All day today, conservative talk show hosts, from Rush to Hannity to Levin, have said that he’s the victim of the Left’s smear campaign. I started the day thinking that, too.

This weekend, Cain’s campaign said that there was nothing to it, that it was a “hi-tech lynching.” Mr. Cain started this morning by denying that he’d ever sexually harassed anyone in his life. This afternoon, he admitted to Greta that he was aware of the complaints but that he didn’t know what the settlement amounts were in dollar terms. He later said that it probably was in the range of 2 or 3 months pay.

Though I don’t know what happened back in the 1990’s, I find it difficult to believe that he sexually harassed women.

That said, Mr. Cain’s shifting answers are getting him in trouble. Mr. Cain can’t claim that he’s the victim if he’s getting himself in trouble.

What’s becoming clear is that Mr. Cain has an arrogant streak in him. When asked during a debate how he knew his 9-9-9 plan wouldn’t expand into 12-12-12, Mr. Cain simply said “Because I won’t let that happen.” When initially asked about this story, he was defiant, stubborn. It’s like his reply was ‘that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.’

Except he didn’t stick to it when questioned by Greta.

Mr. Cain can argue that he was the victim of an ambush by Politico. He can’t argue that he’s the victim of his own shifting statements. That’s his fault and his alone.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Herman Cain: Victim of Agenda Media attack?”

  • Bob J. says:

    As I understand it, 9-9-9 contains a provision requiring a supermajority for tax increases, a provision we’ve needed for quite some time at all levels of government. It means taxpayers and voters must stay vigilant and elect representatives who will be responsible with the peoples’ money.

    I didn’t see the interview but if Cain said “because I won’t let that happen”, then that is indeed silly. However, it’s no sillier than Rick Perry calling me heartless because I don’t support benefits for illegal immigrants and it’s no sillier than anything Myth Romney has said since the start of the campaign.

  • eric z. says:

    What you post is not inconsistent. He says he never sexually harassed anyone. Then he says situations arose, which he bought off cheaply.

    If alleging claims strongly based upon reality, would complainants have sold out cheaply?

    Cain has consistency, not inconsistency to what he says.

    The fact is that litigation costs and risks often are such that buying out of a lawsuit often is the least cost clear choice – and your King of economics will tell you that taking a least cost route is not exactly abnormal for a business executive.

    Now, next, why would a bona fide claimant sell out a claim cheaply? Because the litigation system is so stacked up to favor the deep pocket. That would have been Cain.

    These are all realities.

    Has anyone produced a claimant now publicly saying he/she was sexually harassed by Cain?

    The educated guess is any settled claim would involve a gag order voluntarily accepted by the claimant, so any claimant(s) who filed and subsequently were bought off likely would be obligated to remain silent.

    BOTTOM LINE: Nothing’s been proven in public, yet, against Cain. It is not like an out of wedlock child subject to DNA testing, or a stained blue dress, also subject to DNA testing. There as yet is not that kind of evidence.

    There is not yet an Anita Hill in this story, where you have to believe one or the other but cannot believe both.

  • walter hanson says:


    Between you and Herman you seem to be more inconsistent. Cain has said that he never sexual harrassed anyone. what you’re saying is that the so called victims made a claim (which could be false) and the procedures to have it settled was somebody other than Herman which did what most people did was offer a settlement just because it would be more expensive to fight than to settle (even if Herman was 100% not guilty). A lesson they could’ve learned with the mess Bill Clinton created trying to show he didn’t do anything wrong with Paula Jones.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Nemo_from_Erehwon says:

    To me, Cain’s inconsistency was in first saying he did not know about any payoffs being made, then almost immediately talking about payoffs he knew were made.

    An accusation of this sort is easily made, and unless there is some sort of evidence, it does not have to be believed. (If evidence a la Clinton turns up, that’s a different story.)

    A company paying off an accuser to make even a fabricated case go away is not unusual or a problem.

    Cain’s first instinct when confronted with the story being to lie IS a concern. Hopefully that was an aberration, and not indicative of his character.

  • edthurston says:

    True that the accusers may have been paid and Cain is not supposed to seen as guilty until proven otherwise. Ed is a good contender from the field of Republicans for the presidency and candidates being thrown bad stuff at is not a surprising tactic. To be able to vote wisely you have to see the good and bad side of each candidate like before scratching Cain out of your list of candidates-to-vote go see his proposed tax plan first

  • Gary Gross says:

    Walter, How can I be inconsistent when I’ve consistently steered clear of whether the allegations were true or not? How can I be inconsistent when I’ve consistently talked about the piss-poor job his chief-of-staff did & that Cain did in turning this 2-day story into a 2 week story?

  • Gary Gross says:

    Bob, the legislation doesn’t exist in legislative form so Cain make whatever claim he wants to make. There’s no way of proving or disproving it. At this point, I won’t trust Mr. Cain until he stops using 3 different versions of what happened within 36 hrs. of the story breaking.

Leave a Reply