The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Good-Bye, Vanuatu? Perry-Linked Witness Predicts: If Cain Accuser Speaks, ‘Probably Be the End of His Campaign”

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 80 Comments

Shoes are now dropping faster than I can keep track:

Oklahoma political consultant Chris Wilson says if the woman behind the reported sexual harassment complaint against GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain is allowed to speak publicly, it’ll be the end of Cain’s run for the White House.
Interviewed today on KTOK’s Mullins in the Morning, Wilson, of Wilson-Perkins-Allen Opinion Research headquartered in Washington, D.C. explained he was a witness to the incident. “I was the pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Herman Cain was head of it and I was around a couple of times when this happened and anyone who was involved with the NRA at the time, knew that this was gonna come up.”
Wilson described the woman as a low level staffer who was maybe two years out of college. “This occurred at a restaurant in Crystal City (Virginia) and everybody was aware of it,” he continued. “It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left — everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up.”
Wilson said for legal reasons, he can not discuss details of the incident. “But if she comes out and talks about it, like I said, it’ll probably be the end of his campaign.” The consultant said Cain is digging himself a deeper hole by challenging the woman.

The fact that Chris Wilson works for a firm that has been associated with Rick Perry’s campaign may confirm widespread suspicions about the origin of Sunday’s Politico story, but as matters now stand, such speculation is irrelevant to whether Cain can survive this. Whatever the motives of the Politico sources, Cain’s fate depends on the specifics of the accusation and the credibility of his accuser.

Question: If “many people were aware” and “everybody knew … this would eventually come up,” why did no one ever bring this story to me? I wrote my first American Spectator column about the Cain campaign on Dec. 27, 2010, and have covered the campaign longer that anyone. Yet instead of calling me — and I distribute my business card at D.C. events like a Shriner throwing candy in a parade — the sources take their story to Politico?

Perhaps they didn’t tell me about it because they don’t trust me, and why should they? My friend Tabitha Hale doesn’t think I’m worthy of inclusion in a BlogCon panel, and my friends at PJM would rather hire my enemies than ask me to be a weekly columnist there. Given how little esteem my friends evidently have for me, I can’t expect sources with exclusive information to treat me as a respected and credible journalist.

Now even my ambassadorship to Vanuatu is in jeopardy and The Lonely Conservative observes:

I’m less concerned about these allegations as I am about the bizarre way Cain and his campaign have handled the situation; not that it’s hurting him in the polls or fundraising — yet. It’s most likely due to the fact that he’s not a professional politician, but whatever he’s dealing with now is nothing compared to what Obama’s going to dish out in the general election. If he wants to survive this, he really needs to enlist the help of more professionals, and he needs to do it soon.

It’s as if she’s saying that Cain needs the service of “professionals” who understand how reporters think and how an embarrassing situation may be effectively explained. Too bad that nobody who works for the Herman Cain campaign knows anybody like that, someone experienced who might come recommended to them as a qualified adviser.

UPDATE: Yet another shoe:

A third former employee says she considered filing a workplace complaint over what she considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Herman Cain when she worked for the presidential candidate in the 1990s. She says the behavior included a private invitation to his corporate apartment.
She worked for the National Restaurant Association when he was its head. She told The Associated Press that Cain made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against him.
The employee described situations in which she said Cain told her he had confided to colleagues how attractive she was and invited her to his corporate apartment outside work.

My advice to the Cain campaign? Start praying. Pray real hard.

RECENTLY:

 

Category: Election 2012, Herman Cain, Vanuatu

‘Mutually Beneficial’?

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 17 Comments

While updating a post about the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain, I noticed we had a new BlogAds client and clicked the ad to see what services were being advertised:

“Being a Sugar Daddy Has Its Rewards” — no doubt about it — and “College Girls are Creative When it Comes to Arrangements,” as I’m sure everyone will agree.

There is a 24-hour delay between the time an ad is purchased and when it begins running. An e-mail notice is sent, offering me the opportunity to approve or disapprove, but I usually either (a) don’t see the e-mail because of inbox overload, or (b) just ignore it because I don’t have time to fuss with administrative details. So I missed this one until I saw it running on the page, and wondered why the advertiser thought my readership might be a target-rich environment for such a service.

Perhaps some readers will be offended by this ad. Certainly I would not wish to be accused of endorsing such activities. On the other hand, my Bible-based belief system about such matters do not include much leeway in terms of moral relativity. There are not many shades of gray in the dark stains of human depravity.

Sin is sin, and it is difficult for me to declare that the transactions between a young woman and her Sugar Daddy are more sinful than the acts of fornication and sodomy now routinely committed in the context of non-marital “meaningful relationships” between “consenting adults.” Are we to attach an especial stigma to the woman who obtains “mutual benefit” from such acts? Is this a form of prostitution? And is prostitution more worthy of moral condemnation than uncompensated promiscuity? How does a Sugar Daddy differ from a common “john” picking up streetwalkers or hiring call-girls?

Perhaps the advertiser did not intend to provoke such a discussion and would consider my commentary a disparagement of their services. If the proprietors of MutuallyBeneficial.net wish to terminate their ad buy and request a refund from BlogAds, I will have no complaint. On the other hand, if they wish to continue advertising here, I’m not sure that readers should be offended.

As I have often explained, this is the Internet, where no one is ever more than two clicks away from as much decadence and depravity as their wicked hearts may desire. If this ad for “mutually beneficial arrangements” is such an overpowering temptation as to lead you astray, I rather doubt you were on the straight and narrow way to begin with.

And any reader rich enough to be a Sugar Daddy to some young gold digger is rich enough to hit the tip jar for $20, $50 or $100 to compensate me for my labor in composing this brief sermon, in accordance with your estimate of its value.
 




 

Fee-for-service is an honest dollar, and if you needed me to persuade you that sin is sin, then I suppose you’ll agree that this has been a “mutually beneficial arrangement.”

Category: Blogging, Sex

Cain Accuser: ‘Other Workplace Issues Had Been Making Her Unhappy’

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 41 Comments

The New York Times:

The National Restaurant Association gave $35,000 — a year’s salary — in severance pay to a female staff member in the late 1990s after an encounter with Herman Cain, its chief executive at the time, made her uncomfortable working there, three people with direct knowledge of the payment said on Tuesday.
The woman was one of two whose accusations of sexual harassment by Mr. Cain, now a Republican candidate for president, led to paid severance agreements during his 1996-99 tenure at the association. . . .
Four people with contemporaneous knowledge of the encounter said it had taken place in the context of a work outing during which there had been heavy drinking — a hallmark, they said, of outings with an organization that represents the hospitality industry. . . .
Two of them said that other factors had been involved in her severance, and that other workplace issues had been making her unhappy at the association as well. But they said the encounter with Mr. Cain had added an emotional charge and contributed to the size of her payment. One former colleague familiar with the details said such a severance was not common, especially for an employee with the woman’s relatively short tenure and her pay grade.

The question of motive is now before us, you see: A woman is hired at a modest salary, becomes “unhappy” due to “workplace issues,” attends a work-related event where “heavy drinking” took place, had an “encounter” with the CEO that “made her uncomfortable working there” and — presto! — gets paid a full year’s salary to go away.

At this point, of course, we know nothing else about this woman and have no details of the “encounter.” We cannot judge the credibility of an anonymous accused based on the accounts of anonymous “people with contemporaneous knowledge.” However, we can consult Cornell University Law Professor William Jacobson:

Some people are acting like a $35,000 severance payment is a big deal.  Trust me, it’s not.  It’s less than the cost of defense of a case, and it avoids distractions and publicity which even a weak or false claim can bring.  Some large companies will fight these claims even if the cost of defense exceeds a possible settlement, because the company wants to send a message to the workforce that you can’t just make a claim and get a check.  But most smaller companies, and certainly a trade organization which needs good publicity, will settle quickly and quietly.  I read nothing incriminating into a $35,000 severance agreement with an employee who also had other gripes with the company in addition to the as-yet unspecified issue with Herman Cain.

A quick aside: Where did Americans get the idea that you can sue your employers because you don’t like your job or because your boss said or did something that made you “uncomfortable”? Do we have a right to happiness at work? If I hire somebody to work for me, does this decision imply a guarantee that my employee should at all times be pleased with my behavior?

I do not mean to belittle Cain’s anonymous accuser or to peremptorily dismiss the possibility that Cain engaged in genuinely offensive behavior toward this accuser, or toward the other accuser, or toward anyone else. We do not yet have enough facts to make that judgment — “Let Her Speak” — and given the “he-said, she-said” nature of such cases, it is unlikely that we will ever have any absolute certainty about it. But the fact that a short-term, low-level employee can get a full year’s salary in “go-away money” as the result of such things is profoundly troubling to me.

Throughout my career, when I became fed-up with a job, I would quit. If I didn’t quit, obviously my continued employment was more important to me than whatever unhappiness or discomfort I felt. However, I would have never dreamed of asserting a right to unearned compensation as a result of my disgruntlement at work.

Suggested reading: “Get Out or Get in Line,” by Elbert Hubbard.
 

Category: Election 2012, Herman Cain

David Lee Roth Ain’t Talkin’ ‘Bout Love, But Thomas Sowell Is, To Profound Effect

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 5 Comments

by Smitty (via The Corner)

Click to view what is truly an excellent dialogue, and one worth sharing with all those who have ears.

If the guy wasn’t 814 years old [ed: first day, new ears], we should have to press gang him into the presidency.

And you can’t write that sort of title without offering a bit of contrast:

Category: Economics, Intellectuals, Thomas Sowell

Tweet Of The Day

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 11 Comments

by Smitty

Update: more at The Conservatory.

Category: Da Tech Guy

‘With These GOP Strategists, Our Victory At Cannae Is Assured,’ Said Paullus

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 26 Comments

by Smitty

Republicans won’t need to put a candidate like Sarah Palin on the presidential ticket this year, veteran party strategist Charlie Black says, because the candidates are already conservative enough.
Asked at National Journal’s Election Preview on Tuesday whether he thought the party might name a vice presidential candidate like Sarah Palin, whose addition to the GOP 2008 presidential ticket excited conservatives — but also turned off independent voters — Black argued such a pick won’t be necessary given the current crop of presidential candidates.
“We don’t have any moderates running,” Black said. “I don’t think there will be any need to do philosophical balance.”

Also impressive: the way these GOP strategists have helped keep the Ruling Class at bay for the last century.

Title reference: Battle of Cannae
via Lucianne

Category: GOP, Uncategorized

James Garner, When TV Did Not Suck

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 9 Comments

by Smitty (via Gerard)

Ah, the granola-heads of #OWS. This recalls the Steven Wright line about breaking up with his girlfriend because he was not into transcendental meditation, and she was not into being alive. Of course, the reality seems to indicate there is a healthy dose of pure creep show at #OWS. Back in the day, though, Garner rocked:

On a related note, I’m actually going to TiVo South Park, and even *gasp* watch the thing, on the strength of this:

1%
Get More: SOUTH
PARKEric Cartman,Wendy Testaburger,more…

Still more at Bluegrass Pundit. A full-on STD epidemic would suck, particularly with winter coming on. Could it be the first ever Group Darwin Award?

Category: Progressivism

Eurocrats On Greek Referendum:
‘Are You Serious? Are You Serious?’

Posted on | November 2, 2011 | 37 Comments

by Smitty

Daniel Hannan in The Telegraph with an insider view of the Brussels reaction to the Greek referendum on the latest bailout farce:

I wish I could convey the sheer horror that his proposal provoked in Brussels. The first rule of the Eurocracy is “no referendums”. Brussels functionaries believe that their work is too important to be subject to the prejudices of hoi polloi (for once, the Greek phrase seems apposite). Referendums are always seen as irresponsible; but, at a time when the euro is teetering on the brink, Papandreou’s proposal was seen as an act of ingratitude bordering on treason.
Across the palaces and chanceries of the continent, Euro-elites closed ranks. Nicolas Sarkozy’s spokesman described Papandreou’s announcement as “irrational and dangerous”, Angela Merkel’s called it “irritating”, Silvio Berlusconi’s “negative”. Such phrases, in the mouths of government officials, suggest purple, choking rage.

Read the whole thing. This sounds about right for the pack of clowns that excreted the Treaty of Lisbon. The worldwide choice before us liberty or social democracy. You can fret some media-driven nonsense about Herman Cain’s ‘uncomfortable gestures’, or you can focus on what matters, Americans.

My title, of course, refers to the Worst Speaker of the House in American History, whose disgusting, farcical tenure was the closest American analogue to the EUrocrats.

via The Corner

Update: Zander, in the comments, is a good friend of mine. If I may request people edit themselves a bit, please disagree agreeably with the fellow. Thanks, Chris.

Update II: Linked at The Rio Norte Line.

Update III:Monty over at Ace of Spades

A note about this Greek “referendum”: it doesn’t matter whether it takes place or not. The damage is already done, the demons already set loose. The Greeks have already voted “no”, whether they know it or not.

Ow, ow, ow, a thousands ows, and again, I say: ouch!

Update IV:Oh, and from the comments on Monty’s post, a blast from Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

The fact that it is impossible for Greece to regain competitiveness while clinging to the euro is becoming increasingly evident. Prominent economists such as Nouriel Roubini, as well as investor George Soros have said as much and influential voices in Greece are now questioning the wisdom of clinging to the euro.

Well, if King George has made the call, time to roll out Rosie O’Donnell in the steel bikini.

Update V: linked at The Camp of the Saints.

Category: Democrats, Europe
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin