Will Perry Be Blamed for Cain Scandal?

Posted on Comments

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:

Santorum Ad Cuts To The Heart Of The Real/Fake Problem With Politicians

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

There isn’t a thing for me not to admire in this ad:

Rick Santorum is to Newt Gingrich what Tim Pawlenty was to Mitt Romney; Rick has all of the knowledge of how the sausage is made, without seeming a two-dimensional cardboard cutout.

I keep wanting to respect the fact that the Iron Law has made some inside grasp of that Byzantine/Rube Goldberg device we call DC a useful resume bullet. Thus, a guy like Santorum who, for all appearances, is cognizant but not compromised is an attractive candidate.

It is the height of irony that a nation which touts the Judeo-Christian underpinnings informing its founding spends so much energy ignoring an unabashedly Christian candidate like Rick Santorum. I’m talking around juxtaposing the words ‘nation’ and ‘Christian’ here because I don’t think such is theologically or practically possible, short of a Triumphal Return.

Rick Santorum for my vote, is the most underrated GOP contender, and the obituary of his campaign has been written far too soon.

Science. . .Fiction

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Slashdot has a story from Reuters about a Dutch social shrink who was unencumbered by that messy ‘data’ stuff that restricts the output of so many researchers near you:

In a statement posted on the internet via the Dutch newspaper Brabants Dagblad this week, Stapel admitted to falsifying data and apologized for his actions.
“I have failed as a scientist, as a researcher,” he said. “I have adjusted research data and faked research. Not just once, but many several times, and not just briefly, but over a long period of time.
“I am ashamed of this and I am deeply sorry.”
Science published a study by Stapel and colleague Siegwart Lindenberg in April which found that people are more likely to discriminate against others when their surroundings are disordered and messy.

Sure am glad that isn’t true. My desk is cluttered, and I cannot discuss Stacy’s work environment in mixed company, though, if he veers into furniture design, the resulting product line will be named ‘Gonzo’.

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

Posted on 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:

 

‘Mutually Beneficial’?

Posted on 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.”

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

Posted on 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.
 

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

Posted on 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: