The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Reason to Take Cain Allegations Seriously

By on 10.31.11 @ 12:47PM

Jeff Lord, bless his heart, again has rushed to the defense of a conservative accused of something bad. Jeff has a gut reaction to defend, defend, defend the faithful. It’s an admirable impulse. But it’s also premature.

There are good reasons to take the new allegations against Herman Cain more seriously than the spurious, outlandish allegations against Clarence Thomas 20 years ago. First, with Thomas, nobody had filed a complaint against him or even come close to suggesting a problem at the time to anyone in authority. The allegations against Thomas came out of the blue only after he was nominated to the Supreme Court, and even then they came rather late in the process — making them far more likely to have been spurred by pure politics. In fact, even then the allegations were so weak that even Joe Biden at first refused to take them seriously. The timeline of the allegations, as the FBI reported and as Arlen Specter (!) and Orrin Hatch made crystal clear during the hearings, did not hold water.

Now compare that to Cain’s situation. In Cain’s case, the allegations actually came five years before he ran for any office, 12 years ago now. There was no way they were politically motivated, because Cain had never been a candidate for anything. Furthermore, the allegations came not just from one disgruntled employee, but from two separate women. One allegation can be a misunderstanding, or an oversensitivity, or a case of job-related payback. Two allegations, separate and distinct from each other, are at least the beginning of a pattern.

It’s worse that at least some board members appear to have agreed at the time, with no political motive, that something about the cases looked bad for Cain. Yes, the “settlement” payoffs weren’t very large (by sexual harassment standards), but the fact that two separate payouts reached even five figures shows reason for concern that there might be some “there” there.

None of this means that the allegations are true — or, even if true, that they rose to the level of legally definable “harassment.” And as Jeff Lord said, compared to what Bill Clinton was absolutely believably accused of, this stuff with Cain appears to be child’s play. Nobody should convict Cain of anything, not even of poor judgment. We just don’t know what happened.

But we do know this: Two different women complained, formally, about Cain’s behavior, and they did so completely apart from any current battle. Both women were paid off in return for silence. That much is in the record. There is every reason for people to look into this further, and every reason for Cain to give a full accounting. People are falsely accused of all sorts of things, all the time. Cain merits the benefit of the doubt, for now, about these allegations — but only long enough for him to put legitimate doubts to rest. He has not yet done so. And if there is any truth to the allegations, he has no business running for president, because he would be putting at risk not just himself but an entire nation which might suffer dire consequences were he to get the nomination but then, due to this issue, lose a general election match-up with the Alinskyite, Mussolini-economics enthusiast in the White House.

View all comments (43) |

Chuck| 10.31.11 @ 1:09PM

The Romney campaigns agree. Scandalized Cain means Romney has the nomination.

Magnitude And Velocity| 10.31.11 @ 2:16PM

Knocking Cain out would help Perry a lot and Romney very little. It probably hurts Paul and Bachmann and the others indirectly because as the race tightens voters tend to give up on the fringe candidates and coalesce around candidates who have a real chance of winning.

Knocking Cain out is really Perry's only shot at reviving his undead campaign. With that in mind ... isn't it interesting that the Perry campaign knew about this story days before it went public?

Wayne| 10.31.11 @ 1:13PM

No doubt Romney is Obama's guy.

bobmontgomery| 10.31.11 @ 1:27PM

Quin - you say we "know" things about this case. Do you know things independently of Politico? Politico is saying they saw documents and interviewd people, but they refuse to release details. What do you "know' independently from Politico?

Quin| 10.31.11 @ 1:32PM

Even though I am no huge fan of Politico, I trust their integrity enough to believe that if they say they actually have the documents, then they have the documents. There's a difference between slanting news, of which I think Politico has been guilty on numerous occasions, and flat-out lying.
Furthermore, NBC has confirmed at least one of the reports.

Simon Templar| 10.31.11 @ 3:36PM

Which network did your mentor, Dan Rather work for?

Oh, hell, if the great NBC says so, them heck, we should all just pack it in and go back to Kansas. The great OZ has spoken....

You have been accused of being an idiot and a CINO and there are some rumors at NBC that seem to confirm it. Good enough for me.

Bumr50| 10.31.11 @ 1:34PM

Sooo, in short you think that "not overtly sexual" but somehow offensive behavior by two golddigging bimbos 15 years ago is enough to damage Cain to the point where he would be less attractive to voters who might then vote for Obama?

Fat chance.

Surely you don't have someone ELSE in mind for the candidacy?

Kingofthenet| 10.31.11 @ 1:46PM

When Booty calls, it's hard to resist.

Bumr50| 10.31.11 @ 1:48PM

"not overtly sexual," but harrassment nonetheless?!

I'm sure that there were in fact two women screaming that he sexually harassed them. But why in the world, with NO solid evidence and the flimsy evidence admittedly "not overtly sexual" is this a story?!

Nothing to see here.

JimH| 10.31.11 @ 1:56PM

In the current workplace one does not need to actually be guilty of any misconduct. It is sufficient for the accuser to perceive that there is an issue. That said, since there were settlements in two separate cases I’d really like to know the specifics while reserving judgment until then.

Bob| 10.31.11 @ 2:03PM

This is delicious. A nice juicy sex scandal involving the GOPukers frontrunner, a black man yet. This is better than Michele challenging Sarah to a mudwrestling match. The comedians will have a field day.

Bob K.| 10.31.11 @ 9:12PM

Yeh! Reminds me of Bill Clinton's first campaign. Wasn't that fun! All those allegations of sexual harrasment and even rape! It even extended through his 2nd term!

You voted for him too. Remember? Both times. It really damaged him with his constituency too, didn't it?

hacimo| 10.31.11 @ 2:05PM

The Politico smear team should be required to state there full accusation. So far from reading the story I can see no evidence that a sexual harassment suit was ever filed or that a "settlement" payment was made. Obviously this thing falls on its face unless the women come forward or unless Politico presents full sources and details.

Purple Lips| 10.31.11 @ 2:42PM

From what I understand the settlement is sealed. Cain is prohibited from going into the details of the case. As are the victims. Politico knows this. And that is why this kind of case is so juicy. The Beltway rumur mill will be in over-drive by Friday. By Sunday, new "victims" will appear out of thin air in an attempt cash in. By next Monday rumours will abound that Cain had a harem installed in his office filled with young coeds dressed in nothing but loin clothes. By next Tuesday he will step down.

Claypoole| 10.31.11 @ 2:24PM

I agree that this must be cleared up completely. A campaign may not be a court of law, but it is a court of public opinion. Therefore, these two women must come forward, publicly, and state in detail their complaints against Herman Cain. If there are formal, written complaints, they must be produced for the public to read. Mr. Cain has the right to confront and rebut his accusers, as do we all.

Sean| 10.31.11 @ 2:25PM

He should have fought these charges if they were false. Settling these type of suits only encourages false claims.

Purple Lips| 10.31.11 @ 2:37PM

You obviously don't know how the shake-down artists work. The last thing a corporation wants is bad publicity (you won't believe the money corporations spend in order to protect thier brand name). If a CEO decides to fight these kinds of allegations the board would fire him. Shake down artists know this. Most settle on small changes (six figures or less) and are happy to cash the checks.

The greatest fear of any corporation is a well publicized lawsuit that could go on for months and result in nothing but thier brand being slung through the mud. And who knows how a jury will vote?

Sean| 10.31.11 @ 3:01PM

I know how it works Purple Lips, but all this settling just encourages more of it. Now the only people that know the truth are Cain and the two women and the suits were settled in the two women's favor. This is kind of like pleading no contest to a speeding ticket because usually the judge in those cases also act as the prosecution. Guess what your insurance rates are still going to go up even though you just didn't want to pay the additional court fees in fighting a losing cause.

Occam's Tool| 10.31.11 @ 4:02PM

Apparently they were five figure settlements. When I was practicing in Alabama, I had a magnificent malpractice insurance company, ProAssurance. Once they agreed to defend your case for you, they NEVER SETTLED. Terminator Effin' Robots. I was sued, but I never lost or settled. Won every damn time. Physician Data Bank Clean.

However, if the settlement was for, say, $50,000; there's a good chance of nuisance suit settled.

W| 10.31.11 @ 5:42PM

"five figure" could be from$10,000 to $99,999. Whatever the amount it is less than tht $900,000 Slick Willie paid to Paula Jones, and much less that the disbarment Slick Willie paid for the perjury in the deposition when asked about Lewinsky.

If the cases were good, the women would have received much more that five figure settlements. You need to see the actual settlement agreement. In settlement cases such as this, there may be payments for unused vacations, personal days, sick days, and some severance pay, all of which makes it over $10,000.

Margie| 10.31.11 @ 6:46PM

Hey, O.T.

I'll see ya. Maybe in Heaven one day.
The lORD that I know loves you so.. very much!!!

Margie| 10.31.11 @ 6:46PM

Typo. LORD. My key stuck.

SpiralArchitect| 10.31.11 @ 2:28PM

No need to look at the POTUS that cannot wait for congress to adhear to his agenda.

Is there any need for me to list other reasons that we should not look at the treasonous Zero & just continue allowing his enfocement of his Marxist/Lenninist igeology? >:(

Purple Lips| 10.31.11 @ 2:32PM

It all depends on what "harrassement means" Using the politically correct standards of our universities and NOW (and reserved soley for potential Republicans presidential candidates), even looking a a nag could get you in trouble. A really long look could costs a Fortune 500 company an easy 100 grand.

And we all know about Black men, don't we? (they're insatiable, I tell you! Just ask Anita Hill). This has all the signs of a carefully timed drive-by media event. Who knows who got the ball rolling. I wouldn't put it past Mittens, as Obama's people would have kept this one close to thier vests until the time was right for them.

Personally I could care less. I have no skin in this game, as I detest all of the GOP candidates. One thing is certain, the MSM feeding frenzy will continue until Cain steps down in order to spend more time with his family.

Hobbes| 10.31.11 @ 2:49PM

RON PAUL!

Paul McGrath| 10.31.11 @ 2:50PM

There seems to be some misunderstanding about how these things work. The women would have made a claim against the National Restaurant Assn. and against Mr. Cain. The matter would have been turned over immediately to the liability insurance company. The insurance company would have performed some investigation and at some point, probably early on, they would have made a settlement offer. Cain would NOT have been involved in this. He would have no say in how the insurance company handled it. The women evidently accepted these settlement offers, probably after some negotiation, then signed a release of all claims form.

Cain would likely have been aware that these claims were made against him, but it's very possible he didn't know anything afterward. It sounds like a formal complaint was never filed in court, and it sounds like the settlements were either close to being nuisance value or nuisance value only.

There's nothing here. Nothing.

Red Phillips | 10.31.11 @ 3:35PM

Somebody (NRA legal, the insurance company or whoever) at some point had to ask Cain about the allegations. I find it very hard to believe that he was never asked by anyone for his version of the story. So I'm not buying the contention of Cain's spokesman that Cain was only "vaguely familiar" with the situation. In this day and age, an allegation of sexual harrassment is a serious thing and can be a career ender and a reputation killer. I suspect Cain remembers the situation quite well. That doesn't mean the allegations are true. Just that the situation is not routine.

Margie| 10.31.11 @ 3:16PM

Reason to NOT take Quin seriously: He's loving it.

OLDRAY| 10.31.11 @ 3:20PM

Quin Hillyer admits he doesn't know the "facts" but seems ready to jump on Cain because of some settlement. Some rotten journalism, Years ago at my place of business ,a customer leaving, opened the door and then, still reading his newspaper, walked thru the glass panel NEXT to it. He suffered minor cuts and apologized for causing the damage , said he felt stupid ,but later sued us. The insurance paid him off to get rid of the case.Perhaps the claims against Mr Cain had merit. Perhaps not. I don't know but Mr Hillyar should consider before he jumps the gun.

Bob K.| 10.31.11 @ 9:26PM

Quin is an upright southern gentleman accustomed to the company of like minded and mannered Southerners. Now it appears that one of the retainers associated with his milieu may or may not have embarrassed them. It is best to put him elsewhere now and out of sight so his neighbors and colleagues will not be reminded of this embarrassing episode.

Simon Templar| 10.31.11 @ 3:29PM

"Jeff Lord, bless his heart, again has rushed to the defense of a conservative accused of something bad. Jeff has a gut reaction to defend, defend, defend the faithful. It's an admirable impulse. But it's also premature."

Yes, it is admirable and also normal behavior for a functional, honest adult to do just what Mr. Lord did. See, honest people actually look at the evidence and the substance of allegations and statements before going off and assuming that they are true or have any weight. This is similar to that quaint idea that all men are innocent until proven guilty.

This is how responsible people behave. If they see flimsy, unsubstantiated, unsourced, poorly researched articles pretending to be pieces of journalism, they say so.

You, Quin, rushed in the opposite direction. But You have done this before and it seems to be your nature. Some more premature journalistic ejaculation?

Quin| 10.31.11 @ 6:13PM

I did NOT rush in the other direction. I said Cain deserves the benefit of the doubt. I merely made the point that from a purely logical standpoint, these allegations deserve more scrutiny and enjoy a shade more believability because they pre-existed his campaign, etcetera. In other words, they aren't anything that were created out of thin air as a political hit. Now, dredging them up again now obviously has political implications and grew specifically from the need to vet serious candidates for president. But the allegations themselves were no political hit job.
As for me, I tend to believe that Cain's behavior was ambiguous enough that the accusers felt extremely unsure if they could win a case if it had actually proceeded to a hearing. Otherwise, they probably would not have settled for less than six figures. Moreover, my gut instinct about Cain's character is that he would not do such a thing; in short, I think at worst there was a misunderstanding of his intentions. That also happens to be what I want to believe, because I like Herman Cain.
To write that the charges are to be taken seriously is not to say that I believe them.
Jeesh.

Simon Templar| 11.1.11 @ 12:56AM

Yes, you did, and so did some of your fellow TAS writers. When a so-called reporter writes a story and then refuses to give details of that story, this reporter and his story is not only suspect and worthless but an example of irresponsible and unaccountable journalism.

The fact of the matter is the public is wising up and no longer is willing to tolerate this media fraud and fiasco pretending to be real journalism. We are all sick of it.
The press has damn nearly lost all credibility.

If you have done your homework, obtained the facts, sourced them, then let us hear it. Otherwise, yes, shut up.

This is not rudeness but the direct honesty of a citizen and a consumer that you are to be serving not manipulating. You were given a "holy" mission via our constitution and reserved rights that come with a heavy responsibility. Exercise them more wisely and in the interest of WE, the People.

de Maistre| 10.31.11 @ 4:06PM

Brent Bozell puts things in perspective:

"Ken Vogel of Politico used to work for the George Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity in Washington and has been involved in numerous attacks on conservatives. There is no hiding a liberal agenda when considering Ken Vogel’s work, and this latest smear attempt on Cain is further proof. “The liberal media need to wake up and deal with the fact that successful, black Americans can be conservative. They are going insane realizing he might one day be President, too."

'Nough said.

CalMark| 10.31.11 @ 8:04PM

Ooooooh...careful there, pal. Quin might not like you jumping to conclusions like that.

de Maistre| 10.31.11 @ 4:19PM

Good Reason(s) NOT to Take Cain Allegations Seriously.

Oldefarte| 10.31.11 @ 4:39PM

Regardless of whether or not these allegations are true or false, the issue is [or should be] the hypocritical falsehoods such as this situation that are historically and traditionally perpetrated by the MSM for their partisaned political purposes. The most egregious example of same occurred when the NYT front-paged a multi-paged story concerning McCain's ALLEGED romantic affair ten years prior [which was a complete falsehood, and denied by both him and the female acquaintance]. The NYT should have been legally sued into bankruptcy over this but sadly was not; and this just demonstrates the partisaned BS that it and every other MSM rag is allowed to excrement on a daily basis without readership or legal ramifications. Whether or not Cain is guilty of these charges is not the issue, but rather the obvious political issue of those charges now/currently coming to the front pages of every newspaper after being dormant for so long. Why were they not newsworthy immediately when they occurred or when they were legally resolved??????

Margie| 10.31.11 @ 6:44PM

Aw shucks, but before I go:

Washington Times Reporting:

HERMAN CAIN TOPS PERRY — IN TEXAS!

LOL!

READ IT AND WEEP YOU PHONY S>O>B'S!

http://www.washingtontimes.com.....rry-texas/

cris| 10.31.11 @ 7:03PM

QUIN HILLYER I am shocked that you wrote this. Shame on you

CalMark| 10.31.11 @ 8:02PM

Once again, the Beltway Insider rushes to phony objectivity. We have to get all the facts. Don't automatically defend a conservative.

You know what? Even if it were true (I don't think it is, and even if it were, I don't give a DAMN) it's petty garbage. Bill Clinton got away with rape.

Screw you, Hillyer. And the rest of the Beltway elitists you run with.

Nite| 10.31.11 @ 10:50PM

The liberal media struck with their first set of attacks against Rick Perry. Now they have moved on to Herman Cain. They will continue attacks against any Republican candidate they believe poses a threat to Obama. It is going to get messy. Just consider the source.

Simon Templar| 11.1.11 @ 12:52AM

Yes, you did, and so did some of your fellow TAS writers. When a so-called reporter writes a story and then refuses to give details of that story, this reporter and his story is not only suspect and worthless but an example of irresponsible and unaccountable journalism.

The fact of the matter is the public is wising up and no longer is willing to tolerate this media fraud and fiasco pretending to be real journalism. We are all sick of it.
The press has damn nearly lost all credibility.

If you have done your homework, obtained the facts, sourced them, then let us hear it. Otherwise, yes, shut up.

This is not rudeness but the direct honesty of a citizen and a consumer that you are to be serving not manipulating. You were given a "holy" mission via our constitution and reserved rights that come with a heavy responsibility. Exercise them more wisely and in the interest of WE, the People.

buckaneer2010| 11.1.11 @ 8:25AM

So, two women allege some type of misconduct. And, since Mr. Cain wasn't in politics at the time, it couldn't have been politically motivated. Ok. But did you ever consider that these two women, whom we do not know, could have colluded to make these charges to collect some easy money? And that, twelve years later, they're kicking themselves for not asking for MORE money back then? You sound like a typical liberal... "it's the seriousness of the charge"....

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/31/reason-to-take-cain-allegation

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|129 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|22 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.