Cain: “I was falsely accused” of sexual harassment at trade group
posted at 12:05 pm on October 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Herman Cain acted swiftly to put an end to speculation over the story about sexual-harassment claims during his tenure at the National Restaurant Association. After a few hours of confused response, Cain admitted that he had been accused, but falsely, of inappropriate conduct. He claimed that an investigation of those accusations showed at the time that they were “baseless,” and he seemed surprised by the news that the trade group settled the claims. “I hope it wasn’t for much,” Cain told Fox News, “because nothing happened”:
“I have never sexually harassed anyone, but yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association,” he said.
He added that he does not know that a settlement was paid out against the two complainants, and said “If more allegations come, I assure you that people will simply make them up.”
“The only other allegations will be trumped up allegations,” he said.
This is a much better response than the one offered last night in response to the Politico story. It acknowledges that Cain had to deal with accusations, and puts him on the record with a strong denial specific to them. Unless Politico reveals more about the nature of the complaints and the women involved come forward, this will likely be enough to keep Cain in the game, as it’s doubtful that voters will give much credence to the vague nature of the allegations — unless they get a lot less vague, and unless more people come forward with complaints, assuming they can credibly do so.
Fox also asked about a story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about possible campaign finance irregularities. I’ll have more on that later, but that hits Cain’s staff rather than Cain himself.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Don’t you have an attorney friend from Atlanta that has some really, really dirty stuff on Cain? Better get that friend to start spilling the beans!!!
MeatHeadinCA on October 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM
Settlements mean nothing.
My father’s company had a problem with a guy who was drinking at work and harassing women. After hearing from 4-5 women and seeing the guy drink in his cube, my father fired the guy.
A month later, the guy files a lawsuit. My father’s lawyers recommended he settle, as fighting it would cost far more. It killed him to do so, but he ended up paying the guy. It’s an absolutely broken system, and burning tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on it isn’t going to fix it. Even if you win, you still lose.
strictnein on October 31, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Interesting that Ace’s post mentions hearing the story a month previous and that there were tons of cases. Surely if Ace got wind of multiple cases Politico would have as well. Convinces me even more that this a steaming pile: someone pushed it, finally found a rag willing to print it, and they’re waiting to see if it sticks and some woman shows up with a sexual harassment claim.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM
Ah, no he did not do the same as Politico. He has info on this a month ago and sat on it. He said there was nothing worth even mentioning. Very different from Politico. He is simply reporting that he was given the same info. What is interesting to me is who was shopping this story? I’d like to know that.
I did read the entire article.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:22 PM
Yep. Worked for a company that had people apply for the job, purposely screw things up and then file for unemployment once terminated. The company my dad worked for did the same thing, had numerous racism allegations and they simply paid for it to go away. There’s nothing to most of these claims, they’re just shakedown payments.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 1:24 PM
ITA.
Stop being such a fanboy. Ace is on our side and we should take what he says seriously. So far Cain has done a good job handling this but it will unravel very quickly if there is more damaging info. Better now than in the general.
Bill C on October 31, 2011 at 1:26 PM
I’d go with Knucklehead, I’d bet money it came from Perry.
When I read the article last night I was wondering who this would benefit. The only person I can come up with is Perry (maybe Bachmann, but she’s toast and knows it). I’m sure Romney would love to face Cain’s campaign, same with Obama; the only person that would get a boost from this is Perry.
I bounced the theory off my wife, who then asked “would people go back to Perry?” Good question. I’m thinking they go to Not-Romney, and that’s Perry.
And remember, Perry’s campaigns are always remarked upon for their almost radioactive dirtiness.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Exactly. If Obama or the DNC had this, they would have never dumped it now. This crap came from within the GOP to try and knock Cain out in Iowa.
Knucklehead on October 31, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Actually, I just saw a report that clearly showed the person that benefits the most is Romney. The second and third are very close to splitting the rest and that is Perry and Newt. To say that either of them were the source of this is ridiculous. If you have some proof, I’d like to see it, otherwise please keep your baseless allegations to yourself.
Instead of blaming one of our other guys with no supporting evidence, how about we ask ourselves why Cain thought this would not come up and why we’re just finding out now. If Ace is right and Politico got this a month ago, I really doubt it had anything to do with Perry or Newt. Perry was up in the polls and had just entered the race so really didn’t have a chance to have let alone disseminate this kind of info. I don’t think Perry or Newt would do this anyway. The person that is most scare of Cain is Obama anyway and we know their research team has the $$ and time for this kind of opposition research.
Perry has really been solely focused on Romney (and by that I mean he’s not just only gone after Romney, but he’s the only one really that has gone after Romney until the last debate at least). As far as Cain, he chimed in on the racist rock issue, which I thought was unfortunate for Cain.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:29 PM
I’m sorry, Ace is on Rick Perry’s side which means he’s not objective anymore.
Knucklehead on October 31, 2011 at 1:32 PM
When a Cain thread turns into an AoSHQ thread, you’ve jumped the hobo.
Christien on October 31, 2011 at 1:33 PM
So did the racist rock issue come from Cain then? I’d bet money he’s the source. See how silly that is? I just don’t think our guys do this. Perry has never gotten personal with Cain. Cain did with Perry, but Perry didn’t even comment. The only other personal attacks were on Romney’s flip-flops.
Again, a story I just read from Twitter shows clearly that Romney benefits the most from a Cain destruction. Romney certainly would want to attack Cain covertly instead of overtly.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:33 PM
So, Ace likes Perry more so he’s the evil enemy? Come on. Do you see what you are saying? He’s for Perry so he’s not objective, but I’m for Cain so I’m objective? I can’t believe you actually wrote that.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:34 PM
Romney gains from this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/who-gains-if-cain-loses/2011/10/31/gIQATyrSZM_blog.html
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:36 PM
Good grief, Perry really?
Do not assume folks….you got proof, spill it
cmsinaz on October 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM
After Ace’s Palin meltdowns, I don’t know if it’s safe to call him objective.
I also have noted that most of the remaining Perry supporters on HA (and elsewhere on the internet) are no longer objective.
Just an observation, though.
MeatHeadinCA on October 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM
I just got done telling a Perry supporter that – someone that claims they know some real dirt about Cain.
MeatHeadinCA on October 31, 2011 at 1:39 PM
Hopefully this story is over soon so we can get back to the issues. I hate this crap.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:39 PM
If Jindal reminds Ace of one of the Indian pledges from Animal House and Drew M. of Apu from The Simpsons, which characters from popular movies/TV shows do Cain remind them of?
Christien on October 31, 2011 at 1:39 PM
If this were Ace’s site I would make a joke about a fourth 9 but it’s not and I don’t want to get banned.
Bill C on October 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM
Agree, spill it if you have it, but keep quiet if you don’t. Focus on the issues. Conservatives are right on the issues and Obama’s record for the last 2.5 years, and the only way we’ll beat Obama is by staying on these.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM
Agree meathead
cmsinaz on October 31, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Objectivity is indignant.
Insinuation and speculation are rampant.
How revealing and disgusting!
Schadenfreude on October 31, 2011 at 1:43 PM
The bigger story here is why wasnt Cain prepared for this? These are old stories, he knew the settlement happened, he had to know it would get out. To me the allegations arent troubling, the response and lack of preparation is.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 1:44 PM
No kidding. Ace is backing Rick Perry, just like Erick Erickson from RedState is backing Rick Perry and they were both at Rick Perry’s gig in South Carolina when he announced he was running for Prez.
Anything written at either blog is biased.
Knucklehead on October 31, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Totally, especially Erick Erickson, its his reporting on Perry borders on slobbering. I think this Cain story also provides an interesting distraction from Perrys meltdown over the weekend at that speech in New Hampshire. Mediaite has the piece, its hard to watch.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 1:46 PM
But you are objective as a Cain supporter? Come on. We are all bias here. Ace may be a Perry supporter, but in this instance, he did the right thing. He kept his mount shut about rumors for a month an then came out and said he wouldn’t publish what he’d been given. And he didn’t.
For you to sit there and say he is bias for Perry, but you aren’t bias for Cain is illogical and dishonest.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:48 PM
Very interesting observation. I watched that video last night because it was posted in the QOTD and wondered if Perry was drunk or something like that. But since QOTD has now turned into “music video time”, I don’t think anyone watched nor responded.
Knucklehead on October 31, 2011 at 1:53 PM
So again, you are not bias but Eric and Ace are. Dishonest.
Regarding Perry’s “meltdown”, if it truly was a meltdown as you say, why are no sites reporting on it? It’s because the video was taken out of context and so it’s not legitimate. Mediates has an out of context piece of nothing. Once the full context comes out, if there is still a story, then THAT will be interesting. Trusting Mediaite? Really?
Tell me again why Politico among many others have had this for months but somehow Perry’s team got them to release it this weekend? Just to cover Perry’s butt? You are just intellectually dishonest debating like this. Make stuff up to make yourself feel better, but don’t expect other’s to believe you are somehow not bias when you write stuff like this.
Again, I wish we could just focus on the issues rather than this garbage. I’m sure conspiracy theorists, with no facts, will continue to say that Perry somehow planted this story last month to take Cain down this month. We don’t need evidence.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:56 PM
Yeah the video is in a few places, but, luckily for Perry, the big story is now these two about Cain. Very luck for Perry or else his erratic speech would have been the lead on more shows then Morning Joe.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 1:56 PM
Great! Another conspiracy theorist that is completely unbiased. Just great.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 1:57 PM
I’m not on the Cain Train per se. He’s top two for me. We all are biased here, but my bias is driven less by personality cults and emotion than some of the facts out there.
I will say this. If I was given information that Herman Cain had done anything sexually inappropriate; for the good of the country (even if it would hurt Cain personally), I’d probably release the information. Why? Because it will come out eventually. Let’s vet Herman Cain. Let the mud fly – if it’s there.
MeatHeadinCA on October 31, 2011 at 1:57 PM
Do you know why it is in a few places? Because it was taken completely out of context. You see, typically news orgs and legit bloggers don’t like to report on stuff taken out of context. If the full video shows up, we may actually see the context. I bet you’ll still be unbiased against Perry.
Actually, I’m sure the Cain team did this to Perry to try to cover up the bad news that was coming out for him last night. Well, no I don’t think that’s true because I’m not bias against Cain and I’m not a conspiracy theorist that makes stuff up to make me feel better.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:00 PM
Im not a paid blogger pretending I dont endorse someone, they are, big difference. I dont know if Perry released it, thats the rumor out there and it wouldnt surprise me frankly. The video was on Morning Joe and I watched it uncut on youtube, its was disturbing. He was acting manic. Here is what I know, I know now Perry if fourth in most polls, I know he isnt gaining traction, I know that he has the ability to launch cheap shots (like the insipid gardener stuff at Romney during the debate) so as a desperation tactic him releasing it or being behind politico finding it would not surprise me. Maybe he didnt, but it wouldnt surprise me. It will come out eventually either way.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:01 PM
Yet Ace sat on it because he felt there was not enough to even remark on.
I would do the same for any of our candidates. I just don’t want them to fail against Obama. I hope this story is over today. If it’s not, better that we found out now.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:02 PM
Up until this point, eh?
What would you do the same?
MeatHeadinCA on October 31, 2011 at 2:04 PM
Im not saying anything to make myself feel better. My guys in a pretty good postion, I dont need stories like this. I feel badly for Cain, but I think it shows the inexperience on his team that he didnt know this was coming and that he handled it initially so poorly. Im suspicious of Perry in this, he has the most to gain from it, but like I said, I was just commenting on whats been floating out there on other threads on Hotair and other websites.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:04 PM
Who is saying it? Conspiracy theorists here? If you have a source for “who” is saying it, please share it otherwise you are just re-posting conspiracy theorist comments, which is just sad.
OK, so you watched the FULL speech on Youtube? Well, then, please share the link with the rest of us. My guess is that you probably say the hit-piece out of context video on Youtube, but prove me wrong.
So, again, you have no proof, but you think it was Perry. Sad. Just sad. Romney’s never broken 30% in the polls but with Cain out, he hits 32%. I think Romney is desperate. I think it’s Romney. Oh wait, no I don’t, because that’s not actual proof.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Again, Romney has the most to gain from Cain. Romney will still beat Perry if Perry doesn’t get his act together. It’s true. If Cain is out, and Perry is still stumbling, Newt will benefit because he’s the only one not stumbling now. If Romney continues to keep off the Sunday shows and keeps smiling in the debates, Cain’s destruction helps him. To think that somehow Perry benefits, with all of his stumbling, from Cain destructing makes no sense.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:11 PM
You said this:
I agree with you.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:12 PM
If Ace had something, he would have dropped the bomb the minute he got it. What planet do you live on?
And I’ve yet to see you comment on Rick Perry’s bizzare speech in NH a couple days ago.
That’s not the whole speech, you can find that in the QOTD from last night.
Knucklehead on October 31, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Um yeah. This is standard in the news/blogging business. When news breaks that you sat on, you come out and say I had this but didn’t find it worthy or reporting.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21z30aNO3cA&feature=player_embedded
Its only 25 minutes, watch it for yourself and decide.
I already said whose saying it, I said it was commentators in this site and others. Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show today speculating if another campaign released it, listen to his show. He doesnt say who, but he alludes to someone. Again, Im not a reporter, I dont have to prove anything, I simply said its interesting and if its true I wondered what the ramifications would be.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:15 PM
lol
Bill C on October 31, 2011 at 2:15 PM
Disagree, Romney wants Cain and Perry to keep dividing the vote, if Cain is out the Cain people will likely go to Perry. Romney wants as many viable candidates in the race as long as possible to divide the vote so he can take the first four primaries.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Dude. Chill. That speech from Perry was bizarre as hell. I watched the highlights and the full speech. It’s not what he said, it’s how he said it; he seriously sounds drunk. I thought it was kind of a good speech actually, but it was weird nonetheless.
Even with the Romney article I don’t know how it would benefit him to tear up Cain, but it doesn’t matter. Your point about Perry not needing the story a month ago is pretty much the silver bullet to that argument.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 2:19 PM
I see, so Ace is lying and he didn’t have this. This is one crazy conversation. Ace said he had information, but said it was rumor and not worthy of printing, so he didn’t print it. If you have proof he’s lying, that’d be really interesting. Please do share it. If you don’t, then you are just as bad as a liberal. “How long have you been beating your wife?” AH HA! I thought conservatives were better than this? “Perry put this out there to hurt Cain. I have no proof, but I hate Perry.” “Ace is lying when he said he sat on this. I have no proof, but Ace is a Perry supporter so he is very suspect.”
This is bizarre. So I was supposed to take time away from my family to comment on a speech taken out of context?
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:19 PM
I posted the link to the entire speech in full. Its only 25 minutes, if you can honestly tell me hes not off in that speech then more power to you. But his mannerisms were bizarre all the way through it.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:21 PM
It would be nice to have a HA feature in which AoSHQ hash tags could be viewed.
Christien on October 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM
Um, I am “chill”. The parts taken out of context were bizarre. I agree. Other’s disagree with you. Here is the campaign spot at National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/281684/rick-perry-ready-stand-circuit Of course, this is still the out of context version, but it’s not as bad as some are making it sound.
Romney can’t go after Cain overtly. He must be covert. I have no proof he did and don’t believe he did though. Clearly, he beats a stumbling Perry though if Cain is out. I think Newt still has trust issues with conservatives.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:23 PM
What’d you think? I thought it wasn’t too bad of a speech honestly. Just a bit loopy.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 2:23 PM
What is sad is that anyone had to “prove” Perry didn’t beat his wife, er, I mean didn’t put this out there. Why? Because I like Cain and so Perry must have done it? Why are we doing this to our own people?
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:24 PM
I think Romney would prefer Cain in that he did not see Cain as a viable candidate. However, Cain has been doing a lot better lately. The truth is that both Romney and Perry would benefit from bringing Cain down at this point but Perry has the most to gain.
Bill C on October 31, 2011 at 2:24 PM
He whispered a good 2/3rds of his speech. I actually thought he sounded a lot better but I could hardly hear most of the speech because of his delivery.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 2:26 PM
This is the difference between being a conservative and being a fanboy, Cainiac. Conservatives fairly criticize other conservatives.
Bill C on October 31, 2011 at 2:27 PM
Sorry, I’m going with Jim G. on this one. Perry is an ex cheerleader (or whatever). I expect him to be loopy. I wonder if his back surgery meds have anything to do with this.
One thing is for sure, Perry doesn’t need distractions from his message. Just like Cain doesn’t need this distraction from his message. Just like Newt didn’t need the criticism of Paul Ryan’s plans (or misunderstood criticism or whatever) to distract his candidacy. I like Perry, Cain and Newt. I wish they could have been running for President for the last 5 years like Romney.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM
Truthfully? I felt he was a bit tipsy, I think he was trying to be funny and warm but at parts it was just a bit weird bordering on, how do I say this nicely, a bit effeminate, truthfully his speaking style and mannerisms.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM
For the past several years it seems like that’s been forgotten entirely. It’s just one new candidate after another that has to be worshipped.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM
sexual harassment, Cain should feel pretty good. This is right out of the the Democrats Hymn Book for serious contenders. They wouldn’t bother if they weren’t worried.
jpcpt03 on October 31, 2011 at 2:30 PM
If Perry cannot recover, it won’t matter who gets out. If Romney is in, Romney will be the only one people trust to beat Obama.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:30 PM
Glad you said it before I did.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 2:30 PM
Very true. Cain is doing better then most thought, until today.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:30 PM
Was struggling how to say it nicely, lol.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:32 PM
I notice all the Cain attack dogs have stuck their tale between their legs, now that Politico is shown to be a farce…
right2bright on October 31, 2011 at 2:33 PM
No I think you’re dead on, I thought his hand gestures and shrugs were pretty odd. Maybe tomorrow’s Politico story will be:
Unnamed sources: Perry’s hand gestures at NH speech made me uncomfortable
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Well thanks for that, I thought it was my computer or that the speech had been recorded poorly.
Glad you said it and not me, but I was sure thinking it LOL.
Knucklehead on October 31, 2011 at 2:37 PM
Here is the link to Perry’s meltdown in New Hampshire this weekend:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-rick-perry-goes-off-the-cuff-during-unconventional-cornerstone-speech/
He made Charlie Sheen look balanced.
haner on October 31, 2011 at 2:40 PM
I mean, I think that was definitely part of it, but you could tell he had drastic changes in tone. Pretty sure he closed his eyes a few times too.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Yeah, looking at his Fox News Sunday interview and his Q&A from last week in NH, I’m guessing this is the back meds at work. He delayed entry into the race because of back surgery right?
Again, this is his distraction. Instead of talking about his policies, we’re talking about what some think is an odd performance even after two good outings in recent days. If he is on strong back meds, he needs to say something.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:49 PM
Same goes for Cain, he should get this all out now so we talk about 999 and his plans for governing as a conservative.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 2:50 PM
There’s the maple syrup part at the end of his speech. He was clearly drunk. He was wobbly and was staring at the maple syrup, playing with it and giggling like a drunk person would do when given something shiny.
haner on October 31, 2011 at 2:51 PM
Someone had to say it lol.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:52 PM
Anonymous sources make vague claim and its TRUE !
That’s why I HATE the main stream propaganda machines.
ColdWarrior57 on October 31, 2011 at 2:52 PM
The topic is Cain.
Clinton benefits.
Schadenfreude on October 31, 2011 at 2:53 PM
Agree with both your points.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 2:53 PM
Romney will win the primary and then lose the general.
May all get theirs, deservedly.
Schadenfreude on October 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM
If Romney would lose the general, pray tell how Perry would have a hell’s chance of winning the general?
haner on October 31, 2011 at 2:59 PM
haner on October 31, 2011 at 2:59 PM
You have comprehension issues. Nowhere did I say he would.
Schadenfreude on October 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM
So you think its Cain or nobody?
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 3:08 PM
Setting Perry aside, Romney doesn’t win in the general because he doesn’t energize conservatives. He can’t improve on his flip-floppiness.
Cain can explain this issue and then get back to the real issues. Perry can improve in debates. Newt can keep on being good Newt.
They will all inspire and excite conservatives; something Romney will never do.
kerrhome on October 31, 2011 at 3:13 PM
No way. Romney stomps Obama in the general. People can’t take much more of this crap, I would vote for Romney a hundred times before I’d stay home against Obama.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Of course I don’t have proof. I’m speculating like each and every person here.
How about this, though: how does a blogger like Ace get ahold of something Dems are sitting on a month ahead of time? Dems are pretty good at keeping a tight lid on this stuff until they’re ready to use it.
The tweet that RS McCain highlighted indicated someone in the Perry campaign was aware of oppo on Cain.
Ace, as a Perry supporter, presumably has more feelers out to the Perry campaign than any of the others. He’s got zero sources in the Axelrod shop, I’m pretty sure.
Correct, Romney would benefit from Cain’s votes being split between Newt and Perry. However, there is a slim chance more of them would go to Perry, and Perry is in a much better money situation than Newt.
On the other hand, Perry has no chance as long as Cain remains strong. Literally, it’s over for him unless he can somehow shift Cain’s numbers. That has to happen NOW.
Obama can afford to wait to drop his oppo. Perry can’t.
Missy on October 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Cain was falsely accused? Well, the news that he didn’t sexually harass women staffers is just one more move to the right.
He could’ve really gotten some of the Clinton-lovers vote with this. I wonder what Nina Burleigh has to say on this?
hawksruleva on October 31, 2011 at 3:23 PM
Exactly and even people saying he cant win no that, they just dont like him. The idea he cant win in the general and that only Cain and Perry can is laughably absurd.
nswider on October 31, 2011 at 3:24 PM
assume away, i’m giving the gop candidates the benefit of the doubt on this one…
cmsinaz on October 31, 2011 at 3:28 PM
The hit piece is by the fabricator of information based on his own opinion, who is his own “inside source” as if a Congressional spokesman, Carl Cameron ’08 Politico.
That this smear story came from Carl Cameron is enough to deny it’s reliability.
That Cameron is a “friend” of so many neoconservative bloggers only lends less credibility to those friends who would believe his stories.
That Herman Cain and the Board of the business in question concertedly deny any such story as Cameron published is reason enough to dismiss Carl’s smear antics for attention, begging for public attention.
The business experience for which Cain is most famous to date is as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. When Pillsbury transferred Cain from Burger King (he having turned that franchise industry into a much more profitable business via “BEAMER” employee smiles) to Godfathers, the first thing Cain did was cut its franchise industry in half in order for the business to show a profit. Making hard decisions like that is bound to create extremely hard feelings amongst the losers, those who showed consistent losses in business.
This particular charge is VAGUE and specifically does not state that Cain sexually harassed the women by touching or making inappropriate requests. The only word is that women took offense after deciding that they felt uncomfortable around Cain. Given that they refuse to acknowledge themselves and exact charges, it only amounts to a smear job.
Obama was only able to win his early political elections by illegal maneuvers to discredit an opponent by leaking sealed court documents in one case, and by ousting the woman who first showed Obama the political ropes, knifing her in the back. Chicago politics are infamous for ruining people through unproven innuendo. And the Clintons’ have never played clean during campaigns or while in office, either.
Mitt Romney’s failed ’08 potus campaign used robocalls to smear opponents unjustly. His campaign would take advantage of another such opportunity to smear an opponent, whether they started the so-called “leak” or attempt to blame Rick Perry for launching the story.
Rick Perry just lost in Texas’ voter poll to Cain, and immediately this story gets published by the political hack Carl Cameron. That Perry relied on unjust and provocative smears against his gubernatorial primary opponents in order to clear the GOP ticket for himself in ’10 remains his campaign style calling card. Perry’s potus war chest is mighty big, and there’s precious little time for Perry to “save” his campaign.
There’s no reason to believe a rumor unless it’s your nature to discredit a platform by fabricating lies. “Promise them anything, just get their votes” quoting Mitt Romney ’08 is even worse than tell them anything just to get their votes coming from Carl Cameron the anti-Republican reporter wearing the drunk’s hand-me-down-camel-hair-coat, the mantel of authoritarian insider hogwash.
maverick muse on October 31, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Isn’t it pretty well accepted by sane people that most sexual harassment claims are BS anyway?
xblade on October 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM
I know some liberal guys who have come around against the feminist threat to men. PC BS like sexual harassment laws won’t cause a lot of people to turn on Cain. Of course, if he is misleading and/or there are more serious charges coming then Cain is in big trouble.
Bill C on October 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM
Missy
Ace did not provide his sources any more than Cameron provided his to substantiate the rumor.
“How does a blogger like Ace get ahold of something Dems…?”
Ace has liberal friends. In fact, Carl Cameron is a friendly with Ace as with any other blogger. Ace hangs out with liberals in real life v. virtual internet community–his “married with children” friends are raving liberals whom Ace quotes when referencing good parenting. Ace is not a social conservative, nor a constitutional conservative. Ace is a Northeastern neoconservative who leans liberal though when he’s beaten up by a majority of comments on his blog threads, he’ll flip flop eventually when he loses the argument. There is no conservative point that Ace would name as his hill worth dying on.
maverick muse on October 31, 2011 at 3:45 PM
When the complaint is that females “felt uncomfortable” or “were offended” then absolutely, the only credible feature is how low the “offended” will beat their target using false charges.
Treat Cain as the victim until there’s proof to assume otherwise.
maverick muse on October 31, 2011 at 3:50 PM
Perry was being a goof-ball in that speech. Personally, I think given he’s so far behind in the polls – it wasn’t the right approach for him to take.
But he wasn’t drunk if you watch the whole speech.
HondaV65 on October 31, 2011 at 3:50 PM
No – most “sane” people take these things case by case without stereotyping.
HondaV65 on October 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM
I guess it’s possible Ace got it from a lib. Doesn’t seem like it would be in said lib’s interest to give anyone in the right-leaning community the heads up, though. It seems like a stretch.
Missy on October 31, 2011 at 4:03 PM
Carl Cameron is a lib?
Darksean on October 31, 2011 at 4:06 PM
I thought the suggestion was that Ace got it from a lib or Carl Cameron, whichever comes first.
Missy on October 31, 2011 at 4:09 PM
ROFL
RedLizard64 on October 31, 2011 at 4:15 PM
I believe him. You’ve got to have more than an anonymous source.
flataffect on October 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM
So what is the full context of the speech?
I’ve watched the 25 minute version, and it’s just about as bizarre as the lowlight reel.
I think he probably did kick back a few prior to the speech. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but if there’s some context missing, please provide it. So far, it appears to be what it is, a bit bizarre.
Generally if you’re going to claim something is “out of context” it becomes your burden to provide such context, otherwise, you’re just spinning.
Jason Coleman on October 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Interesting that Ace’s post mentions hearing the story a month previous and that there were tons of cases. Surely if Ace got wind of multiple cases Politico would have as well. Convinces me even more that this a steaming pile: someone pushed it, finally found a rag willing to print it, and they’re waiting to see if it sticks and some woman shows up with a sexual harassment claim.
John_Locke on October 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM
This appears to be the real reason it was “revealed” to see if they can flush out someone to make a bonfide accusation or perhpas someone who is mentally unstable or money hungry enough…to then make a false allegation to then pitch and ty to say that Cain has a sexual problem…
RedLizard64 on October 31, 2011 at 4:52 PM
They keep backing a loser. Real Americans back a winner. To continue to back a loser is very distasteful to real Americans.
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on October 31, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »