The New Republic

Thanks for this collection. Cain must know his sexual harassment is at least a public relations problem because he lied to pretend he was unaware of the settlement. There is no difference in the treatment of Cain by the media as there was of Anthony Weiiner. If Obama ever said what Cain said, that despite the absence of evidence he is willing to believe the attacks on him are racial, you can imagine the criticism of the above talking heads and that's where the real hypocrisy is about race.

- Nusholtz

November 5, 2011 at 8:46am

God, what a fraud Rush Limbaugh is. He's spent years railing on the radio to his Dittoheads about black-on-white crime, and now he's presenting a black Republican as a victim of white, Democratic Party crime. And, of course, that viper, Ann Coulter, is doing the same. Don't kid yourself, Republicans. You don't want a black person anywhere near the nomination for president. That would mean that the southern vote in the 2012 election might not be guaranteed for your party. Remember, after LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, you took the South away from racist Southern Democrats. And you're depending on that racism to carry the South again. Democrats often say and do fraudulent things. With Republicans it's a way of life--their very reason for existence.

- magboy47.

November 5, 2011 at 10:24am

Stephen Colbert once said that reality has a liberal bias. This is a case in point. How can these commentators decide that Cain is the real victim without knowing the facts of the case? The answer is that they do not need facts here anymore than they need facts to know the evolution is "just a theory", global warming is a conspiracy, and that the Bush tax cuts actually raised government revenue.

- Vekert

November 5, 2011 at 11:33am

What is interesting here is how those that responded to Clinton's charges of harassment and how those are responding to Cain's. Clinton paid $850K, lied under oath during a deposition on the harassment and ultimately lost his law license. At issue here was the direct request for sex and BJs. Given his lying, we can be pretty sure he in fact did pressure her (and others) for this. Cain's settlement rumored at about $45K. As of now, we don't know what the allegations are except for them being "inappropriate." We do know the National Restaurant Associated paid the bill, and they presumably have some fairly deep pockets. It'd be helpful to know what her accusations were.

- seattleeng

November 5, 2011 at 12:40pm

seattleeng, I thought Clinton was a sexual-predator slimeball, as is, obviously Cain. But the Republicans in the Nineties did what the Nazis did to Jews in Hitler's Germany--they tried to get Clinton out of power for a sexual act between two, at least age-wise, adults. In America consensual sex between adults is not a crime. If it is not a crime, then lying about it under oath is not a crime. The Nazis had Jews fired from their jobs, put on trial, and sometimes executed for having consensual sex with an adult "Aryan" woman. I don't like Clinton. As a Southern Democrat, he is a 100% Republican on economics. He still thinks globalization is the only thing that can save America, when, in fact, it is killing us. But he was impeached by a Republican Party in the Nineties that acted exactly like the Nazis did under Hitler. Thank God the Republicans did not control the Senate at the time.

- magboy47.

November 5, 2011 at 1:18pm

I was wrong. I think the Republicans did control the Senate, when the House impeached Clinton. But the Senate, just like the House of Lords in England, is less hotheaded than the House. Republican Senators realized that their party would look like Nazis, if they actually removed Clinton from office. They were right to let Bubba slide, especially since he had done nothing illegal by American standards of law--only by the standards of a Republican special prosecutor who took his cue from the Nazis.

- magboy47.

November 5, 2011 at 1:52pm

malahat, I was speaking about a SPECIFIC issue--sex between consenting adults. And the Nazis did remove Jews from political office for having consensual sex with adult Aryans. I did not include all the other atrocities that the Jews suffered under Hitler. You did that.

- magboy47.

November 5, 2011 at 2:12pm

As human beings, we consider ourselves rational. Much of what we consider "rational" is in fact "rationalizing," what we want to believe. In this case, rationalizing that sexual harrassment is not "real" (Derbyshire, for example) is a typical example. Probably the basis for human ethics is empathy, the ability to imagine and feel the pain and suffering of other human beings (and other beings as well). Most of us are capable of empathy (as most of us are capable of swimming), but neither capacity functions very well unless carefully nurtured and developed from a fairly early age.

- skahn

November 5, 2011 at 3:25pm

malahat, Having sex with Aryans was one specific charge the Nazi regime made against the Jews. It was one of the many excuses the Nazis used to punish them for being Jews--it wasn't the only excuse, as you imply that I said. Today's Republicans rage against the very idea of a Democrat in the Oval Office. They punished Clinton for being a Democrat by prosecuting and impeaching him for lying about something that isn't a crime. Both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis made lying about something that wasn't a crime into a crime. And, yes, the way the Republicans twisted the law to punish a president for something that isn't a crime is reminiscent of that. I did NOT say that Republicans are like Nazis in any other respect.

- magboy47.

November 5, 2011 at 4:55pm

I actually did like Clinton very much - and I loathed the reckless part of him that slept with a zillion women. I'm certainly not going to defend Clinton's dark side, but he actually had something quite tangilble to offer America as President. In addition to being a serial cheater, he was and is also an incandescently brilliant man and one of the most knowledgable, successful public servants this country has ever seen. Cain is an arrogant, classless, ignorant man with nothing to offer this country whatsoever. And this was before this nonsense came out. He's has only underscored how undignified, immature and doltish his is with his behavior - and his continued intimidation of these women every day. No wonder they didn't come forward - he has threatened them with ruined loves every time he's spoken. Stay classy Cain.

- WandreyCer

November 5, 2011 at 5:09pm

The caliber of people who support him speaks for itself.

- WandreyCer

November 5, 2011 at 5:09pm

oops - makes that "ruined lives"

- WandreyCer

November 5, 2011 at 5:10pm

My career spanned 1975-2001. I have been really upset this past week with all the 'pundits' who "belittle the existence of sexual harassment in the first place." especially when Bret Stephens did that today on the weekly WSJ report that airs on FOX. It was VERY real before the term "sexual harrassment" came into being. Personally, I think Cain is doing serious damage to whatever the GOP image is these days, by his position on wanting to electrocute any Mexican who touches Cain's to-be-built electrified 2,000 mile border fence, and wish something would make him disappear since that outrageous buffoonery was given a pass as a rookie "mulligan". The only point I will offer is that the Clinton impeachment may have been a tipping point. I was reading the transcript in the NYT in the lunchroom of the small consulting firm where I worked at the time, and commented out loud to myself "this is like reading pornography". Suddenly, I am hauled into a formal inquisition because a temp complained that my comment was sexual harrassment! Fortunately, two of my colleagues were simultaneously complaining that same temp was disappearing from the office for hours at a time and not doing her work. I add that said temp came to work in an office with a "business attire only" dress code in the late 1990's. She was very young, Barbie doll silhouette, and always wore low cut tight blue jeans with halter tops in order to expose her navel. I found it astonishing that no one dared suggest she conform to the dress code, but, since we had no direct contact except that passing through the lunchroom, I never said a word about that. It did not make me "uncomfortable", but I thought it inappropriate when the rest of us were wearing suits and ties. Please let Iowa make Cain disappear. I would not hire him to run a bodega in The Bronx.

- K2K

November 6, 2011 at 1:43am

You makes excellent points K2K. You mention something very important that is unspoken so far in all of this: how offended plenty of men (if not most) are that in the year 2011, people with enormous media power are still dismissing the reality of sexual harrassment (just to attempt to shield a buffoonish incompetent who is a disgrace to their party, no less). My Republican father would have punched Cain in the face if he'd been in the same room as Cain harrassing any woman. HE'S the one who pointed out to me that Cain is still bullying and intimadating these women and that now he has a national army of dangerous cretins doing his bidding in this. How many death threats would these women get if they truly came forward? I too dealt with false complaints in the 90's K2K. I tesified against two women in depositions who were attempting to extort money from a large company I worked for in DC. These women had performed poorly and they enraged me - and I said so to both of their lawyers. I'd been sexually harrassed and am very resentful of women who would weaken the credibility of the vast majority of women with legitimate complaints (although it didn't happen much to me, I"m six feet tall and confident - not usually the type a predator bother with. I was also pretty calm in telling anyone in any position that I had the law on my side and to kindly eff off. I even made friends with one of these men, who broke down to me when I threatened him. His wife had just left him for a woman. Sigh. I also ended up befriending his bitter teenage daughter, took her out to buy make-up. Years later I heard that this man had been fired - for sexual harrassment, the dummy). Anyway, I also know that sexual harrassment is very real and ruins lives of the women involved. You should not have to risk your job just to stand up for yourself in this manner (as I had). Wasn't there a female in your office who could have taken this unprofessional woman aside and told her there was a dress code? I've done it. She was violating the stated rules of the company.

- WandreyCer

November 6, 2011 at 9:23am

SeattleEng I feel your analogy to Clinton is misplace. The difference between Clinton and Cain is that a Republican Operative (Ken Starr) was hired to go after Clinton. He started with Whitewater and decided to move to Monica Lewinsky, a purely personal matter. I would expect that any politician can be investigated and then made to lie in a deposition on personal matters when cornered. It is possible for someone to view the actions of Ken Starr as an abuse, but it is difficult if not impossible to look at the actions of the press in regard to Cain as an abuse.

- Nusholtz

November 6, 2011 at 10:30am

Last time I checked, we still have a black President, and few would argue that it is only a matter of time before we have an Hispanic President. Of course, it's possible that one or neither would be conservative, but I seriously doubt that, not the way politics as we know it works.

- Tgossard

November 6, 2011 at 10:57am

Magboy writes: "In America consensual sex between adults is not a crime." Clinton didn't get in trouble for a BJ. Clinton got in trouble because a woman that wanted nothing to do with him (Paula Jones et al) were pressured to do something they didn't want to do. Clinton compounded the trouble by lying about it when that woman deposed him in a civil lawsuit. He also lied about having sex with another person (MonicaL). Clinton's downfall had nothing to do with consensual sex. It had everything to do with lying under oath and trying to bury a woman who brought a credible lawsuit to him. If you want to defend an action, then try to defend the correctness of a man sliming a woman who he pressured her to have sex while in a supervisory role. And then defend his lying when she challenged him in court. Both of those are indefensible. Nutz, the same paragraphs apply to your argument too. This has nothing to do with Monica. This is how Clinton responded to women with credible claims that he pressured them for sex PRIOR to him becoming president.

- seattleeng

November 6, 2011 at 11:32am

Wandrey writes: "Cain is an arrogant, classless, ignorant man with nothing to offer this country whatsoever. And this was before this nonsense came out." I know, some people aren't comfortable around authentic black men. I get that. You are OK with Obama's privileged upbringing, his dark (but not black) complexion, his private schools, his banker mom and the absence of his negro dialect. You are comfortable with all that, because it's resembles your privileged life. Voting for Obama allowed you to say "I'm not racist!" while actually still being racist. It was more a vote for you than it was him him. Where you get uncomfortable is when the skin gets darker, the voice becomes more affected. The suits get double breasted. The affectations get grander. The mom is a maid, not a banker. The man is self made. Not built on Ivy League handouts. All that added up, and your inner racist just won't let a black man in the white house. The current guy int he white house isn't black. At least not authentically black. Let your inner racist down and vote for our first black president: Herman Cain. Undo decades of injustice. Your heart will thank you later. If the above grafs are offensive, then consider it's what republicans have had to put up with for the last 5 years. I just wanted to see how easy it was to write the above. And man, it flows like butter. I didn't mean any of it. But it sure is easy to write. Think about that, folks, when you are so quick to call a republican racist because they don't like Obama.

- seattleeng

November 6, 2011 at 11:45am

Seattle - the whole Clinton angel is such a total dodge. Every time someone asks a Republican a direct question (is Cain a fuckhead or what? How can you possibly be proud of belonging to a party who is thrilling at such a fool?) they dodge by questioning the motives of the questioner and puling the usual grade-school "but here's what YOUR side did." Answer the pertinent questions! Most Clinton supporters absolutely loathed that side of him, but supported him as a President because he was brilliant public servant who could have been CEO of any Wall Street firm he named (Obama as well) and chose to be in public service instead, where he shined. He was and is brilliant, the best public speaker of his generation and utterly brilliant at economics. It's called looking at the whole picture. I love Clinton the politician and President and kind of hate Clinton the person at times. It seems that Republicans only acknowledge the existence of nuance and the lesser of two evils when it applies to other Republicans. Answer the damn questions Seattle and stop with the dodges. Do you think Cain did it or what? Do you think this is a liberal conspiracy? If so, how do you explain the fact that a right-leaning site broke the story? How about the conservative talk show host in Iowa? He has no truck in this. The Republican consultant - yeah right, he's just doing it to get juice for Perry? Um yeah. I think he could do without the death threats he knew he'd get, the three women who sued Cain's ass as well. Does it matter to you either way? Do you think sexual harrassment is real? Or does that only handily apply to Clinton. I notice not one ounce of outrage at Cain's boorishness and bullying. What about that Iowa talk show host Seattle? If you even mention the Clinton dodge, your credibility is even lower than it usually is.

- WandreyCer

November 6, 2011 at 12:00pm

Well, when Democrats start showing up a rallies wailing "I want my country back" holding signs of Cain with a bone in his nose, I'll call it even. I don't pretend to read people's minds or intent, I only go on physical evidence right in front of me. I could go surf up the montages of hundreds of racist signs at Tea Party rallies if you like, and I mean pure white supremist stuff, you know, the people who drove the 2010 victory and have every Presidential candidate leaping around like puppets? Obama has made one single statement about OWS "In many ways they are similiar to the Tea Party." Just answer the questions Seattle and quit dodging.

- WandreyCer

November 6, 2011 at 12:12pm

all fine points Wandrey. Besides Deace (Iowa radio guy), a Mr. Land of the Baptist something has also stood up on the reality of sexual harrassment. Am no longer paying attention, and hoping Cain fades fast now that he has shown his arrogant crankiness. Just came from a thread at Commentary where Cain's crankiness was the topic, with a surprisingly long comment thread of guys taking the 'false anonymous accusation not a big deal' line. One thought that came to mind is that, in the unlikely event that it is an Obama v Cain in 2012, I guarantee that a woman will finally be president in 2016 for a host of reasons. (Iceland is a good example of what happens when the women finally decide that the med have screwed up for the last time). During the 2008 primary, it was obvious to me that sexism is far worse than racism, and sexism is only trumped by ageism, which is far worse for women than men. Wandrey asked me: "Wasn't there a female in your office who could have taken this unprofessional woman aside and told her there was a dress code? I've done it. She was violating the stated rules of the company." What I left out was that it was a small office, maybe 35 people, the NA office for a global consultancy based in Finland. The NA execs who hired had a noticeable pattern of hiring admins with serious cleavage :) So, the rest of us kept quiet, although I do think others did try to quietly suggest that temp cover up a bit if she wanted to be considered for a permanent position. Might have been the navel piercing... Probably an odd situation when one considers that at HQ in Helsinki, they held business meetings in co-ed saunas, so topless was a different norm - I really have to stop with that. My point was my shock at being charged just because I said aloud that reading the Clinton transcripts in the NYT was "like reading pornography". That was all I said. How is that even a claim? So, maybe Clinton (I tend to be French in my attitude about relevance) was a tipping point in hyper-sensitivity.

- K2K

November 6, 2011 at 12:56pm

I meant (Iceland is a good example of what happens when the women finally decide that the MEN have screwed up for the last time).

- K2K

November 6, 2011 at 12:58pm

Seattleeng Your statement is not responsive. You said there is hypocrisy in supporters of Clinton who condemn Cain. I noted that Clinton's situation can be defined by the abuse of Ken Starr. You responded by talking about Clinton's relationship with women. Since we don't know anything about Cain's relationship's with women other than one statement that his behavior was inappropriate and he made unwanted advances, it doesn't seem like you can base an argument about hypocrisy in that context either.

- Nusholtz

November 6, 2011 at 1:11pm

Both K2K and WandreyCer make excellent points. I have had similar experiences, working for a number of small high-tech “start-up” companies and for a couple of rather entrepreneurial public education organizations. Humans are rationalizing and predatory beings. In one company the sales manager was harassing female employees while protected by his son (the President of the company, who in turn conducted management meetings while drunk in a bar). While one of my subordinates complained bitterly to me about Sales Manager Dad's propositions to her; another saleswoman slept her way to the top of the sales team. In another case, son and dad enthusiastically courted a black minister who was a potential customer (with considerable business potential). As soon as the minister and his entourage were out of the room they management team cracked themselves up exchanging racist jokes about blacks. I was offended by all of this and did complain a bit, and get in a bit of trouble, but the company imploded so quickly and went broke so spectacularly the problem was solved without much more call for action on my part. People ARE harassed for sexual reasons and racial reasons and religious reasons, and some people FALSELY claim harassment for the same reason. Some harassment cuts against stereotypes. In my last job before retiring (working for a female-dominated public educational organization) I was harassed by two female supervisors (not for my tired old body, but because I was an uppity man). In the year this occurred this very liberal organization made all employees participate in a big “anti-harassment” educational campaign. A treasured memory in my black humor/irony poisoning archives is my (female) supervisor—one of the two people harassing me---looking deep into my eyes with a serious wide-eyed gaze and solemnly informing me that if I ever experienced harassment, I should be sure to report it, and if I felt uncomfortable with my supervisor, I should go up the chain (in this case, it would have meant going to the department head, the other person harassing me). I did discuss the problem with my union representatives. There was not much more chain to go up, and I was six months from retirement, and my wife (weary of my life-long tendency to make waves and get in trouble) urged me to let it go, so I did. Now I just post snarky comments to TNR once in a while.

- skahn

November 6, 2011 at 1:51pm

Wandry writes: "Well, when Democrats start showing up a rallies wailing "I want my country back" holding signs of Cain with a bone in his nose, I'll call it even." Well then I guess we'll call it even over the various comments made towards Rice and Powell. I can promise you for every one you can find getting nasty towards Obama, I can find 2 that were nastier towards Rice and Powell. Do me a favor: Search google for condiprissy.jpg and tell me you aren't shocked. That is from a syndicated cartoonist that is paid by the NYT. To answer your question...Generally I subscribe to the "where there's smoke, there's fire" about sexual harassment. If it's one isolated complaint of he-said she-said, then I chalk it up to a misunderstanding that could have probably happened to anyone, including myself, no matter how respectful. But two or more accusers, and we're starting to see a pattern that likely has some merit. As I've noted before, I'm not a big fan of Cain. I think a lot fo the right wingers up there now are crackpots. I think Romney + Rubio is probably about as potent as we can muster this time around.

- seattleeng

November 6, 2011 at 3:02pm

Wandrey's right on the bit with this statement: ...Cain is an arrogant, classless, ignorant man with nothing to offer this country whatsoever. And this was before this nonsense came out. He's has only underscored how undignified, immature and doltish his is with his behavior... The guy is a disgrace to American politics. I keep staying that I can't understand his prominence amongst Republicans, they're both still there--his prominence and my befuddlement. For me the worst of the above reactions to Cain are, in no order, Derbyshire-denying the reality of sexual harassment; Coulter (who could doubt it)-"high tech lynching;" Ingraham--dithering and pernicous pre judgment and slagging of the victim; and Limbaugh--for his unfailing, paranoid ranting that passes--for him and to his--as analysis.

- basman

November 6, 2011 at 5:34pm

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds: " Yet when President Clinton was in office, the same liberals excused far more egregious - and criminal - behavior. Mr. Clinton was accused of exposing himself to Paula Jones, threatening her with losing her job if she didn’t perform sexual acts. Kathleen Willey alleged that Mr. Clinton had sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office. In the Wall Street Journal, Juanita Broaddrick accused - in painful detail - Mr. Clinton of having raped her. The president engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the White House and then lied under oath, suborned perjury and abused his office to cover it up. Mr. Clinton was a sexual predator who presided over the most lawless, scandal-ridden administration in memory. But Mr. Clinton was and remains a liberal icon - a charming rogue who just can’t seem to keep his hands off the ladies. The bar is different for black conservatives, such as Justice Thomas and Mr. Cain. They are demonized - and discredited - by liberals for allegedly doing things many Democrats - from the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to Al Gore to Rep. Barney Frank - would consider tame." Do liberals have a soul?? Any sense of right vs wrong? Or is everything situational ethics?

- mr_rationale

November 6, 2011 at 8:43pm

mr_rationale: I have never like Clinton much, and I think you make some serious points about his sexual misbehavior. In regard to your last line: I guess I am more liberal than conservative, though I dislike being pigeonholed. As a non believer (in regard to religion), I doubt that I have a "soul" or that such an item exists. I have a sense of right vs. wrong. From whence comes your sense of right vs wrong? I don't know of any kind of ethics beyond "situational ethics." What are your ethics, and from whence to they come? Thank you.

- skahn

November 6, 2011 at 9:58pm

...11/06/2011 - 8:43pm EDT | mr_rationale... Really, what's your point? The first point in all of this is that Cain is a political incompetent as judged by his first political steps in his campaign for the nomination to handling the accusations against him. He meets no serious standard that anyone could conceivably hold for judging presidential timber. Second, the accusations Cain faces still fall to be determined. And insofar as they affect his political future, his essential incompetence bracketed for a moment, that'll depend on what truths get revealed and then will be up to the voters. If all other things were equal and if his political abilities were not as devastatingly bad as they are, I wouldn't think these two or three incidents need be politically fatal to him. But his utter political absurdity--most manifest now in his sheer botching of the issues these accusations raise for him-- is in fact what seems to be hammering the final nails in his political coffin more than accusations themselves, the content of which we don't yet know. So, third, to the extent that you are saying liberals are decrying Cain because of the harassment accusations as such, you're not saying much because most aren't and couldn't, not knowing their substance yet, as I have said. Who are the liberals calling for Cain's head merely on the ground of these accusations? Fourth, the third point being so, apart from the cartoon like silliness of painting a picture of liberals giving Clinton's conduct a pass while slamming Cain for sexual harassment, you elide and thus collapse the distinction between liberals who condemned Clinton's actions but stood against him being driven from office because of them. That elision takes the wind out of such argument as you're attempting.

- basman

November 6, 2011 at 11:52pm

Seattle -- do you know a thing about Obama's background? His banker mother? Are you kidding me? She was a sociologist! He has talked about how she survived for a time on food stamps!

- shellski

November 7, 2011 at 9:49am

Sorry, should have typed "banker grandmother." She was a VP at a bank in Hawaii.

- seattleeng

November 7, 2011 at 2:02pm

"Where you get uncomfortable is when the skin gets darker, the voice becomes more affected. The suits get double breasted. The affectations get grander. The mom is a maid, not a banker. The man is self made. Not built on Ivy League handouts. All that added up, and your inner racist just won't let a black man in the white house. The current guy int he white house isn't black. At least not authentically black" Still trying to understand what "authentically black" is supposed to mean. Is there a program that hands out certificates? I would think a sharkskin suit and alligator shoes would be more authentic than a Brooks Brothers double breasted suit. And isn't Al Sharpton more authentic than Herman Cain? I mean, he's got the hair, the gold, the swagger, grander affectations and he's self-made and he learned how to be a man from James "Mr. Dynamite, The Hardest Working Man in Show Business, The King of Funk, Godfather of Soul, The Sex Machine" Brown. The whole notion of who is more authentically black was best explained in Spike Lee's movie "School Daze" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zv7Js0HK7s If I had one vote for most authentically black it would be Samuel L. Jackson.

- singlspeed

November 7, 2011 at 4:59pm

The reason most conservatives have a hard time accepting the concept of sexual harassment is that it questions the entire framework of power and privilege that is constructed by those in power. That a powerful individual can't have what they want when they want it is antithetical to their way of thinking about the world. There is them and those below them. This pretty much applies to anyone in a position of power who uses that position to justify their actions and harassment of those that work under them and perhaps feel that the employee should be "grateful" and show how grateful they are for a job. You often don't hear of bosses accusing a secretary of sexual harassment. The sex act isn't necessarily for the sex, but is used as a tool of control and abuse by the person in the position of power and privilege. And it takes a certain frame of mind to think that way.

- singlspeed

November 7, 2011 at 5:13pm

Seatle, Can you really pass that off about race and Obama with some sort of false equvilance? What was birtherism and the disgusting way Boehner and McConnell played footsie with it? Is it wrong to call this ridiculous and patently racist dog whistle for what it was? I don't like playing, let's find the most offensive sign some werido at a protest makes and compare it. It is kind of pointless, and leads to a sort of arms race. However, this was positions of power in the GOP throwing this stuff around. The only thing I remember the Democrats in the Senate doing with Powell was slobbering over how wonderful he was in his confirmation hearings.

- MikeB.

November 7, 2011 at 9:07pm