Are the media out to wreck Herman Cain’s candidacy? No, he’s doing it to himself, quite effectively

The conservative media and some Republican politicians are accusing the mainstream (translation: liberal and biased) media of smearing Herman Cain by publishing, then blabbering continuously about, allegations of sexual harassment of subordinate employees when Cain headed the National Restaurant Association back in the 1990s.

Cain’s campaign early today called it an “appalling smear” by “inside-the-beltway media.” Later today the Cain campaign accused the Rick Perry campaign of tipping the story when Cain chief of staff Mark Block told Fox, “Rick Perry needs to apologize to Herman Cain and, quite frankly, to America.”

Cain has only himself to blame for the vultures circling overhead. His story has changed—materially—every day, and more than once most days. First he denied ever being accused of sexual harassment. Then he acknowledged that there had been a complaint but he turned it over to the association that he headed and he didn’t think anything had come of it. Then he said there had been no settlement paid to his accuser(s). Then he said, wait a minute I thought there had been an agreement, not a settlement.

It’s hard to keep up with the story, but a few facts are beyond dispute:

  • Two complaints of sexual harassment were filed against Cain.
  • The National Restaurant Association paid off the accusers in exchange for their silence.
  • Cain first denied any such complaints had ever been made.
  • Cain’s story has changed daily.

The original story in Politico would have been a one-day item. Cain’s serial lying has turned it into a media circus that may well destroy his campaign, and deservedly so.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Are the media out to wreck Herman Cain’s candidacy? No, he’s doing it to himself, quite effectively”

  1. tlevier Says:

    Two complaints of sexual harassment were filed against Cain.

    The only value I find here is that it was a harassment charge, not an assault charge. Beyond that, the only reports are that he made sexually suggestive comments. An off-color joke perhaps. Nothing to me indicates whether the 2 women filed complaints about the same incident or separate incidents.

    The National Restaurant Association paid off the accusers in exchange for their silence.

    From Chris Wilson, the Perry pollster, we are led to believe that the comments were made in a group at a table. Chris Wilson says that he and many others knew what had happened. I can understand why the accusers aren’t speaking today, but why is Mr. Wilson not sharing more information?

    Cain first denied any such complaints had ever been made.

    How many times do you think an accuser provides a formal complaint to the perpetrator directly? How often do you think a proper investigation is conducted by going straight to the perpetrator? In this case, how do you think the recipient of the case framed the situation to Mr. Cain, if at all?

    Cain’s story has changed daily.

    It snowed in Colorado yesterday. What’s your point?

    • Ethics Bob Says:

      The point is that Cain should have been honest from the start. He’s changed his story so many times in just four days that no objective persom could reasonably believe that he’s been straight.

      • tlevier Says:

        If you want me to find fault in Cain, I will, and it is this:

        He lacked the testicular fortitude to look each reporter in the eyes and respond to each question with “No Comment.”

  2. jan chapman Says:

    There is also the legal issue, currently being debated, that Cain broke the confidentiality agreement by commenting on the allegations and agreement, also commenting on one woman’s job performance, thus releasing her from her responsibility to maintain confidentiality. Since no one knows the parameters of the agreement, it is impossible to say whether Cain is in violation, but given he had 10 days notice you would think he would have sought legal advice before saying anything. I agree his handling of the entire matter is inept. There are so many reasons not to vote for this man; it is too bad this is the one that is in the news.

  3. Ethics Roundup, 11-14-2011 - Pilant's Business Ethics | Pilant's Business Ethics Says:

    […] 1. Ethics Bob has a post called – Are the media out to wreck Herman Cain’s candidacy? No, he’s doing it to himself, quite effectiv… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: