Cain should have come out right after the story was published by Politico, consulted with Restaurant Association employees who had relevant information, and then made a public statement providing everything that happened to the best of his knowledge.
It certainly doesn’t help anyone’s credibility when they say they “can’t recall” certain facts and then later amend their previous statement(s). Even if there was “sexual harassment” as legally defined, most Americans are fair-minded and this would have eventually become a dead news story. But when you obfuscate or try to cover up what happened, and then facts later come out that show you were being deceitful, you’re toast. Ask Dick Nixon.
Monday was a media access day - he had appearances all day long scheduled. I’m sure was getting briefed on this situation between meetings - it was obvious he was filling in more details as the day went on.
He could have waited a day and get his ducks in a row. That’s what a politician would have done. But he took the bull by the horns and people are applauding his straightforward approach to this. He had his highest fundraising ever yesterday, and a lot of people on the fence are now in Cain’s corner.
“when you obfuscate or try to cover up what happened, and then facts later come out that show you were being deceitful, you’re toast. Ask Dick Nixon.”
Be careful what you construe as obfuscation. I wouldn’t want in future for not telling us absolutely everything, right away, but also somehow after exhaustive research, with perfect forensic certitude to be considered lying. Especially as this standard will not apply to Democrats, and apply less strenuously to establishment Republicans.
“But when you obfuscate or try to cover up what happened, and then facts later come out that show you were being deceitful, you’re toast. Ask Dick Nixon.”
Oh, I should also say, it’s all well and good to say he should get his ducks in a row, and certainly there are better politicians than Cain, and better politicians would have done better in response. But I’m sick of getting mired down in discussions of what’s good politics. Dick Nixon, per your example, was also a master of side-stepping scandal. Cf. the Checkers speech. So what kind of standard is that to judge by?
Next time we look around and wonder why we’re stuck with a bunch of Romneys and McCains, we should remember this. Because judging candidates by how they respond to bait is sure to butress establishment types. There’s no way Romney is less gaffe-prone, or Obama baggage laden, than Cain. But we perceive them differently, because they’re slicker. I can go overboard reacting against it, because at bottom that’s politicians’ job: people pleasing. And we can’t change that without abandoning representative democracy.
Only I warn that by testing candidates according to how well they finesse potential scandals and when and how often they put their feet in their mouths, we’re bound to end up with at best Bill Clinton. Ewww.