Posted on 10/31/2011 2:47:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
He now remembers because he has time to think about it, ask questions, talk to others, and etc.. Just like when any normal person fails to instantly recall a distant or vague memory because they attach no importance to it.
I would not easily recall a 10 year old “settlement of allegations” either and I don’t have a 1/10th of what he has on his plate.
I think this reveals poor campaign prep work. He needs an inside out review of his life and be ready for any more questions like this.
I wonder if candidates shouldn’t just make a list and release it all at once.
Of course (although now I’m not believing Cain anymore) he NOW says he remembered it perfectly in 2004, and told his campaign staff in his 2004 election about it.
So now we are supposed to believe he revealed this to his senate campaign, but kept his presidential campaign in the dark. I don’t buy it.
The story is the manner in which it was poorly handled...after having a 10 day warning that the harassment story was coming!
The way I heard it, from a couple of news sources, was that the women were fired and were given 3 months severance pay.....
could luck finding the perfect memory candidate. I suppose you like Mitt’s memory better, maybe Perry’s? 2004 was 7 years ago. Do you think that this is some life changing event that he was supposed to have etched forever in his memory. It is not. For a very busy person who faces these types things frequently it just isn’t worth trying to remember.
Remember these are settlements of allegations made in a severance package. No one was sued, no charges made with the EEOC, no sworn testimony or statements. Nothing but employees seeking to boost their severance package.
Get over it. He has a flawed memory over a non event so what. Now you are concerned not with if he did it but did he handle the explanation of whether he did it correctly. Or are you worried that even though he didn’t do it he failed to remember quickly and clearly enough but even when he did finally recall it he failed to explain that he may not have explained it to his presidential campaign even though he explained it to his senate campaign.
An inconsistent explanation over something is infinitesimal inconsequential. E.g Much ado over nothing.
According to one of Herman Cain's clarifications/statements, this only happened ONCE to him. And he is CERTAIN he remembers EVERY one, because he promises that if ANY other woman says he harrased them, it will be because they are lying.
So he is on record claiming perfect memory. He has left NO room for another woman to detail an event that he can later say "Oh, I just forgot about that".
We are way past the phase where Cain said he didn't remember anything, so the argument is moot now anyway. He remembers, he told someone in 2003, and he's certain that is the person who leaked the story. I don't believe Cain anymore, but that is the latest story. I stopped believing Cain when he decided it was OK to falsely accuse others of doing things in order to defend himself from false attacks.
Herman Cain was not sued for sexual harrassment. The association was the object of this female’s suit because the insurance money was her goal is what I’m betting. Of course thsat won’t weave the rope some fools want to knot up ...
I know a man who simply said to a female co-worker...”how have you been feeling?”
He had heard she was out for an unspecified medical issue, and she had just returned.
Turned out her medical issue was “female” problems.
She tried to go after him for harassment.
Fortunately it didn’t get far.
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.