Sunday’s original widespread suspicion that the Rick Perry campaign was responsible for the “oppo” hit at Politico appears to be shared by many others, including the target himself:
In the summer of 2003, Cain recalls briefing Anderson—his general campaign consultant at the time—that sexual harassment claims were brought against him while he was chairman of the National Restaurant Association from 1996 to 1999.
“I told my wife about this in 1999 and I’ve got nothing to hide,” Cain told me Wednesday. “When I sat down with my general campaign consultant Kurt Anderson in a private room in our campaign offices in 2003 we discussed opposition research on me. It was a typical campaign conversation. I told him that there was only one case, one set of charges, one woman while I was at the National Restaurant Association. Those charges were baseless, but I thought he needed to know about them. I don’t recall anyone else being in the room when I told him.” …
Aside from knowing about the alleged sexual harassment accusations, Cain campaign officials point to the timing of Anderson’s hiring by Perry as evidence of his involvement. The campaign announced Anderson’s role on October 24, just a week before Politico broke the story.
Related headlines:
Cain Faults Perry as More Allegations Emerge
— New York Times
Cain accuses former adviser Curt Anderson
— Politico
Cain Camp Accuses Perry Campaign
of Leaking Sexual Harassment Claims
— Fox News
Perry Backer Says He Witnessed Cain
Harassment, Cain Blames Perry Staffer
— Business Insider
Perry Pollster Worked for Restaurant
Association at Time of Cain Allegations
— The Weekly Standard
Regarding Herman Cain: It’s Not
Racism. It’s Opposition Research.
— Erick Erickson, Red State
In that last item Erickson is essentially defending his candidate, saying that even if this was an oppo job by his buddies on Team Perry, Republican voters should not blame his buddies for doing it. But this is still merely a hypothetical. We have only suspicion at this point, and even if there is evidence that appears to support that suspicion, “evidence” is not a synonym for “proof.” Republican voters, of course, may not care to quibble over such fine distinctions. And if suspicions toward the Perry campaign take root . . .
“Howdy. Thank You, Erick.”
Meanwhile, via Hot Air, we get a weird story from Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace, who remarks on “awkward/inappropriate things he’s said to two females on my staff” and then says:
Especially since I have very talented employees that happen to be women. I go out of my way to treat them like my sisters. For example, I wouldn’t tell them or any other woman I am not married to nor related to how pretty she is.
Hold on a minute there: It is now “inappropriate” — perhaps even career-destroying harassment — for a married man to compliment a woman on her looks? According to conservatives?
Strom Thurmond never would have survived in 21st century GOP politics.
Now, as I keep reminding readers, we don’t yet know the names of Cain’s accusers and haven’t heard their accusations directly. We therefore are unable to judge the credibility of the charges.
However, it strikes me that Deace’s testimony about Cain’s allegedly “inappropriate” remarks might actually be viewed as exculpatory. That is to say, no reasonable person could possibly believe that Cain was “hitting on” Deace’s female staffers, right? Yet this incident might suggest that Cain — like the late Strom, like me, like many other old-fashioned men from the South — considers flirtatious flattery and jocular banter an innocent amusement.
Coming from a time and place where every diner waitress called you “honey” or “sugar,” and where extravagant compliments were the routine currency of social life, I am probably more sympathetic to the cultural defense of such behavior than the average Iowan would be. The many people who know Herman and praise him as an amiable gentleman perhaps see his down-to-earth jocularity as charming, whereas others might see it differently.
There is of course a line, recognized even among Southerners, between harmless flirtatiousness and “hitting on” someone, and occasional misunderstandings used to be settled the old-fashioned way. When I was about 21, I got sucker-punched by a college buddy who did not appreciate the cleverness of a double-entendre made in reference to his girlfriend (whom I’d known before she ever met him). And my extroverted wackiness may make others feel “awkward.”
At any rate, I think the lovely and charming Gail Collins shares my basic viewpoint of the allegations to date:
Sexual harassment is a matter so serious that I’m not prepared to prejudge anybody, including the woman who accepted money in return for leaving the organization, until I have a pretty fair factual understanding of what actually happened. If you feel you have no power, that everybody with clout is aligned against you, and the situation makes keeping your job untenable, you might feel compelled to just get out of there with whatever compensation is available to tide you over. On the other side, if none of Cain’s accusers speak up in public, it’s hard to judge him guilty.
So far, we have a sex scandal with no actual sex and only vague descriptions of accusations made by unnamed women. Cain might be wholly guilty or mostly innocent, and there is simply no way yet to judge. It wouldn’t want to see the women targeted by some kind of James Carville “nuts and sluts” attack, but neither can Cain be condemned on the basis of anonymous accusations.
–
RECENTLY:
