It's arguable but possible that Herman Cain scares Obama. With two African Americans squaring off, Cain threatens to slice himself a share of Obama’s biggest voting block, African Americans.
And it would certainly appear that Herman Cain is the victim of a potential dirty trick using biographic leverage. That’s spy speak for the kind of blackmail that involves negative information used to “leverage” someone into doing something they never would, absent the blackmail. Cain is being leveraged to either drop out of the race for the nomination or lose the general election when blind-sided. It’s a devastatingly clever strategy if true, and it’s why making him the Republican nominee is no longer an option.
Politico broke the story of sexual harassment, but generously gave Cain ten days to prepare a response before they launched it into the court of public opinion. Unlike criminal courts, public opinion carries the presumption of guilt, and leaves the accused with the burden of proving his or her innocence.
Despite the lead-time, the campaign’s response was appalling. First came denials, and then throughout the day the story broke, Cain changed his story. That only served to enhance the presumption of guilt.
In fact, Herman Cain has found himself in an untenable position despite a steely façade of denial. When the story broke, he appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s On the Record. He was grilled on every possible angle offered by the story involving an anonymous accusation from a woman who worked with Cain at the National Restaurant Association.
Without the specifics of the case, Cain gave an impressive defense to Van Susteren’s probative questioning. Her queries were tough but spot on, and Cain answered each.
Re-enacting a hand movement he’d made to his chin, he detailed how he’d said to a woman near him that she was the same height as his wife. That was the only thing he remembered as being even remotely incriminating, and that was a stretch. But in a PC world where telling a co-worker that he or she “looks nice,” it’s enough to draw a flag and penalty for harassment. As his memory served, his accuser was given a severance package (not a settlement or agreement compensating her for the alleged transgressions without his admitting guilt). Cain believed it was several months’ pay.
It was subsequently learned that it had, in fact, been a settlement that netted her a year’s pay. To any reasonable person it’s understandable that Cain didn’t have ready answers to such details, in fact details of the story had escaped him inasmuch as this had taken place back in 1997. A certain amount of fogginess is understandable.
Erring on the side of transparency, Cain told Greta that the association’s internal counsel had conducted an investigation, and the final report exonerated him of any wrongdoing.
When a second accuser announced that she, too, had suffered from sexual harassment, things got dicey. Cain insisted that in this case, as well, an investigation had been done and the resulting report exonerated him of any wrongdoing. But by his acknowledgement of those reports he has built a chimney around himself.
Considering that Cain’s claims are at odds with the two women’s memories of the alleged events, the first accuser’s lawyer contacted the restaurant association and asked that she be released from the confidentiality agreement she'd signed. Cain agreed that she should be freed from the gag pledge, and she was, but she was still not keen on stepping up into the garish TV lights to tell the world her story. Neither was his second anonymous accuser.
Believing himself safe because no details of the allegation appeared to be forthcoming, Cain told the press on November 5 that he’d answer no more questions about the allegations and again stated that they were baseless. His silence lasted only a few days. He was blindsided by yet a third accuser who remained neither anonymous nor unwilling to provide the salacious details of her alleged encounter with Cain.
Slithering into the spotlight was opportunist, publicity seeker, celebrity lawyer and liberal Democrat, Gloria Allred, who had Sharon Bialek in tow. Bialek read her graphic account of what had happened to her, and Herman Cain’s blue skies suddenly grew dark.
But this case was different. The restaurant association at the time of the alleged act did not employ Bialek, so sexual harassment wasn’t a claim she could lodge. In fact, even if her account is true, he didn’t break the law. When she told him to stop, he did and drove her to her hotel. Hmm. Why didn’t she get out of the car if her account is true? In addition, it was quickly learned that she had suffered two bankruptcies, and at the time she came forward, she was having new financial difficulties. The obvious conclusions were drawn. She was doing it to make money, although she denied it.
After Bialek’s disclosure the first accuser decided to identify herself in potentially devastating solidarity. Karen Kraushaar (who later filed sexual harassment charges at a job she had after working for the restaurant association), claimed that she wanted to tell her side of the story. Shortly thereafter, enter anonymous alleged victim number four, and Cain’s chances for winning the nomination suddenly darkened, and a possible conspiracy was almost triggered too soon.
To make matters worse, the women’s respective attorneys announced that Kraushaar and Bialek, and possibly the other two women, would hold a joint press conference to divulge their versions of the alleged harassments.
Realizing that the account given to Greta Van Susteren would no longer suffice, Cain hired a sex-predator attorney— never a good sign because people don’t hire lawyers, especially expensive ones, unless they have no other option.
Cain called a press conference with his lawyer handling the introduction. Herman then stood before the microphones again denying that he had harassed anyone. While some saw his performance as strong and effective, it was clear that he needed proof to dispel at least two of the allegations.
As noted above, he told Van Susteren that there was a report that exonerated him. While many forgot that statement, the reports about the allegations of two of the women could be his tickets out of a world of hurt, and would serve to cast considerable doubt on the credibility of accusers three and four.
Had I been handling his campaign, and had he told me about the report during the ten-day grace period, I would have put him on the phone to the restaurant association to ask them to make copies of the report(s), redact the women’s names and send them to him so his campaign team could review them before handing them to the press. If they do indeed exonerate him, common sense dictates that his campaign should release those reports ASAP. Not releasing them only deepens suspicion.
After his press conference, Allred announced that she would be holding the joint press conference even if it involved just the two women who had come forward. While that rustled newspapers and magazines for a couple of days, strangely she hasn’t followed through, and no announcements from any of the women have been forthcoming. Therein lies the danger and the reason why we can’t take the chance of making Herman Cain the Republican nominee.
Consider this possibility: Gloria Allred, a noted liberal, would be a fool to knock Cain out of the race for the nomination. In fact, it would be far smarter to back off, let him recover, win the nomination, and then, during the thick of the general campaign, hold that press conference, preferably with all four accusers spewing their questionable vitriol.
Damaging Cain then will give Obama an enormous boost. Women tend to vote Democratic historically, and while Obama seems to be losing a sizeable chunk of the female vote this time around, nothing will make them galvanize behind him faster than to drag Cain over the coals with the details of the sexual harassment claims in the court of public opinion. Not only does it badly damage him, he gets distracted from discussing his 9-9-9 plan because he’ll be swatting at tenacious questions from a drooling mainstream media.
The strategy to sabotage his campaign in the general election is pure genius, if, in fact that’s the strategy. I certainly wouldn’t put it beyond the opposition with their Alinsky ideology. Knocking Cain out of the race for the nomination means that either Romney or Gingrich will carry the party’s banner. They could be far harder to knock off in the general election. In fact, I’d pay good money to watch Newt disassemble Obama piece by piece during the debates.
So, with the Sword of Damocles hanging inches above Cain’s head, if the left decides to hold the press conference until after the GOP convention, the thread would snap and Cain would be neutralized by a nefarious and horrifically clever strategy.
While I am extremely fond of Herman Cain and would vote for him in a heartbeat, I fear that if he wins the nomination and is attacked during the general election, Obama wins, and for that reason the Republicans simply can’t afford to take the chance of nominating him. That will tragically make him the first victim of biographic leverage unless he provides the reports that would free him. Either there is something in those reports that’s extremely embarrassing, the restaurant association refuses to release them, or his campaign team hasn’t figured it out yet. One thing is certain during presidential campaigns. The higher you go, the harder you fall. Just ask Bachmann and Perry.
