Last night after his so-called Lincoln-Douglas debate with Newt Gingrich (unlike the “rail splitter” and the “little giant”) during which they disagreed about very little, reporters asked Herman Cain about the public statement of one of the women who alleged that he harassed them while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association. His response was to say, “Don’t go there.” Later he stopped and told them to read “the other accounts” and that he was “back on message.” After that, his campaign manager Mark Block, who earlier in the week made scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations about the Perry campaign being responsible for the story coming out, scolded journalists about whether they knew the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
Block’s attempt to brand the entire inquiry as unethical is geared toward appealing to the sentiments of conservatives who view the media as a hostile liberal entity that cannot be trusted on any issue. But those who bother to read the Code, would easily see there was nothing unethical about the original Politico story that broke the news. Nor is there anything unethical about asking Cain to respond to the public statement released by one of the women who charged him harassment alleging that his version of events was false. But you don’t have to be a critic of Cain to know that there is something fishy about a campaign that refuses to address these questions and chooses instead to attack the press.
Indeed, as subsequent developments proved, Politico’s contention that Cain was the subject of formal complaints of sexual harassment turned out to be true, as even the candidate was forced to admit. Other stories have also surfaced alleging misbehavior on his part. We don’t know who is telling the truth here, and it is possible Cain is completely innocent. But the paranoid manner in which Cain and his minion Block have behaved in the past week doesn’t enhance their credibility. To imagine a Cain White House dealing with the press in this manner is to envision a Republican version of the thin-skinned arrogance that has characterized Barack Obama’s presidency.
Conservatives are understandably inclined to believe the worst of the press. But with the release of the statement from one of his accusers, this is now more than “gossip.” The issue here is real, and to ask voters to pretend these allegations don’t exist or to blame reporters for writing about them is tantamount to demanding they demonstrate a bias for Cain that they would not want them to apply to liberal politicians. Many of the same grass roots conservatives were cheering on those reporters who pursued the story of Bill Clinton’s harassment of women. For them to say the same standard doesn’t apply to a former Washington lobbyist like Cain is pure hypocrisy.
Much has been made over the fact that Cain’s poll numbers have not declined over the course of the last week due to the scandal. Like his unflappable personality, his support has remained steady despite his appalling gaffes and inability to defend his 9-9-9-tax plan. Those who have decided to back him appear to be loyal and will stick with him through thick and thin.
But the odds of his poll numbers rising beyond their current level in the low 20s are slim and none. Few who hadn’t already committed to Cain are likely to do so in the wake of this scandal and the bizarre, even Nixonian or Obamaesque manner in which his campaign has responded to it. Cain’s support may hold steady for a while, but his already slim chances of winning the nomination have been lowered considerably by these revelations and Cain’s response.
Cain is an amazingly attractive candidate. he's got that "it" factor that Bill Clinton had, and that Barack Obama was supposed to have but didn't. n nI was appalled when Cain didn't know what the right of return was, but I still felt that attraction anyway. however, after hearing him say on Fox last week that he wants abortion to be illegal, I cannot support him. wanting to jail doctors (and women?) involved in the procedure is out of step with what the country believes, and it shows a kind of meanness of spirit that troubles me. n nand I agree with you about the Nixonian overtones. we've already got Nixon Redux in Obama; let's not go even further down that path.
Actually, its about as out of step as believing that children should not be neglected and that parents that leave their infants in cars during the summer unattended are not guilty of neglect. n nIf you think so, cite a poll on the issue. Most think the abortion laws in the US are too lax, not too restrictive. As for Cain, he is all over the map on the issue (if you believe he is honest, and I don't having heard him lie flatly within a few minutes on whether he thought Perry definitely outed the story or whether he thought there was a possibility that Romney did it–either way he wasn't truthful). n nSo, I don't think people believe what he says exactly. They just want someone to cheer for that the talking heads on talk radio would not lambast them for. The level of critical thinking by this crowd is near to zero. They are heard followers with their own egos caught up in the fight. After being turned on Bachman and giving up a little too easily on Perry, they are running out of magic men. n nAnyway, I agree that Cain's "likability" is overrated.
I LOVE Herman Cain.
I think Cain means that abortion should be something in the nature of a simple "civil offense". It means that that while there is no fine or penalty of any sort, abortion would be an illegal activity. Such activities could not be covered by insurance policies or supported by government funds in any way. Moreover organizations that provided abortion could not claim tax exempt non-profit status. Everything about abortion would happen outside the sanction and control of the law and society. I don't think Cain or anyone else feels a vindictive need to punish pitiful young mothers or the doctors who feel called upon to help them. In any event abortion is really not an issue where the president or the national government has much sway. Under the second amendment, only the individual states can pass laws regulating things like abortion. Of course the supreme court pocked its nose into the matter by virtue of the Roe-V-Wade decision. This decision removed the traditional jurisdiction of the states and left the matter completely to the choice of individuals. Thus before states could pass laws making abortion illegal this decision would have to be reversed.
Actually, the initial report was unethical, if you have even a freshman's handle on journalistic ethics. n nYou can't publish near information and source-free articles and expect anyone to take ti seriously. It was a smear–all hat and not cattle–and, even a week later, we know virtually *nothing* about what happened other than the he said/she said chicanery still limping along on life support. n nIf Politico had actually done its homework, had actually gotten something more than 'something happened in the '90s that was bad', then it would be journalistically-respectable. But the bilge they published? C'mon, you know better than that.
And it's important for me to note (though I really shouldn't have to) that I'm not a Cain fan, but this whole episode is proof-positive of a vicious leftward slant in the media. n n(See CNN and how they ran more stories on Cain's situation, in a week, than they did in total on Obama's connection to Wright, etc., during his entire campaign.)
OMG! Barack Obama sexually harassed Jeremiah Wright????? n nIn that whole nonscandal, I don't think anybody actually accused Obama of doing anything but going to church with his family on Sundays (while somehow simultaneously alleging he's a Muslim). n nMy response is facetious, as your comment merits. n nHowever, I consider this comment a freebie for FOX Nausea, whose make-believe journalists are now free to report that a statement has surfaced at the influential Commentary Magazine website containing the phrase "Barack Obama sexually harassed Jeremiah Wright."
repeating what I just posted to the previous post – not sure if it was Wehner or Tobin – multi-tasking Sunday! n n"…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.
Unethical.??? Maybe not, but calling anyone a "Journalist" when they continue asking the same questions on unnamed women making unknown allegations is wrong, they aren't Journalist.. This story should never have been reported, much less, for almost a week now.. If they get names and specific allegations, then maybe they'd have a question worth asking…
Politico's original story *was* accurate. Why deny that? n nThere were allegations, they went through the internal NRA process, at least in one complaint NRA confirms the association and not Cain was the designated "defendant" in the settlement–that he denied charges, that NRA admitted no guilt, and that there were payouts. n nThe women are "unnamed" but known to Cain and identified by reporters who verified their identities–there names are confidential and they wish to keep them so. n nOne of two women involved AFIK has made no public comments. One has said there was an atmosphere of unwanted comments and requests, if memory serves, to date but declines further detail. Cain doesn't want to talk about it. OK. He doesn't have to. And there doesn't seem much point in attempting to badger him into further responses. n nNobody is required to vote for him after all.
I seem to remember Johnathan Toobin discounting the story of Juanita Broderick who came forward and personally alleged that she was raped by Bill Clinton. I dont seem to remember the media ever bringing up the fact that a drunken Ted Kennedy stood on his young assistant’s face to escape the car he had driven into a tidal channel and left her trapped, suffocating in an air bubble while him and his lawyer worked out an alibi instead of calling for help when this champion of liberalism was being reelected time and time again over the next forty years. Why is Cain supposed to write your story for you? Is it because this trivia is so overblown that the media pumping it up would be embarrassed to print what it knows. This is the racist liberal media’s attempt to play into racial stereotypes and unless they come up with a believable victim, a Paula Jones or Jennifer Flowers perhaps, this story will go away.
"asking Cain to respond to the public statement released by one of the women who charged him" n"But with the release of the statement from one of his accusers, this is now more than “gossip.”" n nThere wouldn't be anything unethical about this if there were any public statement from the woman. SInce there was only a public statement from the attorney, there's no story. n n"cheering on those reporters who pursued the story of Bill Clinton’s harassment of women" nThere were actually women accusing Bill Clinton. If that happens with Herman Cain, things will change. n nIts painfully obvious from the tone of the article that Jonathan Tobin doesn't like Cain, and probably never did.
Im a conservative and I will not support,nor vote for Cain.He lost me with his race card pulling and thin skin with the media and under pressure,and last night he showed even more hes very unqualified.Im going with Rick Perry
Asking questions about the cases isn't unethical. Reporting ad nauseum a story that ruins a man's career and public reputation without the answers to the questions or the willingness/ability to publish those answers is. n nThe media – when it comes to Republicans and conservatives – has a Microsoft ethical standard: Release the program now and we'll fix the bugs as we go. The importance is doing the damage at the right time and piling on as you go. n n"But the paranoid manner in which Cain and his minion Block have behaved in the past week doesn’t enhance their credibility." n nParanoid? When the bulk of the media is trying to slit your throat, I wouldn't call it paranoid. It is statements like this that harm Commentary's credibility.
This is where the primary season is very useful. It weeds out who is ready to be president and who is not. (Well, it usually does.)r nr nThe ham-handed way that Cain and his campaign team have handled this controversy have just as much to do as the scandal itself with convincing me that he isn’t ready to be president.r nr nBesides, as a registered Republican I want our nominee to be someone who isn’t a captive to the far right wing and who has a good chance of being able to defeat Barack Obama a year from now.r nr nThat is why I am voting for Mitt Romney. He can win. Perry, Bachman, Gingrich and Cain can’t. Romney is a pro, and the last thing we need in the White House these days is another bunch of amateurs. The current crop we elected in 2008 is bad enough.
I thought Clinton deserved to be impeached, and convicted, but not for harassing women. Everyone knew that was part of his character, and elected him anyway. Besides who cares…there are criminal laws against coercion and assault. While domineering may be a bad attitude undesired in the workplace, a 'hostile environment' is only an offense when the workplace itself is so oriented, not just a power mad old white guy. n nBut Clinton lied to the people, repeatedly and unmistakably, showed that he held the people in utter contempt, all of us, not just those he would sexually abuse when he could. Such a person should not be President. Democrat or Republican. Cain has policy positions about which people disagree, that's politics and fair game for journalists, more power to them on that score. But he is not an insecure old man who enjoys building himself up at the expense of the weak. Whatever else he may be, that he is not. n
It is not new for Politico or any other liberal media outlet to attempt to crucify Republicans, but Cain and his camp have handled the story badly. First they lied, then they blamed Perry and now they're just hostile. This gets you nowhere but a one way ticket home and since 70% of GOP primary voters have yet to decide Cain may be home in time for the holidays. As a conservative I have not supported Cain because I think he is too liberal on his positions on the Fed, abortion, Gitmo and pulling the race card on Rick Perry in regard to the sign on the ranch. Now, he will never get my vote.
"Conservatives are understandably inclined to believe the worst of the press." n nYes, we have very good reasons. The "Press" has zero objectivity and even less credibility, when it comes to reporting stories on Conservatives. And, then they whine and complain when they are not taken seriously. Stories like this, about Cain, merely reinforce that perception. Furthermore, when a person states that he/she is not going to answer questions that have already been answered, I see no reason for them to be badgered. Iggy is correct. Cain is credible, the Press is not.
Tobin why don't you compare the way this was handled to the Anita Broderick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Brent Bozel found 7 articles in 3 days covered by CBS,NBC and ABC. These were woman who were willing to come forward with very specific complaints. The Cain story we maybe have two woman who felt uncomfortable about a nonsexual gesture with no names, no specifics and the same three stations have 50 stories. Does this look like a double standard?
Am I my brother's keeper? Why would a leader and victorious person like Mr. Cain spend time in his short life on this drivel and mire? Journalism is dead in America. The people rejected the media since, let's say Rathergate. We find it a waste of time and would rather listen to Mr. Cain sing about the grace of God in his life than have him defend himself against scurrilous lies and stoke the media fires. Get serious, the TeaParty would not support a man who was going to raise our taxes. I won't look for your response to my post, because, frankly, I too have a life to live and the press, regrettably, is going to Hell.
If you don't get the double standard here, then you've forgotten who Juanita Broaddrick was. n nJuanita came forward to accuse then-president Bill Clinton of a sexual assault. She literally connected her name with the charge that she had been raped, and how did the press react? How many times was Clinton asked about it? nExactly once. nAnd his reaction was to tell the WH press corps that his lawyers had already answered for him. n nNow compare that with Cain, and a woman who refuses to come forward and make her charge known publicly. n nWould you explain the difference in questioning to me?
"Asking Cain About Accuser Isn't Unethical" n nAgreed. n nNor is it unethical for Cain to tell the media to shove it up their a**.