I’ll Stand With Herman Cain

From the moment Politico broke the story of alleged naughty behavior on the part of then-National Restaurant Association CEO Herman Cain back in the late 1990s that was quietly relegated to the “eyes only” filing cabinet in the wake of a settlement with the as-yet unnamed complainants, I’ve been watching, listening and thinking. (Frankly, I’ve had no choice, given the ravages of the flu and the absence of both electricity and a cable signal.)

After close to a week of frenzied – and very sloppy – news coverage, the observer is left with no more substantive information now than existed in the Politico story on Sunday. This much is known for certain: sometime before the year 2000, Cain was accused by two female NRA staffers of making unspecified “inappropriate” remarks and one “inappropriate” gesture in the workplace. (Other information has since surfaced, such as the age of one of the accusers, the capacity in which she worked for the NRA, the amount of the settlement, etc.) There have been reports of a third accuser and Politico is claiming that additional – and as yet anonymous – sources verify the claims made by the two female staffers.

Plenty of keystrokes and considerable bandwidth have been expended in the conservative blogosphere parsing all of the statements made and all of the evidence gathered in an effort to make a determination of fact that can only be borne out by, well, the facts. Unfortunately, there are simply too few of them to connect any series of dots in a manner suggestive of a meaningful conclusion.

In the humble opinion of this writer, any analysis of the matter as it currently stands ought to be governed by logic, the preponderance of evidence and the so-called “reasonable person” standard.

Here’s how I see it: Herman Cain is (a) telling the truth when he denies that he ever acted or spoke in a manner that a reasonable person would consider inappropriate for the circumstances; or (b) not telling the entire truth or lying outright when he denies the allegations.

If it is true that a tree falls in the direction it is leaning, it follows that any assessment of Cain’s words or deeds at any point in his life must necessarily be made in a much larger and expansive context that includes his social and professional interactions over the course of time.

Consider the example of former President Bill Clinton. Long before he ever became the nation’s chief executive, Mr. Clinton was known in his home state of Arkansas as “Slick Willy” and long before he ever set foot in the Oval Office, he already had a reputation as a lecher. It only got worse with time: from Gennifer Flowers going forward int time to Monica Lewinsky, Der Schlickmeister established a legacy of lechery not seen in the career path of a U.S. president since Warren Harding.

It is reasonable to assume that if the accusations made against Mr. Cain are accurate, they are not isolated: experience has shown over and over that a man willing to cross the proverbial line at one point in time has done so before and would therefore already have a reputation to that effect, raising a problem for the “Cain is a lecher and a liar” theory: outside of these two instances of alleged improprieties, no other reports of naughty words or actions on the part of Mr. Cain have surfaced. None. Zilch. Zero. Zip. Nada.

As a matter of fact, just the opposite emerges: for every anonymous source that appears to implicate Herman Cain in no other instance but this one, several named sources vindicate his good name. Among these is none other than former National Restaurant Association board chairman Joseph Fassler, who had this to say:

“The accusations? It’s a hatchet job, in my opinion,” Fassler told TheDC from his Phoenix, Ariz. office. “My gut tells me it’s a hatchet job. He gets a lead, he gets some traction, and the next thing you know, here come these allegations. It’s sad.”

I agree. In my opinion, the preponderance of evidence mitigates in favor of Mr. Cain, who appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday to answer any and all questions about this issue. (I listened to the entire interview and would love to link you to it, but I can’t: you have to become a paying member of the Dimwit’s website to access the interview).

I’m standing with and by Herman Cain for President of the United States.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to I’ll Stand With Herman Cain

  1. Barb says:

    I will be standing right next to you!

  2. dloosend says:

    And l will stand with the man who is truly falsely accussed by a convicted criminal(Mark Block)——Rick Perry.

  3. Barb says:

    Mark Block is a convicted criminal? Really?

    “Just make sure you don’t call him a convicted criminal.
    The state Democratic Party did that in recent press releases about congressional candidate Sean Duffy. One release linked Duffy to Block, a “criminal fundraiser.” Another quotes Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate saying Block “has a criminal history of fundraising.”
    In a complaint filed last week with the Government Accountability Board, James Ziegler, a member of Americans for Prosperity, asks the election policing agency to order the Dems to take down those press releases and to stop calling Block a criminal. Ziegler also raises the option of sanctioning the party.
    The complaint notes that Block settled a lawsuit filed by the state Elections Board by agreeing to pay $15,000 in 2001.”

  4. dloosend says:

    Why did he have to pay $15 K? Was he ordered–by a judge–not to be involved in campaigns in Wisconsin–Yes.
    Did the NRA settle two claims against Cain?? Yes or no???
    How many Republican candidates for 2012 have campaign managers who were fined and given restrictions by a court of law??? The over/under is one.

    • owleyepundit says:

      Sadly, the days when we can trust implicitly that a judge’s action is free of his personal politics are past, especially in Wisconsin. If you wish us to give weight to this event, you must be free with the facts–all–the relevant facts. Even granting the judge’s probity, it’s possible that this was a temporary action pursuant to an investigation, whose outcome is the real issue.

  5. Gene Hoyas says:

    Why did he have to pay $15 K? Was he ordered–by a judge–not to be involved in campaigns in Wisconsin–Yes.

    He was neither indicted nor convicted in a court of criminal law and therefore is not a criminal in any legal sense. The matter was handled administratively and he was fined. End of story.

    Did the NRA settle two claims against Cain?? Yes or no???

    Yes – and five days after Politico broke the story we still have no idea regarding the details or the identities of the accusers.

    How many Republican candidates for 2012 have campaign managers who were fined and given restrictions by a court of law???

    Of what relevance is this? On primary day will we be pressing the lever for the candidates or for their campaign managers?

  6. Barb says:

    On election day we will be sobbing while Obama wins because people that I originally had faith in are ripping to shreds all of the candidates. What the hell?

  7. Dana Pearson says:

    I must be having a nightmare. The POTUS, if he has another four-years, will probably have the power to nominate judges to a SCOTUS that will enforce gay marriage as the law of the land. We are more than $10 trillion in debt and running up an additional $trillion or so each year. The POTUS doesn’t think we spend enough yet.

    There are over a hundred million citizens we can pick to challenge Obama in 2012. Who is the likely standard bearer? A militant anti-Muslim who thinks the war on terror will not go on for a generation but rather forever. A guy who prattles on about Muslims in the middle East but doesn’t know what the Palestinian right of return is. A guy who quotes the theme song to the movie Pokemon in his closing debate statement — and attributes the words to a “great poet”.

    Can’t we find someone to run against Obama who doesn’t have multiple allegations of sexual harrasment hanging over his head? If Romney had similar allegations concerning him, the Conservative establishment would be all over it.

    Do we really want to noiminate a self-proclaimed “Koch brother brother from another mother” to challenge Obama. In my lifetime the strangest candidates for the GOP presidential nomination have been Cain, Paul and Robertson. We are likely going to be forced to choose between four more years of “hope and change” or a Koch brother tool Pokemon quoting idiot — time to abandon all hope and embrace the change.

    • HeleneH says:

      I take it you don’t stand with Herman Cain. It seems you stand with big government, as long as it is a republican calling the shots and telling everyone they don’t know how to take care of themselves. It seems you have signed on to the “don’t worry we (republicans) can run your life better than you can”. It seems that “death panels” are ok as long as it is a republican deciding who gets medical treatments. Instead of tossing the coin you seem to prefer just flipping it.

      • Dana Pearson says:


        First of all, no matter how much I disagree with you on other issues, I will always admire what your Bayshore Tea Party colleagues have done in calling attention to the rigged and gerrymandered political maps. I will also admire other work that you and the Tea Party groups have done.

        I hate big government. One aspect of big government is the military industrial complex. Cain’s support of the Iraq war, and anti-Muslim fear mongering indicates his love for an even bigger government than we have now. Cain wants to increase the national sales tax rate from 0% to 9%, for starters, and then increase it even beyond 9%!

        He is an inside the beltway Washington lobbyist for big business. He is also given to bullshitting his way through answers — as when he indicated the right of return is a “matter for negotiation” and then admitting the next that he did not know what he was talking about. If he was willing to BS his way through that, he is likely to be BSing his way through tax policy and his memory of sexual harrasment agreements and settlements.

        No, I do not trust Republicans with big government. I voted for Buchanan against Republican establishment candidates twice and voted for libertarian or conservative third-party candidates more than once — against both Dole and GWB.

        In 2006 he endoresed Tiger Woods for President — nobody is sure if he was joking or not! Tiger Woods would make a better President than Cain — at least in the end Tiger admitted his wrong doing.

        If you think a war monggering DC lobbyist who wants to increase the national sales tax by 9% for starters and apparently thinks Fred Koch is his father (Cain claims to be Charles and David’s brother from another mother) — is going to decrease the size of government, you fell for more than one snow job last month.

        All of the candidates this year have serious issues. For now I lean towards Bachman (who unfortunately has a foreign policy almost as bad as Cain’s) — but at least Bachman is willing to put the Defense Department budget on the table. I think Perry, Romney and Santorum would all also be far better than Cain (in spite of the serious problems I have with Perry’s imigration and vaccination policy, Romney’s plan to eliminate the estate tax for people with estates over $5 million and Santorum’s foreign policy).

        • HeleneH says:

          Dana, you have set the tone with your string of insults and then ultimately calling Mr. Cain a liar & an idiot. Dana, are you claiming to know what is in Herman Cain’s heart? Or is it that you are just getting all your information about him from Politico?

          There maybe countless citizens who are capable of running against Obama, but does that really matter? There are, however, several who have stepped up to the challenge. These are the indiviuals we have to chose from. Now, you apparently decided to sit on the fence and rip each one of them apart, that of course is your choice.

          Dana, you do not have an understanding of the 999 plan. If you are interested in learing there are many sites you can visit.

          • Dana Pearson says:

            Cain supported TARP and praised the Fed. Those two things alone should disqualify him from support of those who want limited government. When it comes to bank bailouts, support for central government banking and uncontrolled defense spending — Cain = McCain.

  8. firesign58 says:

    Rush said it best: Cain had a “bimbo eruption” (or two). He did not handle the situation as well as he could have at first, which perhaps made the situation worse. He’s since remedied that. But none of this makes him “guilty” of anything but being unused to such vicious attacks.

  9. HeleneH says:

    Dana, too bad you missed the debate last night. Well, I see you have lots of questions about Mr. Cain. These questions can be answered by visiting his web site.

  10. Kenny says:

    It’s important to vet all of our candidates now. What we do not hear now – will most certainly crop up in the General Elections. We had best know our weaknesses now – while we can still do something about it, than later on – when it will be too late.

    I am highly interested in the TRUTH. If what you have to say is the Truth, I am all ears. However, I am not interested in inuendo, hear say, rumors or half truths or outright lies. Sometimes, the truth hurts. And well it should – if we are on the opposite side of the Truth. We must all be adult enough to understand – what our core values are.

    No one is perfect. Let’s hear the whole story before making up our minds. Once we have heard from everyone – we can place them up on a chart. They guy at the top of the chart is the guy we support.

    However – let’s be perfectly clear – we need to ensure the Obama is a ONE TERM President. No matter who the candidate is, that ultimately wins the Primary – we must all stand firm and pull on the line together.