Herman Cain gave conflicting answers to the Politico story that reported he had allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct towards two women who were employed by the National Restaurant Association while Cain was the CEO of that trade group in the 1990′s. Early yesterday, Cain acknowledged the incident, but steadfastly claimed that he had never sexually harassed anyone. Given Cain’s character, in conjunction with favorable statements from those with whom he previously worked, this is probably true, but more importantly, it is irrelevant. Cain is no longer an executive in the food service industry, he is a Republican candidate running for president. The sphere of politics is a completely different universe than that of business and commerce; it has its own set of rules, the most important of which is that perception is often more important than reality.
And therein lies a problem for Cain relative to his incoherent and evasive response to the Politico story. Yesterday morning, he claimed that he had no knowledge of the settlement agreement the two women executed with the Restaurant Association. But then later that same day, he stated that he was aware of the settlement and that is was for an insignificant amount of money. Well, which is it? Were you aware or were you not aware? It very well may be the case that Cain received more details about the settlement later in the day, but his flat out contradiction on the existence of the settlement creates the appearance that he is not forthcoming about the incident or that he has something to hide.
One could argue that Cain’s amateurish initial response, by the damage-control standards of modern day Washington, is understandable as he is not a seasoned political operative. However, the entire reaction to the story is problematic in the sense that Cain doesn’t seem to appreciate the venue in which he is operating. Yes, businesses not infrequently settle these baseless claims because they don’t want to incur the legal costs of protracted litigation or for public relations reasons. But Cain doesn’t seem to appreciate the fact that he is not in the business world anymore, and the gravity of the charges in terms of the political damage that may ensue seems lost on him as well as his campaign staff.
Questions for the Cain campaign:
Why did the campaign set itself up for the media onslaught since it knew of the story for at least ten days prior to the story’s publication? There was simply no excuse for not getting ahead of the story. Why were Cain campaign operatives not on the same page Monday morning when the story initially broke? The responses by Cain’s surrogates were disjointed, discordant and evinced a campaign that had no coherent response or strategy for dealing with the allegations of misconduct
Questions for Politico:
Why is it that the Jonathan Martin, one of the Politico reporters who broke the story, continues to reference the settlement coyly in dollar terms as “five-figures?” If Politico knows that it is a five-figure settlement, why not disclose the actual dollar amount? Is Politico reluctant to publish the actual dollar amount of the settlement because if it is a nominal figure (typical of nuisance suits filed against corporations) then it is consistent with Cain’s contention that the allegations had no merit?
In addition, If the settlement, by virtue of a confidentiality clause, precludes the two women from disclosing the terms of the settlement or discussing the incident, what is the source of Politico’s information about the specific gestures Cain made to the women or the specific nature of the inappropriate conduct in which he engaged? It would seem that the source for these details is pure hearsay from other individuals who are speaking about it well over ten years after the incident occurred.
Had Politico questioned then candidate Barack Obama in 2008 about his twenty-five year association with his virulently racist preacher Jeremiah Wright with the same tenacity and zeal with which they have pursued the sexual harassment story about Herman Cain, one would not be so quick to question or impugn their motives in publishing the vague and stale allegations about an incident that transpired over twelve years ago.
Did one or both of the two women who alleged improper conduct file a formal complaint in court or with an administrative agency such as the EEOC or a state counterpart? If so, Cain should immediately disclose this fact. If he doesn’t and Politico then produces a legal complaint or an administrative complaint filed by one or both of the women in question, then it may prove to be a mortal blow to the Cain campaign.
Viewing the facts as we know them in a light most favorable to Cain, the best that can be said about his response to the Politico story is that he is winging it. While many Republican primary voters have been remarkably forgiving of Cain’s missteps to date, given his strengths as the dominant anti-Romney candidate, if he is not immediately and completely forthcoming about all the details of this matter, many may conclude that it would be imprudent to nominate a man who will continue to shoot from the hip once he is in the Oval Office.
No Comments »
Filed under: Election 2012, media liberal bias, republican party