HE'S NOT GOING TO BE THE NOMINEE
KLAVAN: WHY WE SHOULD BE UNFAIR TO HERMAN CAIN
AFTER WATCHING SHARON BIELEK'S press conference today with lawyer Gloria Allred I have to say I wouldn't exactly call her accusations of Herman Cain's behavior sexual harassment. It didn't happen in the workplace and it wasn't recurrent.
At the most, she's gone public accusing him of making a rather gross, disgusting pass at her, or if you will, an inappropriate sexual advance at a time and place she should never have been with him in the first place. Certainly not if she was serious about talking to him about landing a new job. Breakfast or lunch, sure.
Ms. Bielek was not a victim no matter how much she insists. I don't care if she was wearing a turtleneck up to her lower lip, she still made herself a sitting duck that night. It was unpleasant, but if she's honest, she has to take responsibility for choosing to meet him at a bar, go to dinner, then get into his car afterwards. How much more can a tarty woman set herself up while seeking a favor?
To his credit, when she cried foul, he backed off and took her back to her hotel.
So I'm not inclined to be highly sympathetic to any portrayal of herself as a victim of Cain's sexual advance which probably happened. Let's face it, men will be men, and powerful men away from hearth-and-home much of the time will be boorish cads if they can get by with it, especially after a few drinks. A woman conveniently forgets this at her great peril.
Having said that, I find Herman Cain less savory by the minute as a man, a husband, and a presidential candidate. My female radar flashes red alert. I think he fancies himself a ladies man and has probably made more than his share of female employees and colleagues squirm in discomfort over the years. It sounds like some of them ran for cover and got paid off for going away and keeping quiet. Yes, yes, I know it could have been an Anita Hill moment for them. But three or four women have come forward and I tend to think where there's that much smoke there's got to be some fire.
Who knows what's next. And who cares who put who up to expose this whole thing to the American people. It's all part of the messy vetting process.
Frankly I don't even care what happens next one way or the other.
For now, I file this Cain affair under unsubstantiated innuendo and mark it read and unimpressed. Cain's vehement denials---if in fact it really did happen---make him a liar. If so, it's a character issue for me and a much more serious offense than groping a woman in his car after dinner and a few drinks.
We shall see.
Thank you, for refusing to support the outlawing of testosterone. If there were a way for everyone to experience having this stuff running through them for a month or so: it would help understanding.
ReplyDeleteRe events: I have opinions which seemingly conflict, yet do not actually conflict.
First: on multiple issues, Herman Cain has issued statements which, upon close inspection, did not add up. His inconsistencies amounted to bad executive decisions.
1A: Worse, Mr. Cain has bluffed on some issues. He never needed to bluff, and especially not on multiple issues. No one has ever been better positioned to say: I need more information before I spout off. Bluffing us voters amounted to a bad executive decision.
I have noticed these little inconsistencies and bluffs. It is the former car salesman in me. I have known, for weeks, that I would not be voting for Mr. Cain.
Second, re Mr. Cain's responses to the sex harassment allegations: I see some of the same inconsistencies and bluffs which were apparent on other issues. If Mr. Cain never hit on Ms. Bielek, his office ought have issued a statement which said: I never propositioned, Ms. Bielek; I never groped or attempted to grope Ms. Bielek. Instead, his office' first response: "I never sexually harassed Ms. Bielek." The Cain statement leaves open the possibility that Mr. Cain did proposition and grope Ms. Bielek.
Third, 2-3 weeks ago, Mr. Cain lost 2 of his top campaign staffers (inclu 1 woman). I wondered, at the time, if they left b/c they had determined that Mr. Cain would not play to win. Now, I wonder if they left b/c of this stuff.
Fourth, the whole "invisible wife" thing. If she does not show up now, loud and proud, then we must rightly or wrongly assume these allegations have merit. Even the shiest wife in the world would show up, now, to defend her husband.
I have been saying, up to now, there is a solid chance that Mr. Cain could be innocent; be a victim of political dirty tricks. However, unless Mr. Cain comes out with a stronger statement re Ms. Bielek, I must conclude that Mr. Cain is guilty.
Fifth, all the above said, I still believe Politico acted unethically. It cannot be, must not be, this easy to slime a public figure. If it is, then journalism is nothing more than a dirt sandwich. I understand your reasons for your dissenting opinion. It is also true that I have not sat with a friend and hashed out the entirety of the journalistic ethics of a truly tricky journalistic scenario. I am shooting, a bit too much, from the hip. But I really, really want to blame Politico. It cannot be this easy to destroy a public figure. It just cannot be. Anarchy.
I've enjoyed your blogposts on this subject.
Many good points here Greg. Thank you for making them so well. Go ahead and blame Politico. Your prerogative, my dear. However, I do disagree. They hashed this story over for several weeks and decided to go with it as best they could. They didn't trash Cain, Cain trashed himself and they reported it. If this isn't true, then he will clear himself.
ReplyDeleteStill, I think at the least, Cain is a ladies' man and there's nothing illegal about that---so far. So was Bill, as in Clinton.
Do we want someone as president who might have an unfortunate predeliction that could distract the country down the road? I myself don't.
As to Gloria Cain standing by her man right now, how can she vouch for him on that aforementioned occasion? She rarely traveled with him, prefering to stay home in Georgia, so whatever she might say, it would be merely heresay.
Again, for me, it's not whether he groped this woman or women...it's whether he's perjurying himself by denying it. That is a deal breaker for me.
We are in agreement that the real problem has been Mr. Cain's response. I originally wrote it off to Mr. Cain not being a professional politician who understood how to play the media game. I thought: he might be an innocent man who is drowning in his campaign's inept understanding of media. However, I subsequently noticed Mr. Cain's inconsistencies and bluffs re this sex harassment issue. We are in agreement: he did himself in. It is always the cover-up which buries you.
ReplyDeleteHad Mr. Cain fessed up in the beginning, would voters have accepted it? Mr. Cain will never know.
He may never know in spite of the fact it may still take his campaign a little longer to peter out completely.....no pun intended.
ReplyDelete