Herman Cain has had as bad a week as any presidential contender can have. Not only has the public finally been told that he was the subject of sexual harassment claims while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Associations, but both the candidate and his campaign have suffered what can only be termed a meltdown in terms of their inept responses to the scandal. More charges are now starting to surface, and Cain and his handlers have only made things worse by not keeping their story straight, lashing out at his rivals and making bogus threats about suing the Politico website that broke the story. But, as Alana wrote earlier today, 70 percent of Republicans polled say the issue won’t influence their voting. That’s a huge majority, and it is reflected in other polls in which the percentage of those supporting Cain’s candidacy has held relatively steady despite his recent difficulties.
All that has led many observers to conclude that Cain is not merely a strong candidate but is actually bulletproof to charges that would destroy other men’s hopes. But while there is good reason to think that way, I have a suspicion the 70 percent number is slightly deceptive. While many Republicans may not like being told by aggressive media that one of their heroes has feet of clay, the idea that there will be no long term slippage as a result of both the story and Cain’s cranky reaction to it requires a leap of faith that is not justified under the circumstances. The Politico story may be the start of an avalanche of stories about Cain’s life and background — exactly the sort of media scrutiny both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have been subjected to and which Cain has avoided until now — that may paint a different picture of the upstart candidate.
It is true that Cain is not an ordinary candidate. People seem to genuinely like him for his good humor and unpretentious manner. Their affection for him has allowed Cain to get away with the astonishing gaffes that reveal his lack of policy knowledge and poor judgment. Like any good salesman, he is impervious to the facts and to being called out for his mistakes. He simply ignores problems and plows ahead as if they didn’t matter. A lot of Americans are willing to let him get away with all this.
Cain also benefits from having a weak field of Republicans who are competing with him for the conservative vote. For those GOP voters who can’t stand Romney, the alternatives to Cain are not attractive.
But his image as a fresh outsider who wasn’t a politician is a suit of clothes that can get worn out. It may be that the fact we knew little about him other than what he told us was just as important to America’s good opinion of him as that smile and warm personality.
The very fact that his sexual harassment troubles began while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association should start to clue more people in to the idea that he is more of a Washington insider than he’d like us to think. After all, the NRA is a lobbying group. Serving as its head as he did for several years meant that Cain was pursuing a profession most Americans think is even lower than being a congressman or a journalist.
To date, the major media organizations that have been going over the lives of the other Republican candidates with a fine toothcomb have been giving Cain a pass for some reason. In recent months, we’ve found out about Perry’s hunting camp, Romney’s religious duties in the Mormon church, Michele Bachmann’s headaches and how much Newt Gingrich spends on buying jewelry for his wife. Yet the can of worms that was opened by the Politico story about the harassment charges filed against Cain is the first time the public was allowed a look at his life that was not viewed through the filter of campaign autobiography. It isn’t fun, and Cain should expect a lot more of it in the future.
His problem is that if, as we’ve seen this week, his good humor dissolves into vicious backbiting at the media and his competitors, it is bound to have an impact on his support. Voters who don’t want to admit they are being influenced by the media may also think differently when they are in the privacy of the ballot booth.
As nasty as the business of finding about these candidates may be — and it was enough to cause a strong candidate like Mitch Daniels to refuse to run — the Cain investigation does serve a purpose. The time is long past when politicians’ private lives and peccadilloes were ignored by a compliant press or even opponents. Republicans now need to find every skeleton that is in Herman Cain’s closet, before they get any closer to anointing him as their standard-bearer. As we learn more about him, his bulletproof persona may prove to be as porous as his knowledge of foreign affairs.
Unbelievable! The lawyer today: she doesn't want to relive whatever event it was. NRA released her. This is a SMEAR! And many on the right are doing the dirty work all because they opportunistically want to sink Cain. His reputation has been unfairly dragged through the mud, and all you can do is tut-tut how he doesn't look good wading through the sewer you dumped him in. Just the way DC works. Well DC sucks!! Who cares who the nominee is at this point. Don't you care about right and wrong!!!!
Oh, and by the way, if you think that if/when Romney gets the nomination – and all the dirty pool coming his way will be limited to what has been uncovered about his religious duties, then I can't believe anyone pays you to analyze politics. Sorry, when the Dems turn their full attention to Mitt it ain't gonna be pretty, and you'll be back to noticing all the double standards involved.
Why does Cain appear to not be hurt too badly in all of this? Perhaps, just perhaps, the folks are focusing not on how graceful Cain and his campaign "handle" the situation, but on whether Cain is telling the truth about the underlying charges. So far, there is no evidence that Cain's claim that he was exonerated — that there was no merit to the two claims of harassment — is not true. n nOne suspects that voters will weigh in definitively when they have evidence either way, but as I said yesterday in response to Mr. Wehner's post, until we get hard evidence that Cain did something wrong, people out of the chattering class will continue to see this for what it is. And they will not particularly care how adept Cain's campaign may have handled the situation, so long as Cain is telling the truth about the substance.
I hasten to add that most of the "dirt" dug up about the other candidates, all of whom have sought and served in public office far longer than Cain, is either recycled (as with Gingrich) or feeble nonsense which the polled voters have duly considered and rejected (as with Bachmann's headaches, Perry's family hunting license property, and Romney's Mormon duties).
Gee, would I be cranky if I were Cain? I wonder how Mr. Tobin would feel be a bit peeved if the National Enquirer working with a rival journalist ran a smear campaign calling him one of the worst things in our society: a sex offender and tried to drive him out of his job? n nIt seems to me the people at Commentary believe Cain is a horrible candidate they can't believe is leading the pack, and that is causing them to jump on the sexual harassment complaints with the hope it ends his chance just as much as the MSM. n nMost people aren't wrapped up in the presidential election cycle at this stage – unlike the media and sites like this. They don't know much about the candidates. What is easily recognizable to them is a smear job and the obvious double-standard. That is why Cain isn't falling in the polls among average Republicans. n nIf details about the accusations do ever come out, and they are as bad as Clinton-Jones, it will hurt him much in his party. n nIn short, right now, without details, the average person isn't jumping to conclusions because they already hate Cain as a presidential candidate.
The below is from Big Journalism. It compares the number of Cain stories to those of other non-Republican scandals at Politico. It shows why Cain isn't dropping in the polls. If we had more details and the details showed him to be a letch, it would be different. n n"That’s 90 stories in less than a week. n nBy contrast, according to a good faith count using Politico’s own search engine…. n n…there have been exactly two stories with the words “Rielle Hunter” in them not only during the time it mattered, the Year of our Lord 2008, but still months after John Edwards dropped out of the race. n n…there were only 16 stories about Jeremiah Wright the week that bombshell dropped, and more than a few were favorable to Obama. n n…there have been fewer than 40 total stories about Fast and Furious since that story broke months ago. n n…there have been only 65 stories about Solyndra over the last six weeks."
"The time is long past when politicians' private lives and pecadillos were ignored by a compliant press or even opponents." n nIt's hard to believe that in the era of Obama, anyone, let alone an editor of Commentary, could write such a sentence, when we have seen not only a compliant, but a giddy, press (and the politican's opponents, such as John McCain) ignore, indeed suppress or misrepresent, everything about a politician's private life, pecadillos, personal history, mentality, background, ideology, mis-statements, inconsistencies, his multitude of outright lies, hypocritical and duplicit actions in office, alignment with fringe groups, failure to perform the minimal requirements of office, criminal associations, vast incompetence, etc., etc., etc. n nMr. Tobin appears to have a vehement and visceral animus against Herman Cain, to the point that he is starting to come unhinged. I think we are seeing something akin to what was once called "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Mr. Tobin is manifesting symptoms of "Cain Derangement Syndrome." n nMr. Tobin all but disqualifies himself as a serious commentator with this sentence. What planet has he been living on during the rise and reign of Obama? Mr. Cain certainly looks a lot more in touch with reality, and, however ineptly, is dealing with that reality, while Mr. Tobin seems to have no contact with reality whatsoever.
Endocelt: n nWell said.
MLK Jr. was a complicated and imperfect man, but I liked him, too.
Just checked: Yes, in fact, this lawyer who said today that the woman refuses to waive confidentiality to protect herself and family from the media circus is — the same lawyer in this story just a couple of days ago: "The woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment now wants to speak up, according to her lawyer, Joel P. Bennett," n nMaybe she had a change of heart. Thought it through after watching the media frenzy (she helped establish by sending her lawyer out in the first place) and changed her mind. I can picture that. Or – maybe she thought the restaurant association and/or Cain would refuse? n nWhatever the case, the media (and Commentary) has made much of Cain's "changing stories", which I have had a hard time seeing, and I wonder what we should make of this clear-as-day flipflop? If she says she's eager to get the details out one day if only the organization would also waive confidentiality one day but then backs out when they say, "Sure." can that lead us to think she isn't too confident the details will scream "sexual harassment" to the rest of the world? n nHere is the quote from the Washington Post from the other day: "“It is just frustrating that Herman Cain is going around bad-mouthing the two complainants, and my client is blocked by a confidentiality agreement,” Bennett said in an interview. “The National Restaurant Association ought to release them and allow them to respond.”" n nHighly curious now that she changed her mind just a couple of days later and one day after the association agreed to waive the confidentiality agreement. n nWithout details of the behavior or other information than what we have now, I can't determine with any level of confidence what is going on here – except for one thing: I despise the American media. I had their double standards. I hate their clear bias – especially considering what a noble institution they claim to be. I hate how they are running with this story with so few details and anonymous sources. This is one of the key institutions in our society and our democracy, and it is a huge pile of crap.
I think that conservatives in general have filtered Cain's difficult week in the proper light of incredible mainstream media bias. The mainstream media has overplayed its hand for the last time and cannot shift the paradigm with their ploys any longer. This has been a watershed week indeed.
Note, the sentence "The time is long past when politicians’ private lives and peccadilloes were ignored by a compliant press . . . " should read "The time is long past when a conservative politicians’ private lives and peccadilloes were ignored by a compliant press . . . ". That is all.
Cain is a very successful mathematician, businessman, lobbyist, self-promotor, a wealthy guy with a healthy ego, a pleasant demeanor (until he gets his dander up) and the ability to repeat simple phrases (9-9-9 anyone?) over and over until even the houseplants and the housepets get them. n nNone of this however can erase the fact that he serially obfuscated/tap danced/lied around and about the facts of this kerfluffle from the very beginning, and out in the open too, a painful process for anyone not sufficiently invested in the guy (as with Clinton–and let's not forget at base the Lewinsky "affair" *was* consensual sorta-sex with some job outreach thrown in–it is hard to imagine a Presidential agonistes more agonizing than listening to Monica kvetch and kvetch and kvetch over the phone, really) to buy into his are-you-going-to-believe-me-or-your-lying-eyes approach. n nThere is, sadly–with the judgements and the payouts, and the NRA statement–no "proof" that (obviously) the complaints did not even exist (anonymous smears) and/or that HR investigated allegations and found there was "nothing to them" and that he was "exonerated", making a settlement unlikely or undeserved. n nLook, he's known about the complaints and the monetary payouts and was in the loop in the NRA internal process from their inception. n nHe discussed them with Curt Anderson (well the one he admitted to) in 2003. n nThe nothing-to-it exoneration story was floated after the first version beta 0.1–there was literally nothing there, no original charges at all, just an anonymous smear fabrication from Politico–fell apart. Then Team Cain shifted to, ah, *now* we remember. There was nothing really really there, just some hand gestures and a charge or two HR found "baseless"–probably weren't even settlements because it was all made up etc. n nThen, well maybe there were "agreements." n nThen incoherent mix mash-up samples of previous versions, capped by on-again, off-again charges that Perry was behind leaking the on-again off-again non-existent anonymous smears that Cain had managed to discuss in detail in 2003. n nWhich are now sealed in confidentiality non-disclosure agreements that, from NRA's latest pubic statement (on one complaint) offered neither exoneration nor final finding for those bringing the complaints. NRA, not Cain, was the direct party; the NRA did not admit fault; we may infer the statements and claims of all parties were noted before disbursing a please-go-away but not trivial award. n nNeither woman wishes to go into detail over the incidents. One has released general comments through an attorney–the other declines pubic comment. n nAbsent new (and unanticipated) incidents involving raves, roofies, and silver lame this will all go away. It would have gone away sooner and without the flop sweat if Cain had been more agile and forthright.
Please. If the media spent 1/10 the time they have on Cain reporting on Michelle Obama’s galavanting and blatant abuse of her position of first lady Obama would be under 30% approval.r nr nThis is all about the sorry lie that all conservative black men are sexual predators. If you can’t beat them on ideas attack their character.
The fact that the Restaurant Association released the accuser from her NDA and she still refused to come forward or give any details tells me all I need to know about this event.Back to the real issues of this campaign.
I still believe the inconsistencies people are finding in the Cain flipflop are just one interpretation of what I've read. I believe you can find consistency in them given the circumstances. Here at Commentary, this comment, and elsewhere in the news media, they describe it as a clear-cut case. That he said A and then -A was proven. n n I'll just give one example: His claim that it was a smear by unnamed sources and groundless. n nThe fact that there was a settlement to some is tantamount to him being proven a liar along the lines of Clinton's infamous banging of the podium while saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman – Ms. Lewinsky!!" n nWhereas I can easily see a point of view where Cain was saying the facts are he never harassed anybody in his life. Such charges are a smear. And Politico didn't have the balls to state names or details because there is no basis for the charges whatsoever. n nAnd by charges he'd be meaning both those of the 2 women years ago and Politicos. n nIF he had said, Politico is making it all up, then the settlements would be a smoking gun. He didn't. He was saying the original charges were false. The fact a settlement was made does not mean he or the association admitted guilt. n n
Question: Did Cain personally pay in the settlement or just the association? n nAs I understand it, the association settled and what Cain has said was that he took himself out of the loop/recused himself after the charges were made and was not sure of all the details. n nI would doubt this version if he himself had to payoff in the settlement. n nBeyond that, I do not see the "obvious" flipflop/lying between his first reply that it was a smear and groundless and the details he gave the next day.
No, he is probably not bulletproof, but the Press is going to have to come up with better bullets if they expect to take him down. The public is not stupid enough to fall for what is clearly a smear campaign by a Fourth Estate that has lost all objectivity, and most of its credibility when discussing conservative candidates. "Journalists" really aren't very bright. Educated people remember that those who couldn't make it in advanced scholastic courses in college or admission to professional or graduate schools, opted for journalism. And, they were all ideologues…
"…Cain’s cranky reaction to it requires a leap of faith that is not justified under the circumstances…" nhas certainly shot two to the head and two to the heart on Mr. Cain's "likeability", i.e., "… good humor and unpretentious manner…." n nMr. Cain has gotten too many "mulligans" over his 'know-it-all-but-don't-know-anything" policy gaffes. n nWho wants an arrogant, thin-skinned Know-Nothing who plays the race card sitting in the Oval Office? n nEven Obama knew China had nuclear weapons. nMr. Cain damaged whatever image today's GOP has when he seriously called for an electrified fence that "will kill you". After all, if he somehow managed to impose a nine percent federal sales tax on all Americans, it would be Americans fleeing to Mexico. n nAll the Cain-brigade who think this is about anonymous charges are doing even more damage to whatever chance the GOP has in 2012, up and down the ticket.
Amen, Mr. Mclain! nMike McCarthy