Posted on 11/03/2011 10:16:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Day four of the Herman Cain sexual harassment story is all about the blame game. Team Cain blames Rick Perry for making the press aware of the accusations of inappropriate behavior Cain admits came his way when he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s.
Team Perry, meanwhile, says it’s the Mitt Romney campaign who sent the story to Politico. The Perry camp denies strenuously that they had anything to do with the story which is, at its heart, about accusations Cain has admitted are real — though he says he never harassed anybody. Romney’s campaign also denied they’re the source of the story to TPM and other outlets Wednesday.
Meanwhile on the backburner bubbles the possibility that one of the accusers could make a public statement at any moment. That could send this story ricocheting into a different direction, but for now the Cain campaign seems to think they’re onto something by making the tale about who told reporters Cain was accused of sexually harassing more than one woman rather than the fact that Cain was accused of sexually harassing more than one woman.
“Perry Campaign Used Politico to Attack Cain With Anonymous Sexual Harassment Charges,” reads a press release sent out last night by the Cain team. (Of course, Cain’s campaign has admitted the Politico story wasn’t anonymous, but that’s not really important to constructing the Perry-as-leaker narrative.)
Meanwhile, the man Cain himself says is responsible for the story is totally denying Cain’s version of things. Consultant Curt Anderson advised Cain’s 2004 Senate campaign and now works for a firm that works with Perry. Cain said he told Anderson about the sexual harassment allegations during the course a meeting back in 2003, but Anderson categorically denied that this morning on CNN:
“It’s hard to leak something you don’t know anything about,” he said. Asked directly about the conversation Cain claimed they had eight years ago, Anderson said: “I don’t have any knowledge of any of this and, you know, it’s just not true.”
Then on Fox today, Anderson went a step farther.
“All this stuff about who leaked whatever, any reporter in the free world is free to say anything to anybody that I ever said to them about can Herman Cain,” he said. “I give them carte blanche to do that because I have absolutely nothing to hide.”
There are a few rats on all ships, normy
I don’t have a doubt i8n the world that it is, Cw. Since the only man who knew about the false charages settlement worked for Perry’s campaign firm. Looks like a direct connection to me.
No need to apologize Normy. I think we’re all a little emotional right now. Primary season is exciting, but it’s also very dirty.
I am very disappointed in Cain right now. I don’t really care about anonymous accusations. I don’t even care that he flubbed the first few responses (didn’t have cable or internet at the time because of the snow storm, so I missed it as it happened). I got really annoyed when he started pointing fingers, especially at other republicans. I don’t think whining and blaming is presidential. I don’t like it in Obama, and I’m sure not going to overlook it in a conservative. I am holding out hope however, that Cain gets his act together.
That applies to Rick Perry, too. Cain & his people have no business accusing the Perry camp publically without proof. Look, I'm a Cain girl, but he has seriously screwed this up. Conservatives (candidates and the rest of us) need to stop fighting ourselves. We are all on the same side!
What evidence is there that Anderson knew? Because Cain said so? The women said they were harrassed, and that’s not evidence, so why is Cain saying something “evidence”?
Cain is the one who made the charge. The charge isn’t evidence. Does Cain have any proof Anderson knew? Lets ask the other people on the 2003 campaign if Cain told them, or if they remember Cain telling Anderson.
Next, is there any evidence that Anderson told Politico? Anderson has released Politico to name him if he is the source — but they haven’t. So it appears he wasn’t their source. But what evidence did Cain have to claim Anderson was their source? None that he presented.
There is no evidence. Your “evidence” is merely circumstance. Anderson does work for a company that does have ties to the Perry campaign (that isn’t the same as saying Anderson works for the Perry campaign, but I understand what you are saying). Anderson was on Cain’s 2004 campaign, which means he liked Cain and wanted him to get elected to the Senate. That seems to suggest he wouldn’t be the leaker, not the other way around.
Why Anderson, and not the two women, or the friends of the women, or any of the employees who knew of the complaint? Why not one of the current staff? Why not Block, through an intermediary, doing so in the hopes they could play the victim card as they have and get a bump in the polls?
I mean, if you are speculating with no evidence, there are all sorts of speculation. Wilson knew about it, as did apparently a bunch of people at a restaurant. Another report says the woman talked to others at work, so they would know.
The woman worked for the NRA, and then left during Cain’s term. The records of the organization are public, they are a lobbying group and have disclosure requirements. It would be easy for politico to find a list of employees who left, and interview them to see if they could find a “disgruntled” employee. NOBODY would have to leak anything. One employee might mention the harrassment complaint — and from there the rest is easy.
Absolutely right.
The bad behavior of the Tiny Hyenas tends to tar all Cain supporters with the same brush and it's not right.
Cain appears to have good conservative ideals overall, but this situation does beg scrutiny.
Other candidates have been vetted on FR, and in my opinion, Cain is not above that.
It's tempting to allow the nasty tactics of a few supporters turn us completely off of a candidate, but I've found just laughing at the Tiny Hyenas and otherwise ignoring them is the best practice.
my post said that Curt Anderson was the only one who knew that Mr. Cain had these false charges brought against him because he handled Mr. Cain’s run for the Senate sefveral years ago. And he now works for the Public Relations firm that handles Perry’s campaign. Get it?
First, you again assume the charge — there is no evidence Anderson knew, that is a claim made by Cain, with no evidence.
Second, Anderson wasn’t with Perry when politico started looking at the story. We know that 10 days before the story came out, they contacted Cain. That means they already had all the information, and were looking for his response. Given the number of people they claim to have spoken to, it is likely they were working on this for weeks before.
Not that this matters — if Anderson liked Perry, he could easily have leaked the story before he had the tenuous connection to Perry’s campaign. But that just shows that this piece of “evidence” is meaningless — there is no reason that Anderson would wait to join a campaign to leak this, or that the leak would be tied to a campaign because of when Anderson joined, or that the two items would happen concurrently. They are just two events.
What link does Anderson have with Romney? I just ask because I hadn’t paid attention. What link did he have with Politico? I’ve never seen anything suggesting he worked for them.
Now, Anderson DID have a link to Cain, as did every single person who worked on Cain’s campaign. But so did every person who worked for the NRA.
You are arguing again that ‘all these connections’ are somehow evidence. But they are not. Connections are just connections.
As to the claim that the women “stood nothing to gain”, I think you are mistaken on that. Not that they had financial gain coming. But if they actually felt aggrieved by Cain, even if they were NOT, wouldn’t they be upset that he could end up being President?
Juanita Broderick nad nothing to gain by coming forward, but she did because it bothered her that Clinton was getting away with it. Same with Jennifer Flowers, and Paula Jones. History shows that women DO come forward when people they believe wronged them get to positions of national prominence.
Maybe someone at the NRA doesn’t like Cain, and supports another candidate, and wanted to stop him. Maybe, like apparently some freepers feel about Perry, this person thought Cain would be bad for the country. So they leaked the story. Not part of a campaign, just someone who wants a different person to win.
Plus, it didn’t even have to be about “coming forward”. Maybe someone was minding their own business, and Politico contacted them, and convinced them to say something about it.
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.