Did Herman Cain Harass Ace of Spades?

Posted on | November 9, 2011 | 61 Comments

Ace hasn’t made that accusation, but why else is he hating Herman Cain with the heat of a thousand suns?

I’ve made no bones — I think Cain is a godawful candidate, woefully uninformed, and, when confused, showing a tendency to offer up liberal, not conservative, guestimates as to the right answer. . . .
For some reason, some people are determined that this is the godawful candidate we have to go the mattresses for.
Why? We have ten other godawful candidates. What’s so special about this godawful candidate?

You can see the depths of the hate Ace has for Cain in that he’s doing the “second look at Gingrich” thing that all the Cain-haters have been doing ever since Cain zoomed to the top of the polls five weeks ago.

Ace deserves credit for being absolutely up-front about his Herman-hating, and having explained it in exhaustive detail, which is more than some other anti-Cain pundits have bothered to do. Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove, among others, are being gutless weasels about their anti-Cain attitudes.

So . . . second look at Gingrich? Not just no, but hell, no.

Newt won’t do, and everybody knows it deep in their hearts. The recent Newt boomlet won’t last, because there is a definite ceiling on Newt’s support, and that ceiling will prove lower than the 25% that Romney’s been stuck with for months.

There is something distinctly pathetic in the attempt to inflate the Newt boomlet into an actual boom, to pretend that we’ll see Gingrich on the stage in Tampa next August accepting the GOP presidential nomination. “Ain’t gonna happen,” to borrow a phrase from He Whom Ace Hateth.

What the Newt boomlet represents is the frantic desperation of those Anybody But Romney conservatives who jumped aboard the Rick Perry bandwagon in August, when it looked like the Smilin’ Texan Express was a one-way ticket to glory. After the Perry bandwagon ran into the ditch, and Cain zoomed skyward as the unexpected beneficiary of the Smilin’ Texan’s collapse, the Perrybots spent five weeks making elaborate arguments about Why Cain Can’t Win.

And they can’t back down from that contention, because backing down would compel them to admit they misjudged the political landscape, which would undermine their prestige as pundits, an irretrievable disaster for the Know-It-All Brigade.

Here we are now, Nov. 9. It has been 46 days since Cain won the Sept. 24 Florida Straw Poll, and it is 55 days until the Iowa caucuses. It has been 10 days since the first sexual harassment story ran in Politico on Oct. 30 and . . .

Cain is still winning — 25.2% in the RCP average to Romney’s 23.3%, with Gingrich at 12.2% and Perry at 10.2%. The most recent poll (Gallup/USA Today) shows a dead heat, Cain and Romney with 21% each. And as I said a couple of weeks ago, sooner or later victory becomes its own argument.

“Cain can’t win.” He’s winning.

“Cain can’t survive this scandal.” He’s still standing.

Bloodied but unbowed, this “godawful candidate, woefully uninformed” has one great advantage: He never read the Official Political Campaign Rule Book that explains why he’s supposed to lose, and why this scandal is supposed to destroy him.

Meanwhile, here’s your Karen Kraushaar headline round-up:

A Second Accuser Goes Public Against Cain
— New York Times

Karen Kraushaar calls
Herman Cain ‘a serial denier’
— CNN

Karen Kraushaar, second Cain accuser
wants ‘joint press conference’
— Reuters

Karen Kraushaar ‘had to leave
her job because of Herman Cain’
as new sex harass accuser comes forward
— NY Daily News

Karen Kraushaar now wants to go
public with other women with
allegations against Herman Cain
— Washington Post

Assuming that the parade of accusers is finite, assuming that we will not be disccusing Accuser #11 and Accuser #12 this time next week, Tuesday’s press conference may prove to be the turning point, the high-tide of the “scandal” tsunami which gradually begins to recede. If so, it will fade away in the rearview mirror after Thanksgiving and by Dec. 3 — with one month to go until the Iowa caucuses — the campaign narrative shifts. If Cain reaches early December still at or near the top of the polls, his survival will be the story: Here is the guy who stood up to the Politics of Personal Destruction and lived to tell the tale.

“If” is a very tricky word, of course. But I haven’t yet abandoned plans to become the Ambassador to Vanuatu. And if Ace of Spades says he was sexually harassed by Herman Cain — well, Ace was askin’ for it.

You know what they say: Once you go ewok, you never go back.

BTW, Herman Cain’s “Iowa Fund” money-bomb — with the goal of raising $999,000 in online contributions by Nov. 9 — hit its goal 26 hours ahead of schedule and has already exceeded $1 million.

Category: Election 2012, Herman Cain

Comments

61 Responses to “Did Herman Cain Harass Ace of Spades?”

Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 7:34 am

/rolls eyes

I was originally excited to see Perry get into the race. Experienced, successful governor with a conservative reputation. His performance was appalling.

But that doesn’t mean that I have to like Cain does it? There are a lot of things I do like about him. But there are things I don’t like about him. Just like–to pick a name at random–Perry.

Given the candidates, whomever I vote for will involve a little bit of holding my nose, because Mr Perfect just ain’t out there. I don’t live in Iowa or New Hampshire, so my vote will likely end up being effectively decided by those early primaries. Last time around, I didn’t even vote in the Republican Primary, so I got to vote against Obama twice in 2008. I’ll have to settle for once this time around.
AngelaTC
November 9th, 2011 @ 7:43 am

Totally with you on the hell no to Newt thing. The only plus I could see about him winning would be seeing Romney lose out on his “rightful place.” Maybe that would finally wipe that smirk off of his face.
Dave
November 9th, 2011 @ 7:45 am

Keep your eye on the ball. The important thing is that Romney loses.
ThePaganTemple
November 9th, 2011 @ 7:48 am

I agree with a lot of what Ace says, but some of those things I don’t see as a negative. For example, all those little Democrat babies aren’t going to abort themselves, they need good leftist mothers and fathers to be able to make that decision free of government interference.
rosalie
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:07 am

I agree that Mr. Perfect isn’t out there, but I thought Ms. Perfect was out there.
Blaster
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:07 am

I don’t have an ambassadorship lined up so Cain is not my guy, but it just annoys me when those on the Right join those on the Left I their critiques of those on the Right. It’s why I dislike that other McCain. If you don’t like Cain, that’s fine, but don’t play with the Lefts ball to do it.

Like calling Palin stupid. Leave that to them.
Bosun349
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:13 am

Godawful is right. The level of flailing is phenomenal.

Even though people who worked with him are standing up and accusing him publicly, Cain has blamed the accusations on everyone BUT the people who are actually accusing him — while admitting he has no evidence to back up his own wild and contradictory accusations that both the Democrats AND Rick Perry are orchestrating a racist “conspiracy” against him.
Now Cain campaign manager Mark Block is claiming that the Cain campaign has “connected the dots” between Karen Kraushaar and Politico by “confirming” that Karen is the mother of former Politico reporter Josh Kraushaar. Josh is completely unconnected and unrelated to Karen, it turns out, but that’s no obstacle to incompetence on the scale of the Cain campaign.Cain’s only response to Sharon Bielak so far is that he can’t remember her. Heh. Cain initially pretended he had no memory of the settlements, so you know what that’s worth.The fact that pundits and reporters continue to describe Cain as a “tell-it-like-it-is” kind of candidate despite his current dissembling is just another example of the depravity of TV news.
Erik McA
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:13 am

I’ll tell you what, this is my first political campaign and I’m severely disappointed by the right. I knew the left was going to be harsh, but the right is nasty.

Anyways, here’s another AP article on the serial “I’m going to sue you” Kraushaar http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/cain-accuser-filed-complaint-in-next-job/
TWB
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:20 am

I think Dan Riehl hates him more than Ace. Dan’s blog is bordering on some sort of obsession with his hatred of Cain.
TWB
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:21 am

The “really” important thing is that Obama loses.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:31 am

Voting for a candidate almost always involves holding one’s nose. The point RSM is making is that, okay, criticize Cain, but then who’s the alternative? Some folks are still weighing their options, but ultimately they must make a choice. The remainder of this comment is directed at those of us who are leaning in one direction or another, but maybe aren’t admitting it . . .

I’m very skeptical about these allegations against Cain, but even if I knew they were true, Cain would still be a better option than Romney, Bachmann, or Gingrich. At that point, I might have to take another look at Perry, but I’d be “holding my nose” while doing so.

What’s annoying isn’t that people are criticizing Cain; it’s that (now semi-closeted) Perry supporters seem to spend much of their time attacking Cain, only occasionally criticizing Romney (and usually only after a Cain supporter attacks Romney first and the semi-closeted Perry supporter doesn’t want to be confused as a Romney supporter).

Look, it’s okay if you still support Perry, who is not out of the race by any means (in the 2008 primary campaign, John freakin’ McCain was still counted for dead at this stage of the process). But stop being so clandestine about it – trust me, it doesn’t endear anyone into coming around to Perry or some other candidate. Moreover, anyone who piles on Cain during this smear campaign is not doing themselves any favors, either.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:36 am

Who is your preferred candidate?
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:47 am

Thanks for the link. It looks like Kraushaar is a serial sexual harassment accuser. If you were her boss, reviewing one of her written reports, and you told her that her margins were too fat, she’d lodge a complaint to HR.
Doc Clear
November 9th, 2011 @ 8:53 am

You know… I liked Cain but thought him unwinnable just because of name recognition. I was excited to hear Perry getting into the race. I was disappointed and still hold against the candidates who Gardasiled him and took a left approach to bringing him down. Michelle Bachman is someone who I went from having respect to down right disliking and thinking she’s totally ignorant. Romney fights just like I thought he would since he IS a Liberal.

What I started to notice with Perry was this certain wife beater appearance where he would do anything to silence or one up the other person. His demeanor changed and once smilin Rick became fightin Rick he pretty much not only lost my vote but my respect too. I’ve noticed that there are a lot of blogs that used to be my favorites who have adopted his fighting style. They’ll do whatever it takes to try and make smilin Rick come back. You can look back and many of the same people were doing this to O’Donnell. Same with Palin.

Dan Riehl should know better since he was such a huge Palin fan. But, I guess after spending a few years outside the Malkin created circle (hot air and their special lap dogs), he figures it’s better stickin the knives that getting stuck.

This is not vetting a candidate. This is slandering a candidate. Wait till the primaries are over and these bloggers/talking heads don’t get who they wanted. They will O’Donnell them and bring up everything they can to slander and oppose them. Once Obama walks away with it they’ll be back trying to smooth things over by telling us how awful our candidate was.

I’ve thought it over on how to try and ‘punish’ this behavior on our side and so far the only ‘legal’ way I can see is just don’t go to their sites. Stacey, I appreciate hearing it every now and then about them, but why give the hits? I know they’re the big fish and maybe you can get some by starting a fight, but they’re dead to me. One day it’ll catch up to them once people start to realize how destructive this behavior is and it may be next year. Hopefully they’ll end up like LGF because they’re almost twins.
Dave
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:01 am

If Obama loses, but Romney wins, we (conservatives) have still lost. First things first.
Garym
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:05 am

Ace is a blowhard beta male.
Bob Belvedere
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:07 am

I got the same impression too.

Having worked in government for over thirty years, I’ve seen this type of person a number of times. It’s as almost if they spend their time looking for excuses to be offended.
Zilla of the Resistance
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:18 am

Screw the drive-by media and the self proclaimed ‘smart people’, they’ve been working my last nerve for years. Go Herman!

NY’s primary is later than most, so my vote really won’t count, but I would like to see Herman Cain win, because that will be a big giant nail each in the leftist media & GOP RINO machine coffins.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:24 am

I sympathize with your sentiments, but we need to be very careful in differentiating between constructive criticisms and fruitful but sometimes punishing internal debates on the one hand versus the petty, self-destructive, weak (illogical) stuff on the other hand.

And sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference – we might not know whether a criticism and/or tirade is constructive, prescient until several months or even years down the road. It’s especially important that we humble ourselves when we start to feel that righteous anger.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:36 am

But what’s the upside to attacking Romney? Do you think the Romney-esque wing of the party is going to go all Tea Party?

No, the primary has boiled down to the Romney and the not-Romney vote. Perry got tons of scrutiny when he was the front runner (rightfully so). Now it’s Cain’s turn. The campaign’s response is all over the place. His press conference was good, but then Block goes all Politico conspiracy again and makes himself and his boss look like fools.

I’d rather be criticizing 9-9-9 than dealing with these allegations (9-9-9 is the Fair Tax’s red headed step child, and I never bought the Fair Tax to begin with). Amateur hour is over, or should be. It’s OK to not be a professional politician (though with Romney claiming not to be one, we can’t even agree on the definition of that!), but you should still be professional.

This is the fundamental tension of primary campaigns. We’re all basically on the same side, but it’s easy to go overboard in the fight in the heat of the moment. We all thought (hoped?) for the bitterness between Obama and Clinton would work to our advantage in the general, but the Dems unified and got their act together.

The only way I see a real unity problem for the general is with a 3rd party challenger like we had in 92 (yes, even if Romney gets the nod). Even while some dead enders vote for next year’s Bob Barr. Here in the real world, outside of RDFs, that just leads to two terms for Obama.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:37 am

You’re right. However, there’s also the potential advantage of this sort of thing being old news for the general election.
DaveO
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:43 am

Favorite response from Ace, regarding Toure:

“Um, given that I’ve been in a bitter argument with the people he’d like to brand as racially bigoted for like a week, and they’re reloading, not retreating,…” http://ace.mu.nu/

Reloading, not retreating. Heh!
Mike Rogers
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:46 am

The more I see and hear Newt, the more I like him, but I do agree that he won’t secure a sufficient plurality to get the nomination. Even more reason to support a Cain-Gingrich ticket, where the nation will get the best of both men’s capabilities.
Meanwhile, Cain’s accusers are coming unraveled faster than a cheap skirt, with even the AP reporting that Karen Kraushaar is a serial accuser who seizes on the smallest ‘slight’ to file a complaint:
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-accuser-filed-complaint-next-job-080946066.html
Or see my collected ramblings over at http://www.granitegrok.com
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:48 am

Scrutiny is fine. To some extent, however, reactions on “our side” to the smear campaign against Cain are not at all constructive. Sometimes, they’re even self-destructive. I try not to psychologize politics, especially not political IDEAS, but it’s almost like there’s a Stockholm Syndrome element to it.

Forget about Cain, the candidate, for a minute. Why does our side participate in its own marginalization? What are our most important, higher-level or “big picture” goals and are we operating as if those goals are vitally important to us? Right now, it doesn’t seem like it.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:53 am

Two seconds after seeing a picture of Kraushaar, I was thinking, “yep, I know that (type of) chick. I’ve seen dozens of ’em.” Who she is, it was written all over her face.

At the same time, I was afraid that I was seeing what I wanted to see. Nope, I was right.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:58 am

My personal favorite so far is the accuser from US Aid. What, they couldn’t find an accuser who works for MoveOn.org or Code Pinko?
Bob Belvedere
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:11 am

Same here and I had the sound muted. I rewound the story and had my hunch confirmed. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve met this type of creature up here in the Nor-East.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:13 am

It’d be interesting if someone ran a quick and dirty “study” that looked at large cross-section of organizations from the 1990s and calculated a sort of “per capita” average of sexual harassment complaints lodged against CEOs and other executives.

I don’t know, maybe we’d expect that, for any given executive, given a certain number of employees with which he came into contact, that X-number of complaints would be lodged within a certain period. Perhaps the number of complaints lodged against Cain during his tenure at NRA (two, as far as I know) do not deviate from the expected range to an extent that is statistically significant.

It’s possible that there is liklihood that ANY former CEO from the 1990s would have been the subject of such complaints.
Edward
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:17 am

Still not knowing what the hell Cain is supposed to have done to Kraushaar.

Frankly I don’t get why you like referring to Ace so much. Ever since he started getting hired as a political advisor/consultant he’s been a complete asshat.

But that’s the great thing about Ace I suppose. Once a campaign buys him, he stays bought. So he’s a political whore. But a loyal one.
Joe
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:17 am

If you think Ace is bad, go check out Dan Riehl. He is channelling some Andrew Sullivan lately–which is a very scary thing.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:22 am

Actually, I don’t think Ace is that “bad.” He seems to agree with many of my criticisms of Cain (from what I’ve seen), though I’m not as, er, vehement about it or anything, nor quite as critical. But then, my livelihood isn’t dependent upon page views or anything. And the “heat of a thousand suns” is kinda his schtick. Not unlike RSM unloading on his favorite targets.

Though I suppose Ace and I are going through the same sort of process. Namely, “OK, the guy I thought was gonna be my choice hasn’t won me over. Now what?”
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:24 am

I can totally relate. Actually, at the risk of getting sappy here – when I read the “about Bob” section of your blog, I was amazed at the similarity of our backgrounds, interests, etc.

Maybe I’m the midwestern Bob Belvedere (although I now live in the south). I used to make fun of the Nor-East, but then look at what happened in Ohio last night . . .
Joe
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:24 am

I concede Cain has some serious flaws as a candate. Mark Block does not engage in basic fact checks before making statements. Hermain does have a tendency to get flustered in interviews and when you run for President I disagree you have to be a policy wonk (Romney lives for wonkdom) but you do need to answer basic questions about government. This is a job interview. So they both make legitimate points.

Of course, who care what Ace and Dan think…Clint Eastwood likes Hermain Cain! So how are those apples? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/08/clint-eastwood-likes-herman-cain-best-amongst-gop-candidates?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Joe
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:24 am

That is not true. It is just not as big a win. Replacing Obama with even Romney is a win.
Bob Belvedere
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:26 am

God works in mysterious ways. For some reason he planted you in the mid-West and me in the Nor’East. I’d be interested to see the Left Coast version.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:27 am

What do they call a young lady or man who’s on the receiving end of a sugar daddy/mommy?
Rob Crawford
November 9th, 2011 @ 10:40 am

Ace hates everyone who dares run for office without being a professional, life-long politician. Because Ace thinks one of those professionals might hire him.

And he’s a bigot.

Mostly the bigot thing.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 11:06 am

It’s a lose win situation. If Mittens wins the nomination and the presidency Republicans lose conservatives. The clarity that brings is the positive win.

Sarah Palin not running, Bachman self immolating (and was never really a reasonable shot) Ron Paul is, and Rick Perry forgot where he put the landmines. This blank wont do movement sounds more and more like a Romney will have to do movement.
Dave
November 9th, 2011 @ 11:13 am

It’s okay not to be a carreer politician. It is not okay to not be a professional politician. Every single person elected president since before 1900 has either previously held high elective office (senator, governor, or VP) or been the commanding general of a major theater of a major war; the only one who’s even been nominated without that qualification was Ford (and he was president at the time). The presidency is not a job for political neophytes.
rosalie
November 9th, 2011 @ 11:14 am

I don’t think Romney will beat O.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 11:16 am

Though we all dread it, Romney isn’t a fait accompli. It’s not necessarily imperative that the not-Mitt faction has completely come together before voting starts. The early primaries will not be winner take all (as I understand it), so even if Mitt has a delegate lead, it won’t be a majority.

By the later primaries, if a single not-Mitt candidate can consolidate the not-Mitt-vote (and, let’s be honest, the not-Ron-Paul-vote), he would have a pretty good shot at overcoming any early Romney lead. Of course, Mitt could generate enough momentum that some of the not-Mitt vote gets squishy, and we do end up with him.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 11:17 am

That’s fair, but I think there’s a credible argument that O could beat any of them at this point. He’s not going down without a fight.
Susan Ally
November 9th, 2011 @ 11:27 am

Why take the advise from a chicken-little man who hides his identity in a closet fearful his Liberal friends will find out who he is all the while believing Rush Limbaugh is out to get him. Who cares what this Ace thinks, he’s a chicken-little man hiding his identity in a closet. Contrary to Little Green Aceball, at least when Charles Johnson had his melt-down he wasn’t hiding himself.

I would agree with the comment that he’s a bigot, this he is quite open.
Red
November 9th, 2011 @ 11:43 am

So we find ourselves stuck at square one indefinitely? Sounds like we are no further ahead then when we were all bitching about Obama back in ’08. What the hell people? There is no perfect candidate. It looks like we are all going to have to agree on who “the other guy” is going to be so we can get Obama out of the House.
jwillmoney
November 9th, 2011 @ 11:59 am

Ace is not a bigot. Why don’t people just read what he’s saying about Cain? He’s very worried that if Republicans actually nominate Cain (not likely I admit) that you GUARANTEE Obama 4 more years. It’s really that simple.

BTW, it’s not just Ace. Instapunk has a very good piece on why Cain shouldn’t be the nominee. Ends the article with his assessment of everyone who thinks Cain should be the nominee…. “No apologies. You’re a fuckin’ idiot.”

Do we really want the most important election in our lifetime to be between two know-nothing candidates like Cain & Obama?? I’m not looking at Cain’s skin color when I say he comes off like Admiral Stockdale with a book deal. Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Cuomo, etc. would wipe the floor with this guy on a daily basis. He’d get ANNIHILATED in a debate with Obama (much worse than Obama would get smoked in a debate with Gingrich). He might be the only candidate that makes Smokin’ Joe Biden (Joe Biden!!) look wonkish & scholarly… YIKES!!
andycanuck
November 9th, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

At CPAC in 2007 I witnessed Cain say Ace had nice jugs. Cain denies this to this day although he did admit Ace was wearing a provocative D&D T-shirt at the time.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 12:41 pm

+1 Internets.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

Wrong. Clorox dipped Obama: All the bad policy but with that tasty “bipartisan” coating on the crap sandwich.
Anonymous
November 9th, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

Ike’s role in WW2 was more political than military.
Ten
November 9th, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

“Newt won’t do, and everybody knows it deep in their hearts”

Right, and thus you are to Newt what Ace is to Cain.