Take the accusations against Cain seriously

Yesterday, I wrote a somewhat incoherent post to the effect that, while I’m willing to extend to Herman Cain the benefit of the doubt regarding the sexual harassment allegations, I refuse to find myself in the position of a Clinton supporter, circa 1998, sullying my own soul by trying to justify inappropriate sexual acts.  Bill Bennett says it better:

It is hypocritical in the extreme for those members of the media who didn’t take the charges and allegations against Bill Clinton seriously to be taking the allegations against Herman Cain that we now have as seriously as they are. Hypocritical is probably too soft a word, frankly.

[snip]

I have watched long enough and held my tongue long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, but can no longer say this is a witch hunt, “a lynching” to use his word, or any other euphemism. There are allegations out there that matter and they have stacked up. For we who led the charge against Bill Clinton on a number of related issues to continue to blame the media or other campaigns or say it simply doesn’t matter makes us the hypocrites as well.

As I say, all of this is bad for our politics and polity. If Herman Cain cannot stand up to these charges, if he refuses to, then he should step out of the race. A man big enough to run for president should be big enough to have a full and candid press conference on all of this — he wants us to elect him president after all, he’s asking us to trust our lives and the country’s life to him. This could be one of his finest moments and it could be one of his worst. But either way, he must confront the moment candidly and manfully.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • suek

    “If Herman Cain cannot stand up to these charges, if he refuses to, then he should step out of the race.”

    Just exactly how is he supposed to do this? What can he say other than “I did not solicit sex from that woman.”

    Unfortunately, if you don’t have the blue dress, there isn’t a heck of a lot of “there” there.

    Suppose, on the other hand, he did have sex with that woman – and suppose she solicited it…thought that was the way to to get a really nice position. Or suppose she propositioned him (to get the job) and he told her to buzz off. Hell hath no fury…!

    I just don’t see any good outcome here. Either you believe him or you don’t. I suppose from that standpoint, if you believe him and his denial, then your trust is sufficient. And if you just flat don’t trust him enough to take his word, that pretty much makes your decision as well.

    Especially since the statements aren’t that he raped her or even attempted to rape her…as it’s presented, it was a crude pass. She rejected him, and life moved on. Not harassment – because she wasn’t working for him, and not an uncomfortable work place – same reason.

    If I were a big executive, I’d never allow myself to be alone with a female – it just isn’t safe!

  • Danny Lemieux

    Book, SADIE called this exactly right in the previous post about Herman Cain.

    The document to which she linked (re-linked below) says everything that needs to be known about the Herman Cain situation: this is a Chicago hit job! David Axelrod is her attorney! We’ve seen this modus operand-um over and over again in Chicagoland. 

    https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAJ0MB0BFIICG0MD

    Chances are, this woman is not who she appears to be and the truth will eventually come out. She has a history of money problems and stories are coming out that she had trouble holding down jobs and a history of crying “sexual harassment” (though they, too, will need to be vetted). Is she being paid to do what she is doing?

    In American politics today, bribery isn’t done before or during the deed…that would be illegal. The payoff occurs indirectly and well after the deed is done…for example, in the form of large six-figure speech fees (e.g., Clinton), book deals, or, as they are wont to do in Illinois, appointment to commissions that pay huge figures and generous retirement benefits for no-show obligations (e.g., Rahm Emanuel and Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac) or generous pay-off jobs waiting in the wings (which I suspect is what may be going on with this Cain “witness”).

    If you want a really good insight on how corruption in America works today, Jack Abramoff is coming out with a hot new book on the topic. Here, he describes how things are really done in Washington:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=365061 

  • suek

    Danny – not the same David Axelrod! This one is from Pennsylvania, not Chicago!

  • suek
  • Danny Lemieux

    Whoops. My bad! Dan

  • Danny Lemieux

    I humbly withdraw the complaint! 

  • Danny Lemieux

    However, this story certainly has legs. Amy Jacobson is a well-known figure in the Chicago media scene.

    Does this article and photo of Bialek and Cain together suggest someone who had a grudge with Herman Cain?

    http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/sneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html 

    Something smells very, very wrong here…like a back-street Chicago gutter. 

  • Danny Lemieux

    Incidentally, unlike the slightly left-of-center-leaning Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times is a reflexively leftwing Chicago Democrat paper. In case anybody was wondering.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

     
    I’m keeping my powder dry.  It’s certainly possible that Herman Cain is a horn-dog that has flown under the radar, but ONLY until he reached the top of the GOP Presidential primary polls……  But, it’s also possible that he’s being set up to be hounded out of the race because various folks are scared spitless of the possibility of having to run against a highly accomplished and (reasonably) articulate black conservative businessman.
     
    What raises my suspicions?  None of this has EVER come up before – despite at least one previous political campaign – why not?  We have absolutely nothing but stories (a single story, really) – no tapes, no contemporary corroboration, no physical evidence – why?  There is a drip-drip-drip quality to this that looks a bit strange to me — first story met with objections; second story meets objections, but raises more; third story meets those objections (specificity, in this case) – how does THAT happen? Etc., etc.
     
    And we’re dealing with Democrats!
     
    I do NOT say that Herman Cain is being unfairly persecuted for political reasons, because there is no way to know that.  But up to the present, I think it’s at least as likely that this is what’s going on as it is that this man has been acting badly with women for years and years and NOTHING has come out until this moment….a little too convenient, isn’t it?  I refuse to throw the man under the bus until and unless something 1/2-way reasonable shows up.  The current (first specific) story describes acts so grossly boorish that it’s impossible for me to believe that this was a “one-off” for a man who could do them……and NO ONE ever called him on them?  That simply doesn’t pass the “smell-test”, so for me the jury is still out on Herman.
     
    Remember Clarence Thomas.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

     
    @Danny:  link no good — did they take the page down?
     
    Sorry about the paranoia – see what you can do.

  • suek

    Ditto Earl’s comment on the page…404

  • Danny Lemieux

    Funny…same thing happened to me when I tried it again! The link was available when I posted it. I am sure that we will be hearing from Amy Jacobson about this on tomorrow morning’s radio talk show AM560 WIND.

  • suek

    Sounds like they pulled the article. Maybe a way-back link would pull it up??? Not sure how to do that…

  • Mike Devx

    Well said, Earl, in #9!  I like your phrase: “I’m keeping my powder dry.”

    On this latest, I will have to see proof of the hotel upgrade that Cain supposedly caused.  The financial transaction record of the upgrade WILL exist.  If she or her boyfriend made the reservation, it should have been impossible for him to do this.  Something is odd there.

    And Sharon B. was seen hugging Cain at a recent Tea Party event.  That is not the behavior of a woman who has spent years believing he made a grotesque and objectionable sexual pass at her (groping/pawing and quid-pro-quo proposition).  And Gloria Allred gets away with saying he wanted to show her his “stimulus package”?

    I may actually have to wait more than another week for enough information to come out for me to decide.  In the meantime, I wonder how many other Cain supporters will stick with him or reserve judgment; how many will wash their hands of him?
     

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    I’d like to know more about her boyfriend.  He might be a really good guy (supporting her and her 13 year old son from another relationship, even though he never married her) or, in the strange world of Chicago politics, he might be a player.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl
  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

     
    And here is more…..illustrating why I refuse to be buffaloed into throwing Herman under the bus:
     
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/the-pushback-against-sharon-bialek-begins/
     
    Give it (at least) a week before even BEGINNING to make up your mind.

  • jj

    It’s an interesting juxtaposition with your next post, isn’t it.  I assume that was purposeful.
     
    I don’t actually care much.  As a heterosexual male who has a life-long history of having approached members of the other sex myself, it’s not a major issue for me.  (See, that’s how it happens.  As males we’re sort of expected to hit on, talk to, pursue, approach, comment on, or otherwise begin the process.  They don’t much come up to us and say: “here I yam…!” [quoting George Hamilton as Zorro].  It would be okay if they did, and negotiations between the sexes worked so simply and straightforwardly – but as a rule they didn’t, in the years when I was an active participant.)
     
    So I get it.  I understand the man.  I tended to perhaps be less crude – if any of what the blowsy blonde says can be trusted, though I suspect that the way to her heart probably involves some level of crudity – and hopefully a touch more erudite, but the message was the same.  It is the male job.  It’s what we do.  We hopefully don’t outright attack, hopefully keep a grip on the crudity – but if it may be said that there is in most relationships a pursuer and a pursued- is there much doubt who’s usually which?  I mean, only since the beginning of time.
     
    I don’t think Herman Cain ought to be president either – though Obama has forever lowered the bar on what we might regard as ‘qualifications’ for the job – but this hardly qualifies as a reason why.  (No, for me it’s the ignorance of the outside world.  Having a map with large blank spaces where it says: “here be dragons” isn’t good enough any more.  That’s too much like what we currently have.)  I don’t care about his approach to his extra-marital sex life – or if he has one.  Christ, they all did.  The last words on Eisenhower’s lips as he lay on his death-bed, staring his god in the face were a damn lie: “I have always loved my wife.”  Yeah.  Tell it to Kay Summersby.  Tell it to Marshall, who was trying to win a goddam war and told you he’d throw your ass in the brig for the rest of your life if you tried to divorce Mamie in the middle of that job when you told him you were going to.  (Though in extremis, isn’t it interesting that that’s what was on his mind?  He passed out of this life already framing his defense in the next one.  Now, there’s a guilty conscience, if you’d like to see a sample!)
     
    They all did: FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy of course was a joke, LBJ – I bet Nixon was actually faithful to Pat.  Ford and Carter wouldn’t have had the imagination, Reagan and Bush Sr. were probably gentlemen who meant it when they swore to be good, and then comes Clinton.  Bush I suspect of closet honor-ability.  But the point is, none of it brought down the Republic.  In the grand scheme of things, it isn’t much a deal.

  • SADIE

    suek, you’re correct it’s NOT David Axelrod who is her attorney, it’s THE David Axelrod that is her neighbor.



    Martha MacCallum, FOX News: “One of the things is that you lived at a 505 North Lake Shore Drive apartment, right?

    This is the same building, it happens to be the same building David Axelrod lives in.

    Do you know David Axelrod?

    Ever have any interaction with him at all?

    Sharon Bialek, Cain accuser: “I saw him in the gym.

    I mean — everybody nods to each other.

    It is friendly building but I never had any interaction with him.”
    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/11/coinkadink-one-cain-accuser-lives-in.html
     

  • suek

    >>suek, you’re correct it’s NOT David Axelrod who is her attorney, it’s THE David Axelrod that is her neighbor.>>


    Oh BROTHERR!!

  • SADIE

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” 
     
    If Cain is the knife that threatens Obama, the DNC brought out a machine gun.

     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Nukes and orbital kinetic strikes will beat guns.