While I didn’t think he would ever capture the republican nomination nor win a Presidential election, I started out liking Herman Cain a lot. Not so much because he has good answers to the questions he is asked, but because of his confidence and his forthright manner. I like that he is a non-politician.
And while he has been the latest Republican conservative anti-Romney “flavor of the month” after Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry, the last two weeks have been a disaster for him.
You have to admit the guy is entertaining during the debates, with his bold, yet unworkable and unfair 999 plan. He certainly promotes it with gusto. But it tends to become a joke during some of the debates like the latest one this past Wednesday Night.
But the accusations against him are no joke and similar issues have brought down a number of politicians and candidates for public office as well as those in business. Sexual harassment and assault has been on-going problem in the business world for many years with men in positions of power acting inappropriate with women not in equal positions of power. And for the longest time, it was tolerated by companies as sort of a “boys will be boys” mentality; it is no longer acceptable behavior. Not that it doesn’t still go on, but it is less tolerated and, in many cases, action is taken against the offender. Yet, I suspect many cases are not still reported because of fear of retaliation and loss of employment. Even with more and more women appearing in the upper ranks of companies that hasn’t stopped the good ol’ boys who don’t seem to get it.
Which leads me back to Herman Cain. He doesn’t seem to get it. There were two cases of sexual harassment filed against him for which two women received settlements from the National Restaurant Association (NRA, ironic?) He cannot deny that fact. Yet, he does. Is it a case of plausible deniability? Where he actually never knew the outcome? Possible, I assume. But not likely.
He says nothing happened. Or that it was never proven that he sexually harassed anyone. Or, that he never sexually harassed anyone. One of those stories at different times. And he cannot seem to admit that the NRA paid out to settle the claims. He calls the agreements employment agreements, not settlement agreements.
Then there is the case of this woman, Sharon Bialek, who has claimed more than just harassment, but an out and out assault. She claimed that she even met Cain again a little over a month ago. Cain not only denies the assault, but denies he laid eyes on the woman ever. Yet there is a credible witness who says she saw them talking together at the tea party event on October 1st in Chicago.
Of course, he knows that if he now admits anything his days as a candidate are numbered. I suspect they are anyway. If the past is any indication, there will be others coming forward to further document his behavior. Should things that happened more than 10 years ago affect his candidacy? Perhaps not, but his honesty in dealing with it now is a real issue. Could he have made it go away with a simple statement that he may have said something inappropriate at the time and is very sorry now and he learned a valuable lesson? Might have worked, but we’ll never know.
There seems to be an arrogance associated with people in powerful positions that makes them think they are above the rules the rest of us play by. Because their staff shows them deference and shake in their boots at the mere sight of the person, does not mean the rest of us do. I learned this a while ago in the corporate world that those who were fortunate enough to be promoted above me were generally the same people I knew, talent-wise as when they were my peers. But their personalities often changed for the worse. This did not happen all the time, but many times.
I think we all know how this will end. And oh, in spite of Cain’s assertions that the “Democratic machine” is behind the leak of this information, I cannot buy it at all. Of course, that was his last assertion. First, his campaign accused the Perry campaign. Then hinted it might be Romney people that leaked the inforamtion. The Democrats would like nothing better than a Cain-Obama race. The Dems are already after Mitt Romney, who they believe will be the nominee. And while, it appears that Cain as been able to use his own victim status to raise money among his ardent supporters, he is losing support among women.
In conclusion, it is a shame to see yet another man fail to own up to his behavior, no matter how innocent he thought it was at the time. I think he could have resolved this easily, but did not.
The mark of a real man is his willingness to admit a past indiscretion and just apologize.
Wheat & Tares 
I think his problem is that most responses to the accusations are admissions he should not be running. Guess he could say he had a time when he was an alcoholic lout and he is now sober (kind of like Bush’s “I don’t remember” as to drug use) but it is too late for that now.
When you can’t tell the same story for more than 24 hours, and when it takes over a week to find the (implausible) stories to which you are going to stick, it sure makes it look like you are guilty.
I never liked him much as a candidate, but I did admire his attitude and willingness to speak his mind and express unconventional opinions – even those with which I didn’t agree. Right now, based solely on how he’s handled the allegations, he has lost my admiration and respect completely.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/opinion/callan-herman-cain/?iref=obnetwork. For what it is worth, which is not much. I think Ray’s comment is better.
Short of proof in a court of law, I am sure that he will win the Republican Presidential primary. A big enough number of Republicans like him, believe the allegations are a political hit job, and hate the only other serious candidate Romney, that this is currently a blip. He would have to lose big in the early primaries to not have the nomination.
If Cain loses by a hair in the early returns, then he will gain lots of votes as each candidate in turn drops out. The only way Romney (again the only other serious contender) has a chance of winning is Herman Cain and one of the others that is not Huntsman continue neck and neck to split the votes. The size and intensity of the “I hate Romney” group is huge and palpable.
The national elections are a different story. My prediction is that Herman Cain will win the nomination and (gritting my teeth in pain with the belief that the United States is toast) Obama wins a second term.
Thoughtful post with some good food for thought. Sincerely. That being said, you wrote:
“Should things that happened more than 10 years ago affect his candidacy?” Absolutely, if in fact he ever once attempted to exchange sexual favors for job offers. That being said, so long as the matter remains in the land of “alleged” the man has the right to keep running.
Now, I just can’t go away without pointing something out as a writer and past-practicing Mormon. Titling such a post “The Mark of Cain” must be an inevitable temptation for any editor/writer covering this topic. That being said, in the context a Mormon-based blog, it is at minimum a tacky choice–Mormonism being a culture and theology that persists to this day in propagating the notion that God sometimes has punished people by turning their skin brown. I just find it to be in poor taste for a Mormon blogger to use that title in a public scrutinizing of a contemporary black man (guilty or innocent). And in the context of the current presidential campaign, that lingering, tacitly racist notion regarding the Biblical Cain, is a prime example of why many voters have a tough time accepting Mitt Romney despite his other, considerable qualifications.
#5 – Great point in your last paragraph. I didn’t like the word choice of the title, and I should have said so explicitly.
Childe Jake,
Of course, I understood it was provocative to use that title, but I clearly stayed away from anything that could be construed as a race issue. For one, I don’t think that it is. and two, it is not the way I think about these things. It is only about power and arrogance.
“And in the context of the current presidential campaign, that lingering, tacitly racist notion regarding the Biblical Cain, is a prime example of why many voters have a tough time accepting Mitt Romney despite his other, considerable qualifications.”
It is a few that seem to obsess about the so-called “mark of Cain” as referred to in the scriptures. Most members do not and many could not explain it, if you asked them.
I tied in the title to my last line. Not doubt it was attempt in interesting people to read the post.That’s all.
Sexual harrassment in any form is deplorable, and if Herman Cain is guilty of the charges levied against him he should certainly drop out of the race. That said, there’s fairly compelling evidence indicating his innocence.
(See for example, http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-09.html )
Sorry Ann Coulter has less than zero credibility with me.
Re Jeff-
To be clear, the point here being made by Childe Jake is that this is why so many view us as weird, culty, etc. It has nothing to do with the members’ view of it. Anyone who knows anything about Christianity knows that the “Mark of Cain” is associated with a curse of dark skin (you don’t think BY made that up do you?). Perhaps most of those beliefs have faded and gone away. Nevertheless, the reference to it, especially in light of the fact that Cain is African/American is indeed in poor taste and contributes to the sentiment that we’re weird, out of touch, etc.
Jeff – the ‘999’ plan UNFAIR? Unfair to whom? To the legions of the lazy and unproductive that think the world, or at least the US taxpayers, owe them a living? Au contraire, mon frere, it’s the epitome of fairness as far as Federal taxation is concerned, since it goes on the principle of (1) straight rate taxation, and (2) no particular aspect of the economy
(consumption or investment) is unfairly burdened. It’s only “unworkable” in that it runs smack-dab into the current political paradigm of everyone wants to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others, and preferably no expense to themselves. In THAT respect, it do face an uphill battle, and not merely from the party whose mascot is fittingly the jackass (the other major party’s mascot is also fitting in that it craps everywhere and runs roughshod over wherever it wants to go).
I wouldn’t give any of these broads ‘coming forth’ with their lame accusations any credibility whatsoever. Think of the motivation, not only of the liberals that ‘wail and gnash the teeth’ at the very thought of blacks with political ambitions leaving the ‘liberal plantation’ (Limbaugh’s term, not mine), but the very women themselves. Though the issue of sexual harassment is of itself a legitimate question in addressing ungentlemanly behavior in the workplace, it’s also the tort lawyer’s wet dream. One of his accusers settled her case for $45K, a paltry sum which virtually any attorney defending someone of Mr. Cain’s caliber and/or his company would be doing the victory dance on the courthouse steps. It’s called a nuisance suit, and since this idiocy called feminism got the notion that sexual harassment and/or the “glass ceiling” is so prevalent in American business that it warrants a presumption of guilt on the part of the alleged perp, if male, it’s been a part of doing business. Ironically, methinks it acts as a disincentive to hire and/or promote women in the workplace, since there’s now the additional risk that if a female employee feels aggrieved, right or wrong, she’s opening the phone book under ‘Attorneys – Employement’, and dialing for dollars…
Still, I don’t see Cain getting the nomination. Even w/o these baseless accusations of ill behavior in his past, he’s still too politically inexperienced (if I say ‘dark horse’, I mean it in the Warren G. Harding sense, and NOT a pun on the man’s complexion). As you well pointed out, he’s the latest “I-not-a-Mormon-so-vote-for-me ‘Flava’ of the month” to capture imagination. As has been well pointed out, if Mitt weren’t LDS, he’d have a twenty-five point lead and be all the but anointed GOP nominee at this point. Hopefully the bigots get it through their thick skulls that Mitt’s LDS values, will, if anything, enhance the things they’d like to see happening out of Washington, and no, Mitt isn’t going to be calling “Tommy Boy” in Salt Lake for advice (and Tommy Monson is a smart enough man to lay in the weeds and stick to being Prophet, Seer, and Revelator).
Fortunately, Herm Cain is NOT necessarily the “Great Black Hope”. Larry Elder, JC Watts, Allen West, Condy Rice are just a few conservative of the African persuasion that could mount a credible run for POTUS, or even be a Romney VP nominee this go-round! Their existence is but more proof that “true” Conservatism (not the neo-con variety) works for ALL Americans…
I for one am tired of the political correctness. Sexual Harassment should clearly be defined as a quid-pro-quo event – where a superior tries to exchange sexual favors for advancement, or will threaten termination if a sexual favor is not preformed. It should not be because a woman inadvertently hears a joke or comment they find offensive. That is just part of life and if they can’t take that then they shouldn’t be in the workforce.
I will admit, I chuckled at the title. Granted, I like tasteless jokes, so I am not much of a barometer. But I had a far greater laugh at Douglas’ comment, as there is no way that is a serious comment. Refering to sexual harassment and using wet dream in the same sentence, or of pointing out the pun of dark skin = dark horse? Wow!
I regard sexual assault (if it happened — i.e., if he stopped when she said no, is that assault or still harassment?) as highly significant in evaluating a Presidential candidacy. I regard repeated sexual harassment as a character indictment that suggests the tendency to abuse official power in general.
Of course, I also thought the same about Bill Clinton — and two women said he didn’t stop even when they denied consent.
All I can ask is that we do not entangle our views about abuse of sexual power with our preferences for political party. How many women would really care whether the person assaulting them was a liberal or a conservative?
jmb,
“Nevertheless, the reference to it, especially in light of the fact that Cain is African/American is indeed in poor taste and contributes to the sentiment that we’re weird, out of touch, etc.”
Firstly, I don’t agree that many Christian have any clue about the “Mark of Cain” anymore than members of the Church.
And I don’t think that most people are so overtly sensitive as to connect my post and anything racial since it is not about that.
It is a play of “The Mark of Man” and has nothing to do with skin color. You are attempting to read more than is there, I think.
I thought it could be provocative , but not tasteless. That’s a bit much, IMO.
Sorry, Douglas, I cannot respond to your comment. There is just too much wrong about it.
#16 – Then don’t. You’d only reveal the paucity of your argument. As the (fictional) Klingons say, only a fool fights in a burning house…
What galls me about all this hullabaloo about what a cretin that Mr. Cain has supposedly been is that it’s coming from the same crowd that winked at the glaring indiscretions of one William Jefferson Clinton (getting something from an intern that a great deal of married guys can’t get at home…), and John Edwards, who found time to be a Senator, VP candidate, have a wife lose a struggle with cancer, and still knock up a staffer….
We can always nominate Mitt, at least to our best knowledge he’s kept it in his pants as needed. Of course, I’d rather have Ron Paul…he’ll not only restrain his johnson, he’ll also restrain the spending to its constitutional limits (or get overridden by both houses of Congress in an attempt to do so). Damn Mick Jagger (from “Let it Bleed”), the skinny fat-lipped crooner is right, but he does give hope that at time we’ll get what we need….
#12 Will: I’m glad I don’t work wherever you do. I don’t want to hear tasteless and “dirty” jokes at work any more than women do.
Lest you think I work in some lovely ivory tower, for years the women who got ahead in my company had speech as salty as sailors. But there was a difference between cursing and telling demeaning dirty or racist jokes. Those simply may not stand.
You may not call it sexual harassment, but I still don’t want it in my workplace.
Douglas,
“What galls me about all this hullabaloo about what a cretin that Mr. Cain has supposedly been is that it’s coming from the same crowd that winked at the glaring indiscretions of one William Jefferson Clinton (getting something from an intern that a great deal of married guys can’t get at home…), and John Edwards, who found time to be a Senator, VP candidate, have a wife lose a struggle with cancer, and still knock up a staffer….”
I will respond to this. There is no excuse to condone any behavior no matter where it comes from, but the fact is that both Clinton and Edwards were raked over the coals as they should have been.
They did not get off “easy.” While Clinton seemed to rehabilitate himself, Edwards is a goner.
Perhaps we should open the book on Newt Gingrich while we’re at it.
I understand you’re a partisan, but maybe you can be a little more equal when it comes to the universal slimeballs. There’s plenty to go around…
Newt had the integrity to resign as Speaker of the House for his affairs, and married again. (The affairs were apparently quite consensual.) His Republican successor as Speaker resigned as well.
Apparently we also have to evaluate the rehabilitation process independently of partisanship as well.
But then, I never understood exactly what policies of a President Gore liberals expected to oppose. In fact — now here’s a thought — if Gore had had the advantage of incumbency in 2000, the country probably would have been spared hanging chads, and liberals would have been spared two George Bush administrations. (See, it really is all Bill Clinton’s fault. :D)
#19 – On the “Gringrich that stole Christmas”, we indeed should. I AM a “partisan” (though at times I’d rather be a Chetnik), but not in the manner you seem to think. Just this AM I was observing on Fox News Channel some regarding Gringrich as the next “I’m-not-Mormon-so-nominate-me”…utterly ludicrous. The man is quite the academic but just on the basis of his repeated affairs (at least he marries them after he divorces the wife he cheats on), he’s not Presidential calibre.
Edwards’ issues came out AFTER his unsuccessful VP run in 2004, and he’s being “raked” for campaign violations and fraud, not because of his overactive johnson. As for “Slick Willie”…any man with an ounce of integrity would, upon it being discovered of his severe indiscretions, would have resigned. However, the party of the jackass hath no requirement for integrity in their candidates. I’m not sure the elephants are much better either. But William Jefferson Blythe Clinton being “slick” with his “willie” is but the least of the scandal that followed he and his overly-scheming frau (if by electing him we were supposed to get her as well, then SHE should have been his Veep!). Ever notice how many of his former confederates ended up mysteriously DEAD? How ANYONE could have missed that, they must have assumed the ostrich position! At least BHO hasn’t left a trail of bones a “Kellicam” wide…at least the fictional Klingon emperor was upfront about it!
Douglas,
I hope you don’t pop a vein, dude. you need to lighten up. Most politicians are the same, and fall into one of two groups; the ones who are caught and the ones who aren’t.
There are no angels in the Republican Party, either.
Firetag,
What does Gore have to do with it?
I guess we need to vote for Cain, since we now know that God called him to run for President:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323641-503544/cain-god-convinced-me-to-run-for-president/
Fear not, Bro Jeff – this is ALL stress relief!
If there ARE any angels in the GOP, they’d better fear to tread…
Though I’d rather have Lord Vader to lead us (that’s why I’m proudly in the 501st, Vader’s Fist!), I’ll settle for Kahless the Unforgettable. Last time I voted for Kodos…didn’t work out.
Clinton was on the verge of being blown out in the Dem primaries in 1992 over the Flowers accusations, supported by tapes. Clinton convinced people that sexual mistakes in the past were NOT going to happen in the future. Then we got sex acts with a WH intern as well as the Paula Jones suit and charges of rape by a Democratic friend who sought help from Clinton. At EVERY stage of the story, Clinton supporters kept moving the goal posts for what would cause them to abandon him, and evidence kept coming out that he’d already crossed those lines, too.
If Clinton had had the integrity to resign before it ever got to the “meaning of is is” phase, and if liberals had stood with their earlier standards, Gore would have already been President when he went on the ballot in 2000. That would have been enough to elect him.
So the liberals shot themselves (and, they would certainly say, shot the country) in the foot by standing by Clinton even though he’d lied to them just as much as he’d lied to the country’s conservatives. And Gore would NOT have governed to the right of Clinton if Clinton had resigned.
An interesting post, though I’d have to agree with others who say the title is in rather poor taste (especially considering the fact that while the general membership might not pick up on the racial implications, the general readership of the bloggernacle will pick up on it instantly and likely with a bit of discomfort).
I can appreciate the cleverness of the title, but I just don’t think we as a people are far enough removed from our rather questionable past when it comes to issues of race to be making clever jokes where the racial implications are somewhat apparent. I’m not asking for the title to be changed or anything; I simply wanted to add my voice expressing my own discomfort.
well, at 27, now 28 comments, I am not exactly setting the Bloggernacle on fire with this post.
As for the title, I do not seem to carry the baggage that some do on this issue. The term is a relic of the past as far as I am concerned. And while a do not fully understand the reasons behind, I am also glad the Priesthood ban was lifted.
I just think that it is a part of history, that hopefully, is fully behind us.
“I just think that it is a part of history, that hopefully, is fully behind us.”
Jeff, fwiw, I don’t think that part of our history will be behind us fully until the phrase disappears from our use – until we all stop using it in any forum not focused specifically on its use in the past.
I think that’s what is causing the discomfort with the title – that it seems unnecessary to the actual post. We all want that phrase to fall behind us as part of our past, and using in the title of the post doesn’t allow that to happen. (If you notice, I didn’t use the actual phrase once in this comment – mostly because I don’t want to do so, but also because I don’t want to provide something that can be found in a standard internet / Google search using that phrase. Iow, I don’t want to keep it alive / keep it from dying.)
Let’s see what happens when he applies the same beat around the bush mentality to politics. Does he even know what happened in Libya? | http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/video/?bcpid=13960334001&bctid=1275195602001
Ray,
I appreciate your views and would concur with your view. Having said that, I am repeat my thought that I clearly knew it was provacative but was in way related to the “traditional Mormon” useage of the term. But was a play of the “Mark of a Man.” That man happened to be named Cain.
I know some will not accept that but that is the truth.
#31 – the OP was a good pun and folks need to lighten up. Sooner or later we’ll be seeing more than the Wasatch-Front-raised “White Bread and Maynonaise” that populates the GA ranks now. Already’s there’s a bit o’ pepper, chili powder, curry, and msg (did I leave anything out, if I did, apologies) along with the salt…I’d joined the Church shortly after the Priesthood being opened up to all worthy adult males and I do recall that there were a few (but seemingly only a few) that had issue with it. Most welcomed it. I suspect that before long a ‘brother’ will be sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve and it’ll be “old hat”. Who knows, in thirty or forty years, perhaps General Conference will be conducted in Spanish and then translated into English!
Thanks for the clarification, Jeff – and I do believe you.
Douglas, it’s one thing for someone to tell everyone to “lighten up”. It’s quite another for someone to be told to lighten up who has housed and helped raise some black “sons” and seen first-hand the discrimination they faced – both inside and outside the Church (thankfully, much more outside than inside, but still in the Church by people who can’t let go of the racist folklore of the past).
Sorry, but I’m not going to “lighten up” about this particular topic. I’m not yelling and screaming about it; I’m talking about it calmly, rather gently and in a very focused manner; I won’t ignore it and “lighten up”, though – because I’ve seen first-hand how badly it still hurts people.
I know Jeff’s usage wasn’t malicious, and I believe his last comment fully – but that doesn’t change the fact that I abhor the phrase that he used in the title and its connotations and feel an obligation to do what I can to see that it is dropped entirely from out lexicon. Again, I’m not going to throw a fit, but I really do abhor the phrase and how it was used in our past.
Thank you Ray
#33 – Ray, you’re not the only one that has dealt with those of the African persuasion in his own family. Please get off your high horse. We pick our members and leaders from the human (that’s “hew-mon” to you Trekkies that don’t realize that Lord Vader can mop the floor with any Enterprise Captain you put up against him) race and the Priesthood from the male portion. The Good Lord shows HE can win with the benchwarmers. The unfortunate part of having some preach, teach, and exhort who are nonetheless, as Sarek and Saavik, both of Vulcan said, “so human”, is they say some fairly knuckle-headed things. It doesn’t help either that those with chips on their respective shoulders against the Saints and/or the Church will dredge up sayings which were acceptable in their day and done without apparent malice – to whit, the late Mark E. Peterson wanting any “Negro” (considered benign in 1954) to get educated, employed, and drive a CADILLAC if he could buy one, but do it AMONGST themselves. Say that some 57 years later, and one would deservedly get booed off the rostrum. Yes, the Church has a ‘racist’ past, simply because its members reflected at best what passed for the somewhat ‘liberal’ attitudes on race in the society that they came from. But frankly, I feel no need to either ‘apologize’ (and not merely because I signed on AFTER the revelation on Priesthood in 1978) nor explain a darned thing regarding race. It’s like why I should feel bad about slavery having once existed in America. I don’t like the idea, but w/o it, there would be darned few “African”-Americans, and it’d be a different country. Some of my ancestors (the part of the family from Missouri) were slaveholders. But that was a cultural and economic norm back in those days. We should be glad that it seems incomprehensible that such an institution ever existed in America. I know that I am. Therefore, I feel no personal guilt merely for being a descendant of slaveholders. The fellow who does the Ancestry.com commercial traces his (African) lineage back to someone born into slavery, but dies a successful businessman. The latter, no surprise, since not all the cream rising to the top is vanilla, the former…w/o it, the success then or the delightful man making the commercial today doesn’t happen.