Herman Cain is Reckless and Arrogant

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.

Two staffers said they were asked by Cain's campaign to sign non-disclosure statements. What?
Despite having a skeleton staff, Cain spent no time organizing with them, or communicating with them (was he too good for them?)
Campaign staff expressed disillusionment over Cain's preference to promote his book instead of tend to basic campaign tactics. Once again, a problem of communication with his skeleton campaign staff.
Lack of commitment to campaign workers. It costs nothing to procure email addresses for campaign staff. Cain wouldn't do that. What kind of team building is that? Apparently Cain didn't want to communicate; he refused to supply nearly free email addresses from which he could communicate with staff. Maybe he thought the people on his staff were throwaways, and insignificant to him?
Then, there is the witness of supporter Bill Hemrick, who organized a campaign meet-and-greet for potential donors, all eligible to give the Cain campaign the maximum $2500 gift. Cain didn't bother to show up, and,
After courting Hemrick to join his campaign, Cain completely dismissed him, after Cain embarrassed this potential supporter by ignoring his meet and greet. He learned that he'd been passed over for the position in the campaign from a newspaper report.
At the Iowa Faith and Freedom forum, Cain barricaded himself in his tour bus before and after, failing to work the crowd like his opponents did. Cain apparently has a rock star attitude.

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.

Read more at The Rick Perry Report

>>>>>I don't know if you've noticed, probably not, but having more professional politicians going to Washington, it's not exactly working out for us.

Been paying close attention to the words and actions of politicians since the 1960's. I'd say the Founders got it right when they talked about citizen legislators going to WashDC for several terms and then returning to private life. Not spending their entire life in elective office. That would be the ideal situation except for one thing. This is 2011 and not 1789. Today the world of politics is much different than it was 235 years ago. And the Founders didn't put term limits in the Constitution for a good reason. They wanted the American people to vote into office men and women of honor and integrity who they could trust. Then vote out of office the corrupt officials, the charlatans and demagogues, the phonies and frauds.

Electing a President involves a different set of standards. I want someone who has held elected office before. Someone who has governing and/or legislative experience of some kind. Someone who understands how government operates from experience working inside the system. I don't want some novice coming along, appealing to peoples emotions on one hand, while they hoodwink voters with the other hand.

I support Perry now, but I will support anyone but Romney or Paul to be the GOP nominee. I hope Republicans pick the best possible challenger. America can't afford 4 more years of Obama and his destructive agenda.

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.