Posted on 11/03/2011 8:28:07 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Justin Sink
November 3, 2011
Herman Cain said Forbes Magazine - and not his campaign - was responsible for the concluding that Rick Perry's campaign leaked the story of sexual harassment allegations during Cain's tenure as the president of the National Restaurant Association.
"A reporter did this research and came up with these facts, we didn't," Cain said Thursday on Sean Hannity's radio show. "That was the reporter that wrote the report for Forbes."
But despite adamant denials from the Perry camp, Cain said he still doesn't "see any other way this could have come out."
The Forbes article, headlined "Cain Says Perry Camp Behind Sex Harassment Leak," quoted the candidate as saying that he told former staffer Curt Anderson, now a consultant for the Perry campaign, about the allegations. But Cain is not quoted specifically accusing Anderson of being the leak.
The Cain campaign quickly seized on the article Wednesday night, seemingly validating Forbes' reporting that Cain was laying blame at Perry's feet.
"Rick Perry needs to apologize to Herman Cain, his family, and America for this despicable story," Cain's chief of staff Mark Block said Wednesday on Fox News.
Anderson has denied the accusations, saying in a statement: "I have great respect for Herman and his character and I would never speak ill of him, on the record or off the record."
He also told Fox News that any reporters he had ever spoken to about the Cain allegations were free to openly attribute those comments to him. In doing so, he opened up the door for Politico, who originally reported the allegations, to confirm him as the source. Politico has not done so, effectively eliminating Anderson as the source of the story.
Block said earlier Thursday that he would "accept" the claim by Anderson that he was not behind the story.
"Until we get all the facts, I'm just going to say that we accept what Mr. Anderson has said, and we want to move on with the campaign," Block said on Fox News.
But Cain seemed unconvinced, telling Hannity "there aren't enough breadcrumbs that leads us to any other place."
"I believe a lot of people are connecting the dots for themselves," Cain said. "I don't see any other way this could have come out."
Cain also said he's "almost certain" he told Anderson about the allegations.
"I am almost certain that I did. … This is why we want to get off this merry-go-round," Cain said.
Thank you, that was great. :-)
Here is another segment of that John King interview on CNN where Perry responded to questions about the allegations from the Cain camp.
It was an honest observation, why are you being so defensive? Enjoy yourself!
And don’t forget to donate to the Freepathon!
Are seriously reading my posts? Because I see no evidence of it. I never came close to claiming there was, or that there should be, a rule like that.
I said that it is most likely Perry chose the guy *because* he worked for Cain in the past. Think about it. Cain is catapulting in the polls. You need to stop him. What better way to get inside Cain's head then bring on someone who worked for him in the past?
Well, Anderson was available and has a good reputation so Perry hired him, so what? Anderson claims he didn’t tell anyone, said anything he has told any publication he has nothing to hide and they can reveal, he didn’t work on Cain’s Presidential Campaign, worked for him in 2004... and now Cain said he “may” have told Anderson, doesn’t remember for sure and Anderson says he didn’t know... but what Cain said is the real issue, this was not a surprise to him, if his original story is to be believed then he was worried about this coming out in 2004 and THAT is the real story, now who Rick Perry hired for his campaign....... or..... does it only matter if a potential President is another Billy Clinton if the man has a D after his name??? is that what you really believe? I am not so invested in any candidate to give him or her a pass just because they have an R behind their name.
If Cain made an accusation based on circumstatial evidence that he really witnessed, then his accusation isn't baseless. In fact your accusation that Cain's accusation is baseless, is indeed baseless since you have no idea what Cain really remembers.
As I pointed out several times on this thread, Cain based his claim on the following alleged recollection....
If his recollection is true, then his accusation is not "baseless".
It’s not defensive for a poster to ask another poster to substantiate a comment and/or claim they have made.
I urge everybody who has any interest in this story to read this entire transcript. Curt lays it all out. And what you will see is that he REPEATEDLY praises Herman Cain, and repeatedly deflects attempts by the reporter to make his statements into an attack on Herman Cain.
Either the guy is a complete and total sleezeball, in which case you'd have to fault Cain for hiring him and confiding in him, or he is really a good, christian guy who is telling the truth, and is hurt that a man he admires is falsely accusing him, but refuses to hold it against Cain.
Here are a few things Curt Anderson said about Cain -- remember, Cain is falsely accusing him of leaking information told in confidence as a campaign advisor, something that if true could make Anderson unemployable:
Well, let me say, first off, something that will sound a little odd to your viewers, but I really like Herman Cain. And I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I remember that campaign in 2004 fondly. He's a great candidateI'm sorry, but that just does not in ANY way sound like a guy who LEAKED a story about sexual harrassment to embarrass or hurt Herman Cain. He genuinely likes Cain, and has nothing but good things to say about him, even though Cain is accusing him of unethical and unprofessional behavior.
...
I just want to set the record straight that I have tremendous regard for the guy. And I think he's a guy, you know, he's a great conservative leader. He's run a great campaign, and I really enjoy him. You know, you don't enjoy everybody you work with, but I really enjoy the guy.
...
I'm not going to attack him in any sort of personal way or anything.
...
he's in a tough spot and it's very rough, and candidates when they get into a firestorm like this have sometimes come unraveled. And, you know, it seems to me that they're kind of grasping at straws and fishing around trying to figure out what to do,
...
But I'm not here to disparage Herman. I think he’s a tremendous guy. And this is all an unfortunate mess.
...
Well, again, I have great regard for the guy, and I think both he and all the other Republican candidates running would be a great improvement over our current president. I really do believe that.
...
And I think Herman, if he can get himself back to talking about the issues and the things that have put him in -- I mean, this guy is the front running candidate for the nomination to be president of the United States. And if he can get himself back into gear, I mean, he can recover. But I have no interest in suing anyone or even attacking anybody.
...
a lot of candidates, and Herman included, talk about their faith in these issues. And I endorse that. I think that's great.
...
These allegations do not comport to the Herman Cain that I know. You know, I said in my statement yesterday, I have always known him as a gentleman and as a guy of strong character.
...
No, no. If I was going to talk to Herman, I would do it, you know, personally. I wouldn't do it on CNN.
...
Now, I'm disappointed that he tried to use me as a pawn and to get him out of his mess that he's in. But I'm not going to let that cover everything I know about him.
...
But listen, this guy has no financial support -- you know, not big money for a presidential standpoint. When he first got in this race, people were like, oh, that’s -- no one is going to know that he's even running. And right now he is the frontrunner for the nomination of president of the United States. That is tremendous.
...
I'll also say this. They just don't ring true to the guy I know. Now, I don't know anything about it, so I’m not going to be judge and jury on that, but it just doesn't comport with the Herman Cain that I know.
I can see why Perry would want Anderson on his team -- he seems like a real stand-up guy, someone with integrity and ethical standards that are hard to find in politics.
I'm sorry Cain smeared him like he did, and maybe when Cain gets his act together, he'll at least apologize privately for slandering this man.
If his recollection is true then in 2003 he was worried this would come out, so he didn’t just learn about this ten days ago and yet when he gave an interview when he jumped into the campaign he claimed he didn’t have any skeletons hiding in his closet —oops! At this point who he told isn’t as important as he is trying to finger point to draw attention away from the real issue at hand... and Perry is such a convenient whipping boy for some unknown reason, after all a few weeks ago without any evidence he called Perry a racist and now he is saying Perry is responsible for the Politico story — in fact did he think if he won the nomination Obama wouldn’t dig this up??? give me a break, none of us just fell off the turnip wagon.
Cain’s cabinet would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. He’s no dummy, check out his educational background...he could be a rocket scientist, oops he was one..
You have a penchant for missing the point. Had you read my post, you wouldn’t have wasted all the ink rehashing this leak story. Frankly, I doubt Perry camp leaked the story. Nor have I claimed they did.
What I’m saying is that Perry *did* hire Anderson because he worked for Cain in the past. Anyone who believes it was only because he came “highly recommended” is naive. Face it, Cain was the guy rocketing in the polls. If you needed advice on stopping someone like Cain, what better way than to hire a guy who worked for him on a previous campaign?
You can send me another half page of text on this leak/no leak thing if you want, but I’m not going to read it. I don’t need you to try to convince me of something I already believe in the first place.
I still say it was a “baseless” accusation - it was pure speculation on Cain’s part - that is just not good enough proof when you are accusing someone of something that could cause them to lose their job - or lose an election. That is slander if you can’t back it up with FACTS.
That’s irresponsible, stupid or just plain old dishonest.
Sure seems like it. What kind of a time factor would you put on it? That way, if it ever comes up again, I can quote you. How’s that?
I wonder if Cain was really a rocket scientist or is that’s an urban myth? Cain didn’t know what an Aegis class cruiser was supposed to do the other day. For someone who worked in rocketry in the navy earlier in life, you’d think he’d know about the capabilities of a popular anti-missile system that the navy has had around since the 1980s. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2011/11/02/cliff-clavin-cain/ And then there were the remarks on China’s nuke capabilities. He appears a bit confused for a rocket scientist. I blame The Smoking Man, though.
"Opps" nothing!
If Cain didn't sexually harrass anybody then he indeed has no skelatons in his closet. But it is something one would still discuss with their advisor. You are trying to make a point against Cain where no point exists.
At this point who he told isn’t as important as he is trying to finger point to draw attention away from the real issue at hand... and Perry is such a convenient whipping boy for some unknown reason,...
Cain gave his reason. I've now pointed it out numerous times on this thread. Yet you still claim that the reason is "unknown".
Most likely.
Some here though would probably call your accusation "baseless".
LOL!
The problem with your definition of “baseless” is that you render the word meaningless.
If I make the claim that I told you something, by your definition my claim can never be “baseless” because it is based on “my recollection” that I told you something.
But in fact, it is NOT based on my “recollection”. My “recollection” is merely a hypothesis you make, or an assertion I make. How do you KNOW I am basing my claim on my recollection? Only because I TOLD you. But I could be lying about that, as well as lying about what I claim I told you.
You cannot claim a basis for an argument based on the statement of the person making the argument. It is self-referential, and therefore unsupportive.
The point in evaluating ANY claim is to decide whether the claim is true or false. In order to do so, you must look for some kind of measure by which the claim can be judged.
Generally, there are two measures. First is personal — an evaluation of the veracity of the person making the claim. That is important if the claim is about something that is, as in this case, a personal claim. Would the person lie about a claim they make regarding their own actions.
But we wouldn’t use the term “not baseless” (baseless is a natural negative) in regards to an argument from authority (which is what this first type of argument is). Authority can be asserted, and evaluated, but it isn’t generally considered something that makes a claim fact-based (which is the loose antonym of “baseless).
The second measure is facts, evidence that supports the claim. That evidence must be exterior to the claim itself; anything contained within the claim can at best be judged by authority.
So you can’t claim as “evidence” for being told something the “fact” that the person who says they told that thing also says the remember telling it. They are part and parcel of the same claim.
Evidence would be a witness, or a written or recorded record, or a later conversation that reveals knowledge of what was said in the conversation. More inferential evidence would be evidence that other similar things were discussed, or that the person has a record of asking about the thing you say you discussed.
But Cain has presented NONE of this. No direct evidence, and in fact makes the claim that there would be no evidence. No record of Anderson telling anybody else. No written record, no recording, no later conversation.
For an argument to have a basis, and not be baseless, it is virtually always the cacse that the argument COULD be refuted; then the inability to refute it is part of the basis for it’s truth. In this case, there is NOTHING Anderson can do to refute Cain’s claim. Because Cain offers no evidence, only Cain’s own insistance of his own truthfulness, Anderson CANNOT present competing evidence to counter the claim.
All Anderson can do is assert he was NOT told. Which assertion is also “baseless”, but by necessity, because you cannot prove somethign didn’t happen, when the person making the claim has claimed there were no witnesses. How would Anderson refute the claim? Well, he could argue that he and Cain were NEVER in a room alone with the door closed. He could argue he ALWAYS taped his conversations. But even if he produced tapes, or had people who said the were often called into meetings, Cain could still insist that this ONE TIME they were alone.
So in the end, the 1st part of cain’s claim is a simple he-said, he-aaid dispute. Two people with a competing narrative, neither of which can provide ANY evidence other than their own self-referential statements. That is a useless debate; you can only judge based on your personal opinion of the two men’s character and likelyhood of truthfulness. But those things involve personal involvement. I bet people who are friends with Cain would side with him, and Anderson’s friends would side with him. No rational basis for making a determination.
The 2nd claim is much more easily refuted by Anderson, and he has done a great job. And Cain has NOTHING to back his claim — not even a self-referential argument, since Cain doesn’t provide any evidence that Cain would be in any position to know anything about the conversation politico had with anybody.
Cain wasn’t a “rocket scientist”, he wasn’t a “scientist” in the literal sense.
He had a degree in mathematics, and a masters in computer science (my CS friends will be upset I deny them the “science” moniker when it’s in their degree, but I digress).
He was a ballistic anaylist, which means loosely he did trajectory stuff, how missiles would operate. He didn’t design and build missiles.
Not saying he isn’t a bright man, I’m just getting hypertechnical about the “rocket science” thing. Like when they used to say Carter was a nuclear engineer.
From the interview I just read and posted with Anderson, it doesn’t look to me like he would use privileged information he learned from the Cain campaign to help Perry.
And since Cain lost that campaign pretty soundly, I really doubt there is anything rom that campaign that would be helpful to Perry, or about how Cain operates.
Anderson has served a lot of clients. He’s apparently good, and apparently very ethical, and a good man.
Well, I’m not a big fan of Perry, but if he did not hire Anderson specifically because he could be useful after having worked for the other team, then Perry loses a bit of stature in my eyes. Ruthlessness, tempered by a fanatical allegiance to the Constitution, is what I want in my next president.
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.