology. The republicans are pikers when it comes to this.
What if nobody leaked it? Last month, a news organization took the time to talk to EVERY person they could find associated with Rick Perry and his family, to the point where they found someone who mentioned a rock at a hunting camp that had a bad word on it painted over.
Think about that. That wasn't "leaked" by a poltical campaign, that was a news organization digging into minute details of the front-runner's life.
And you think that the same level of digging that found a rock in a field from 1981 wouldn't find an actual SETTLEMENT of an harrassment charge in the 1990s?
Why are we so quick to assume that the media wouldn't try to dig up dirt on our candidates, that we assume a political campaign did it? Why do we think a story like this is easier for a political campaign to learn than a news organization?
People know things that happen around them. And when they see a person suddenly famous, and they know something about that person, they talk. There were two women and several of their friends who knew about this, and saw Cain in the news. It makes perfect sense that one of them would talk to the media.
Well, again I called it correctly months ago. Cain is a race-baiter and our own Affirmative Action candidate. He know business but is clueless about EVERYTHING else. Now we see how he blames everyone but himself for his own failures. He can join Watts, Powell, West and the others as fake black conservatives.
Newt is the only competent conservative remaining, unless we come to our senses and support Michelle again.
IMHO, the best approach is to go on offense about what Obama has done as POTUS. Period. It's a VERY easy thing to attack, because the truth is a powerful weapon.
“In the real world, we have Cain claiming he told people about the harrassment back in 2003, and we have the campaign admitting Politico told them about the story 10 days before the story ran, so it was not “out of the blue”. “
I’m sorry, were you there 10 days earlier to hear EXACTLY what Politico said to Cain? If not, then you have NO CLUE as to what he should have done.
To be honest, arguing with mental midgets like you aren’t worth my time.
Campaign staffers are whores. Anderson wouldn’t hesitate for a second to turn on Cain if it meant a pay check.
I am not a Cain supporter, but I don’t care what the man did or didn’t do in the 90s. Probably a tempest in a teapot as these things usually are. I care what all of this is making Republican candidates look like - buffoons. We desperately needed an adult to compare favorably with the spoiled child in the White House, and we haven’t got one. Maybe Newt.
In how many states has the filing deadline passed? Anybody know? One or two? We do have a couple of Mighty Mouse types to “save the day” who need to change their minds about running fast. Who says they can’t? (Yeah, hope springs eternal.)
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.