The Cain Mutiny

[aristotle]

Now more than ever, it is essential for all presidential contenders to be fully vetted. If scandals and allegations of bad behavior clutter their past, let the disinfectant power of sunshine separate fact from fiction.

Barack Obama was pretty much given a free pass by the media in 2008. We now live with that mistake. This past week brings unfavorable allegations suggesting Herman Cain has had a troubled past in his conduct toward women in the workplace. Presenting himself as a conservative, Mr. Cain can count on the thorough vetting never afforded to Obama.

The mainstream media will not let go of this story until they are satisfied a full and factual accounting has been given. It will be an ugly process. Will Herman Cain face the Chinese water torture of more bad news everyday? Or will he be exonerated? A proper vetting, if allowed, should reveal the truth. Moreover, this speaks to why American voters do not pick relative unknowns as nominees. We generally pick from the pool of well-known office seekers... all of whom have been vetted many times over many years in public life. End result: we get a career politician.

 

[cheri1122]

Now more than ever, it is essential for all presidential contenders to be fully vetted. If scandals and allegations of bad behavior clutter their past, let the disinfectant power of sunshine separate fact from fiction.

Barack Obama was pretty much given a free pass by the media in 2008. We now live with that mistake. This past week brings unfavorable allegations suggesting Herman Cain has had a troubled past in his conduct toward women in the workplace. Presenting himself as a conservative, Mr. Cain can count on the thorough vetting never afforded to Obama.

Allegations? I'd say there is enough 'smoke' in the accounts to justify an explanation from Mr Cain, but we probably won't ever get it. After changing his response several times, he is now insisting he will NEVER answer questions about it.
Bad move, Mr Cain. We really don't need or want a President who [mistakenly] thinks he's God's gift to women [maybe literally], and it looks like that would be you. Even less do we need a President who declares he will not respond to legitimate questions, or says "It's been answered" when clearly, it hasn't.
Stick a fork in Herman Cain, is my prediction.

The mainstream media will not let go of this story until they are satisfied a full and factual accounting has been given. It will be an ugly process. Will Herman Cain face the Chinese water torture of more bad news everyday? Or will he be exonerated? A proper vetting, if allowed, should reveal the truth. Moreover, this speaks to why American voters do not pick relative unknowns as nominees. We generally pick from the pool of well-known office seekers... all of whom have been vetted many times over many years in public life. End result: we get a career politician.

WE don't get to pick anyone, until the party officials have picked them first. It's their responsibility to vet the candidates, and the candidates' to be honest - but living up to one's responsibilities is just sound bytes, I guess, or maybe it's only expected of us 'little people'.

 

[aristotle]

Mr. Cain will be forced to address these allegations, fully and factually, or his campaign is over. Running for President is not like running a pizza company. Those who seek high public office must answer to the people and the press. Refusing to answer questions only worsens the matter for Cain. His story changes more often than a baby's diaper. Not good.

 

[greg334]

You know the allegations are a non-issue because if you expect to have a perfect candidate all the time, it ain't going to happen.

It really doesn't matter for this guy and this situation, both parties are bound by a non-disclosure and as soon as one opened their mouths, the other can't answer. I find it very suspect that this would happen.

But with that said the "vicitims" coming forth need to shed all the information and open themselves up to the scrutiny that they deserve by bringing this issue to the public, it sounds very vindictive. We shouldn't take the word of a few, as bad as this may sound to Cheri or others because this is a political divisive environment, we need to be more than sure that truth from the accuser is valid first.


and vetting them means limiting the access to our system which means we are now going down the same path that other countries have had. Should we accept this as part of the routine we endure to have access to our government where anyone can run for an office or should we just start closing off access to those who are either a part of a group that is "qualified" or those who are part of an elite class.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Oh Cheri, how shallow our memory goes. You don't remember Clinton dodging the questions about his "alleged" affairs? I mean, how can you forget Hillary practically singing Stand By Your Man in front of the press corps? They swooned over that man like they were expecting sexual favors from him!

 

[tbubster]

Why is it our right to know what this man may or may not have done in his private life?If the women who acussed Cain of this were in fact willing to talk about it now for the right reasons and truly belived that america has a right to know then they would be talking about it.Butthats right as soon as they talk about the so called truth then they break the agreement they made and lose that money they got.I guess the truth does not mean as much to them as they would like us to think.

Its funny though I have yet to hear him say he thinks he is god gift to women.

I for one am glad he is telling the press he is never going to answer questions about the so called charges again.Really he just finish up a debate and the reporters only want to as him about the herrassment.For get about the message forget about what was just debated lets ask him about something that may or may not have happend over ten years ago.The only reason it is an issue is to smear one of the republican front runners.Yet if one is paying attation you see its not really working.

Perhaps what is the sadist part of all of this is most if not all the liberal left media outlets are making such a big deal over something that may or may not have happend.That even if it did happen his wife of 43 years was able to forgive him yet the media outlets want us to belive this is a campgain killer.They want us to belive that Right now this is the most important issue in the race.In stead of showing an uproar over fannie and freddie losing billions this year and asking for billions more in bailout money and the big wigs are reciving millions in bonus money this year.Or how about congress having to subpoena for more Solyndra documents.As the white house does not want to give up any more records to help congress figure out how such a risky loan of almost half a billion dollars of tax payer money was made.You know since the whole bush started this loan thing did not work for them.Or how about the fact that the big wigs you know the Obama campgain backers were being paid large bonuses even as they were preparing to file for Bankruptcy after they lost all that tax payer money.Or how about the only answer the clown in the white house seems to beable to come up with to get us out of this mess is to Spend more tax payer money we dont have.Money we will have to borrow from China.

I think what is even more sad is that some peole are buying into this while looking away from the real threat to this country from the white house.Why do I think the media is trying to make this the most importent issus right now?Well thay cant take the chance at having the republicans put a black man on the ticket now can they?However would they play the republicans are all just a bunch of racist red necks that can not get over the fact that a black man was elected president race card?There goes Al Sharptons MSNBC show.And what will jesse have to protest about.

 

[tbubster]

Oh Cheri, how shallow our memory goes. You don't remember Clinton dodging the questions about his "alleged" affairs? I mean, how can you forget Hillary practically singing Stand By Your Man in front of the press corps? They swooned over that man like they were expecting sexual favors from him!

no just a cigar

 

[dieseldiva]

There might have been a time in this country, a long long time ago, when this story wouldn't have been reported because of the "anonymous" sources.

I think Mr. Cain is correct in handing out copies of the SPJ Code of Ethics. Maybe this will call attention to the shoddy reporting we've come to accept in this country as "news".

 

[Pilgrim]

The double standard being established by the mainstream media in this situation is absolutely breathtaking. The escapades of Slick Willie aren't that far back in time. They were brought forward by the victims themselves, they were documented and substantiated and we were told they didn't matter. We were told that what Slick did with other women in his spare time or even when he was in the Oval Office had nothing to do with his job performance - it was a personal thing that should be left to him and his family to deal with as they see fit. Even after he lied under oath before a grand jury and lied repeatedly to the public we were still told it didn't matter when it came to his job performance as president.

Contrast the number of news reports about Cain's sexual harassment settlements (no details available and no accusers identified) 50 as opposed to the number of reports done regarding Bill Clinton's transgressions 7 which were not only substantiated, but also much more serious.

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals

Has the response from Cain and his staff been as polished as it should have been? No. However, he can hire crisis management experts and slick Washington politicians to handle these types of situations, and needs to do so ASAP. Does his lack of a focused response to these attacks disqualify him as a credible candidate for President? Of course not, and one only has to refer to the Clinton responses as the gold standard.

Herman Cain has only waffled in his answers to these unspecified charges by unidentified women. Clinton lied outright, repeatedly, and under oath. Which is worse?

 

[cheri1122]

Oh Cheri, how shallow our memory goes. You don't remember Clinton dodging the questions about his "alleged" affairs? I mean, how can you forget Hillary practically singing Stand By Your Man in front of the press corps? They swooned over that man like they were expecting sexual favors from him!

It's nothing to do with my memory, I hardly paid attention to politics before Bush [the Shrub] was elected.
There are a couple differences, though: Monica Lewinski never claimed she was a victim of sexual harassment - Clinton believed his attention was not unwelcome. I don't condone what he did, or said about it, but feel his [and every person's] sex life is not our business - it's a private matter.
Cain was accused of criminal behavior, and that is our business, whether it was sexual or not.
The arrogance of the man is clear, and it's ugly. Why he never informed his own team of this skeleton in his closet is beyond me, but his refusal to respond to legitimate questions speaks volumes - he doesn't think the rules apply to him, or that the people have a right to know the character of the man asking to be elected.
What else does he think we have no right to know?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

It's nothing to do with my memory, I hardly paid attention to politics before Bush [the Shrub] was elected.
There are a couple differences, though: Monica Lewinski never claimed she was a victim of sexual harassment - Clinton believed his attention was not unwelcome. I don't condone what he did, or said about it, but feel his [and every person's] sex life is not our business - it's a private matter.
Cain was accused of criminal behavior, and that is our business, whether it was sexual or not.
The arrogance of the man is clear, and it's ugly. Why he never informed his own team of this skeleton in his closet is beyond me, but his refusal to respond to legitimate questions speaks volumes - he doesn't think the rules apply to him, or that the people have a right to know the character of the man asking to be elected.
What else does he think we have no right to know?

Paula Jones was a sexual harassment victim of Clinton's before he became president. They settled out of court for $850,000. The Monika Lewinski scandal came as a result of the Paula Jones trial. Clinton was impeached because he lied at said trial.

Not saying it's ok that Cain did this, if he did. But the media set the standard when they coddled Clinton thru his scandals by treating the victims as s.

 

[cheri1122]

Paula Jones was a sexual harassment victim of Clinton's before he became president. They settled out of court for $850,000. The Monika Lewinski scandal came as a result of the Paula Jones trial. Clinton was impeached because he lied at said trial.

Not saying it's ok that Cain did this, if he did. But the media set the standard when they coddled Clinton thru his scandals by treating the victims as s.

That explains why the current vics don't want to be identified, I guess.
The media doesn't set standards, I hope - we do. Clinton paid for his transgressions, and Cain is an *** to think he should be allowed to decide what we have a right to know [except for his sex life - that's off limits, no question] about his past behavior.
My question is, why does the R side always respond to wrongdoing by one of their own by pointing out what the D side has done? Why can't they just deal with the issue on it's own merits?

 

[dieseldiva]

It's nothing to do with my memory, I hardly paid attention to politics before Bush [the Shrub] was elected.
There are a couple differences, though: Monica Lewinski never claimed she was a victim of sexual harassment - Clinton believed his attention was not unwelcome. I don't condone what he did, or said about it, but feel his [and every person's] sex life is not our business - it's a private matter.
Cain was accused of criminal behavior, and that is our business, whether it was sexual or not.
The arrogance of the man is clear, and it's ugly. Why he never informed his own team of this skeleton in his closet is beyond me, but his refusal to respond to legitimate questions speaks volumes - he doesn't think the rules apply to him, or that the people have a right to know the character of the man asking to be elected.
What else does he think we have no right to know?

I wasn't paying close attention at the time either but anything you ever wanted to know about the ordeal is a few mouse clicks away.

Clinton was accused of criminal behavior, dating back to the 70's. Of course we all know that this wasn't the only woman that accused him.

You may not believe that Clinton was guilty of any criminal behavior with Lewinsky but we need to remember a couple of things. She was very young and I'm going to assume, easy to intimidate. Maybe she was a willing partner but if this were one of your own daughters wouldn't you at least think that he used his position for his own sexual gain?

Maybe another example would be John Edwards and how the MSM wouldn't touch that story for the longest time. They don't have that same reluctance when it comes to conservatives.

Mr. Cain was accused and yet that seems to be the only thing we really know about this incident. Even the attorney for the woman said it wasn't touching, it was gestures, just as Mr. Cain said.

Now, I'm not trying to say I believe he's totally innocent, what I am saying is, even after finding out what we did about Clinton, it didn't keep him out of the white house. Why should these accusations keep Cain out of running for the white house? So far no one has brought anything to light that proves anything. Many are questioning whether or not this should have been reported unless and until there's more to go on than "anonymous" sources.

Where do you get that he's refused to respond to questions? He's done nothing else for almost a week and then yesterday he began to refuse. What if he has nothing else to tell, nothing else to say on the subject? How long should one let these reporters go on asking the same things and getting the same answers? I mean, when does one put their foot down and say enough?

The woman's attorney has said that she refuses to speak on the story, doesn't that make it look a little "fishy" to you? The association has said that Cain did not sign the "agreement", what does that mean to you?

All of this tells me that the story shouldn't have been written to begin with, there just wasn't enough proof of anything concrete but now that it's done, no one knows what to do with it.

 

[dieseldiva]

That explains why the current vics don't want to be identified, I guess.
The media doesn't set standards, I hope - we do. Clinton paid for his transgressions, and Cain is an *** to think he should be allowed to decide what we have a right to know [except for his sex life - that's off limits, no question] about his past behavior.
My question is, why does the R side always respond to wrongdoing by one of their own by pointing out what the D side has done? Why can't they just deal with the issue on it's own merits?

Sorry Cheri but you're wrong, the media does indeed set the standards, we could only hope to.

The "R" side always responds the way they do because the media always gives the "D" side a pass and they're sick of it. They're dealing with the Cain issue while still pointing out Clinton, good grief you have to see that he set the bar pretty high in the sexual harassment arena.

 

[layoutshooter]

IF the "victims" (that is IF they are) are unwilling to come forward they have no credibility.

Clinton got a free pass because he was a Dumb-O-Crat. He is a PIG, but that is okee dokee if you spout the neoliberal swill.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Paula Jones was a sexual harassment victim of Clinton's before he became president. They settled out of court for $850,000. The Monika Lewinski scandal came as a result of the Paula Jones trial. Clinton was impeached because he lied at said trial.

Not saying it's ok that Cain did this, if he did. But the media set the standard when they coddled Clinton thru his scandals by treating the victims as s.

That explains why the current vics don't want to be identified, I guess.
The media doesn't set standards, I hope - we do. Clinton paid for his transgressions, and Cain is an *** to think he should be allowed to decide what we have a right to know [except for his sex life - that's off limits, no question] about his past behavior.
My question is, why does the R side always respond to wrongdoing by one of their own by pointing out what the D side has done? Why can't they just deal with the issue on it's own merits?

And why does the left always protect their own by saying "It's only sex... it's nobody's business."? Then when the right is accused, they use the right's own morality to justify their crucifixion of the candidate.

No... the media, unfortunately, defines what is, or isn't, news... not us (at least some of us have recognized this for what it is).

 

[Pilgrim]

It's nothing to do with my memory, I hardly paid attention to politics before Bush [the Shrub] was elected.
There are a couple differences, though: Monica Lewinski never claimed she was a victim of sexual harassment -

But she most certainly could have - she was a 19-20 year old intern working in the White House.

Clinton believed his attention was not unwelcome.

What difference does that make?

I don't condone what he did, or said about it, but feel his [and every person's] sex life is not our business - it's a private matter.

Not when he's doing it in the Oval Office.

Cain was accused of criminal behavior, and that is our business, whether it was sexual or not.

First of all, sexual harassment is not criminal behavior - it's a civil matter, assuming formal charges are brought to bear. Secondly, we don't know what he was accused of because no details have come out regarding his accusers, or the actions of the Restaurant Association. It's common knowledge that many corporations with deep pockets deal with these situations on a regular basis and often settle them out of court to avoid excessive legal expenses regardless of whether or not the charges have merit. Right now we don't know what happened.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton was accused of criminal behavior - sexual battery in the case of Kathleen Willy and rape in the case of Juanita Brodderick. He was guilty of perjury when he lied to a grand jury and he suborned perjury when he enlisted others to lie for him; formal charges were never brought to bear by the special prosecutors.
Bill Clinton’s Perjury - By Mark R. Levin - The Corner - National Review Online

The arrogance of the man is clear, and it's ugly. Why he never informed his own team of this skeleton in his closet is beyond me, but his refusal to respond to legitimate questions speaks volumes - he doesn't think the rules apply to him, or that the people have a right to know the character of the man asking to be elected.
What else does he think we have no right to know?

We don't know whether or not he informed his team of this problem. At any rate, there's no reason for him to respond to anything unless and until there are specific charges made by known individuals to address. Right now all we have is a statement from the restaurant association saying there was a settlement - and that's all. The rest is vague and unsubstantiated hearsay.

 

[aristotle]

The allegations of wrongdoing will be an albtross around Herman Cain's neck until something equivalent to full disclosure happens. The power of suggestion within these allegations are enough to cast doubt in the minds of many voters. Some politicial camps have a vested interest in stopping Cain's momentum. Likewise, some news organizations would like to make a name for themselves by ending Cain's political aspirations. The allegations must be addressed fully; they cannot sit there like an 800 pound gorilla and just be brushed off. The Cain campaign may push on, but it is terribly wounded.

 

[RLENT]

Why is it our right to know what this man may or may not have done in his private life?

The issue is not what he did in his private life, but what he did in public - in the workplace.

I for one am glad he is telling the press he is never going to answer questions about the so called charges again.

Lemme know how that works out ...

Yet if one is paying attation you see its not really working.

Check back in a couple of weeks

This was covered by a pollster the other night - polls are necessarily not forward looking - and the slump in his numbers will come in time - particularly given the fact that he apparently hasn't a clue about how to operate in the political realm.

Aristotle is correct in his original and subsequent assessments of the matter - Cain will either fully address the matter ..... or perish as a candidate.

Judging from the way he has operated thus far, my money is on the latter.

 

[RLENT]

Someone - quick, get out the tourniquet - the bleeding has begun:

Karl Rove predicted last week that it would take some time for the Herman Cain harassment charges to sink in among voters. Today, Reuters and Ipsos have a survey that shows the first signs of real, if not catastrophic bleeding:

The poll showed the percentage of Republicans who view Cain favorably dropped 9 percentage points, to 57 percent from 66 percent a week ago.

Among all registered voters, Cain's favorability declined 5 percentage points, to 32 percent from 37 percent. ...

A majority of respondents, 53 percent, believe sexual harassment allegations against Cain are true despite his denials. Republicans were less likely to believe they are true, with 39 percent thinking they are accurate.

UPDATE: A colleague points out there's an important methodological caveat on the poll: "Ipsos conducted the poll of 1,007 adults on Friday and Saturday by interviewing individuals via a U.S. online household panel. Since it was an online poll, typical margins of error do not apply."

Link to original article:

Reuters poll: Herman Cain favorability takes a hit