Posted on 11/01/2011 1:43:50 PM PDT by Kaslin
It has the feel of an ambush -- this sexual harassment story involving Herman Cain. Some conservatives are responding in familiar ways. "They are terrified of strong, conservative black men," one commentator explained. "It's another high-tech lynching."
The emotional response is understandable. Ever since the orchestrated, scurrilous character assassination aimed at Judge Robert Bork, conservatives have been perpetually on edge, waiting for the next slander of public figures who represent a threat to liberal power. In a remarkable (and frankly, brave) acknowledgement of this history, liberal New York Times columnist Joe Nocera wrote recently that Judge Bork was a "legal intellectual" and that "whatever you think of (his) views, they cannot be fairly characterized as extreme . . . The Bork fight, in some ways, was the beginning of the end of civil discourse in politics."
Liberals, Nocera writes, knew that Bork was not an extremist. They knew that he just happened to disagree with them on abortion, affirmative action and other matters, and they feared that he would swing the court in a more conservative direction.
But liberals couldn't just come out and say that. "If this were carried out as an internal Senate debate," Ann Lewis, the Democratic activist, would later acknowledge, "we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose." So instead, the Democrats sought to portray Bork as "a right-wing loony," to use a phrase in a memo written by the Advocacy Institute, a liberal lobby group.
The accusations against Clarence Thomas, following what liberal commentator Juan Williams called a "search for dirt" by liberal activists, deepened the disgust conservatives felt. There have been any number of conservatives who've been "borked" since.
So the response among some conservatives to the Cain story is practically Pavlovian. And yet, just because the well-worn tactic of digging up dirt on candidates is abhorrent, and just because the press dashes around with its hair on fire whenever one of these juicy targets presents itself, doesn't mean you can dismiss the accusations altogether.
I say that because the Cain campaign has not, thus far, handled this predictable emergency well -- perhaps due to political inexperience -- or perhaps for some other reason. Cain did not immediately deny the accusations. Instead, he sent his spokesman J. D. Gordon to Fox News where he offered the kind of responses associated with, well, guilt. "These are thinly sourced allegations . . . These two sources aren't even named in the (Politico) piece. It was a third party." This sounds like those confrontations in crime dramas where the detective confronts the villain with the accusation of murder and instead of denying it, he sneers, "You can't prove that." You don't have to be a cynic to notice that. According to Politico, the women, themselves, are not permitted to discuss the matter. So to say that because the information came from a "third party" it is therefore not credible, seems a little slippery.
Pressed by Geraldo Riviera about whether it was true or false that two female employers of the National Restaurant Association had received settlements in connection with harassment claims, Gordon offered a non sequitur, noting that major news organizations had previously passed on this story. Asked again whether the National Restaurant Association had settled with two women who alleged sexual harassment by Cain when he headed the organization in the 1990s, "yes or no," Gordon sidestepped the question, saying this was a "scare campaign" and offering, "you'll have to ask the Restaurant Association." Uh-oh.
The following day, appearing at the American Enterprise Institute, Cain declined to take questions on the matter. Finally, later in the day, he told the National Press Club, "I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, and I say 'falsely' because it turned out after the investigation to be baseless. Never have I ever committed any kind of sexual harassment." I hope he's telling the truth. But the locution "I say falsely because it turned out after the investigation to be baseless" leaves one queasy. A falsely accused person doesn't need to wait for an investigation to issue a passionate denial.
It's certainly possible that the Restaurant Association agreed to a settlement to avoid costly litigation. That happens. But no one in the Cain camp is saying that.
This may be just another knot in a long string of character assassination attempts against conservatives. It's also possible that Cain is playing that angle to avoid the truth.
Not brave, not today.
Saying this while Bork was being borked, when it might have done some good, would have been brave.
Politics (and American presidential politics in particular) is a contact sport.
If they’re starting to try to dig up dirt on Herman Cain, it means the political establishment is starting to take him seriously.
If he thinks he’s made out of presidential material, then he’ll find a way out of this thing. If he doesn’t, then we know he isn’t the guy we want to run against Obama.
I haven’t made up my mind yet about who I think the best candidate is, but I like a lot of what Herman Cain has to say. I don’t know if I’d vote for him in a primary, but we aren’t there yet, so I’ve got some time to mull it over.
Either ways though, if there’s no merit to this thing, it’ll blow over as soon as the media gets bored with the story, and if there is merit, well, probably better to have the story come out now, then to come out a month before the election.
Mona says “It isn’t a Borking if you don’t scream and let the crap stick to you”.
Would she offer that advice to a woman undergoing a sexual assault?
After all, this type of smeary garbage is the political equivalent.
Cain should hire a staffer to deal with bimbo eruptions, then he should rape a woman, use GA State Troopers to select suitable objects of his desire, and finally of course, catch a few Lewinskys under his desk.
It’s not a Borking. It’s a Caining. A severe beating to be an example to the others not to leave the plantation.
Politics..especially National Politics is a full CONTACT sport. With the possible exception of George Washington all presidents have been vilified by their opponents. Black or white, if your skin is thin...don’t get in.
They will say since Cain talked about it, the condifentiality portion is broken and seomone will offer enough money to make it worth their while...and then watch them come forward and try and refute whatever it is Cain has said.
Then he will fall back on the records of the investigation itself.
In the end, my guess is the attempt is going to just further galvanize Cain's support.
It is already doing so and it will backfire on the left and RINOs.
I’m beginning to think that Cain was “Borked” — or “Clarence Thomased” — at the National Restaurant Association, as well. You don’t have to be in government to have a cabal of people around who are willing to go to great lengths to see to it that you fail.
Now their racism is manifestation of their insanity of doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
They will pull out all the stops,
because Cain is THE guy that they don’t want facing 0bama.
Once again, Mona starts out nice, but then starts veering predictably establishment RINO.
In other words he should change his party affiliation and go back to plantation, right? No thank you
We must not let the other side pick our candidate for us. I will continue to donate to Herman Cain’s campaign.
Witch hunt that almost took out Clarence Thomas. Hell no on Romney being the nominee ! Need no East Coast establishment politician as nominee !
None of that makes it right or Okay.
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.
