SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home I Am Not For Herman Cain. Believe Me, I Really Am Not....

POLITICS NOVEMBER 8, 2011

I Am Not For Herman Cain. Believe Me, I Really Am Not. But…

BY MARTIN PERETZ

Nor was I for Ross Perot, a man who (as of 1992) had made a $3 billion dollar fortune and headed a major hi-tech corporation, actually two. But he was—let’s be frank (and rhyme)—a real crank. Frankly, I can’t remember whether many people took him seriously as a thinking politician. Still, with his money he seemed able to stake a claim on the attentions of the electorate and attracted the support of millions of voters who would not have gone to the polls were their choice limited to either George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton. His running mate, retired vice admiral James Stockdale, much decorated and the highest ranking officer captured by the North Vietnamese during the Indo-China war, could not make heads-or-tails of the issues at stake in the election. At the top of the ticket, Perot staked out the “balanced budget” as his own and with the intensity of Ron Paul. Yet he had a habit of going in and out of the race, blaming Republicans for causing all kinds of mischief in his own and his family’s private life, including his daughter’s impending marriage. Nonetheless, he was taken seriously by the press and credited or debited, as it were, with President Bush and Dan Quayle’s defeat and Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s victory. Nobody, however, would suggest that Perot had a legitimate claim on the presidency were it not for his cash, and many oodles of it which made him even more legitimate.

Herman Cain is also a rich man, but in dimensions so much lower than Perot that he comes across as a middle class man. In any case, there are at least two real multi-millionaires in the GOP race. One is Mitt Romney, the “other” front-runner. He inherited a good deal of money from his father, George Romney, who was CEO and chairman of the company that made Nash cars, which tells you how long ago that was. He made an issue of gas guzzlers by offering the public the Rambler, a success of sorts … at least for a while. Then, dad ran for the 1968 Republican nomination for the presidency and was, also for a while, the front-runner. Until, that is, he confessed that he had been “brainwashed” by the military on Vietnam. (Of course, we were all brainwashed on Vietnam, the right by the military, the left by the “idealists” who persuaded us that the Viet Cong was an idealistic peasant insurgency rather than a mask for the vicious government in Hanoi. No, Ho Chi Minh was not a good man. He was a butcher.) Anyway, George’s stock plummeted, his own stock. He did not become the nominee. Richard Nixon was selected. And he, as you know, became president, a virtual criminal and perhaps the most vicious of the 37 men who had preceded him. Almost nothing was made of the fact that the senior Romney was an elder of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Oh, yes, the other “real multi-millionaire” in the Republican race is Jon Huntsman. He has an immensely impressive record, having served as governor of Utah and Barack Obama’s ambassador to China. He is (also) a Mormon. He polled almost nothing, alas. He has said that “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Now back to Mitt and his money. His inheritance aside, he’s very very rich—they say more than $300 million—from his own work as CEO of both Bain & Co. and Bain Capital, key and early players in the new economy and without ever having improprieties charged against them, which, alas, is a rarity now. He ran for senator against Ted Kennedy and lost. He was chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics, in which position, Wikipedia suggests, he earned the reputation of a “turn-around artist.” Then he ran for governor in the Bay State, won, and served for four years, honestly and more or less responsibly. I think I voted for him since a bore of a Democrat, Shannon O’Brien, had defeated three friends of mine who ran against her in the primary: my student Tom Birmingham, former AIPAC national chairman (later chairman of the Democratic National Committee) Steve Grossman, and then-Brandeis economics professor Robert Reich, now at Berkeley. Romney kept the state out of debt. Along with Cain, he’s now the front-runner for the Republican nod. The main issue against him is his Mormonism. Here is an area where America has become more and more bigoted. A pastor who supports Rick Perry called the Mormon church a “cult.” But aren’t all of our religions, whether we believe in one of them or not (and I do believe in one of them, quite fervently), really and finally cults? What the Mormons believe is not intrinsically more unbelievable than what the established faiths believe. It’s just that their miracles occurred in the nineteenth century. And Catholic miracles actually “happen” in the twenty-first century.

Anyway, Cain has no religious troubles. He is charged with sexually abusing women in his employ long, long ago. And, if it’s a habit as these tendencies tend to be, it is likely to come out. However, he has resolutely denied the charges. I have not the slightest idea of whether the accusations are true. But I hope that there will not be a widespread assumption that the complaints are accurate without further proof. The question of proof, moreover, is also often contorted. And paying someone off to be quiet is certainly not evidence of guilt. Sometimes it is just getting rid of a nuisance. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas never paid off anyone. So there wasn’t even a simulacrum of hard evidence against him. What there was was a campaign against him. And accounts of his loose talk. He was confirmed by the Senate. But Anita Hill won the case in public opinion. No Supreme Court justice has gone to the court with more rancor against him than Thomas. The clincher in the argument against him was, as Hill, then a professor at the law school of the University of Oklahoma, put it, that Thomas had harassed her with inappropriate discussion—yes, inappropriate discussion, not improper physical deeds—of sexual acts and pornographic films after she had turned him down for a date.

As of this writing, at least, we are still learning what the actual accusations against Cain are. But the two most incendiary opponents of his in the Republican contests are Michele Bachman and Rick Perry. This will be an elevating contest.

Linda Feldman in the Christian Science Monitor reports that the ABC News-Washington Post poll “conducted in the days after the harassment allegations surfaced shows that Mr. Cain’s numbers among Republicans have risen over the last month.” He is now at 23 percent and Romney at 24 percent. A month ago, in the same poll, Cain polled 15 percent and Romney 25 percent.

And, as everyone knows, Cain is a black man. True, many of his convictions are Tea Party dogma; but even so, how is it possible that one-quarter of Republicans support a black man for president?

It would be amusing, wouldn’t it, if the president’s opposition next year were to be this former restaurateur, the CEO of a chain of pizza parlors.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 61 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

61 comments

... and your point is? These are the senile rantings of an irrelevant old man.

- Sancho

November 8, 2011 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It would indeed be amusing. I'm all for a Cain-Gingrich GOP ticket. Bring it on.

- ironyroad

November 8, 2011 at 2:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well there's a point to this, which is, we might be witnessing a real witch hunt. Maybe not; but, the possibility must be considered in which case Perry, Bachmann et.al., are more dangerous and less principled than we'd ever suspected (and that's saying something.)

- Sophia

November 8, 2011 at 3:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What I find amusing (not) is that no one believes Cain's denilas, and yet, as usual, its the women under attack. Nothing has changed for women in this country at all - it's pathetic. How do you explain the conservative Iowa talk show host? The Republican consultant who was sitting at the damn table with the man? SO which is it - a woman has no credibility for getting a payment or for not getting a payment? So four women are lying? The two men who signed depositions for yesterday's press conference are too? The sexism is so noxious, oozing and disgusting in this it made it hard for me to sleep last night. Every man I know feels just like I do too.

- WandreyCer

November 8, 2011 at 5:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anita Hill is now a 55 year old Spinster. I think any sexual discussion would be considered offensive by her. Our workplaces would be free of harrassment. But their would be no children. No future. As the saying goes, no balls, no babies.

- CRS9TNR

November 8, 2011 at 5:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a vile post CRS. Don't include all men in your degrading milleu. Every man I know respects women as friends, associates, equals, partners, fathers, brothers and would be disgusted to be included in your mindset. Anita Hill has been in a steady relationship with a man she ives with for ten years, not that its relevant to a thing. Sexist crap.

- WandreyCer

November 8, 2011 at 5:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I have not the slightest idea of whether the accusations are true." Really, not the slightest idea? Let's say you had to put $100 on true or not true, where would you put it? Dan

- dbuck1

November 8, 2011 at 7:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's see what happens to Cain's poll numbers with Republicans after yesterday's charges by that "blonde woman" as Wiegel euphemistically calls her. I'm okay with MP's ramblings; sometimes gems can emerge from them. But I have to point out that, even now, over 40 years later, MP still believes there were only two sides to the Vietnam War, both sides brainwashed, one by the military and the other by Ho Chi Minh. If that's the lesson MP learned from the War, what does that say about his judgment when it comes to US military intervention anywhere.

- rayward

November 8, 2011 at 7:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What I find amusing (not) is that no one believes Cain's denials, and yet, as usual, its the women under attack." Wandrey, hitting the nail on the head as always. How is it, with their attack on reproductive rights, treating any woman that comes forward with allegations of misconduct against a conservative man as a whore, and their long history of fighting family-oriented legislation, that the gop has ANY women supporting them? As for you, CRS, Wandrey has that one right too. A single father raising a daughter, my holy trinity of duties is to keep her healthy, make her happy, and keep her the hell away from idiots like you.

- Tristan

November 8, 2011 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really? I thought Mitt Romney's chief negative was "Romney-Care" in Massachusetts. That, and his tendency to be against things before he was for them -- or is it for them before he's against them? Being a Mormon might be a negative in the Bible Belt, but then so is being black, neither of which seems to be having much of a negative affect compared to the other issues. The Religious Right doesn't have the pull it once had in the 1980's, when Pat Robertson himself ran for President. So the more virulent irrelevant issues aren't really being pursued -- Mitt's religion being one. No, Cain is just not presidential. He has simplistic solutions which have huge unintended side-effects attempting to solve difficult questions. He's in the pocket of the Tea-Party and Fox-News (and the Koch Brothers). Even HE doesn't really want to be president, he's just riding the gravy train to a Fox-News commentators position. The sexual harrassment stuff is basically irrelevant -- it's not good, it could sink him, but then so many other things will eventually sink him. This could be yet more "Republican Dirty Tricks", I wouldn't be surprised.

- AllanL5

November 8, 2011 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An excellent recount of recent Americana. The brainwashing statement by George Romney that destroyed his bid for the presidency pointed out naivite or out of touch. Gave rise for Richard Nixon to become president. What MP brings about is that USA is a misogynistic society. Big chunks of people can not see a woman in power. Watching Hillary running for the democratic presidential nomination was a demonization practiced by the media. We had the Huffington Greek lady bitterly hating Hillary. And we had in one of the debates John what's his name personally attacking Hillary with venom seldom seen. Hillary showed her cool and stewardship by not becoming violent against this John what's his name. Latter this John cheated on his dying wife, and now is to go to jail by using funds to silence the woman and their child. Appalling that this John wanted to be president. Yes he ran with John Kerry as vice-president, and to top it he was senator of South Carolina, and a profession as ambulance chaser making millions of dollars. Al as a $400. hairdo. He is very effeminate. Many today feel that Hillary would have been a helluva of a president. Her popularity is enormous for brilliancy and toughness as Secretary of State. On another modicon Ross Perot had adamantly objected for her daughter wanting to marry a Jew. Of course good old Ross was short and had a squeaky voice, and had his millions thrown around like fertilizer. George Walker Bush blamed petit Ross for loosing the election. When indeed he lost the election by looking at his watch during a televised presidential debate. Little facts for loosing ,look at your watch, brainwashing, or crying in public when defending your wife. Although Hillary weeping won her votes. With all in all Herman Cain of 9-9-9 fame has landed on the ground for being too horny and abusing women working for him. He will not be a candidate for the presidency. He will be rejected including the misogynistic crowd. Wish Hillary ran for president. Or my other favorite Condoleeza Rice. These are women with grit. We have had it with three years of a meek leader that has problems being leader.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An excellent recount of recent Americana. The brainwashing statement by George Romney that destroyed his bid for the presidency pointed out naivite or out of touch. Gave rise for Richard Nixon to become president. What MP brings about is that USA is a misogynistic society. Big chunks of people can not see a woman in power. Watching Hillary running for the democratic presidential nomination was a demonization practiced by the media. We had the Huffington Greek lady bitterly hating Hillary. And we had in one of the debates John what's his name personally attacking Hillary with venom seldom seen. Hillary showed her cool and stewardship by not becoming violent against this John what's his name. Latter this John cheated on his dying wife, and now is to go to jail by using funds to silence the woman and their child. Appalling that this John wanted to be president. Yes he ran with John Kerry as vice-president, and to top it he was senator of South Carolina, and a profession as ambulance chaser making millions of dollars. Al as a $400. hairdo. He is very effeminate. Many today feel that Hillary would have been a helluva of a president. Her popularity is enormous for brilliancy and toughness as Secretary of State. On another modicon Ross Perot had adamantly objected for her daughter wanting to marry a Jew. Of course good old Ross was short and had a squeaky voice, and had his millions thrown around like fertilizer. George Walker Bush blamed petit Ross for loosing the election. When indeed he lost the election by looking at his watch during a televised presidential debate. Little facts for loosing ,look at your watch, brainwashing, or crying in public when defending your wife. Although Hillary weeping won her votes. With all in all Herman Cain of 9-9-9 fame has landed on the ground for being too horny and abusing women working for him. He will not be a candidate for the presidency. He will be rejected including the misogynistic crowd. Wish Hillary ran for president. Or my other favorite Condoleeza Rice. These are women with grit. We have had it with three years of a meek leader that has problems being leader.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Other clinchers for loosing favor with the electorate are Nixon sweeting and looking pale in his debate with JFK. Or Al Gore, MP favorite, approaching George W Bush during their debate while W was speaking, and W telling Gore Hi there. Well people complain that the Supreme Court gave W the election, these are the left. Nobody tries to recall that Major Daily from Chicago cheated with the winning votes for JFK. Nixon with a show of statesmanship refused to go to court and challenge the blatant robbery that had taken place. For some reason in the Gore Bush case, each time they recounted the Florida votes W was the winner.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Other clinchers for loosing favor with the electorate are Nixon sweeting and looking pale in his debate with JFK. Or Al Gore, MP favorite, approaching George W Bush during their debate while W was speaking, and W telling Gore Hi there. Well people complain that the Supreme Court gave W the election, these are the left. Nobody tries to recall that Major Daily from Chicago cheated with the winning votes for JFK. Nixon with a show of statesmanship refused to go to court and challenge the blatant robbery that had taken place. For some reason in the Gore Bush case, each time they recounted the Florida votes W was the winner.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's see. Perhaps we can jump the shark by nominating Hillary and Condi Rice as a team. Obama can become Attorney General and Biden becomes Secretary of State. Perhaps we can throw Cain a sop by putting him in charge of enforcing equal rights. Romney can become the White House weather vane. Put Perry in charge of the Secret Service. I will let anyone here smarter than I (a wide variety of people to choose from) make the rest of the coalition assignments. Gotta go let the chickens out.

- skahn

November 8, 2011 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great post Brother T - your daughter is lucky. My 73 year old Republican father is the most vocal feminist I know. That wasn't at all odd at one point in American history. (I'm still back on the fact the Marty voted for Ross Perot. Why? I think because he's impressed he's rich? The guy made his millions off of no-bid government contracts from Nixon).

- WandreyCer

November 8, 2011 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CRS - Wandrey already found the proper adjective for you-vile. Your comments are a disgrace to men everywhere, and as a man who at least tries to act according to a minimal sense of decency, I'm especially offended. The idea that what decent people call harassment is a necessary and normal part of human relations serves only to warn us that your thought processes are frighteningly close to that of a rapist.

- janus

November 8, 2011 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting to note that for CRS9 sexual harassment is the same as asking someone out on a date.

- ironyroad

November 8, 2011 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In an ironic bent. Did the election of JFK got us into the mess of the Vietnam war? Did the election of GWB got us into the mess of the Iraq war? Are close presidential elections the cause for questionable wars? Did the election of Truman as narrow as it was led to the Korean war? You have to accept the syllogism of the facts. But be ware. You breed. The monkey breeds. You are a monkey. Only Sancho is a monkey. Sancho Panza on his donkey was the aid to Don Quijote on his starved horse Rocinante. Don Quijote was delusional and a man of honor and truth, he meant well. Sancho Panza was realistic although not too smart, and had a nice belly. Ah Cervantes genius indeed. Will the next election be a close one? And will take us to the folly of the Iranian war? Well if four cases are the same, then instead of a syllogism we will have an algorithm. Instead of Aristotle we will have Newton and Leibniz. Although algebra was developed in Egypt. One brick two bricks three bricks and you build a pyramid. Although the Mayas had the concept of zero, calculated astronomy objects with extreme precision. And their pyramids are a beauty of perfection. Societies gone into decline the Egyptians and the Mayas. Just the legacy remains.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One moment. Sexual harassment is not the providence of conservatives. JFK had women for his coffee breaks, stated if there were not women around he will get a headache. And he ballooned with Marylyn Monroe. Remember that video happy birthday Mr President. And Bill Clinton had that affair with Monica Lewinsky an intern at the time. Granted these affairs were consensual. But men of power going after attractive women.?? I am sure there are women of power that go after men. Or women, whatever. By the way judge Thomas was head of the EEOC equal employment opportunity commission at the time he sexually harassed Anita Hill. And what gets me was Senator Spector interrogated Anita Hill with blatant savagery. Talking of misogynist . He was a republican then at the end he changed to democrat, and finally we kicked him out.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One moment. Sexual harassment is not the providence of conservatives. JFK had women for his coffee breaks, stated if there were not women around he will get a headache. And he ballooned with Marylyn Monroe. Remember that video happy birthday Mr President. And Bill Clinton had that affair with Monica Lewinsky an intern at the time. Granted these affairs were consensual. But men of power going after attractive women.?? I am sure there are women of power that go after men. Or women, whatever. By the way judge Thomas was head of the EEOC equal employment opportunity commission at the time he sexually harassed Anita Hill. And what gets me was Senator Spector interrogated Anita Hill with blatant savagery. Talking of misogynist . He was a republican then at the end he changed to democrat, and finally we kicked him out.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

George Walker Bush as vice-presidential running mate with Reagan debated Geraldine Ferraro his counterpart with Walter Mondale . Afterwards Bush #1 stated I kicked some ass. Geraldine Ferraro was the first female vice-presidential candidate. Sarah Palin the second. And oh boy how the left had a ball attacking Sarah Palin the men had foaming saliva taking on a woman. Who was going to criticize them as misogynists, she was after all from the right. And these crowd had started with Michelle Baumann but she fell in the polls, and forget it.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Glad everyone else has jumped on this, but I'll just add my voice: CRS, you make me sick. Your comments about harassment (which you seem to regard as just flirting) are disgusting, and your attack on Anita Hill is utterly classless and unfair, as well as, it seems, substantively inaccurate (someone in a non-married committed relationship is not a 'spinster').

- Curran1

November 8, 2011 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We're all begging the question here: Assume for a moment that the charges are all true (an assumption that I think time will eventually support). At that point, we have concluded that we have a man running for president who is, or at least was, a dependably lecherous creep. Is that, in and of itself, enough to disqualify him as a candidate? Barack may have "worn down" Michelle, but it doesn't appear that he tried wearing down every woman he met. Seems like the Herminator has done just that. We spent most of the 1990s with a lecherous creep in the White House, and it seemed to go pretty well.

- gwcross

November 8, 2011 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gwcross: You're making a false comparison. Bill Clinton may have been quite the womanizer, but everything he did was consentual. Not so with a serial sexual harasser like Cain, who now, it seems, may also be guilty not only of harassment but of sexual assault.

- Tristan

November 8, 2011 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CRS9TNR, Pretty Neanderthal post. You remind me of salesmen I've encountered in the past who glad-hand you, while telling you a dirty joke. I was hoping that breed would be extinct by now. And besides, we don't need more babies at the moment. I saw a documentary last year where a Mormon cult leader bragged about fathering 125 children, "with more on the way." That ass is propagating enough for the whole western United States. JAIMECHUCH, W may have won the Florida election on paper, but that paper was rigged. I saw Jeb Bush make a speech in the early fall of 2000, where he was addressing a governors conference. He closed by saying, "My brother will win in November. He'd BETTER win." And then, of course, Katherine Harris, W's campaign manager in Florida, was in charge of counting the votes! Tristan, Many GOP women are Stepford Wives. Laura Bush comes to mind. Others are just as aggressive and nasty as GOP men. Some of the ugliest attack calls on C-Span's Washington Journal are from Republican women. In the GOP exclusion is an equal opportunity activity.

- magboy47.

November 8, 2011 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And I have to bring up Barbara Walters. The first anchor woman to be payed the one million dollars. Oh boy. Harry Reasoner and Barbara Walters were coanchors in ABC, and Reasoner was outraged and mean to Barbara . And then came Walter Cronkite flying Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem and did not want Barbara Walters aboard. But Sadat demanded that Barbra as he put it be in the plane and she was the star of the show. Now Walter Cronkite was at the time the conscience of America, and a top misogynist. Harry reasoner went into oblivion in CBS 60 minutes. Barbara has endured and fascinated America up to today. What a joy.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy47. JFK steal ing the election and Nixon behaving like a true statesman. Check. W stealing the election and Al Gore behaving like a cry baby. Although Al Gore and Richard Nixon had many good points. Nothing misogynistic about them though. By the way Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky was despicable, he has repented to the point of being absolved. But it was ugly indeed. No respect for the presidency no respect for women. No respect for himself. He was a womanizer. Point. Now Nancy Reagan was a power to be contented with. If not for her Ronald would have never been president. And go back to Eleanor Roosevelt. Much to be admired. Other presidential wives were truly first ladies Truman Bess , Mamie Eisenhower, Jacqueline Kennedy,Lady Bird Johnson, Nixon' wife, Betty Ford, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama. I don't know how many wives mitt Romney has, just kidding. I am an independent. But I like truth and consequences

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bisons wife was Pat. Produced two pretty daughters proud of them.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 8, 2011 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have never answered a hostile comment before--or, for that matter, a friendly one. But WandreyCer says that I voted for Ross Perot for president. It's not in my posting. And, more important, it's not true. Why would I ever have voted against Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who if he had succeeded to the presidency would have made this a different and much more civilized country?

- mperetz

November 8, 2011 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Three points: 1. There is some room for comparing attitudes toward Clinton's escapades and other things sexual and attitudes toward Cain. And Clinton was not just putatively involved in consensual sex, at least not according to Paula Jones, and not according to one woman, whose name I don't recall, who said he in effect raped her. With Clinton one needs to make the elementary distinction between the condemnation of his undeniable conduct --depending on what "is" is-which was consensual and the rejection of the proposition that he needed to be driven from office in the consequence. I think mutatis mutandis the same kind of reasoning should apply to Cain as well. 2. A defence of CRS9TNR: as I read his post, he was being whimsical and sardonic, slightly tongue in cheek going toward the point that while no one should be harassed in the workplace, the line between sexual harassment and the ordinary goings on between men and women in the workplace fraught with sexuality in the nature of things is blurry and sometimes ludicrous instances of sexual harassment are asserted. Which is not to say, and CRS9TNR does not say, that harassment of any kind is tolerable in the workplace including of course of the sexual kind. 3. Peret's "posting," as he calls it, was enjoyable to read and Sophia, somewhere else, has persuaded me that there need not be it in a central thesis tying it all toegther in a tight, beautiful organic whole. "I am discursive, so I am discursive. I am large. I contain multitudes.

- basman

November 8, 2011 at 1:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are absolutely right Marty and I humbly rescind my comment. I read it at 5:00 am my time without glasses on and was careless in responding. I thought it said "Now" not "Nor." In fact, it did surprise me because I knew that you, like me, are an enormous fan of Al Gore's. Please pardon my sloppy response.

- WandreyCer

November 8, 2011 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look (as Obama says), this is weighing on me. I do think that there a major difference between a womanizer and a predator, but I just want to make clear that I did believe Paula Jones. She was not assaulted, and she did tell the cops that were around Clinton that day that she "wanted to be his girlfriend," but even then - what he did was inescusable (although the lawsuit should have waited until after his Presidency), vulgar and could have cost him his job if she's come forward right then. I noticed my friends across the aisle had no problem with her timing in revealing her revelations.

- WandreyCer

November 8, 2011 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Itzak - your third point is very sweet and well worded, Sophia convinced me that day too.

- WandreyCer

November 8, 2011 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Peretz is obviously angling for the Sec of State job.

- miceelf

November 8, 2011 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

God, this man cannot write! And, who in the world thinks that the "left," in protesting against the war in Vietnam was "brainwashed by the 'idealists' who persuaded us that the Viet Cong was an idealistic peasant insurgency rather than a mask for the vicious government in Hanoi?" If Marty believes that the overwhelming majority of those opposing the war (which I did not) had some affinity for the Viet Cong, he must have lived in some era other than the one I experienced. No wonder he can't write cogently about anything connected to Israel. He has little grasp of recent history and no ability to capture a rational thought.

- barijoe

November 8, 2011 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just want to say that I agree with Mr. Peretz that this country would have been far, far better off in every respect if the Supreme Court had not intervened in a full Florida recount.

- Nusholtz

November 8, 2011 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agree, Nush.

- Tristan

November 8, 2011 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As the Republicans love to say (now and again), 'character counts.' There were many things that Clinton did that do not have my personal approval (and not all the them sexual) but one thing one can say about Clinton is that he was/is a generally humane guy who brought his considerable intelligence to bear on the problems facing the country and got up every morning to work for the American people. That is, for me, 'character' too. It may be illogical or worse but that, for me, makes me apply somewhat of a different yardstick to Clinton. Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a guy who appears never to have opened a newspaper or looked at the evening news in his entire life. He represents a philosophy that -- unless I'm misunderstanding -- regards me as being somehow at fault because I'm not rich, or because I chose a profession in which nobody can become rich, and regards unemployed people as merely lazy because, well, there are all those jobs out there. I don't like that kind of 'character.' The I've-got-mine-so-fuck-you attitude is unpleasant enough by itself -- but added to evidence of cheesy corporate skirt-chasing with hands, the two together make a pretty ugly combination, and that's why I see something a bit different in the Cain case(s) as opposed to the Clinton case(s).

- ironyroad

November 8, 2011 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime Church: "I am sure there are women of power that go after men. Or women, whatever." Article from MARIE CLAIRE about women harassing men. http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/women-harassing-men-1 . Historically speaking, Catherine the Great was a notorious "man-izer" (to coin an awkward twist of "womanizer." Seems likely the power at her disposal played some in the entire game. Human beings are animals, with unprecedented drives to dominate and rut. Although males take the cake in terms of the entire picture, females are not exempt from these flaws and faults. I often wonder how we can stand ourselves.

- skahn

November 8, 2011 at 3:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poor herman, another woman has just been identified. Well educated (at Brown), works for the Treasury Dept. A registered republican, but of course that won't stop reptiles like limbaugh, colter, et al from declaring her a tool of the liberal media.

- Tristan

November 8, 2011 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said Irony.

- WandreyCer

November 8, 2011 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is truly embarrassing. Can no one convince Mr Peretz to retire? Or at least to allow someone to edit his rambles into comprehensibility? Please?

- K_Wilson

November 8, 2011 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

skahn: "I often wonder how we can stand ourselves." Well, there's nothing wrong with rutting. Let's not slide over from condemning unwanted sexual bullying to wagging our philosophical finger at sex.

- ironyroad

November 8, 2011 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...It may be illogical or worse but that, for me, makes me apply somewhat of a different yardstick to Clinton... I don't think it's illogical or worse. I'm not sure it's even a different yardstick. It's rather the overall contexts in which different overall judgments are made, which include the facor of some sexual misadventure. What's apples and apples, would be illogical or worse and a different standard would be to give Clinton a pass on his sexual misadventures as such and say they don't count but then revile Cain for his as such (with all due allowance for specific differences in their doings.) I read some on the right to say that that's a double standard being purveyed by liberals. But I think that that's a mythic purveying because I have not seen any liberals taking that double-standard position.

- basman

November 8, 2011 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On a lark, I decided to read this ... and still have no idea what in the heck Marty Peretz is talking about or what points he really wants to make. However, if the point is that Herman Cain should not be deemed to have sexually harrassed someone absent some measure of proof thereof, that threshold was passed yesterday when a non-anonymous human being came forth with specific charges. In any case, Marty does need to remember that we're not in a court of law here, but in the space of public opinion where reputation and ambitions are at stake (rather than physical freedom or monetary damages), so the way in which a public person handles such allegations is almost as important as their "truth". I'm sure Marty was as generous with, say, accusations against Bill Clinton as with those involving Herman Cain.

- wildboy

November 8, 2011 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Someone will know this: I don't: what was Peretz's position during and around Clinton's embattled times?

- basman

November 8, 2011 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No, Ho Chi Minh was not a good man. He was a butcher." Who, exactly, is defending Ho Chi Minh? Who? The man can't make an aside without cracking open a new sewer of wrongness.

- Shorpe

November 8, 2011 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As Ronald Reagan was always saying to President Jimmy Carter in their debates, "Well, there you go again." Mr. Peretz, the august emeritus-in-chief, views American history with his usual reactionary blinders on: "Ho Chi Minh was not a good man. He was a butcher." Marty, I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 - 31 , May 1968) at the 12th USAF Hospital in Cam Ranh Bay. So I have a news flash for you. They're all butchers. including LBJ, Nixon and my favorite - Henry the K. That's why they call it war. In Errol Morris's great documentary, The Fog of War, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara estimated nearly three million people were killed during the Vietnam War. Then without missing a beat he reminded Morris that the bombing raids over Tokyo killed an estimated one hundred thousand or so. Chump change in his view. That's his take on war. Of course he was a logistics and supply whiz kid moving material and bodies throughout the theaters of that global war. So the dead are just statistics, numbers, categories, old IBM punch cards. The same IBM punch cards the Nazis used to move, coordinate and pack Jews into the box cars on their way to the concentration camps. They're all butchers. That's why they call it war.

- rewiredhogdog

November 8, 2011 at 9:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I said, "I often wonder how we can stand ourselves." ironyroad; "Well, there's nothing wrong with rutting. Let's not slide over from condemning unwanted sexual bullying to wagging our philosophical finger at sex." I was not especially talking about rutting. I liked rutting and encourage everybody to rut (with sensible precautions and courtesy). I am talking about the kind of stuff rewiredhog is talking about, the endless desire and capacity of human beings to kill each other, torture each other, rape each other, and steal from each other. I am not a religious believer (and the Garden of Eden was a myth) but I can understand why so many Christians rant about sin and damnation and how we were all damned from birth. Unfortunately, there is no Son of God who died for our sins (and the story is pointless as well). My question stands: How can we stand ourselves?

- skahn

November 8, 2011 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

good points (again) Wandrey - Peretz did imply he may have voted for Romney for governor - after the introductory Perot riff. Fascinating revelation that Peretz sometimes reads the comment threads. Considering how many "mulligans" Cain has gotten on policy gaffes, I am amazed at how many are not only defending him but comparing him to Clinton. The REAL issue is how badly Cain is handling this story. Some men in power demean women because they can. The Cain-defenders are going to cost the GOP unless Cain fades fast. Of course, I am still horrified that Cain got a pass after calling for an 2,000 mile electrified fence along the border with Mexico with a sign "It will kill you". Not even remotely funny. I assume all Uzbekistanis are now considering that perhaps America IS the land of arrogant bigots...etcetera. Perhaps now we know why Peretz has so many male mentees in print media, but no women. Was thinking about Coolidge's presidency today (three hour drive to Northampton, Mass can do that to anyone) to try to understand what is going so terribly wrong with Republican voters today who seem to want a return to a melding of the worst of the nativist Know-Nothings, Taft Isolationists, and McKinley Robber Barons. Further to AllanL5's point about Romney real negatives, I add that the destroyed lives of thousands of people whose employers were decimated by Romney at Bain Capital have yet to penetrate the media circus. My current view of Waffle Romney is that he needs a poll to decide whether to use maple syrup from New hampshire or Massachusetts on his breakfast waffles. No need to include Vermont maple syrup because Romney knows he can NOT win Vermont. In any event, Americans should not elect a thin-skinned arrogant know-nothing to the Presidency again, even if he has a different name :) Dr. Peretz - you should try to question your bigotry to Christians and Jews of deep faith. I am totally secular, even after several attempts to understand faith in G-d. But, I deeply respect those who do have such faith. I find it rather astonishing that it is Rick Perry who has me reading the Old Testament for the first time in decades. But, I mostly like the idea of a president who relaxes by target shooting, trying to shoot five bullets in one hole with a sniper rifle, and hope he realizes the political risk of walking into the treacherous territory of the bar-be-que wars. One correction: Rick Perry is NOT being at all incendiary about Herman Cain despite Cain's rather nasty announcement that he would never support Rick Perry as the GOP nominee, and more recent false accusation that the Perry campaign is behind this NatRestAssoc story. Interesting that Clint Eastwood got a much more enthusiastic reception on The Daily Show last night than Bill Clinton did tonight. America loves the real cowboy who delivers righteous rough justice.

- K2K

November 9, 2011 at 1:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What Governor Perry Does On His Day Off" for clarifcation of my previous comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUGHIH0sUlY

- K2K

November 9, 2011 at 2:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K. You have it all wrong. The habitants of Mea Shearim in Jerusalem are not Jews of deep faith , they are extreme fanatics. As such they have multiplied like rabbits, and using the freedom of Israeli society are trying to control the rest of the population, secular, conservative, orthodox, which they don't accept and don't respect. They don't work don't serve in the military. Their women do all the work, and are treated like garbage. MP is completely correct. These fanatics insult the old testament and their teachings. They do not follow the Jewish faith they follow their own fanaticism. K2K do not let your antagonism towards MP, whatever it is, to post ignorant misleading statements. The people inhabiting Mea Shearim, the Naturie Carter, even the Lubavitchers, are fanatics irrational and dangerous. No different from fanatics in extreme Islam, no different from extreme fanatics in Christian. Similar to neonazis. All of them are dogmatic, irrational, and antagonistic to human reason and discourse.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 9, 2011 at 5:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The rest of the Israelis considered these fanatics like meshugeners , crazy nuts. And when you have a loco in the family you pity him. But when the meshugeners tries to take over then you have a real problem.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 9, 2011 at 5:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Clint Eastwood was never a cowboy (righteous or otherwise) in real life. And, unlike the ex-movie cowboy who was our 40th President, Eastwood has not yet started to confuse his film exploits with real life.

- wildboy

November 9, 2011 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

looking for humor in all the wrong places... hasta la vista.

- K2K

November 9, 2011 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Make my day"

- ironyroad

November 9, 2011 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's official. These inane ramblings confirm that Marty has, alas and at last, gone senile

- rpbto

November 9, 2011 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...It's official. These inane ramblings confirm that Marty has, alas and at last, gone senile... Might I suggest, Sir or Madam, that your "alas" is disingenuous, being in tension with your Etta James-like "at last," and, so, revealing of your glee at the prospect of the senility of which you are in no position to judge, apart from the fact that the "ramblings" are neither inane nor evidence of a mind gone soft. You, gentle reader, should be so senile!

- basman

November 9, 2011 at 10:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The title of this post is "I Am Not For Herman Cain. Believe Me, I Really Am Not. But…" But what, Marty? But... he's awfully charismatic? But... he's got a cute, gimmicky, 9-9-9 tax plan that you can explain to a five-year-old? But... he's experienced success in the private sector, which therefore makes him qualified to be the leader of the free world? Give me a break. Cain is only marginally more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin or Rick Perry, both of whom have at least served in elective office. On top of that, in case anyone needs a reminder, Cain is a blatant religious bigot who has stated that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet (which violates the Constitution's ban on religious tests for holding public office) and that communities ought to have the right to ban mosques (which violates some other part of the Constitution, if I remember correctly, doesn't it?).

- obriendavi

November 10, 2011 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What were Obama's achievements, that qualified him to be the leader of the free world? In what way was he exactly superior to Sara Palin? What does qualify a person to be a leader?

- NR165279

November 10, 2011 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close