The Cain Sexual Harassment Journey (Part 2)

posted at 2:10 pm on November 1, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
[ Elections ]   

The day after this story broke, I published the first piece in this series, Early Thoughts on the Herman Cain Sexual Harassment Story. In it, I pointed out that there were still a lot of questions to be answered and it wasn’t going to evaporate overnight. Now we have some of those answers, but keep your seatbelts fastened and your tray back tables in the full upright position, because this ride is still far from over. We have, however, obtained enough information to confirm some of our initial speculations, answer a few questions and get a good idea of what’s left that we need to know. The biggest shift at this point is that the real debate may turn out to be less about what Cain is alleged to have done more than a decade ago – at least for now – and more about the incredibly poor response to the story by the candidate and his staff.

First, to the original facts of the case. At the conclusion of my original piece, I asked the question as to whether or not Politico “had the goods” on this and I posited that they did. This question is now definitively settled and has been confirmed – repeatedly – by the candidate himself. There was at least one woman – and nearly certainly two – who made accusations of sexual harassment. This led to to charges being raised, an investigation and a payment being made which included a non-disclosure agreement. These were the items that Politico reported, and their original article went to great lengths to point out that they were “allegations” and that they involved gestures, comments, etc., and not physical contact or any sort of affair. What they reported has turned out to be the facts.

If you are one of the people still clinging to blaming Politico for this, describing it as a “smear” and the rest of the responses I’m seeing, you’re off base. When a person runs for the presidency, if there are documents such as these lurking out there – particularly involving a case where a payout resulted from it – that’s news. It’s going to be reported. To deny this you have to either be such a partisan supporter of the candidate that you won’t allow any non-positive reporting or so new to this process that all I can say is, “Welcome to politics. Hope you enjoy your stay.”

Calling what Politico did a “smear” would be no different than Democrats saying the press “smeared” Eliot Spitzer for noting that he cavorted with prostitutes. It’s not a nice thing to say about anyone, but if it happened… it’s news.

But as I alluded earlier, the bigger story for the time being is really the response by the candidate and his staff. (I specify “for the time being” because this wound could still be ripped open further if any new developments or additional allegations emerge on the heels of this.) The handling of this by Team Cain over the first 36 hours has been nothing short of abysmal, and the candidate himself has probably done the most damage.

In a very short period of time, Herman Cain did what can only fairly be called a complete reversal in his story, contrary to the well intentioned protests from his supporters. The candidate went from saying that he had no knowledge of any such settlement, and he “hoped” that the payout wasn’t very large, to saying that he was aware of some sort of payment, to providing details of what he thought the payment might have been. (This was all in the same day after he’d been given ten days notice to prepare, but more on that below.) This culminated on Tuesday morning with an interview with Robin Meade on CNN Headline News Morning Express where he made a truly floundering attempt to claim that he was answering the questions correctly based on the difference between a “settlement” and an “agreement.”

This was one of the most transparently evasive moments of the entire saga. Even for those of you claiming that Cain is such a keen legal eagle that he was drawing a proper legal distinction between the terms, (and it’s already starting) the problem should be clear. Were that the case, Cain knew that he was talking to reporters feeding a general audience, not grading somebody’s LSAT essay. Even under those circumstances, the proper answer might have been, “There was no settlement that I know of, but there was an agreement by the board which resulted in a payment to end this matter, even though the complaint had no merit.”

By failing to point that out, Cain demonstrated that he was uncomfortable with the answer and was attempting to hide the facts of the case. It was a bad move, and Herman Cain emerged from the exchange carrying a lot of wounds, mostly self-inflicted.

That’s less than weak tea. It comes across as a stereotypical politician trying to parse words to cover up what he didn’t want to say previously. It doesn’t rise quite to the level of “it depends what you mean by is” but it’s not far off. In fact, Ed Morrissey touched on this briefly this morning, but as I told him earlier, that seems like a bit of a whitewash to me. Cain may not have recalled all of the details the moment he heard it, but over the last week and a half he certainly could have dredged them up rather than acting like all of these memories came flooding back in a four-hour period on Monday. Cain has also attempted to make precisely that “memory loss” defense, but it rings completely hollow in my ears.

One of the other defenses being foisted is that Cain “isn’t a politician” and should therefore not be held to the same standards. (For reference, see Chris Barron’s piece today where he makes precisely this charge, as well as sticking to the “smear” line of attack and the memory loss defense.) Perhaps so. But he has hired professionals including Mark Block. Block was on TV two hours before Cain on Monday morning peddling a story saying he was “not personally aware” of any such charges ever being raised. This was obviously a clearly calculated defense strategy which had been worked out and they both wound up looking incompetent and shifty when Cain scuttled his assertions a mere two hours later. Perhaps Cain didn’t know any better, but Block absolutely should have. The man should be fired for – if nothing else – complete incompetence in handling this response. (Unless, of course, he was overruled by the candidate, in which case Herman Cain carries all the weight for it himself.)

All of these botched responses, stonewalling and arguing over semantics make Cain look shifty and evasive. Given ten days notice, if he had simply come out Monday morning and said that yes, in fact, a scurrilous suit had been brought against him a decade ago and had been rapidly debunked and dispatched with a small severance payment, the matter would be dead and gone. Instead, this amateurish handling of a breaking story which they knew about ages before it hit has damaged his credibility and raised suspicions where none need have been found.

And if all of this isn’t enough for Cain to show Mark Block the door, the already unfolding story of his non-profit and it’s alleged financial ties to the campaign should finish the job. That story isn’t getting nearly as much play yet because campaign finance charges aren’t as sexy as the current tale, but it’s in progress and could get very serious. Block seems to have been nothing but trouble for Cain thus far.

I don’t think this will be the final installment in the series. There are still a number of whispers out there and there may be additional details on the investigative agenda which are still too green to pick from the tree. Time alone will tell, and this may not sway enough of Cain’s supporter to derail his run at the nomination, but none of this looks good.

Blowback