Posted on 11/01/2011 7:53:42 PM PDT by bullypulpit
If you read between the lines of the various news reports about the Cain operation, the picture becomes clearer to me every day. The latest dust up about the sexual harassment of employees confirms it.
Leading up to the sex scandal, we had the clues. Now I know it to be so, that Herman Cain is an ass, and he's reckless.
The first clue came just after Cain placed poorly in the Iowa straw polls. We heard from disgruntled former Cain staffers:
Jim Zeiler, the regional field director who was one of the five disgruntled staffers who left, explained his decision with a devastating assessment of Cain, saying the candidate was more interested in jet-setting than running a campaign that incorporates traditional grass-roots techniques.
"He’s not inquisitive. He wants to be in front of the adoring crowds, but he doesn’t seem to be interested in the issues," said Zeiler, a former regional field director for Cain’s campaign.
(Source: Politico, "Cain's campaign crash continues at Ames")
Mr. Zeiler was a disgruntled former staffer. This kind of tripe is expected in today's coarse society. No one gets asked to leave, or quits in anger, without throwing the former boss under the bus. If you've ever employed people, you know this. A good friend of mine, an employer in the retail industry, told me that his strategy when interviewing potential new hires is to ask himself "How long will it be before this person screws me," not if he/she will screw me. The "screw" is inevitable.
So, it's easy to dismiss this accusation as the disgruntled ex-employee getting his last jab. The "screw."
Since Cain staffer Jim Zeiler has left, however, we have seen how Herman Cain isn't very sharp on the issues. He certainly isn’t 'presidential material smart.' I only posted five gaffes here. I have 10-20 more. Electric fences, anyone? Do you think he's serious about learning the issues? I don't. My radar was still searching, though.
Next, we hear that Herman Cain doesn't want staffers to speak to him unless those staffers are spoken to them by Cain first. Apparently this rule is enforced when staffers are chauffeuring the candidate around. The New York Times sources that accusation from an intercepted email in the reporter's hands that originated from campaign leadership. Was it from "The Smoking Man"?
For goodness sake, the poor drivers for Cain are probably star-struck young interns or volunteers. Do barely paid, or volunteer campaign workers deserve to be treated that way?
To be fair, Cain explained that he does tell people driving him to shut up when he's preparing for a speech. In this Right Scoop video, he's all chuckles about it. I thought that it was reasonable. Maybe. My radar was honing in, though.
I re-read the Times article tonight, in light of the sex scandal. The article details more arrogant behavior.
Does this sound like someone who should be leading in the GOP nomination polls?
After all of the staff revelations, we now have the sex scandal. Viewing the scandal in a vacuum, it's easy to run to Cain's defense. My initial reaction was that this was Clearance Thomas 2.0, and we cannot let this stand. This is Herman Cain, a conservative black man deserving of our support against the evil marauders in the mainstream media.
However, when viewed through the prism of earlier reports of Cain's egomaniacal behavior, the sex scandal makes perfect sense. My radar locked on.
Cain is arrogant and reckless. He mistreats people working for him. Why would not Cain's penchant for employee mistreatment also include sexual harassment? This is especially true of the powerful, arrogant CEO versus the weak, insignificant female employees.
What is more, regardless of Cain's waffling denials of the sex scandal's ingredients, there are not one, but two incidents. One would think that a powerful, calculating CEO would figure out what went wrong the first time, and avoid a second accusation.
Two accusations reinforces my point, that Cain is arrogant and reckless. He doesn't believe the rules apply to him. Why not invite a young employee to his hotel room?
Radar locked. Fox One!
Herman Cain is not ready to be our Republican standard bearer.
“naswer” = “answer”
Yeesh....time for bed.
ICYMI, you might find this article about the workplace and payoffs interesting:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2800937/posts
Para Espanol, imprime el numero uno. Press Two for English.
"The Obama Campaign sincerely THANKS YOU VERY MUCH, Mr. Hyde, for the great "oppos" on to-be GOP Nominee Herman Cain.
This will indeed come in handy in the Fall of 2012 and for our Great Leader's reelection. Thanks!! Circular firing squad by the GOP. Lovin it!
And of course, suffice it to say, The Gipper thanks you from the Afterlife for so fastidiously adhering to his Republic 11th Commandment, all the for sake of the machiavellian salivation of power instead of accentuating your own guy's positives. Texas attack dog-style. Great Job there Mr. Hyde. But OF COURSE "Radar on. Fox One" (sic)." All that is missing in this feckless, useless article with a shelf life of a fart in an Antarctic windstorm, is a co-authorship from Dr. Jekyll.
So what.
That happens EVERY DAY in the business world (in the civil service workplace, too).
It means NOTHING in terms of Mr. Cain’s conduct or character.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2800937/posts
I was a Ford supporter in 1976. The Dems said things about the police and soldiers that I knew wasn’t true. So I was a Republican, even then.
But Clinton is orders of magnitude worse than Gore or Carter. The reason we have this Board is because of the work that Jim and a small group were doing to expose Clinton.
Are you serious?
Apart from his record in business, which, yes, can be looked up and upon which people who worked with him can comment, Cain has a huge archive of weekly columns and talk radio transcripts that detail his thoughts, philosophy and proposed action on the full array of political issues.
We've probably never had a candidate in history whose actual analyses are archived in a contemporaneous way.
You're statement would be like saying Rush Limbaugh had no record from which we could evaluate how he would approach problems facing our country.
FACEPALM.
There is good reason to suspect Mitt, Allegra. Cain’s successor at the Restaurant Association is a Romney donor. But Perry would benefit too. (The idea is that he’d pick up the Not-Romney vote.)
Nonetheless, the article that led off this thread is nasty and scurrilous — and unsubstantiated. Somebody is very afraid of Cain.
I was a Reagan supporter in 1976.
I can’t remember seeing this many “comment removed” on a thread in . . .well, ever.
Let’s kick the tires and light the fires.
I know of one “sexual harassment” complaint that consisted of a woman taking offense that she was not included in a company golf outing. She did not play golf.
Laughable.
No, it doesn’t matter, and I don’t mean that in a smartypants way.
People like who they like. If they don’t like someone, great speeches, townhalls, whatever . . . you are right, it makes no difference.
There are people on this thread saying they just don’t like something about Cain. It happens.
And it happens to the other guy, too.
I think we should all stop talking about. (After this thread. lol)
Oh, good grief.
How in the world are you going to be able to “look at all the facts” after all this time?
This is exactly why there are STATUES OF LIMITATIONS in legal cases: because there’s a time after which allowing people to proceed from their memories is so fraught with mistakes and even deception that the law just says “too bad.” “You can’t bring or reopen the case.”
I can’t believe conservatives, regardless of who they are supporting, would wish this circus and debacle — which will accomplish absolutely nothing that is real or reliable — upon the conservative base as we are trying to get a nominee.
Again, if you think the fact that a complaint was made against Mr. Cain and that, even though it was investigated, found unsubstantiated, closed and the women paid off to shut up and get the hell out, the mere fact of the complaint is a ding on Cain’s conduct or character, you’re certainly welcome to the opinion and to vote accordingly.
But please don’t play into the Left’s hands by advocating the full Monty celebrity crime treatment here. That’s just not helpful (and worse).
Who says there has to be more?
People have every right to say that’s enough for them to make a decision.
No different than someone saying this or that about one of the other candidates is enough for them.
You can offer a substantive analysis of why a poor debate performance doesn’t predict a candidate’s performance as president. But it’s still legitimate for someone to conclude that, yes, it does.
Man.
That sounds like something copied off of one of the Palin threads.
This is just arrogant.
It’s no different than those people reading a NYT column and then saying they can evaluate better than the Supreme Court whether the evidence meets the legal standard to impose the death penalty.
A “sex scandal”?
Hey, thanks for singing loud in the Liberal media chorus.
Oh, it’s just how the Left and their trial lawyer buddies want it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.