« | »

AP Finds 3rd Cain Accuser – ‘Others Thrived’

From a giddy Associated Press:

Third Cain accuser emerges, 2 others thrived later

By JACK GILLUM and STEPHEN OHLEMACHER – Associated Press
November 3, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain faces accusations from a third woman, who considered filing a complaint against him over sexually suggestive remarks and gestures.

The allegations are similar to accusations of unwanted behavior that led to separate settlements in the late 1990s with two other women who went on to pursue successful careers after leaving the organization Cain once headed.

They are coming out of the woodwork, now. Just like the news media had hoped.

The latest allegations come from a woman who said in interviews with The Associated Press that Cain was aggressive and inappropriate with her, even extending a private invitation to his corporate apartment when she worked with him at the National Restaurant Association.

It sounds like she could just be parroting what she has read in the newspapers. But once again, it is sexual harassment to ask someone up to your hotel room. (Notice how the AP calls it his "corporate apartment" – which makes it sound more salacious.) Are we in Victorian times?

The woman said Cain’s behavior occurred at the same time two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against him while he was leading the association.

Cain was obviously on a tear. But, according to the New York Times, there was only one harassment settlement. The other was a "severance settlement."

Those two women, now the focus of an intensifying scrutiny after their settlements became public, moved on professionally and personally after their time at the restaurant association. One woman thrived in her pursuit of her communications career and the other moved up in positions focusing on political outreach and public policy

Yes, the woman from Maryland who got the $35,000 to leave the NRA, became a government flack. And the other woman, who is from New Jersey, became a lobbyist. Hurray!

Cain’s third accuser was located and approached by the AP as part of its investigation into harassment complaints against Cain that were disclosed in recent days and have thrown his presidential campaign into turmoil.

We suspect this woman contacted the AP. Otherwise, how would they have ever been able to locate her?

She spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying she feared losing her current job and the possibility of damage to her reputation

Besides, it’s a lot easier to accuse people of things anonymously.

The woman said she did not file a formal complaint against Cain because she began having fewer interactions with him. Later, she learned that a co-worker — one of the two women whose accusations have rocked Cain’s campaign — already had done so. She said she would have felt she had to file otherwise.

How convenient. But shouldn’t she have felt some kind of moral obligation to come forward with her charges if only to give support to her fellow victim?

She said Cain told her that he had confided to colleagues how attractive she was and invited her to his corporate apartment outside work. His actions "were inappropriate, and it made me feel uncomfortable," the woman said.

How outrageous. Mr. Cain should be executed for such criminal behavior.

The AP confirmed that the employee worked at the restaurant association with Cain during his time there, that she has no party affiliation in her voter registration in the past decade and that she is not identified as a donor in federal campaigns or local political campaigns. Records show she was registered as a Democrat at one point previously

What a shocking admission from the AP, albeit a roundabout one.

Meanwhile, another woman who worked with Cain at the restaurant association said, "I found him to be a good boss." Christina Howard, a former lobbyist for the association, said, "I felt no problem going into his office and asking for his advice."

She said she didn’t recall allegations about Cain during his tenure and added, "I’d roll my eyes at anyone who would make that allegation."

Isn’t it funny how this woman and all the others who are willing to go on the record have such a different take on Cain.

But Chris Wilson, a pollster who did work for the restaurant association during Cain’s tenure, said in an interview that he witnessed the businessman making inappropriate comments and gestures toward a young woman who worked for the group during a dinner at a hotel in Arlington, Va., in the late 1990s.

In fact, Wilson said no such thing, at least according to the audio clip of the interview.

The closest Wilson ever comes is when he says "I was around a couple of times when this happened." Which sounds like he was around the NRA at the time these accusations were being made. Not that he saw any harassment first hand..

Wilson declined to discuss more specifics without the woman’s permission, but said it was not one of the two women who settled complaints against Cain and it was not the third woman interviewed by the AP.

Again, Wilson never signed any confidentiality agreement. He could easily supply more details without naming the women involved.

Cain’s behavior with women was well known, Wilson said.

Except to everyone who worked with him at the NRA and elsewhere over the years, and who are willing to go on the record.

"I’m surprised that it hasn’t come up before," said Wilson, whose firm, Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research, does polling for a political action committee backing a Cain rival, Rick Perry.

What a coincidence.

Wilson said he has not been the source of information on the accusations against Cain…

But he probably wishes he had been.

The two women have declined dogged media requests to speak out, including requests from the AP.

That is how eager they are to get their side of the story out.

A lawyer for one of the women has said he will ask the restaurant association to lift a confidentiality agreement prohibiting comment after Cain insisted he did nothing wrong, suggesting that at least one of the women may have been terminated.

But he hasn’t asked them to do so yet.

But his client is having second thoughts, concerned about how the frenzied attention she’d probably receive will affect her career, her family and her life today, a person close to the situation said Wednesday.

Or that her claims might fall apart. Or they might have instances of other harassment, which would undermine their story.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the accusations and the fact that the incident has become public is very unsettling to the woman.

The AP confirmed the identity of the two women who received settlements but is not revealing their names.

The AP will always protect their own.

One of the women continued her education after earning her college degree. She has handled political outreach and fundraising in the private sector and for trade organizations.

Notice how nicely the AP tries to put the fact that she is a lobbyist.

The other woman earned her master’s degree before moving into her current communications career. She started a media career in Washington soon after graduate school, working in the private sector and in the federal government. She and her husband live in suburban Maryland…

She is a spokesperson for federal government agencies.

Associated Press writers Kasie Hunt, Brett J. Blackledge and Mark Sherman in Washington, writer Beth DeFalco in Trenton, N.J., and news researcher Judy Ausuebel in New York contributed to this report.

It took seven reporters to bring us this news.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, November 3rd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

30 Responses to “AP Finds 3rd Cain Accuser – ‘Others Thrived’”

  1. tranquil.night says:

    You’re cracking me up Steve.

    But at the same time it’s awful that your common sense in this case is so rare.

    I still don’t think Perry or Romney’s camp were directly involved, nor does it matter except that I don’t think it bodes well for either that nobody would be surprised to learn it was either of them. Especially Perry, on whom I’m holding back a rant for how much he’s blowing it with people.

    This is about, as always, media malpractice. We ultimately don’t know all the facts, never have, and yet the pundits devolved to the level of Hollywood gossip class two seconds after the story broke. When everyone sobers up here I hope more than a few publications are embarassed by the egg they have on their face.

    Chapter #3875 of America’s Decline.

    • jobeth says:

      What so idiotic to me is how they release the “news” and THEN investigate the story.

      A bit like selling the title of a book, before you write the details. But then I guess its juicier if you have time to make up the ‘facts’ as you go, to fit the title.

    • retire05 says:

      What we know, and don’t know:

      for a week, I have been reading conservative blogs and those that post on them, defending Herman Cain and railing on Politico for ever breaking the story. And while I have no respect for the bias of the left-wing press, there is such a thing as killing the messenger because you don’t like the message.

      So what do we really know?

      We know the Politico article broke on Sunday night, Oct. 30th. We know that the next morning, Herman Cain appeared on Fox, denying any part of the story, saying he didn’t know the outcome of the accusations that were levied against him. We know that by late afternoon, in his interview with Greta Van Sustern, Cain’s memory has suddenly become extremely aware of not only what he said happened, but that the “settlements” consisted of 3, maybe 2, months salary, more like a “severence pay” senario. So from not being able to recall very much of the incidents, Cain developed a very sharp memory.

      We also know that although we don’t like the messenger, or how they reported the message, the facts behind the article were proven, by Cain himself, to be valid; yes, there were two women who accused Cain of sexual improprieties and yes, there were settlements to their accusations. This much is undeniable.

      We also know this: the women themselves did not out the story. And we know they were contacted by Politico but refused to go public. When Herman Cain was on Greta’s show, he claimed that one of the women was a bad employee. Now, he had no documentation to back up that claim, and the statement was unnecessary. It was only after that that her lawyer appeared. You see, claiming someone was a bad employee, and indicating that was the reason for the “severence pay” is slander. In any slander case, you have to prove financial harm (think Valerie Plame’s case) and those kind of statements can affect a person’s ability for future employment, especially when made by such a high profile person as Herman Cain.
      Later, when the story was not going away, Cain, and his campaign manager, Mark Block, first accused Team Perry for leaking the story, then to add interest, accused Rahm Emanuel for leaking the story.

      So here is the bottom line: Mark Block should be immediately fired for his handling of this story. He, and Herman Cain, should have known this issue was going to come out, if not now, sooner or later. They should have been prepared, and been on the same page with responses. They were not. And never did get on the same page. On Thursday, Mark Block was on TV apologizing to Curt Anderson for blaming Anderson for the leak. At the same time, Cain was on the Hannity radio show, still making the same accusations that it was the Perry campaign, and Curt Anderson in particular, that leaked the story. This is not a well oiled campaign but a campaign that is not all on the same page and is in total disarray.

      None of us know the truth. Only Herman Cain, and the women involved know the truth. The women involved did not go public, and I don’t blame them. This was not of their making, and I am sure they wanted the story to go away just as much as Herman Cain does. The only truth we have is that the initial reporting by Politico, while designed to slam Cain, was basically correct in both facts, the accusations and the legal settlements. And only one party to this issue, Herman Cain, has been allowed to speak freely, saying whatever he wanted, with no demands that he prove his assertions. The women, on the other hand, have been bound by a confidentiality agreement that Cain did not sign and was not legally bound by.

      So here are so other things we do know: the women are obviously not looking for their 15 minutes of fame, and the money that would bring in, or their lawyers would have had agreements for interviews with salivating cable channels who would have been more than happy to pay them handsomly for their interviews. We also know that one woman made her assertions in July, 1999 (which was settled in Sept, 1999) while Cain left the National Restaurant Asssociation the very same month, before his contract was up with NRA, giving “personal” reasons for his departure.

      Here is my opinion on the whole broo-haha: Herman Cain, and his campaign, knew this would eventually come up. David Axelrod would have had no qualms digging this up to protect his candidate (remember Paul Ryan?). Cain, and his campaign, acted badly, first, not being on top of the issue, choosing, as Cain put it, to wait until the story broke. Team Cain was not coordinated in their responses, going from total denial, to the response evolving as the next 48 hours went on. Then Team Cain tried to direct the attention from the fact that Politico was basically correct (about the accusations and the settlements) by accusing another campaign of dirty politics with absolutely no proof of that claim.

      Cain should have requested that the NRA release all the documentation involving these allegations with the women’s names redacted. Since the NRA was in touch with the lawyer of at least one woman, that agreement could have been met. This would have allowed Cain to substantiate his claims of an internal investigation and the finding the accusation were “baseless.” Instead, Mark Block said that Cain would not do that. That left the women bound by the confidentiality agreement, but not Cain, as the week wore on. Yesterday, the NRA did give the woman’s lawyer permission to make a statement, a statement that the lawyer had consistantly said would be made through him.

      I do not blame these women for not wanting to go public. Would any of us want news channels parking their vans in front of our homes and the homes of our neighbors, digging through our trash, trying to interview our friends, co-workers, neighbors and family? Would any of us want this negative notoriety? I don’t thinks so. We would just want it to all go away.

      So now, an unsettled story, light on facts except for the ones I have already mentions, is left up to us to digest. It is left up to the voter to decide if this story actually has some legs, or was nothing burger. But there is one little thing that bothers me: Herman Cain has proven one thing, conservatives are not the racists that the lame stream media, and the Democrats, want to portray them as. That in itself, is an acheivement. Now the Cain PAC is running an ad, playing the race card much as Cain tried on Rick Perry and the “rock.” Cain should demand that ad be pulled immediately. For decades, conservatives have complained how the left plays the race card against us. It is no more acceptable because Herman Cain’s PAC is doing it. If Herman Cain is going to run on being an American, and not a BLACK American, he, and his PAC need to stick with that and not use the race card to garner sympathetic voters. Race has no place in conservative politics. Not now, not ever.

      Last summer, I was solidly in Herman Cain’s camp. But his history, and record, gives me no indication how he would govern as POTUS. For me, the stakes are too great to give the most powerful position in the world to another person who will have to go through on-the-job training because he has never held so much as a city councilman’s seat. Yes, Mr. Cain gives great speeches, but so does the current occupier of the Oval Office. That, for me, is not working out well at all. There is not one person on that debate stage with Mr. Cain that doesn’t have some kind of record for me to look at. That, for me, is important. You will have to make up your own minds on what you want in terms of a record. And for me, the fact that Herman Cain handled this scandal so badly, along with Mark Block who will serve as Cain’s David Axelrod, gives me pause as to how Cain will handle that 3:00 a.m. call as the Middle East most certainly will explode. i.e. I do not want someone to remodel my house (the nation) who has never worked as a carpenter and has no concept of construction principals.

      I thank all of you for reading what are only my personal opinions. I assume I should now say “Let the attacks begin.”

    • tranquil.night says:

      “We know that by late afternoon, in his interview with Greta Van Sustern, Cain’s memory has suddenly become extremely aware of not only what he said happened, but that the ‘settlements’ consisted of 3, maybe 2, months salary, more like a ‘severence pay’ scenario. So from not being able to recall very much of the incidents, Cain developed a very sharp memory.”

      This doesn’t necessarily implicate a lie. It might just indicate the camp finally got control of more of the details after it became clear that every word of every answer to every meticulous question was going to be finely parsed. Isn’t that everybody’s central complaint with Block? Cain himself, conceded this to Hannity while reflecting upon how they handled it. He put it on himself to understand that he needs to talk slower and choose his words wisely. But to the media who’re now criticizing his performance now that the original charge hasn’t stuck, the fact that he admits his errors will probably be piled on as a weakness now.

      Did you see the press conference of the accuser’s lawyer? He couldn’t answer a single question about his role in the case, “I don’t remember those details. It was 1999. I can’t remember.”

      C’mon.

      “We also know that although we don’t like the messenger, or how they reported the message, the facts behind the article were proven, by Cain himself, to be valid; yes, there were two women who accused Cain of sexual improprieties and yes, there were settlements to their accusations. This much is undeniable.”

      Hilarious when paired with what you say paragraphs later: “None of us know the truth. Only Herman Cain, and the women involved know the truth.”

      We don’t know the circumstances of the settlement severance agreements. We haven’t seen the outcome of the investigation as you know, so we don’t know if the agreements are even fully related to the original charges. Politico used anonymous sourcing to convince the court of populist opinion that he was guilty when they ultimately had no facts to judge on that specifically, nor did they make any real effort to seek out or examine the other side of the story before running with it.

      “We also know this: the women themselves did not out the story. And we know they were contacted by Politico but refused to go public.. and I don’t blame them. This was not of their making, and I am sure they wanted the story to go away just as much as Herman Cain does.”

      Then why did ‘they’ corroborate Politico’s story? We’re actualy down to only the one accuser who is now saying she wants to drop it – y’know, after her lawyer hit the media circuit saying she wants to speak but the evil NRA probably won’t waive the confidentiality agreement.. until they did and basically said ‘have at it champ.’

      C’mon.

      “So here are so other things we do know: the women are obviously not looking for their 15 minutes of fame, and the money that would bring in, or their lawyers would have had agreements for interviews with salivating cable channels who would have been more than happy to pay them handsomly for their interviews… Would any of us want news channels parking their vans in front of our homes and the homes of our neighbors, digging through our trash, trying to interview our friends, co-workers, neighbors and family? Would any of us want this negative notoriety? I don’t thinks so. We would just want it to all go away.”

      Somewhere along the way, we went from “what we know” to “what you think you know.” It was pretty much after you wrote your first sentence.

      Again, I wonder, if the accusers weren’t ready for the consequences of their story hitting the national circuit, maybe they should’ve just told Politico it was a private matter from the past and they didn’t want the issue reanimated for their own sake.

      There are plenty of non-benign explanations for the accuser(s) wanting to remain anonymous in this case. Steve has listed a few possibilities already. But don’t worry, should Cain become the nominee, we’ll all be hearing from her/them.

      “You see, claiming someone was a bad employee, and indicating that was the reason for the ‘severence pay’ is slander. In any slander case, you have to prove financial harm (think Valerie Plame’s case) and those kind of statements can affect a person’s ability for future employment, especially when made by such a high profile person as Herman Cain.”

      Oh, I do see. Dredging up a 12 year old private agreement and embellishing it without the necessary facts to make it look like someone’s guilty of what they were accused at the time: perfectly fine. Suggesting there were ulterior motives to the accuser at a moment when you’re being preemptively judged on a crime: slander.

      “Cain should have requested that the NRA release all the documentation involving these allegations with the women’s names redacted.”

      Now you’re just parroting Ezra. There’s a legal stigma attached to these agreements even if they’re not legal settlements. Going out and bringing public pressure to bare on an organization with which you’re no longer affiliated to break their own arranged agreements just because you’re in a political hot spot could actually have consequences. As you said, the NRA and the accuser’s lawyer were in communication, and the lawyer to my knowledge only sought to get the confidentiality agreement lifted – not the whole findings released – so if that’s true, does that tell us “something we know”? Maybe there’s something about the findings that doesn’t support their case? Maybe that’s really why she doesn’t want to talk now that she has permission, (after her lawyer claimed otherwise).

      My speculation is as valid as all of yours, and since this has become a situation where we’re all just clusterforking our own feelings without any real objective analysis going on, here’s my feelings:

      – They were mild remarks or gestures, innocent, friendly.
      – There was no sexual invitations or really anything overtly sexual about it, just like Politico originally reported (and had to slowly turn it into just short of rape because no one was believing them).
      – The two women, disgruntled with their jobs during the height of 90’s feminism, conspired to try and cash in on it, plus to add weight to the allegations since it wouldn’t be coming across as one-time. They took whatever the NRA’s HR department would play ball with in terms of an agreement.
      – Herman learned afterwards that he could never have a personal relationship with a woman in the public/professional world.
      – It probably sucked for him because he’s a naturally personable guy, but he spent his time from then on being extremely cautious and mindful of his behavior.

      That’s how I feel it played out. No, no, wait, that’s how I KNOW it played out.

      C’mon.

      Shoot the messenger? Nah, I’m pointing and laughing because Republican voters collectively just raised their middle fingers to the messenger this week.

    • proreason says:

      Cain is handling this horribly but his supporters have circled the wagons.

      I don’t hear much objectivity from his supporters either. They say there isn’t anything to the story, but 2 settled suits sounds more like something than nothing to me.

      Cain has changed his story too many times for my taste. The incidents probably weren’t anything egregious, so why the constant changes to the explanation?

      Newt is debating Cain right now. Newt handled his campaign crisis and has hung on and come back to be in a good position. He is more experienced than any of the candidates, has the best plans and is the best debater. My hunch now is that he is going all the way. If that happens, it would be almost as big a shock as Cain going all the way would be.

      One thing for sure, this campaign is a lot more interesting than 2008 was.

  2. JohnMG says:

    …..”Wilson said he has not been the source of information on the accusations against Cain…”

    Wilson’s the one who looks like a pervert.

    You should post a picture of this little dweeb, Steve. The clock is ticking and his fifteen minutes are just about up.

  3. Astravogel says:

    Oh, goody! The return of the Smoking Bimbos.
    Much more entertaining than the 20 Dancing Monkeys.

  4. BigOil says:

    Where there’s smoke – there’s the media furiously rubbing two sticks together.

  5. jobeth says:

    “It took seven reporters to bring us this news.”

    And so full of details too. Oh wait…what are they again?

    An unnamed woman accused Cain of and unnamed act of sexual harassment and her lawyer is about to have a stroke trying to get her to speak openly about it (so he can get his 15 mins, and so he can increase his legal fees in the future).

    Now…lets double that…2 unnamed women accused him of unnamed acts of sexual harassment. And also doesn’t want to dig it all up again now and is reluctant to speak publicly.

    This will never do. This whole farce might die on the vine unless someone actually goes public. Got it!!! Lets find a 3rd woman! Great idea!

    Damn!!! She won’t go public either!

    And the only ones that will go public only say he wouldn’t do it.

    Sounding more and more like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight! Don’t you jus’ love politics….

  6. The Redneck says:

    and have thrown his presidential campaign into turmoil.

    one of the two women whose accusations have rocked Cain’s campaign

    Just a little wishful thinking there…..

  7. sticks says:

    The politics of personal destruction, Anita Hill part 2000, the Palinization of Cain or Cain is being Borked. We could go on and on, these progressive liberal #$%@@^s are always the same. The feminazis don’t want to go public because they don’t want to be cross examined and exposed for who they truely are, lying slimy political hacks. I’d like to see them go public and get Dan Rathered.

  8. Mithrandir says:

    Damage has already been done BUT Cain can do a few things to help make this blow over:

    1. Shut up already! Give it a 1 week cooling off period. Keep stoking the flames, and it goes on for months.
    2. Arnold Schwartzenegger had the same media attack, and it didn’t affect his election. Didn’t stop Clarance Thomas either.
    3. Let the media flip-flop on their facts, they don’t have their story straight either.
    4. Compare himself to Obama, or any other Democrat that got elected despite MUCH WORSE.
    5. Stop blaming Perry. If all of this is the democrats creation, then they succeed in killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

    Every time the media asked me something, I would say, “Gee, it’s not like I sat in a bigot’s church for 20 years or something.” or “It’s not like I killed my mistress while drunk driving like Ted Kennedy.” —Watch the media run under the nearest rock every time you point out their heroes’ mistakes.

    • ezra says:

      “Gee, it’s not like I sat in a bigot’s church for 20 years or something.” or “It’s not like I killed my mistress while drunk driving like Ted Kennedy.”

      What? Is he running for Junior High Class President? He doesn’t strike me as enough of a prick to say anything like that.

      How about:

      When the fact (and the existence of the confidentiality agreement is the only fact that matters) emerged: “I screwed up.”

      And now: “I screwed up then and I screwed up again responding to the screw-up.”

      Keep it simple. Be humble. Hope people forgive you (they will). Move on.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Except he didn’t.

      Reread Steve’s comments because we all know debating you is pointless, Ezra.

      Tell your clique at WaPo that their gossip rag Politico failed to divert deflection away from the criminal in the White House again. :) Have a good one!

    • ezra says:

      Clique at WaPo? I assume you think that my handle relates somehow to Ezra Klein, or that I might be Ezra Klein. That is funny …

      Meanwhile, if you are a boss and an employee leaves and a confidentiality agreement is put in place regarding an incident that you were involved with, then you most certainly did screw up. Even if you screwed up only by agreeing to the confidentiality agreement instead of fighting the charge, you still screwed up.

      And I do not see where Steve reveals in his comments that the confidentiality agreement does not exist.

      Either way, Cain is in good company: He either got a little tipsy and made an inappropriate remark or he took some bad advice from his (or the NRA’s) lawyers.

      Why is it so important that he be found to have never made a mistake in his life? What is important is how you own up to your mistakes and move forward.

    • tranquil.night says:

      You’re making a conviction based on conclusions drawn from not just incomplete but downright vague data (and lots of unverified and flat out wrong gossip), that’s why. But who am I kidding, you’re Ezra and you know exactly what happened here. C’mon.

      Your point about the confidentiality agreement is incoherent. What about it exactly did he screw up? The part where he faced the media anal probing so he could try and defend himself? Did he screw up because he said too much or wouldn’t say enough, because I’ve heard it all from the Left this week, and it’s all been make believe, like always, Ezra not-Klein.

      Who cares who you are? Talk to one Leftist and you’re talking to them all because you collectively think the same – the same clique so to speak. I could care less if you were some turd in a basement getting minimum from Media Matters for your work popping in on wingnut blogs to stir it up every now and then.

    • ezra says:

      What about it exactly did he screw up?

      Holy cow. You don’t get it? None of us has any idea what actually happened, but the facts on the table are these: Cain was CEO of the NRA and was accused of sexual harassment. The NRA (whose CEO was Cain, remember) settled the dispute with no admission of liability, a confidentiality agreement and of course the $$$ we’ve all heard about.

      So I’m all for saying he did nothing wrong and that the women was a lesbo who is probably stinking up a tent in Zucotti Park about now. So if you are the CEO of the NRA and you did nothing wrong, you’re OK with this settlement? Is that a career highlight? IMO you’ve got to prosecute now, not a decade later when you’re running for president. A strong CEO who was in the right and has the trust of his board should not be rolled. THAT is a screw up, but one which could be forgiven if he would just fess up to it.

    • tranquil.night says:

      A legal settlement is different than a severance agreement. The agreement was made after he had left the organization, without his signature. It’s entirely possible that when asked about a settlement and he answered “If so I hope wasn’t for much because I didn’t do anything” that he didn’t know about the conditions of the final agreement. The known facts corroborate the idea that he denied the allegations, and after the investigation, the NRA agreed to a smaller payout than the overall cost and profile of seeing it go to litigation, even if the courts ultimately vindicated him.

      Nobody on the mainstream right has smeared the anonymous claimants. They’ve pro-offered the theory that they COULD smear them and then given examples of what Democrat standard operating procedure in this situation is.

      Which gets back to the question: how should Cain have handled this? Like Clinton? Bimbo machine? Edwards? Hide in a closet? Weiner?

      And who exactly do you think you’re speaking for when you say “Do ‘x’ and all will be forgiven.” Very curious, these powers you seem to have.

    • ezra says:

      Seriously? Look at the position the man has put you in: You are arguing, on the internet, on Friday night, that “a legal settlement is different than a severance agreement”. Everybody knows that the payment, made as it was in conjunction with a confidentiality agreement and given its size, is straightforward “hush money” aka “a bribe” aka “ransom”.

      The idea that Cain did nothing wrong, but that the time, expense, and/or embarrassment involved in fighting the allegations was deemed not worthwhile at the time is completely plausible. If that is the truth, maybe he should tell the truth?

      As for what to do, P.R. 101 applies here: You proactively and immediately divulge everything, every detail. This removes the oxygen from the media fire.

      Usually, when the rules of P.R. 101 are not followed, the antagonists have something to hide (e.g., your examples). Hopefully Mr. Cain is the exception that proves the rule.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “As for what to do, P.R. 101 applies here: You proactively and immediately divulge everything, every detail. This removes the oxygen from the media fire.”

      Actually, Democrat PR 101 in this situation is that you proactively and immediately divulge every detail (including that which you make up) about the accusers.

      And journalism 101 amounts to proactively finding as much detail before publishing your hit piece, err, sorry, news story. Not throwing it out there and expecting your hit to do the rest of the job of digging his grave for himself.

      Cain is expected to know every detail, but the accuser’s lawyer (the guy who wasn’t recused at the time of the case, y’know) couldn’t remember crap about it at the press conference he himself called.

      I would defend any Democrat who was being subjected to the politics of personal destruction under such vague facts. The only problem is that when Dims find themselves in this situation, the facts are never vague, and they’re always trying to cover them up. Point is with Cain it’s been 6 days and we have no definitive knowledge or way to judge whether he did what he’s accused or i f he is to be believed. Given that, and given all the outside factors: motives, patterns of behavior, etc, I am concluding that everyone who has lost all objectivity and is trying to take him down now are doing so on a political basis. Because no one knows, and yet everyone claims to know. And I made a promise as a Conservative voter to my candidates that if they lead on matters and in terms that we all knew were going to make them a target of the Political Establishment, that we would defend them and support them from any every attempt to subvert them – so long as to their values they are true. It is our contract with our politicians who resist the urge to step-in-line and instead dare to put themselves personally on the line for America and Conservatism as they do.

      It is a contract I take very seriously. I’m not going to see our people wrongly Palinized anymore if they haven’t done anything.

    • The Redneck says:

      Meanwhile, if you are a boss and an employee leaves and a confidentiality agreement is put in place regarding an incident that you were involved with, then you most certainly did screw up. Even if you screwed up only by agreeing to the confidentiality agreement instead of fighting the charge, you still screwed up.

      Somebody filed a blatantly frivolous lawsuit, and a company paid her a few thousand to shut her up and made her sign a confidentiality agreement so she couldn’t launch her lawsuit again later on. This is pretty standard for frivolous lawsuits; if you want somebody to fight the case every time somebody files a blatantly false lawsuit, the CEO is going to spend their entire life in court.

  9. GetBackJack says:

    Communist Goals/America, 1963 Senate Record

    17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

    18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

    19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

    20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

    21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

    22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

  10. tranquil.night says:

    Note to the ‘conservative’ blogosphere: you’re not the beginning or end of the Conservative Ascendency. It will continue, for better or worse, without you, and when Conservatives decide they no longer find your insights contributional, they will look for new voices – and they will find them.

    This isn’t about your pride, feelings, reputation or power within the movement. It’s about the state of the country. Rush is the leader of the pack becauss he’s earned that trust. But Republican voters will decide who their leaders are, not Rush, not Erick Erickson, not Dan Riehl, not PJM, not Karl Rove, Krauthammer, WaPo, Politico, not the old media, not the new media.

    If none of you like that, I recommend you take a long vacation and dedicate your life to something other than trying to persuade people of your alleged political expertise and/or journalistic integrity.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Since I’m on the topic, everybody in the new media that chose to had an historic opportunity to be involved in shaping the tone and tenor of this Primary, so as of now the sad state of this race and all of its “serious, viable cadidates” is in part a reflection on all of you, and it is quite embarassing considering by all counts this should be a landslide in the general.

      None of you were ready for primetime except Steve here, and he’s got a humble enough mind to understand how to be effective without seeking the personal spotlight.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Ace has been relatively fair, even while being critical of Cain’s overall campaign: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323346.php

      He frames this post in response to one of his regular commenters, but its on this premise that I seriously disagree with him: no mainstream Conservative spokesperson is defending Cain because we’re endorsing him.

      Nobody is trying to use this to sell the used car, and I find that characterization offensive from a typically objective thinker like Ace.

  11. chainsaw says:

    (If I may be so bold to suggest) Let’s all stay on point here and understand the real story. You see, it isn’t about what did or did not happened 12 or 20 years ago, it’s the 1,450,000 bing hits or 1,240,000 google hits one gets when typing in “herman cain accuser”. The story on the story is the fascist media’s goal.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Damn straight, cs. 50+ television stories in 5 days. 90+ from Politico.

      If this is really how they want the rules of engagement to be, they genuinely need to think about the precedent they’ve set when it comes to their own.

      But for now the MBM is retreating, and I’m thoroughly over it; I don’t know about you.

  12. retire05 says:

    tranquil.night,

    do you deny that the originial points of the Politico story were that Cain had been accused by two women of sexual harassment, and that there were “settlements.” Do you deny that Cain himself verified those facts?

    Everything else is peripheral spin, both on the part of Politico, and Herman Cain. Cain in the one case, was not bound by the non-disclosure agreement. The National Restaurant Association said as much. So Cain was free to spin and relate the events as he saw fit, while the women were bound to the NDA. How does that provide you with the truth? It doesn’t.

    The lawyer never said his client wanted to speak out PERSONALLY. He said, from the git-go that she wanted to issue a statement, through him. For her to even do that, she had to have the permission of the NRA. If you read the NRA’s statement, it gives her the authority to “make a statement”, NOT to go public as in personal appearances.

    I understand you are trying to defend Cain. But shouldn’t you be able to prove that he was at least telling the truth before you bash the women involved? And you can’t do that, can you?

    One question for you; would you be this defensive if it was Harry Reid, and not Herman Cain?

    • tranquil.night says:

      Well seeing as how you’re arguing on behalf of the prosecution, I’d say the burden of reasonable doubt is yours to overcome. If Dingy Harry were facing these circumstances, I would defend him at this point in what is known. As it is, there’s plenty of Dingy doings to which Harry is linked that are hardly blips on the public radar.

      I do not deny that there was a settlement severance agreement, or that Cain admitted as much. The premise with which I disagree is that the agreement constituted an admission of guilt, thus we are automatically to assume he is evading that guilt now through spin.

      The NRA lifted the confidentiality agreement, she made her statement: she doesn’t want to revist it. So, end of story for the public, but by no means for her. Politico has her name. We all know she’s out there. They’ll get her eventually, especially if Cain’s the nominee.

      And if she testifies, if that internal investigation comes out with damning information, then the man will rightly be held to account by those who’ve supported him. I’m not going to convict him when the evidence isn’t there. This why we have a court of law outside populist judgment.

    • chainsaw says:

      With all due respect retire05, until more real information is presented, this “breaking story” belongs in the same file as the Michele Bachmann uses mystical powers to genetically alter gays into being straight. I’m not sure where I saw it but the LSM(MBM) actually asked some doctor if genetically altering a human was possible. If that doesn’t convince you, how about the story about melting icecaps flooding Manhattan?

      News is agenda driven. Again, it ain’t about the real story, it’s called propaganda and it’s most effective when enough holes are left open, facts left out, and the reader fills them in. Are you going to be that reader who fills in the blanks with what you think may be? Sharing your opinion on what may or may not have happened suggests such. Don’t be a pawn.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »