Posted on 11/11/2011 5:56:26 AM PST by TBBT
I think I understand why the audience at Wednesday’s CNBC debate booed Maria Bartiromo’s question to Herman Cain about sexual-harassment allegations. They don’t believe there is any truth to them. They suspect, along with the candidate, that the women concerned are part of a liberal lynch mob out to smear another strong, conservative, black man. They know that accusations of sexual harassment are often nebulous and PC. If I guess correctly, they also believe — with considerable justification — that the press is less interested in the dry details of policy than in salacious tales of misbehavior. They resent being dragged into another smutty distraction.
Yes, but. As someone who was well-disposed toward Herman Cain as a public figure (if not as a potential president), I cannot help recalling the response of Democrats to revelations about Bill Clinton. “We know all about it,” one exasperated reader wrote to Newsweek magazine, “and WE DON’T CARE.” In fact, the majority of Americans did not care — and it was not our finest moment as a nation. Liberals, who professed to be appalled by the one accusation against Clarence Thomas (just one non-contemporaneous accusation — not four or five), dismissed Bill Clinton’s behavior as no big deal. Stuart Taylor noted at the time that even if everything Anita Hill said about Clarence Thomas were true, it would not be nearly as serious as the allegations against Bill Clinton. Conservatives argued at the time that character mattered. Liberals replied, in effect, that it didn’t...
Read the rest here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/282909/booing-character-issue-mona-charen
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Palin was our first string.
We’re already on plan B. We can’t afford to eliminate our own candidates.
We need to win this time. It’s important.
(The story of the 'coke can' it was reported, came almost verbatim, from an obscure book that Hill used in her research/bibliography per a book she wrote; or 'somesuch'; as cannot recall specific details.
Whatever the case; that story got only short shrift and ultimately was totally obscurred from public reporting/discourse.)
That Anita steadfastly maintained that Thomas was guilty but in a language (beyond coke story) less definitive that it could have been; only enhanced her probabilites of guilt; rather than the guilt she ascribed to Clarence Thomas. IMHO. . . She followed him around as well; not unlike 'Sharon Bialek'; going to Tea Party function where he was a featured speaker - and supposedly giving him a big hug; upon meeting. He has said; per his retrospect; that he did know her or ever remember. . .'knowing her' or somesuch.
(On this; I worry about Cain; as he seems less 'definitive' about what it is; he is "rejecting". Wish he were more specific/equivocal. That word; "rejecting"; itself; being an example of an inefficient word - for his purposes; IMHO)
One thing we know with certainty;when it comes to the politics of personal destruction; the Lefties are 'good'. They are ever 'ready; always willing and we know; they are ever so able.
No the one lying is you. If you bothered to actually listen to the facts of the matter there was no “payoff”.
***************************
They were settled as nuisance suits, is what I gathered. Bean counters will simply look at the cost of a trial as compared to the cost of a settlement, and often opt for the settlement. Truth and facts, guilt or innocence be damned, which is cheaper?
No, but it is filthy and shameless to accuse a man of wrongdoing by distorting the facts, which is what you have done. MNJohnnie has pointed out your distortions. You own them. To bad you don't have the shame for what you do.
IIRC, he recused himself from the whole thing, so he didn't know any of the details. Sexual harassment claims are by and large nuisance issues to companies, not something that stays fresh in the mind 15 years later, especially since there are probably plenty of other employee complaints too (ADA springs to mind).
It would, of course, be interesting to know NRA's history, say, from the 1980s, of dealing with harassment complaints (number, identities of the accused, terms of resolution). But the only source willing to spill confidential info is apparently interested in only one thing, to coin a phrase!
For days on end, the MSM on CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. repeatedly brought up the "Black man assaulting the blond white woman " scenario, and appeared to be waiting eagerly for the right wing to live up to their racists stereotyping. They were absolutely BEGGING us to get outraged and demand Cains head!
"How long will it take for Republicans to push Cain out and ...."
"There must be outrage on the right because of this racial component....."
"Imagine the hate for Mr. Cain they must be feeling right now. Will it be hours or days for them to come out and....."
"What have you heard? Are they screaming for Cain to step aside yet?"
It actually did come up. Cain finally had to admit that he had discussed the employment complaints with his advisor in the 2004 race, and this was what he used to blame the Perry campaign (because he said that the adviser had later at some point worked for Perry and therefore must have been the one who alerted Politico). So note that he never explained his side of the complaints but simply went on to blame someone - with no foundation - for "leaking" it. The reason it was not used by the Dems as an issue at the time was because they didn't need to: Cain ran disastrously and lost by a huge margin, so he was never really a serious contender.
As for the confidentiality agreement, IIRC shortly after this started, the NRA said it would be willing to release the parties. Both parties have to agree to that, however, and I suspect that Cain did not. Or at any rate, if he did, he's not talking about it, even though he would also be free to do so.
That said, I don't want to go over the details again. I think the point of the article is the important thing, which is that we are behaving just like the Democrats and we are engaging in exactly the same tactics as the left and we are even proudly proclaiming that if it's our boy we're talking about, we don't care about either our character or his.
That's been the case since anti-harassment laws were first proposed. They were designed to even out the power disparities between men and women. Non-monetary socialism.
This article is meant to raise doubt in order to put Romney at the top.
So Mona has reasons.
That said, Herman Cain did say he would take a lie detector test if needed.
Did you notice that the next day, nobody involved, even the MSM asked him to do so. Now why would that be?
Answer is, they did not want him to because they knew he would pass. That is why it all has settled down.
They also knew that if Herman took one, their female clients would also be asked to take the test.
We know the lie detector test is not admissible in court, but investigators use them all the time to weed out suspects, or move them lower on their list.
Problem you have is that you refuse to look at the facts and you would rather believe the accusations.
If you don't like Herman, that is your business. But this was obviously a leftwing attack on Cain. Even if he isn't chosen as the nominee, he doesn't deserve his reputation ruined by the disreputable.
Mona is arguing against a straw man, and in doing so, insults those of us who still support Cain.
First of all, who among us is saying we wouldn't care IF these charges are true?
No one! That would be dastardly all round, but none of his supporters are saying this.
Secondly, we stand by Mr Cain now, because:
A) He denies the charges completely.
B) The last time I checked one is innocent until PROVEN guilty in the courts of this country, and while Herman is not standing in the defendant’s docket in any court of law, we should not declare him immediately guilty in the court of public opinion, especially in the heated campaign atmosphere of the politics of personal destruction that the established, Left-wing, knowingly-biased-against-conservatives driveby media is today.
C) We are very aware of the timing and inconsistencies of these charges, the backgrounds of those making them (Gloria Allard, for goodness sake!); suspicious of all these things, and well aware of the fact that in his 40+ years as a business man, no other accusers are “coming forward”, except those from his 3-year stint as the head of the National Restaurant Association.
So Mona, please address these things, and not some false argument that “we don't care if it's all true” baloney you made up.
My 25+ years in business saw any number of such situations, the only one of which I can recall the facts, was because I was directly involved. It was an employee of mine (a dept. manager), one whom I’d personally sought for the position, who (after being transferred to another location at his request) then used his “relationship” with one of his former employees to denigrate the woman who replaced him. It seems his ‘lover’ wanted the job and he worked behind the scenes to help her.
When I wound up firing the lover (my boss took care of firing the dept. manager), I was damned concerned she’d come back with some kind of harassment charge. I made sure to have witnesses throughout the process, as well as complete documentation. That’s the only way to handle these things.
“So even if it’s true - and I doubt it is - its not anywhere near the level of what Clinton and Weiner did.”
Comparing Cain’s offenses to that of other cads does NOT make him any less an offender or change the fact that he lied about it.
So, according to you, all business people wink at using one’s position to solicit sexual favors if they take “no” for an answer? Your principles are showing(or not).
Thank Heaven, some businesses still cling to that old, outdated, basic morality that you deem “prudish”. If they didn’t, there would be no such phrase as “sexual harrassment” and no remedy for it’s occurance.
The polls show that among REPUBLICAN women, Cain’s support is going up.
They also show that, among REPUBLICANS, a higher percentage of women believe Cain than men.
In other words, among women that lean Democrat Cain is losing support.
Remember, “moderate, independent” women, by a large pecentage, end up voting Democrat no matter who the nomiees of either party are.
Please. I have accused Cain of nothing, but I AM willing to listen to what the accusers have to say and draw my own conclusions. Thus far, only one has come forward. I’d like to hear from all of them.
What HAS bothered me about Cain were the changing stories, and as Livius said, his willingness to attack a conservative rival first with the painted rock incident, and next the (false) accusation about where the leak came from. I have evidence about those (direct quotes), but not the sexual harassment claims.
At this point, I’m not willing to support someone with that kind of character, or lack thereof. So if you want to get me banned along with Sklar, bring it. Please tell them to be sure to cut off my monthly payments to FR before they do so.
Cain is not a cad.
Nice try, propagandist.
So what would your version of "ethical leadership" look like?
Cain's resignation? I'll agree that Mark Block is doing no good, but what would you do instead?
“moderate, independent” women must be self describing.
What they really mean is “middle aged and single or divorced, looking for a proxy husband or father in the form of a government politician”.
Cain wasn't a signatory.
>> Comparing Cain’s offenses to that of other cads does NOT make him any less an offender or change the fact that he lied about it. >>
You are perverting logic and ignoring perspective and denying facts in order to advance your agenda. If you will refuse to acknowledge a huge difference in both the seriousness of the charges and in the level of the evidence then dialoguing with you is a waste of time. Meanwhile you hide behind moral absolutes even the Apostles could not live up to.
I stand by my earlier hypothesis: you are likely a prude and likely have no experience being in any position of authority and responsibility for any length of time.
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.