“I don’t even know that lady!”
Cain went all in during his press conference today, claiming that dirty Democrats are behind this scandal. He further claimed that he does not know Bialek, didn’t recognize her face or her voice, and categorically denied the allegations.
Throughout the press conference, Cain repeatedly referred to the allegations as “anonymous” before finally claiming that the allegations came from “both anonymous and non-anonymous sources.” He also blamed Democrats: “The Democrat machine in America has brought forth a troubled woman to make false accusations.”
Right — because Politico is the bastion of liberal journalism.
When trying to explain his initial flip-flopping regarding whether he recalled any settlement agreement, Cain tried (and failed) to walk a tightrope and draw a distinction between a “settlement” and an “agreement.” He claims that at first, he didn’t remember there being a settlement agreement, but then later that day — “after all those years” — he recalled that there was an agreement — emphasis on agreement:
A very quick thought:
Herman Cain was never a serious contender for the Republican nomination. He is, in more ways than I have time to enumerate right now, a clown, and he has never been more than a shiny object by which we the people have been duly distracted.
As such, it is my humble opinion that Herman Cain’s candidacy (such as…) has done actual, objective damage to the American political system and those invested in that system (just as we have been damaged by Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, though considerably less than we were damaged by Ralph Nader), because all he has served to do is distract us and suck up wildly expensive time and resources.
With the revelation of what is turning into quite a slew of accusations of sexual harassment and/or assault (“Hey, baby, you’re lookin’ gooood tonight!” [or some such] being the former; grabbing a woman’s inner thigh and pulling her head toward his crotch [the actual accusation that Sharon Bialek has leveled] being the latter) we have an opportunity to wrest some objective good out of this mountain of stupid.
Every woman I know can tell a story of harassment or assault. Every single one.
For some, this has meant being yelled at on the street; for others, horrifying tales of violence and rape. It’s a huge range between the two, and I do not mean to conflate all the various kinds of harassment and assault, but merely want to say: Sexual threat or violence, or fear of same, is a constant in the lives of all women and girls. Full stop.
So here’s what we can do: Continue reading
I’m running out of popcorn.
Herman Cain is gearing up for his big press conference this afternoon during which — if I’m reading the tea leaves correctly — he will deny that he knows what that crazy bitch is talking about, after which he’ll yell “look over there!”
What Cain wants you to look at is Bialek’s tawdry past — a tawdry past that actually is not tawdry at all.
Today, the Cain camp released a statement about Sharon Bialek, and it is nothing more than a sad attempt to drag Bialek through the mud. And when I say “sad,” I mean sad.
The press release points out that Bialek has been a defendant in several lawsuits, three of which were brought by the same plaintiff — a company called Broadcare Management.
Cain also points out that Bialek has worked for nine employers over the course of seventeen years, and that she filed for bankruptcy twice. Shock! Horror!
Cain then poses some questions, the answers to which are both readily available and entirely irrelevant.
Here’s the text of the press release: Continue reading
It appears Herman Cain has brought this new wave of media scrutiny upon himself.
Not because he’s being accused of sexually harassing two women in the late 1990s, and not because his responses to these allegations have appeared “Clintonian” at least and scattered at most, but because in his public statements about these charges Cain made “disparaging remarks” about one of the alleged victims, which may be a violation of the confidentiality agreement he signed.
According to The Hill:
Attorney Joel Bennett told CBS’s “The Early Show” on Wednesday that his client hasn’t spoken publicly because of the confidentiality agreement, but that Cain’s comments might have cleared a path. … “She would like to speak out for the record, only because Mr. Cain has stated that he didn’t sexually harass anyone, that there wasn’t any substance to the allegations, and basically made it look like she was some type of frivolous claimant looking for money.” According to Bennett, one of the stipulations of the confidentiality agreement was that neither party could make disparaging remarks about the other. Bennett said Cain violated that agreement on Fox News on Monday when he said that he had been told that the accuser’s performance in the workplace “was not up to par.”
I cannot say one way or another whether these allegations are true. But at this point, it doesn’t matter. It is incidences like this that influence elections, and as unfair or ridiculous as that may be – that allegations yet to be proven as factually accurate can destroy a man’s career or political prospects – that’s the nature of the game. Politics is politics, and sex scandals sell more newspapers than policy debates.
Both sides do it!
Why the New York Times continues to allow David Brooks to crap all over the opinion page, I will never understand.
Brooks’s comments about the Cain scandal are so fraught with fail and stupid, I’m surprised his brain didn’t short-circuit and burn out while writing this drivel:
Let’s start with the politics of it. My first question is over whether the Clinton statute of limitations has expired. My assumption, post Lewinsky scandal, was that for at least a decade no president or presidential candidate could be punished for an improper workplace relationship because if Clinton could get away with it then no one else should suffer. (This excludes cases involving Congressional pages, public bathrooms and bare-chested pictures delivered by e-mail.)
This is just stupid. I’m sure I need not remind Bobo that Clinton was impeached for perjury, and ultimately not convicted. Also, I’m sure I need not remind Bobo that Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant in the “improper workplace relationship,” and that the relationship was, therefore, consensual.
Furthermore, don’t you just love how Bobo excludes all the Republican scandals from his made-up “Clinton statute of limitations”?
Posted in Balloon Juice Cross-Posts, Lady Bits, Please Die in a Fire, What the Crap!?
Tagged Cain, Cain scandal, David Brooks, media asshattery, media fail, New York Times, sexual harassment, victim-blaming
Rand Paul will say anything.
Rand Paul is all torn up about this Herman Cain business.
Not because sexual harassment in the workplace is a scourge that should be eradicated so that women and men at work can concentrate on putting those red covers on their TPS reports, rather than warding off unwanted games of grab-ass. Oh no! But because woman are just so goddamn sensitive:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has an interesting take on Herman Cain’s growing scandal: honestly, he says, these days it seems like women can’t take a joke.
Annie, are you okay?
Ann Coulter is leading the charge in defending Herman Cain from the librul sexual harassment allegations smear job, and hoo boy! She’s really digging in.
Yesterday morning she popped over to Fox News to call the Cain Situation “another high-tech lynching.” (I thought Cain would be the one to make that comparison, but I guess it’s better when you get the nice white lady to do it for you.)
Then later in the day, she appeared on Sean Hannity to double down on her idiocy and whine that it’s hard out there for a black Republican because Democrats always pick on them — or something.
“They harangue blacks and tell them ‘you can’t be a Republican, you can’t be a Republican,’ it is so hard for a black to be a Republican,” and then complain when conservative events are mostly white-attended, Coulter argued. “Maybe you shouldn’t harangue them so much!” Coulter also told Hannity the source of why liberals “detest conservative blacks” is that “it is ironic in a cruel, vicious, horrible way… that civil rights laws were designed to protect blacks from Democrats,” and now there are “liberal wimen using laws to protest blacks in order to attack conservative blacks with these vicious, outrageous charges.”
Posted in Balloon Juice Cross-Posts, Fox News Fvckery, Now That's Some Racist Bullsh*t, Please Die in a Fire, Teabilly and GOP Mendacity, The Hermanator
Tagged Ann Coulter, Herman Cain, no seriously that just happened, racism, scandal, sexual harassment, silly white people