Trusting Cain
Politics is about trust. People vote for you because they trust you. They entrust public authority into your care. According to recent polls, Herman Cain has gained the trust of about a quarter of the Republican Party, and for his presidential run, that is gold he can spend in state primary after state primary. Clearly, many Republicans do not trust the architect of Romneycare who was once pro-abortion and is now pro-life.
To a sizable bloc of Republicans at this point, Cain sounds like a leader but not like a politician. He sounds like he has the good of his fellow citizens at heart, and his tax plan seems bold and plausible to them. For that reason, the way Cain has handled the revelation of a settlement in the 1990s over sexual harassment charges while he was president of the National Restaurant Association is potentially fatal to his candidacy. This is especially true given how soft the support has been for frontrunners in the GOP race so far.
Cain told the National Press Association—with cameras running and with the nation watching—“I am not aware of a settlement.” But later he described in detail the legal and financial settlement the National Restaurant Association reached with a particular woman on his behalf. It didn’t sound like the sort of thing you’d forget. Defending himself against the contradiction, Cain quibbled over specific terms, like settlement as opposed to agreement. It seemed unsettlingly Clintonian.
Trust is the heart of any relationship. It’s the essence of friendship. Marriage, a special kind of friendship, falls into crisis when trust is broken. Businesses cannot function without trust. The political relationship, the bond between citizens and between the electorate and the elected, is for the most part a trust relationship, a kind of distant friendship. An election campaign is a courtship of sorts. An election itself is a civic handshake. So in any election, what voters are looking for in a candidate is not only political wisdom but also personal trustworthiness. When political leaders or prospective leaders break trust—whether it’s the Solyndra affair or (what appears to be) the Cain cover-up—voters go into strict scrutiny mode.
So expect prospective primary voters to take a second look at Herman Cain and ask, “Did this guy lie to me? How well do I know him, after all? What else don’t I know that I should know before I shake his hand, entrust him with the highest office, and call him my president?”

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top95 Comments to “Trusting Cain”
Cain is just the latest in a series of NotRomneys who, with a predictably meteoric trajectory, burn brightly but briefly, then fall to earth. Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain.
I think the pundits have it wrong when they (condescendingly) refer to Cain as a “pizza man.” More central to his political identity, I think, is that he was a talk radio host. Talk radio gets listeners by selling conflict. Conflict needs clearly defined sides, hero and villain. The intricacies of public policy, balancing the competing needs of various groups, the different approaches of similarly well-intentioned people, do not make for compelling drama. In the world of talk radio, the problems facing our country are simple. The solutions are simple, and obvious to the common sense of all good listeners. It is only the ignorance and/or malfeasance of our enemies that keeps these obvious, common sense solutions from being put into effect. Talk radio is fundamentally simplistic. And so is Herman Cain. Hence the 9-9-9 tax plan and no bills longer than 3 pages and not caring about the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan and Cain’s signature style of avoiding the details of any issue.
In general, the nomination process seems a series of short-lived love affairs, with Mitt Romney the milquetoast spouse always ready to take us back when we’re done fooling around. Whether the nominee is Romney or someone else seems to depend largely on accidents of timing — has the Republican electorate just found a new beau, or have they just left one.
Report comment to moderator
WMB seems much more concerned about the “trust” relationship than the pattern of predatory behavior vis a vis his female employees.
Report comment to moderator
A Washington Post article the other day suggested that some of the big time Republican Angels are considering jumping ship to Newt.
Report comment to moderator
Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain.
Don’t forget Trump.
Report comment to moderator
Oh where, oh where, were these media people when Mr. Clinton was assualting women?
Report comment to moderator
So expect prospective primary voters to take a second look at Herman Cain and ask, “Did this guy lie to me? How well do I know him, after all? What else don’t I know that I should know before I shake his hand, entrust him with the highest office, and call him my president?”
—
When these question we raised about Mr. Obama, we were told by the State Run Media and the far left groups that Mr. Obama past was none of our concern.
Report comment to moderator
True points – but you leave out a HUGE red flag regarding Cain: his very UNfunny “jokes” about border security. Agree or disagree on the immigration issue, talking about electrical wires, moats, and signs warning about death upon entry does not raise the level of discourse and in fact plays to the lowest common denominator. Replace the setting and pretend the jokes are about any other racial group and he would be out on his ears. Instead, his pandering to the base has brought him popularity. These jokes sicken me.
Report comment to moderator
. . and his tax plan seems bold and plausible to them.
Plausibility is the least of all considerations for Teavangelicals.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama has earned our mistrust. Cain has not earned any such mistrust whatsoever. All we have are anonymous allegations against Cain. That’s it at this point! We have solid and precisegrounds for mistrusting Obama.
Why did the worshipful media work so hard to protect Obama from scrutiny that would uncover the truth about his history with an unrepentant terrorists and a racist bigot pastor?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – do not forget Mr. Obama would travel with the leader of the Nation of Isalm, on the speaken tours.. Or the fact that none of Mr. Obama College records have ever been released or when he was teaching law.
Report comment to moderator
Being a minister taught me that when something is written or alleged with only anonymous sources or from an anonymous source, I don’t taste, smell, bite, touch, listen or look at it. Sound sensible?
Report comment to moderator
“Trust is like a vase…once it’s broken, though you can fix it the vase will never be same again.”
Report comment to moderator
When the leftist media have concrete proof of scandalous behavior in one of their own, they cover for him as long as they can (Edwards, Clinton, Obama’s connections, etc.). When they do NOT have any proof at all and only have annonymous sources and don’t even know what happened, they are ready to run to smear a conservative. I have seen this trend for too long. The mainstream media are completely untrustworthy.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t like Romney. I still like Cain, but I want to research him more.
Romney looks like the proverbial Republican candidate in all the wrong ways. He’s a stuffed suit.
And, I don’t think he can win, even against one of the worst presidents ever.
Report comment to moderator
#12 – Just to be clear, trust has indeed been broken with Obama and with the mainstream media. Not so, at this point, with Cain. Let’s be clear and fair.
Report comment to moderator
All we have are anonymous allegations against Cain. That’s it at this point!
Tis true that the women who accused Cain are still unnamed in public, while their identity is known to news organizations. However, we now have an additional source, who has been publicly identified.
This publicly identified source has confirmed the reports that there were complaints and payments.
The source is singing, not quite like a canary, but he sings and sings and sings . . His name is Herman Cain.
He told the National Press Club that he was accused of sexual harassment and that there was a monetary payment.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops, sorry. Cain confirmed the monetary consideration at his FOX-Greta interview. When at the National Press Club he said he was “unaware of any settlement.”
The media has done a good job of tracking the inventory of Cain’s words.
Report comment to moderator
Of the current GOP wannabes, Romney is the only one who can and will win the election over Obama. Voters who toe the line against him give secondary support to the Dems who want to continue Obama’s “progressive” agenda.
Report comment to moderator
The mainstream media are completely untrustworthy.
It’s just a vast left wing conspiracy to put a crypto-Muslim, African, raving leftist, gay-loving, Commie in a position to destroy society as we know it. They are all in on it, you know. All the networks, all the newspapers (which mostly endorse Republicans), and of course radio which completely dominated by NPR are in on it.
Be very afraid for your property, your life and the souls of your children.
Trust only Fox a/k/a the employer of last resort for destitute Republican wannabes. Including, apparently Mr. Cain, the truthteller.
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree with Arcadia’s #2.
You don’t give presidential power to a man like that. I wouldn’t trust him.
Report comment to moderator
Of the current GOP wannabes, Romney is the only one who can and will win the election over Obama.
Louise: I don’t buy this at all. In the current economic climate, there are several candidates who could defeat Obama, maybe even handily. Further, shouldn’t people vote based on principle (i.e. not vote for Romney if they don’t believe he’s the best candidate) rather than expediency?
Report comment to moderator
Not if it means Obama stays in office.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: So you want Romney to get the nomination? Say it ‘aint so…
Report comment to moderator
Looks as if Cain shoulda ‘fessed up soon as the story broke. Instead he’s had to backtrack several times.
Disappointing…
Report comment to moderator
I doubt it. I think you underestimate how completely unpresidential these NotRomneys can be. Take Cain. How many people (outside the Tea Party) would pull the lever for a candidate who jokes about electrocuting illegal immigrants (then says it was only a joke, and apologizes if it offended anyone, then says there would be a fence, and it might be electrified)? Who sums his foreign policy knowledge with the joke that he doesn’t know (nor much care, it seems) who the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan is? Whose tax plan unequivocally has middle class Americans paying thousands more each year?
Economic climate or no, people are not going to vote for that candidate.
Can? Yes. Will? Remains to be seen.
What’s funny to me is how alike Romney and Obama are. I don’t think a Romney presidency would be that much different than an Obama presidency. They are both compromising centrists, only Romney is beholden to the Right and Obama to the Left.
Report comment to moderator
The left is probably just lying as usual and trying to smear the opposition. I haven’t seen anything to make me think Cain sexually harassed anyone. And to be honest, I’m not really interested in the hoopla. If someone comes up with the evidentiary ‘blue dress’, let me know, and I’ll reconsider; otherwise…..yawn. But Cain’s not very high on my list of candidates anyway. The fact that he’s being Clarence Thomas-ed, makes him only marginally more interesting. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
I can respect anyone who chooses not to support Cain because they don’t think he is the best candidate. But this is NOT about that. We have no fair grounds at this point to oppose him based on this smear campaign filled with inuendo and annonymous sources.
NJ LAWYER, I respect your opposition to Cain on other grounds, but not in relation to these charges at this point.
Report comment to moderator
At the worst, there are annonymous allegations surfacing (now that Cain is in the lead in the polls) that Herman Cain never touched anyone and may have made a woman “uncomfortable” or even that he may have made a not necessarily sexual gesture, 12 years ago.
GASP!!!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know, Joel Mark. This man made settlements on some of these women. If this proves to be true, I would oppose him. If Bill Clinton is a sleaze because of what he did, why isn’t Cain if he is guilty?
Report comment to moderator
About 15 years ago, in Connecticut, I needed to suppliment my income and I applied to become a substitute teacher in the local public school. After getting finger-printed (a requirement), I was not asked about my qualifications or skills as a teacher, but I was subjected to 90 minutes of sexual harassment sensitivity training and orientation. They continually and steadfastly defined criminal sexual harassment as “Anything that made a girl uncomfortable.”
I asked if that included giving her a “D” on a paper or test?
They had no answer and no respect for the question. I declined. I’m not stupid.
Report comment to moderator
Being a minister taught me that when something is written or alleged with only anonymous sources or from an anonymous source, I don’t taste, smell, bite, touch, listen or look at it
Unless the anonymous source wrote it in a foreign language you don’t know, describing what happened many years before it was written, and it has been translated and re-translated, edited and re-edited by people with various motivations over the course of 2000 or so years. Then, of course, it is not a report from an anonymous source but the Gospel Truth.
Unless, of course, you know exactly who Deuteronomy or Amos or any of the Johns were.
Report comment to moderator
I ESPECIALLY don’t respect annonymous sources if the allegations are over twelve or more years old and the timing is purely and cravenly political.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I think that people would respect your comments more if you stayed with the subject instead of the broken record comments.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia could you possibly be a tiny effort to be more relevant?
Report comment to moderator
Unless, of course, you know exactly who Deuteronomy or Amos or any of the Johns were.
Deuteronomy was the son of Numbers I think. It’s Greek for Duuuuude.
Report comment to moderator
#31 –
As for the biblical text, it has more reliable ancient documentation (extant manuscripts, fragments, codexes, co-oborrative texts, etc.) behind it, by far, than any other ancient text in human history. I have taught survey courses involving the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid at the university level and none of them have a tiny fraction of the historical and textual documentation evidence behind them that the Bible has; both testaments. ARCADIA’s attempt to disrespect the biblical text and the grounds for Christian faith is not just a ridiculous side-track, it is disrespectful and irrelevant to this thread.
* Most of the biblical documents were NOT anonymous.
* They were not written in a “foreign language” to the original writer and audience. The Book of Mormon, however, was allegedly written in some strange foreign sort of hieroglyphic language and that takes away from its historical credibility. Not so with the biblical text.
* The Dead Sea Scrolls and other tremendous finds over the centuries have discounted the fallacious yarn that the biblical text was seriously mis-translated or re-translated, or edited by people with various motivations over the course of 2000 or so years. The text stayed the same over thousands of years (with extremely slight variations) for 2,000 years and MORE, and science has proved that. Science has NOT proved all it’s theological claims, but it has verified the reliability of the te3xt as passed down to us.
ARCADIA is not well informed of historical, archeological and textual reliability of the biblical text.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t forget Joel that there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone before 500 AD that are in accordance with each other and with the NT that I have on my desk. If there was editing over time, we would know about it. Only one book is somewhat anonymous, Hebrews, and it is believed that John and Mark updated their books later in their lifespan, but within the 1st century AD. And we know the differences between the older and newer texts. The later ones they wrote included a few more stories, with no changes to the rest of their respective books.
Also those slight variations you mention usually entail word order, something not so vital with Greek since you can change the word order of a sentence but it will still mean the exact same thing. That was the feature of Ancient Greek that fascinated me in the one year I studied it.
The New Testament is the best preserved book in human history, with the Tenach in a close second. The only real difference is that we have copies of the NT within 80 years of them being written, something the Tenach does not have because of its age. It is, however, still consistent over the past two millenia, and the methods the Hebrews adopted in transcribing it were extreme. A copy with an error, even a smudge during its making was destroyed. Thus there are few variations in the Tenach as well.
No book of antiquity has anything near this level of preservation through time.
Report comment to moderator
As a side note, I do wonder if all the mainstream candidates get run through like Perry, Bachman, and now Cain, and by run through I mean they each catapult to the top and then fall into the background, and the two choices left are Ron Paul and Romney. I wonder which the party would go for, considering the notRomney attitude and the intentional ignoring of Ron Paul by party elites. The party elites did ensure that Paul will not make a third party run, so they do fear losing support to him, but apparently that fear is insufficient for them to see if Obama can be given the same fear come the election.
Report comment to moderator
#36 JOEL MARK and #37 ROM116 – Yes! The reliability of the text of the Bible is not a question for the diligent mind. Now whether to believe it as God’s Word, and live by it, is a decision each person needs to make. The evidence to me demands allegiance.
Report comment to moderator
Most of the biblical documents were NOT anonymous.
What was the name of the person who wrote Genesis? It’s a pretty fundamental text. Did Paul really write ALL of the letters attributed to him?
Can you give me proof of the exact date any of the chapters were first written down? How about within 5 years or so? Every estimate I have seen, even of the Gospels is a crude estimate, usually based only on word usage or grammar, and generally runs on the order of a range of 10-30 years. Some were written 100 years or so after the events occurred. And the Romans, who kept reasonably close tabs and records on their colonies, apparently somehow overlooked the entire hubbub, including the return of somebody from the dead.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media, which you profess to disbelieve is mostly current, generally backed up by photos and cross-checked by editors and competitive reporters. And, it is instantly reproducible and infinitely (sort of) preservable.
By they way, since all manuscripts which eventually became biblical had to be hand copied hundreds of times by scribes working in dim light under pretty grim circumstances over the course of 1300-3000 years, don’t you suppose a few transcription errors might have crept in?
When was the last time you tried to copy an entire 50 page handwritten (by someone else) manuscript by candlelight?
Report comment to moderator
#40 ARCADIA – I don’t think your questions are sincere, but here’s a brief answer just in case.
Genesis was written down by Moses. Paul is the author of the letters attributed to him.
I can’t give exact dates for any books or chapters, but I’ll give you one example of the Book of Acts.
Acts mentions certain historical figures, Herod Agrippa, Bernice, Festus, Felix, etc., that are also attested by extra-Biblical sources. It also mentions Herod’s temple in Jerusalem being in use at that time. We know from history that the Roman, Titus, led an army to Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in 70 AD. Acts was written before 70 AD because there is no mention of this destruction in the book of Acts itself. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100?) also mentions these events and these people. He also mentions Jesus of Nazareth twice.
Several Romans knew about Jesus resurrection including Pontius Pilate, Herod and his wife Bernice, Marcus Antonius Felix, procurator of Judea AD 52-58 Porcius Festus, procurator of Judea AD 59 to 62, to name a few. These individuals are also mentioned in extra-Biblical accounts.
You also ask, “Since all manuscripts which eventually became biblical had to be hand copied hundreds of times by scribes working in dim light under pretty grim circumstances over the course of 1300-3000 years, don’t you suppose a few transcription errors might have crept in?”
The answer is obviously yes, there were copy errors. However when you have as many existing copies of the Biblical manuscripts as we have, by comparing them it is a rather easy matter to determine the errors. If there were only one or two copies it would be difficult.
Much greater than this, however, is that God, the One who wants us to know Him, watched over this entire process. The purpose of the Scriptures is that God reveals Himself so people would have a way to actually know Him. God has revealed Himself in His creation, in His Word, the Bible, and in His Son, Jesus our Savior. He desires every person to know Him and come to Him, that’s why He reveals Himself. That’s why He left us a reliable record.
Report comment to moderator
I really, really don’t like Romney.
Since he’ll probably do the country almost as much harm as Obama, I’m even inclined to vote for someone who “can’t” win just to make a statement.
This way, when the country continues to decline, Obama will continue to get the blame rather than the Republicans.
Not my first choice, mind you, but I really dislike Romney. ;-( He just looks like a sleazy used car salesmen and a fake figurehead for shadowy Party elites.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA, did you even read my previous response with an open mind? Do you know much about the relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls to refuting your presumptions about the textual reliability of the Bible. Did you read LEO at #39?
The Bible is a library and it is highly diverse and beautiful. It is the greatest work of art in history, among many other qualities about it. More importantly, I believe it is inspired of God and infallible. But it’s textual veracity is not just a matter of faith. It is well established among reliable scholars.
When I said that most of the biblical documents were NOT anonymous, it is simply a true statement and not overstated. Beyond that, LEO carried the ball well above.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA, the mainstream media is unreliable in nearly every important way. Truth is timeless. The most current document can be a lie and an ancient one can be fully true, and visa versa. one must consider them on their merits. Currency is not the criteria.
It is silly to think that photos and cross-checking editors prove much in terms of reliability in modern journalism. Did you know that the word gullible is not even in the dictionary???
The world is full of lies and liars. Some are better than others. Honest journalism is all too rare today. I think we get more of it from WORLD Magazine than elsewhere.
Report comment to moderator
Any woman who is victimized by authentic sexual harassment needs strong and legal protection in many forms. But she must act on it immediately and wisely. Courage is not just a manly virtue. A woman in the workforce and in public needs courage too sometimes–or she should not be in the workforce (and I think she should be in the workforce if she wants and if she is willing to face the challenges courageously and honestly).
I see little courage or wisdom in complaints that are raised ten and twenty years later right smack dab in the middle of a huge moment of political opportunism. That is crass, craven and inhumane. And if it is the press that is raising this complaint ten to twenty years later rather than the women, so much the worse.
This looks like sheer ugly politics at the expense of justice and humanity.
Report comment to moderator
#35 Now don’t go all seeker-friendly on us Kbells.
Report comment to moderator
I expect the lies to intensify the closer we get to election day. And it won’t matter who gets the Repub nomination—well, it might actually. If Ron Paul were to get it, I’d bet you dollars to donuts (if I were a gambler) that there would be not a few high-power Republicans dumping dung on him. But I expect Democrats to lie at a faster than normal rate regardless of who gets the nomination. It’s just what they do, and I wouldn’t pay it much attention.
Report comment to moderator
JJF (25): I won’t list all of the ridiculous things that Obama has said (and continues to say), yet he not only won his party’s nomination but even the Presidency. Despite what Cain has said he is still polling pretty high. The one who it seems will gain the most from this latest brouhaha is Gingrich, who has consistently said that Republicans shouldn’t be fighting among themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Without any proof of the allegations, I give Cain the benefit of the doubt. I don’t presume he’s guilty just because some former employee makes a vague charge to the press! But his many flippant answers have put me off from the beginning. I didn’t like his playing the victim card when he said this hatchet job came because there’s a bullseye on his back. And before the finger pointing he refused to state that other Republican candidate was not responsible. He knew this mess was coming and has handled it badly, including lousy advisers and PR consultants. Not a good quality for a leader.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK — it’s a fact, not an anonymous rumor.
Herman Cain has admitted what the news stories reported — that women accused him of sexual harassment and his company gave them money for silence.
The only liars that I can discern are the shifty Herman Cain and folks here who keep saying, “All we have are anonymous allegations against Cain.”
Cain says, Excuse me! Excuse me! What part of no don’t you understand?
Thus, he opens the door to questions about whether he could understand the part of no that told him to stop harassing subordinates.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, what exactly did Cain do to make a woman feel uncomfortable? It’s a “he said” vs. journalists who feel they can speak for “her” while hiding under a confidentiality agreement to hide the truth.
I’m not a Cain supporter and so far view this as another example of the politics of personal destruction.
Report comment to moderator
Cain’s aptitude for the presidency aside, I don’t know why anyone would assume that these allegations are true at this point. And the allegations we’ve actually heard sound pretty benign. We know it is a practice of businesses to send problems packing with some money to shut them up, no matter the truth of the matter. Anyone who didn’t have aspirations for the presidency at the time (and considering the booming economy) would have thought that a very wise business strategy, especially if you have underlings to handle the details. We admired that in the 80’s and 90’s. Why are people so sure now that that wasn’t the strategy used then? You show me a blue dress with the DNA results and I’ll be concerned.
Report comment to moderator
LOUISE – Journalists have not told us the details of what’s in the accusations. If they know, they’re not saying. They can’t, because neither the women nor Cain will tell.
Report comment to moderator
SOCIALWORKER – What do we know that would allow us to assume that the women’s complaints — the details of which remain untold — were false? As a social worker, how do you evaluate Cain’s failure to tell a straight story? You normally assume that false and abandoned denials are good grounds for doubt.
Report comment to moderator
The allegations are certainly not benign, but at this point we have no reason to conclude that they are true. Just because the allegations were made and his organization settled them out of court does not mean Cain actually harassed these women.
We do, however, know that Cain has changed his story a few times, and that looks (getting at Innes’s point) untrustworthy and suspicious.
Report comment to moderator
How convenient for everyone but Herman Cain, who has already been threatened with a lawsuit for discussing the nameless woman in responding to her charge that presumes his guilt of something so vaguely horrible she wants the world to know how her feelings were hurt.
Report comment to moderator
Burden of proof doesn’t work this way.
If someone makes an allegation, it is their burden to prove it. We do not assume it true unless it can be proven false.
Report comment to moderator
LOUISE – Please elaborate what you mean by politics of personal destruction and how you come to be against it.
I’m extremely sorry ever to contradict you, Cain is destroying himself. Politico reported information we have a right to know. How people take that information is a separate issue. Cain damaged himself over a two-day story. More importantly, in my view, Cain’s base and right-wing defenders have wounded themselves by making assertions that compromise principle.
Report comment to moderator
Now you’re crossing a line.
It’s one thing to say that the allegations are unproven and may be untrue. It’s quite another to say that the woman who reported harassment is just an oversensitive prima donna and has no grounds for any complaint.
Report comment to moderator
A clever sarcastic twist JJF. You said it; I didn’t.
Report comment to moderator
JJF – If you are claiming that, because of the “burden of proof,” we must assume that the women’s complaints were false, then you’re crossing a line.
It’s perfectly fair to observe that we have no grounds yet to assume that the women’s accusations were false.
We might find that the women’s complaints were true and valid in their minds but trivial to our minds.
The truth and/or magnitude of the women’s accusations against Cain hasn’t reached the “trial” stage. We’re still in discovery and the contents of the accusations are unknown. So I think you’re premature when you accuse commentators of disregarding a “burden of proof.” Wait until you see us mishandle evidence.
Accusation is difficult work. That’s why we pay professional prosecutors. It’s likely the women’s complaints will contain flaws, real or cosmetic, because life is ambiguous. Cain’s shifting assertions so far, however, will certainly handicap his ability to exploit those flaws.
Something tells me that no matter how strong the women’s complaints turn out to be, the right wing won’t rise up on their behalf as it rose up to vindicate the shining virtue of Paula Jones.
Report comment to moderator
Without any proof of the allegations, I give Cain the benefit of the doubt. I don’t presume he’s guilty just because some former employee makes a vague charge to the press! But his many flippant answers have put me off from the beginning. I didn’t like his playing the victim card when he said this hatchet job came because there’s a bullseye on his back. And before the finger pointing he refused to state that other Republican candidate was not responsible. He knew this mess was coming and has handled it badly, including lousy advisers and PR consultants. Not a good quality for a leader.
Yep, I agree with this. But I also agree that Cain’s shifting story and changing answers are damaging to his credibility and trustworthiness.
JJF #25, have you read Romney’s book? It’s a wonkish sort of book, fairly impressive, and I think Romney is more different from Obama than you suggest.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, surely you’ve read that I have never been a supporter of Cain. His poor handling of this mess actually didn’t surprise me. Just because others defend him does not mean they’ve compromised their principles, whether you choose to believe that or not.
Ask Bill Clinton and James Carville about the politics of personal destruction and Paula Jones, et al. But we both have better things to do than wallow in that again. Guilty as charged and fined.
Interesting, though, how Herman Cain is still a viable candidate in the minds of many. Politico’s hatchet job didn’t work very fast.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, MATT, I agree with that and didn’t trust him before either. I also think that Cain’s rhetorical missteps before this were embarrassing.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not claiming that. I’m saying we cannot assume they are true (which you seem to be doing in your posts) just because they have not been proven false.
At this point, we can’t assume either the truth of falsehood of the allegations. So it would be just as unfair to say, “[Cain] opens the door to questions about whether he could understand the part of no that told him to stop harassing subordinates,” as it would be to say the accuser just “wants the world to know how her feelings were hurt.”
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t being clever or sarcastic. You said, “the nameless woman['s] charge … presumes [Cain's] guilt of something so vaguely horrible she wants the world to know how her feelings were hurt.”
You don’t know what happened (in fact it is part of your argument that no one really does), yet you still belittle her allegations as merely wanting “the world to know her feelings were hurt.” You make it sound as though (1) she has little cause for complaint (only hurt feelings, nothing serious), and (2) she just wants attention.
Was that not your intent? Because it seems pretty clear to me.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, I actually don’t think that Cain’s anonymous accusers want attention unless they go public. Now they only criticize from the shadows, protected from scrutiny by a legal construct which further aggravates Cain’s defense. It’s like a hit and run or a drive-by shooting.
Sexual harrassment charges have become so easily made that it’s naive to take them immediately at face value. I might be guilty of belittling the women in this case because they’re simply out there with no supporting evidence. Why do that? Why do you think they’re doing this JJF?? I’ll be patient for the next shoe to drop and get busy with other things.
Report comment to moderator
As I understand it, the women are not involved. Politico ran a story reporting the seven year old allegations and settlements. The Cain campaign speculated that the story was leaked by a strategist who worked for him during his Senate run but now works for Perry.
Not that it matters much. To score political points, you were willing to belittle women who may actually be victims of harassment. That’s crossing a line.
Report comment to moderator
It’s reported that Politico spoke on the phone with one of the women a few weeks ago. I have no political points to score, nor did I. “Feminists” have made women their own worst enemies at the expense of fairness and the rest of us need to hold them to account by being honest enough to come forward.
Report comment to moderator
(which you seem to be doing in your posts)
No, I neither assume the truth of the content of the charges nor seem to assume it.
All my posts say::
– the existence of the complaints and payments is based on far more than anonymous allegations (contra JOEL MARK: “All we have are anonymous allegations against Cain.”). The subject himself now confirms their existence. My conclusions about the existence of complaints gives no ground to accuse me of presuming the truth of the content of those complaints.
–Cain’s lies about his knowledge of the existence of complaints and payments make him the only potential character in this charade so far with credibility problems.
– The details of the complaints are not publicly known because the women aren’t speaking publicly. Thus, we can’t measure their truth or magnitude of the complaints until we hear details. I presume the complaints will be flawed, at least cosmetically, because life is ambiguous and our descriptions of it are flimsy.
If the details come out I may jump to all manner of exaggerated conclusions, biased as I am. When that time comes, JJF, do call me out for what I do do without leaping to conclusions about what I may do.
I have a thick skull and your points are subtle, but at #57 you do rebuke me for asking SOCIALWORKER what basis there is for presuming the charges to be false. While it’s true that I can’t see any such basis, this is not a presumption of truth.
Report comment to moderator
It is a truth universally acknowledged that when a party’s ox is gored, its partisans will mischaracterize unnamed sources as “anonymous sources” in order to cast disrespect upon honest messengers.
Report comment to moderator
71. It hard to defend yourself from either.
Report comment to moderator
Defending oneself is easy, KBELLS. What’s hard is making stuff up and then reconciling your fabrications with facts.
Cain could have turned the Politico report into a two-day story. He could have said, “In my life I’ve made mistakes and caused misunderstandings, but to the best of my ability I’ve taken responsibility and repaired the damage. To my knowledge, I’ve left no unfinished business from 12 years ago. I’ve long since moved on. Others may gossip, but I will have no further comment about this story.”
That would have been the end of a story about the existence of unspecified complaints by unnamed women and monetary payments. Instead, Cain lied about his knowledge and cast his accusers as incompetent employees and fabricators. That became a whole other story in itself.
One can imagine that there organizations in Washington in which there are three women who are over-adverse to exuberant male friendliness. There could be three exaggerators who make too much of what others would see as just Herman being Herman. But would all three of these women be fabricators and devisers of fiction who make everything up to compensate for their unacceptable job performance? Possible, I suppose, but a more difficult defense for Cain to make.
Cain himself invites inquiry. He couldn’t very well manage a restaurant association whose only challenge was lobbying against the minimum wage. The guy is just a happy talker.
Report comment to moderator
More details developing:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67581.html
Report comment to moderator
Well, that settles it. The lawyer for an anonymous woman says that Herman Cain made unwanted advances toward her 12 years ago and that’s why she left her job with a year’s severance pay. Good for her and her husband to make that clear this year.
Report comment to moderator
The accusation is called an “unwanted sexual advance”. Let’s say it happened. What’s wrong with simply telling someone to cut it out? Obviously these women preferred to take the opportunistic route.
The bizarre thing (which is mostly unreported) is that the Restaurant Associated gave permission to the women to go ahead and speak candidly, but the women are refusing to come forward. I wonder why.
Report comment to moderator
OK #76, let’s.
You’re right, there’s nothing wrong at all with simply saying, “Cut it out.” There’s nothing hard about it either, if that’s what you mean. The words come tripping off the tongue.
The only thing that may (or may not) be hard is choosing between kissing your promotion goodbye or kissing . . whatever . . and swallowing your anger.
So evidently the only reason the women got hired in the first place was because they were dumb, perhaps pretty, and opportunistic.
So much for the gals.
What about him? Having stipulated to XION’s assumption about what happened and what the women should have done, then what do we think should Cain have done? What’s wrong with Cain just saying, “Yes, I was ambushed over squat by three or more opportunistic ladies,” instead of saying he didn’t remember ever being accused?
I can’t see what XION’s explanation does to redeem the Teavangelical man of the hour.
Let’s say something else, OK?
Let’s say it didn’t happen once — it kept happening, and the women said, “nein . . nein . . nein” to Cain’s plan of action. Then, what’s wrong with filing a sexual harassment complaint and threatening to sue the turkey? What’s wrong with exploiting the opportunity of serial obnoxiousness?
Report comment to moderator
Cain may very well be the “teflon candidate,” the way Reagan was the “teflon president.” The same reason may apply: people had a sense with Reagan that even if he flubbed something or other, his core values were the ones they shared, and that he was not giving them a load of political slickness. Cain comes across that way: nobody seriously doubts that his core values are conservative, and even if he misses some foreign facts, he will have a team of people who inform him correctly. And regarding this harassment issue, everyone knows this kind of allegation is made against all kinds of wealthy businessmen all the time, but no one seriously thinks Cain is another Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH,
Please pay attention, Scroop. The ACCUSATION is by an anonymus accuser. So yu are wrong. The declaraton of total innocence is the testmony of Herman Cain. If you are respecting Herman Cain’s statement on this as the ONLY one that is NOT anonymous, then the only credible evidence is fully that the charges are baseless.
Report comment to moderator
No fair-minded person, regardless of political persuation, could discredit Herman Cain in any way at this point in this matter. The problem is simply that there are so few fair-minded people in the media and on the left.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK – you’re the one not paying close attention to the facts.
1.) It’s three women, not one, as you say above. The women are not unknown, as you imply by incorrectly calling them “anonymous.” The term of art in journalism is “unnamed.” They have not been named publicly by Politico, Cain, the restaurant association, an attorney, and one or more colleagues, but the women are well known to them (and to every op researcher in the Perry and Romney campaigns). Therefore they are not incognito. And they have not been impeached. Contradicted, yes, discredited, no.
2.) You say, “All we have are anonymous allegations against Cain.” This is utterly false. We have Cain’s reluctant admission that women accused him of sexual harassment and received money. Therefore we have confirmation, by the subject himself (a named source!), of everything that Politico reported.
Notice, Politico reported no details about the accusations of harassment — merely the fact that the accusations existed. Politico’s story was a classic example of strategic under-reach which kept the spotlight off of Politico and on Cain, to devastating effect. Cain was struck by a sharp arrow and then took the shaft with his own hands and instead of throwing it away drove it into his gut.
Most of all, we have Cain’s false denials of knowledge of the existence of the complaints and payment. These lies impeach his credibility (as WorldMag recognizes). Every cop knows that lying is evidence of guilty knowledge.
We also have Cain singing the gospel song, “Lord, you overlooked my fault.”
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK . . Herman Cain’s statement on this as the ONLY one that is NOT anonymous, then the only credible evidence . .
What a phony argument! If you want to insist on the rules of criminal procedure, then you would have to conclude that Cain must answer for witness tampering and obstruction of justice, as a consequence of his connection to payments to the witnesses, and owing to his threat that there are legal obstacles to giving testimony. Cain colluded in payments to witnesses, or benefited from while trying to conceal his knowledge of the same.
When you pay the witnesses not to testify against you, you can’t ask the court to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence, because that’s “unclean hands.”
Just among us, JOEL MARK, you ought to drop your pointless propaganda. You insult the intelligence of your readers. It’s disrespectful! Look, we all know that rules of criminal process apply only to persons who are in jeopardy of losing life and freedom, not to persons who are seeking positions of high honor in the court of public opinion.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL, you’ve been preaching to the choir so long you are sounding like a mother who can’t stop taking baby talk.
Why can’t we ever have an adult conversation?
Report comment to moderator
@78 ” but no one seriously thinks Cain is another Clinton. “
Ha! Good point, Snoke. And therein lies the problem for our resident leftists and their hardworking but twisted media. No one is buying, though it’s not for want of ceaseless effort to sell the wares. But without a blue dress, it’s just not credible.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH, thank God we’ve come a little further in our country than you have. Mr. Cain admitted there were allegations against him, but he’s never admitted guilt. You’ve been inferring guilt by allegation, and you’ve even begun to build a case against him, even accusing him of witness tampering where there has been no trial.
Early in our history we had this:
Black man + anonymous allegations = guilty (Lynch him)
Now you and your ilk have evolved to this:
Black man + Republican + anonymous allegations = guilty (Lynch him)
Is Mr. Cain that threatening to you?
Report comment to moderator
The allegations aren’t anonymous.
Cain lied about his knowledge, which makes his denial of guilt not reliable.
Cain says the allegations are complete fabrications, which is unlikely. Cain says that the accusations are made up. It’s rather unlikely that one guy would be hit by three scam artists. The women may have exaggerated, but Cain doesn’t say that. He says they invented their stories. Yet, Cain undermines his denial by admitting that he stood close to a woman and told her how her stature compared with that of his wife.
Cain is threatening to Perry, not Democrats.
I’m glad that Politico didn’t report everything they heard and the women have not identified themselves in public, because this leaves Cain’s mouth in glare.
Report comment to moderator
Politico says it was “far from a denial” when Cain referred them, from the start, to the NRA’s in-house counsel.
One of Cain’s accusers has been released from the confidentiality agreement and still hides behind her lawyer with nonspecific allegations of unwanted sexual advances. Unless I know exactly what they were, she has no credibility with me. It just looks like she used the system to make some money and find an excuse to look for another job.
I highly doubt that the harrassment frenzy and piling on by the media would ever happen to any Democrat candidate. Despite the 7-day “media assault,” as Howard Kurtz on CNN calls it, Cain is still polling well, but I suspect that is temporary.
Democrats will be glad not to have a Republican Black man running against their half-Black man.
Report comment to moderator
LOUISE – Cain lied in front of the National Press Club when he said, “I am unaware of any settlement.” Later on, he admitted on FOX News that “there was some sort of settlement or termination” but “no big settlement.”
Lies are evidence of guilty knowledge.
DCINNES, a very big Perry supporter, says Cain lied to you so you oughtn’t to trust him.
Report comment to moderator
#86 SCROOP MOTH, I agree with you that the allegations were not anonymous. I even pointed out in my post that Herman Cain acknowledged there were allegations. I messed up using that word in my formula. This is the revised formula.
Early in our history we had this:
Black man + allegations = guilty (Lynch him)
Now you and your ilk have evolved to this:
Black man + conservative + allegations = guilty (Lynch him)
Report comment to moderator
At the Press Club Q&A, I heard Cain deny that he sexually harrassed anyone and that he didn’t know the details of a settlement. His evolving statements do not necessarily constitute lying, unless that’s what his detractors already want to believe. I first opposed him on his positions and lack of experience compared to Newt, Romney and Paul. His inept handling of this media attack further proves that he’s not up to the job of POTUS.
Report comment to moderator
As a well educated man with high level corporate experience and access to persons with influence, Cain is a big boy who is capable of taking care of himself. I don’t feel I need to view him as a victim.
Black men get lynched all the time in America and Cain is a black man, but it does not follow that Cain was lynched.
I think he was sabotaged by his own shallowness. Who goes from CEO of a subsidiary of a major DOW Jones corporation to being the dues collector for a trade association, and from there to being a motivational speaker? A flake, that’s who.
If it’s true that he’s the victim of fabrication and blackmail, then he’s got no moral backbone and is unfit to be president. Fraud is a crime. It’s socially irresponsible to pay off racketeers. I’m serious! I would have either 1.) paid the women only for a statement acknowledging that their complaint was a matter of subjective impression which could not necessarily be proved to neutral observers, or 2.) insisted on my day in court. He had the money to defend if not vindicate his name. I can only assume that he held his own honor to be cheap.
Do I sound more conservative than you or what?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, per usual you make an occasional good point or two before flying off into never-never-land. Priorities loom.
Report comment to moderator
Black men don’t get lynched all the time in America. And Cain is not being lynched. He’s engaging in politics as usual. Just like Scroop. It’s not working for either one of them I think.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop #53. Just getting back to you. There are several things that could contribute to Cain not getting the facts straigt away. The incidents were long ago. He had underlings deal with them. He didn’t taken into the account that the media would make them an issue, so he didn’t go back and find the details or tell anyone on his staff to do that. I’m not saying he was wise, but I think all these are entirely possible.
Report comment to moderator
SOCIALWORKER – these explanations don’t wash.
The incidents were long ago.
The cumulative (but not absolutely dispositive) evidence suggests that Cain made a practice of getting sex from subordinates, so that even if the details were too long ago to remember, he certainly couldn’t have forgotten the plot.
He had underlings deal with them.
The chief executive of a trade association doesn’t keep ignorant of matters of civil liability and public relations.
He didn’t taken into the account that the media would make them an issue
Politico gave him 10 days warning of their intent to publish the reports of the existence of complaints and repeatedly requested comment from him and his staff.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!