Ray Jay wrote:4. Sex sells

Conservatives have to take this seriously. It would be different if it were just one accuser, but we have 3 different accusers so it is he said / she said X3. Cain changing answers also don't help him. Cain can survive this, but he has to show his deftness to do so, and he hasn't shown that yet.

Based on the reports, was there sex? With whom?

With Clinton, we knew the particular accusations--and the MSM didn't care. Why not? What's the difference?

More details, but on balance probably good for Cain. No allegations against him personally.

The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999--and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it's conceivable that Cain didn't even know about it.

So far, it's speculation and no substance. Against Clinton, there was plenty of substance, yet far less play in the press.

Are you guys joking? The Lewinski affair was a massive media story.

Paula Jones
Gennifer Flowers
Kathleen Willey
Juanita Broaddrick
Elizabeth Ward Gracen
Sally Perdue
Dolly Kyle Browning?

That is quite a list. The Lewinsky scandal was due to the impeachment. Otherwise the lying to the Federal Grand Jury might have been as covered up as the rest. No one can know for sure...

All we know about the actual charges is that two women were paid to stay quiet about sexual harrassment charges they made to the NRA. And that a third is making charges about inappropriate behaviour.
If the details of the harressment charges are ever released for public consumption then perhaps we'll know more about Cain the man, but I'll bet the terms of their settlemetns ensure this will not happen, at least for a few years...

What we know about Cain is how he, and his team, reacted to the charges. His recollections evolved quite a bit over a couple of days...
I supect that there will be three distinct reactions to the Cain charges and his reactions so far. Those who consume Fox news and Conservative web sites will be suspicious of the charges and the motives behind them, and expect that there is "nothing there". This is difficult becasue it means that the fact that the complainants allegations were paid off and their silence bought must be ignored in this calculation. For this constituencvy, and the media outlets involved this is a standard part of coping with reality.

Those who'd like to accept everything evil about Cain right away, his dedicated opponents will clamour for more details and continue to press the issue. Until and unless the settlememts are released and the women tell their stories they won't stop. Whetehr this sways anyone is doubtful.
In the middle will be a group who will simply watch and wait. Prepared to be disappointed by Cain's past behaviours, and perhaps some in this group are also are prepared to forgive and forget. (The men in the group...)
I suspect the first constituency is about 30% of the populace. An awful lot qualified as Republican primary voters. The second constituency about 25% (And almost all Democrats) and the rest make up the plurality.
The difference between Cains acts and Clintons, lies in the coercive nature of "Sexual Harrassment". Although Lewinsky should have been off limits as an intern, which puts Clintons daillaince with her closer to the level of sexual harrassment. Though its pretty obvious Lewinsky was not just willing but aggressive...
The other sexual dalliances by Clinton were with women who were equally willing and of the age of consent.
That doesn't make Clinton an angel. Just a willing horndog, who cheated on his wife.
However, the notion that Clinton's sexual dalliances were NOT constantly reported, and each salacious revelation treated as spectacle, is selective memory.
Cains problems are all in the way he's handled himself in the questioning. (Clintons too really) I don't know exactly how he could do anything but admit that the NRA had settled claims by two employees against him, though he would have preferred to fight the claims in a court of law. Instead he denied and dripped out the story in stages...
His debate tonight with Gingrich, pits two men now both portrayed by some as of of dubious moral fibre / mano a mano. Gingrich will nev er touch him on the issue, so it will be interesting to see how Cain handles himself against the debating skills of Gingrich and whetehr it can change the topic for him. I suspect Gincrich will do more to harm Cains chances then the sexual harrassment charges.

Ricky, excellent post.

bbauska wrote:That is quite a list. The Lewinsky scandal was due to the impeachment. Otherwise the lying to the Federal Grand Jury might have been as covered up as the rest. No one can know for sure...

But the allegations about Jones and Flowers at least were also big stories in the media. Certainly they crossed the Atlantic. It was just that Clinton was far better at dealing with the questions that arose than Cain seems to have been.

What is really interesting is that it seems Cain's statements have opened the door for at least one of the complainants to remove the non-disclosure clauses of the settlement.

I agree with Ricky on the impact - it's not that he may have said things to women, it's that he's been all over the place when it became public. Romney has already had most of the scandal that can be aimed at him and so is much less vulnerable. Of course, the rumours are that Perry's team gave been the ones that winkled out the accusations.

Interestingly, Bachmann has also criticised Cain. Does this (according to the thread title and subsequent opinions) make her a racist too?

Saw Huntsman on meet the press today. Don't usually watch it but just finished with the most recent disappointment by wigan and caught him. He's good. I'd say the most elequent and well spoken of all the republicans I've seen.
Anyway, his take on Cain is that Cain has to come clean... Which means he's enjoying this. Does that make him racist?

I think he realizes his real opportunity to grow is anyone currently supporting Romney, though. He's hoping that republicans finally decide that Mitt can't win, and the rest are too extreme. Well, at least those in Massachussetts where he admitted he has all his chips. And only 7% support.

Do you mean New Hampshire.

And I would say give him until December 1. If he doesn't decide to start spending his own money at that point, he is done. However, I think if he starts to self-fund his campaign he might be able to get the penetration he will need.

Do you mean New Hampshire

I do.
He did say he's put some of his own money into the campaign...

rickyp wrote:All we know about the actual charges is that two women were paid to stay quiet about sexual harrassment charges they made to the NRA. And that a third is making charges about inappropriate behaviour.
If the details of the harressment charges are ever released for public consumption then perhaps we'll know more about Cain the man, but I'll bet the terms of their settlemetns ensure this will not happen, at least for a few years...

One of the accusers is rep'd by Gloria Allred. That adds to the credibility.

This kind of lawsuit and settlement are pretty common. Often, there is little substance. Instead of engaging in a he said/she said, and paying tens of thousands in legal fees, the parties involved frequently settle. If that is the basis upon which we should determine the seriousness of the allegations, I submit no serious executive will ever be able to run for office.

During the course of my previous employment, I was sued for excessive force (once). I don't think my employer settled, but they may have. I don't know. I never used excessive force. If I ran for President and a settlement was reached, am I lying if I say I don't know?

All I'm saying is there is a media frenzy over precious few facts. If Cain is innocent, NOTHING he has said surprises me. Why would he know the details of something that never happened? (Of course, if he is implicated and shown to be a liar, he should stop running).

I know a woman who was under investigation of fraternization (with an inmate). She went off stress and sued for sexual discrimination. She was not discriminated against--she was clearly over the line in her behavior (I saw it). If the Department settled her lawsuit, did discrimination occur?

I think all of us, especially the press, should wait for some facts before going ballistic. So far, there is about 95% speculation and 5% information. I posit it is because he is successful, black, and conservative that the press has gone so crazy over this story. Remember, this is the same press corps that ignored the John Edwards scandal until the National Enquirer produced photos. Why? Edwards was a former nominee for VP and was running third in polls for the Democratic nomination when the rumors started. The rumors never occupied the press like the Cain situation.

What we know about Cain is how he, and his team, reacted to the charges. His recollections evolved quite a bit over a couple of days...

True, but the reasons are perfectly understandable--if he is innocent. If they were never serious charges, why would he recall them 10 or 20 years later? I would not.

I supect that there will be three distinct reactions to the Cain charges and his reactions so far. Those who consume Fox news and Conservative web sites will be suspicious of the charges and the motives behind them, and expect that there is "nothing there". This is difficult becasue it means that the fact that the complainants allegations were paid off and their silence bought must be ignored in this calculation. For this constituencvy, and the media outlets involved this is a standard part of coping with reality.

This is not, contra Ray Jay, a good post. This is rubbish.

Why should anyone NOT be skeptical? What actual evidence do we have? Is there evidence? Are these legitimate complaints?

I'm neither here nor there on Cain. I don't think he will be or should be the nominee. However, for anyone running for President, I think we should not be so quick to jump on allegations with nothing but vapor to substantiate the allegations.

And, really, the "Fox News" meme is a tired trope.

The difference between Cains acts and Clintons, lies in the coercive nature of "Sexual Harrassment". Although Lewinsky should have been off limits as an intern, which puts Clintons daillaince with her closer to the level of sexual harrassment. Though its pretty obvious Lewinsky was not just willing but aggressive...
The other sexual dalliances by Clinton were with women who were equally willing and of the age of consent.

Really? So when woman says Clinton raped her, you take his word because . . . ?

I am not saying he did rape her. I am saying you seem to KNOW they were all consensual situations. How?

That doesn't make Clinton an angel. Just a willing horndog, who cheated on his wife.
However, the notion that Clinton's sexual dalliances were NOT constantly reported, and each salacious revelation treated as spectacle, is selective memory.

Wrong, just flat wrong. Did you not see the MRC link I posted?

Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.

That's not "selective memory."

To cite the old saying, you are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Oh my. Make of it what you will. The new accuser never filed a complaint, says Cain tried to grope her, she said "Stop!" and he did. Um . . . really?

Believe what you will. To me, if this sort of complaint is given weight, no one is safe. Even if true, how could anyone ever hope to prove it or defend oneself against it? In other words, she says "x," does that make it true? Does he have to prove his innocence? Does she have to provide some kind of corroboration?

Is it this easy to destroy someone?

What if she's lying and/or exaggerating for whatever reason? Maybe she just hates the guy. We have no idea.

If this is the standard, no politician, no person in public life is safe.

Sorry, Doc, is this about racism or are we now talking about men-as-victims-of-alleged-sexual-harassment-victims. I'm confused about the shifting sands here.

I think the news media is doing the Republican party a huge favor. If they were to ignore the story until after Cain got the nomination (or the VP nod), and then pounced, it could change history. This gives us a few months to find out what is going on, and either to say no big deal or no way Mr. Cain. I'll form an opinion before the Mass primary. Either way, it works to the Republican's advantage.

DF, I don't disagree with you that there may be media bias in relation to the response to Cain vs. the response to Clinton or Edwards. Edwards may be a more reasonable example because it was more recent. It is just that this kind of issue is very subjective. I've seen media bias studies in the past based on statistical evidence. Even those studies are inherently flawed but at least they can give you comfort. I think you have the burden of proof on this one, but I will keep an open mind.

By the way, images of men unsuccessfully using their positions of power to hook up with ladies are not positive, even if he didn't do anything inappropriate. There is a certain ick factor at work here.

Ray Jay wrote:I think the news media is doing the Republican party a huge favor. If they were to ignore the story until after Cain got the nomination (or the VP nod), and then pounced, it could change history. This gives us a few months to find out what is going on, and either to say no big deal or no way Mr. Cain. I'll form an opinion before the Mass primary. Either way, it works to the Republican's advantage.

DF, I don't disagree with you that there may be media bias in relation to the response to Cain vs. the response to Clinton or Edwards. Edwards may be a more reasonable example because it was more recent. It is just that this kind of issue is very subjective. I've seen media bias studies in the past based on statistical evidence. Even those studies are inherently flawed but at least they can give you comfort. I think you have the burden of proof on this one, but I will keep an open mind.

By the way, images of men unsuccessfully using their positions of power to hook up with ladies are not positive, even if he didn't do anything inappropriate. There is a certain ick factor at work here.

Agree 100%. I am not saying he's innocent. I don't know.

I will say that if his conduct is this outrageous, there should be dozens of credible women coming forward. Being from LA, I have a long history of observing Ms. Allred. She is on the correct (meaning true) side of the debate about 20% of the time. So, it is entirely possible that Cain did none of this. However, I think he's done, in all likelihood.

I maintain, however, that no candidate would have received this level of scrutiny at this stage had it not been a conservative minority. The Democrats and liberals have to filet conservative minorities. Without their iron grip on those parts of the electorate, they have nothing.

Krauthammer on Cain allegations

It’s not sexual harassment — she wasn’t an employee at the time (...)If true, it’s kind of sexual assault, which is an order of magnitude worse

Now, to be lawyerly about it, corroboration is not quite as weak as presented (...) There are affidavits of people who said she spoke to them at the time. But she said she was ‘too embarrassed’ to give details. So she probably spoke of inappropriate behavior, which could have been anything

The problem for Cain is it comes on top of other accusations and it involves a woman who appears to have no motive, other than coming out and telling what she thought had happened (...) I think for Cain, this is something that he may not be able to actually shake.

So when did he become one of them liberal racists?

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/07/kraut ... l-assault/