Quote of the Day: Why I Am Done Defending Herman Cain
Our political Quote of the Day comes from Mary Kate Cary, a former White House speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush. She writes on the U.S. News website that she has been defending Herman Cain amid sexual harassment allegations but will do so no longer. She sites new polls showing that Cain is starting to suffer a loss of support from women voters and says she suspects it’s even worse. She then writes:
This whole thing is a shame, because so many of us liked Herman Cain’s ideas and business experience. I’ve been defending him for the last few weeks as he spoke out against the anonymous and vague charges. But they’re not anonymous and vague anymore. There are faces, and names, and ugly stories to match. As Kathleen Parker put it, three accusers is a trend. Four is a tipping point.
Women who have worked in politics have seen his type before—casual with staff, jocular, kind of schmoozy. Fun at first, but then it becomes clear that they don’t think the rules apply to them. After a while, there’s an arrogance that sets in. Washington is full of bosses like that. I’ve worked for several.
Women don’t like to talk about being sexually harassed because it’s embarrassing. Life moves on and most of us would rather put bad incidents behind us. So for busy women—at least one of the accusers is a single mom with a teenage son—to come forward years later isn’t easy. The fact that they’re contemplating doing a joint press conference says to me they realize how high the stakes are, after they saw how Sharon Bialek’s personal finances and work history were trashed. Safety in numbers.
These accusers who have come forward are about my age, and they seem very credible to me. They’re not selling their stories to tabloids. They’re not random women from all over the country, like some of former President Bill Clinton’s accusers were. They all worked with Herman Cain specifically when he was at the Restaurant Association. They seem believable to me, and right now, he does not. I’m not defending him anymore.
I suspect that’s the reaction of many others as well. But there is another factor the GOP will need to consider in the end — which qualifies for a big “NO DUH!” but is a major consideration.
When a party selects someone to be its Presidential nominee it is a massive investment: millions (or perhaps we are now into billions) will be spent on the candidate, plus the candidate will have an impact on the fates of party members running for other offices down the ticket. There are politicians who have problems and then there are politicians who are damaged goods. And then there are those who might not quite be damaged goods but they have so many problems in a given area that if they are nominated the campaign could be gravely distracted — and the party could lose its financial investment in the candidate, candidates running for other offices could be negatively impacted. Etc.
As a former full-time journalist I did a lot of interviews with officials and business people who were impressed with their own power or bankroll and literally oozed a certain kind of confidence. This confidence could often be loveable and likable. Cain had that quality when he burst onto the scene. People truly liked and were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt– and he kind of grew on you, even if you disagreed with him.
Now he is losing some of that quality. It was a quality that had allowed him to convince and charm.
And you can see its immediate impact in other ways: reaction to his debate performance last night.
Many reactions on Twitter and elsewhere say Cain had a bad night. No he really didn’t.
Cain didn’t lose ground. He didn’t advance himself.
But his schtick is now familiar to viewers and voters. And now when you look at Herman Cain you can’t help but have the controversy that’s raging in the back of your mind. So Cain is now being judged more on his CONTENT than his STYLE — because to many his style is now suspect. And the scandal influences the perceptions of Cain.
The allegations conflict with his style and the assumptions needed to accept his style and be completely charmed and convinced by it. Many women and journalists find he reminds them of others they’ve met over the years.
Cain is starting to come across as a confident corporate bigwig who always was in control and then had a problem with an employee and when it becomes a big issu says “it’s a disgruntled employee” — a phrase that used to discredit someone but that is not as easily accepted without skepticism anymore. This time he’s saying in effect its a disgruntled liberal media, disgruntled Rick Perry, disgruntled “Democrat machine.”
I’m in a minority: I still feel Cain could put the allegations behind him if it’s handled with candor — advice the not politically dumb Karl Rove gave him weeks ago.
And I’m in another minority: I’m not a Cain supporter but do NOT feel he had a bad night.
What changed were perceptions of Cain, the context with which people listen to him and the influence those perceptions of his persona had in past evaluations of him.
He’s going to need to step up his political game because he can no longer count on winning people over with his charisma. And because Newt Gingrich is going to soon occupy his political space.
No one ever supported Newt or gave Gingrich the benefit of the doubt because they felt Gingrich was cuddly and lovable. But they did Herman Cain.
They did.
Once.
Photo via Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
23 Responses to “Quote of the Day: Why I Am Done Defending Herman Cain”
BS from Cary. She is done defending Cain because he is dropping in the poles….period. Much like with the rest of the wannabes, the party pundits will bail on Cain once his poling considerably drops.
Now watch everyone jump on the Newt bandwagon until his life story goes public.
“three accusers is a trend. Four is a tipping point”
Agreed. Cain won’t win without women, and women are seeing a serious character flaw. Maybe his ego won’t let him admit this yet, but it’s becoming clear to those around him.
Four is the “tipping” point? What a crock.
This exactly why I am defending him, because of crap like this! Seems Kate needs a dictionary full of words to explain that ridiculous assertion!
“Safety in numbers”..? Every squeaking squawking woman out there are now going to vent their sexual frustrations out on Herman Cain!…and anybody that gets in the way!
“they seem very credible to me”…but you don’t know. Never did! Not nine, not seven?! No No FOUR!
Men won’t even be able to say “good morning” to some women after this…somehow it will be twisted into sexual harassment and out the door you go…with law suit on your tail!
All any liable attorney in the country will need now is “Four Lemons!” and point to Herman Cain!
Men might as well just sit in the corner and shut the yer trap!
JS said: “Agreed. Cain won’t win without women, and women are seeing a serious character flaw. Maybe his ego won’t let him admit this yet, but it’s becoming clear to those around him.”
Wrong JS, So Clinton got in without women? Obviously there are other reasons not to support Cain- like that stupid smoking ad, like his failure to try and do a better job on positions (999, could be fixed, but not by imaginary experts), etc.
Allen, I believe you’re taking a classic male-centric dinosaurish view on this. In any case, Cain’s liabilities are mounting – as duck has observed.
There are other reasons that women would not support Cain- including many of his short-sided policy proposals– but Clinton got in for other reasons. He had so much personal charisma that even his enemies liked him and his political positions were more palatable to women.
“Men won’t even be able to say “good morning” to some women after this”
Right…is “saying good morning” what they’re calling it these days?
I dont think saying good morning or opening doors or saying you look nice is at issue, just speaking for myself and my little world. I understand the difference between admiration and something that crosses the line…in both directions.
But also, a man who comes around at work over and over, not on business, but seeming to get a jolt of some sort because he is needy, can become an issue, esp if it is a boss.
Then the power differential requires some real tact on the part of the person being ‘over-visited’ for no business reason.
I think media sometimes portrays a weird conception of women as either tyrants or/and victims. I’d say that both can be true, depending. But as with men who can also be seen as tyrants or victims, human beings are far more nuanced usually than the stereotypes that they are portrayed as in many newstories.
I know few women who havent had unwanted attention at work [and in stores, on the street… it goes on and on, often) and have to tread lightly in order to help everyone save face and keep business business… and maintain boundaries.
I’m not sure that most men experience that over and over most days throughout life. I think from what I hear amongst just the men I know… those who have female bosses either love them and appreciate their support, or else, for various reasons are utilitarian about it all, or at the other end of the spectrum, sometimes rail against them as unsupportive, incompetent, power mad or mean. There are men like that too. Not sure either gender has a corner on that market.
But… And, I do know there is a particular weirdness that sometimes occurs between bosses/co-workers and women workers who would just like to do their work, have respected colleagues they can support, work with, laugh with. My mother, my aunts, my grandmothers, and my daughters have also experienced some who have overstepped in ways that are everywhere from actual assualt to completely unwanted sexual nuanced attention. My only advice? Treat all men sincerely as brothers. This is just my .02.
@Allen: Dude!
@Dduck: Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal happened after he was elected to a second term. Yes, he did have litigation going in before, but the media frenzy did not go into overdrive until he was no longer running for any office.
I would like to think that Cain was completely innocent of the charges, but I find that hard to believe. His initial denial and then partial denial (Oh? they paid her off? I hope not for much…) spoke volumes towards a cover-up. In the end, I was not going to support Cain–and not just because I have a distrust of Republican presidents at the moment. Cain is a former CEO with no political experience. I want the congress and the president to come together to get things done. CEO’s don’t have any experience doing that. They dictate from on high.
No CEO that I know of has ever gone straight to the presidency. Meanwhile, the most recent governor I can think of who was a CEO is Corzine–not a particularly good role model there either.
Gennifer Flowers/Paula Jones were BEFORE he was Pres.
was Cain ever a real candidate? Really?
When he implodes for good the public will hardly notice, cause his 15 minutes of fame wasn’t all that famous. Dial 999 for taxes and pizza, or something, and grope vs hope. These are the lasting messages– if any at all– the public will remember.
Now onto real candidates.
Hopefully the GOP can focus.
I disagree with many of the views of Romney and Paul, but they are at least capable of speech and thought. Huntsman as well, though he is seen as too desperate and amateurish at the bottom of the pack.
The GOP should hone on these 3 candidates and send the rest to the shredder. They are really burning valuable time.
Yep…just sit’n in the corner shut’n my trap, thinking:
“I’m way too ugly, I’ll be the first to go!”….
No comment.
Allen — Yes, if you get the hankerin’ to make sexually suggestive comments at work, and particularly if you feel the need to take advantage of a situation in which you are more powerful than your coworker by touching her inappropriately, I do strongly suggest that sitting in the corner and shutting your trap is a good way to go. Being ugly has nothing to do with it.
Nice, Shannon.
Hitting on a different part of the article, what if Cain keeps his lead and begins winning primaries? Will the $$ still come, or will the GOP donors simply take 2-3 steps back?
I’ve never thought of the possibility of party voters supporting one candidate and party donors going the other way because they think the candidate has such a weak chance of winning it’s a bad investment.
roro-
How about an honest straight forward question while putting a gentile hand on her lower back: “How about it sweets? Like to make it a long night?”
Is that harassment or inappropriate touching of a co-worker?
That’s neither honest nor straightforward — hell, why not just give ‘er a quick smack on the behind while you’re at it?
In other words, yes, I would likely report than if I weren’t really close friends with, or probably already dating, the person who said and did that. I work in an office of mostly men, and nobody has ever put a “genile hand on [my] lower back” while calling me “sweets” and implying more than professional work. Highly inappropriate, unprofessional, and certainly meant to cause unnecessary discomfort. There are a thousand ways to say the same thing, with no touching or innuendo, that would be appropriate, even friendly or jocular, and get the same message across.
If you think that’s appropriate, then yes, go sit in the corning and shut your trap, as you say. Don’t call your coworkers gross pet names. Don’t touch them. It’s gross, and makes things extremely uncomfortable. Unbelievable that that is the supposedly appropriate example you’ve come up with. Have you ever worked in a professional setting with women? It seems like perhaps you have not.
Put another way, how would you feel if a male boss did and said the same thing to you? Older man in charge of your future career, promotions, and pay, puts a “gentile” hand on your lower back and, with a wink, says ““How about it sweets? Like to make it a long night?” How’s that making you feel, Allen?
Two points ro-
1. That would be assault and I could break his nose in self-defense with my honor intact. Where a woman could slap me and that would be commonly acceptable with my honor lost.
2. There will never be a gay president to bear witness against, so the point is moot regarding Herman Cain.
Allen — thank you for proving my point. So, if you do realize that such behavior is highly inappropriate and is assault, why, then, would you use it as an example to try to challenge me? Remember, of course, that hitting and slapping in a work environment is also cause for firing, while one might just surmise that your boss was making a ribald funny comment. Gee, might that make for an uncomfortable work environment? Um, yes. It does, in fact.
Here’s a nice rule of thumb: if a male in a position of power saying/doing something to you would make you extremely uncomfortable to the point of hitting, rest assured that a woman would feel just as uncomfortable if you were to say/do that to her. The difference, of course, is that the punishment against women who speak out about it is extremely harsh. What if your hypothetical woman really really needs that job? We, as women, learn to shrug off a lot of this sort of crap, learn to swallow our pride and our anger and our fear. We deal with this every day, and as Dr E mentioned, it is really all of us — all ages and sizes and races. Maybe you could remember that the next time you start in on how ZOMG there’s NOTHING to go on, there are NO witnesses blah blah blah it didn’t happen it’s obviously false! Eh?
To your point 2: well, we don’t know who will be president in the future, but we were talking about a hypothetical woman in a hypothetical job, and whether or not the scenario you painted constituted harassment and inappropriate touching. (You’ve made it clear that yes, yes it’s inappropriate and harrassment.) Not whether or not the hypothetical harrasser would someday be president.
“a woman could slap me and that would be commonly acceptable with my honor lost.”
Also, if you think this is true, you really must never have worked with women. This is really not something a woman can do in a work situation at all, particularly, again, with the person who is in charge of our pay and our career. Generally, we just have to brush it off and deal with your creepy gross behavior and pretend it doesn’t make our skin crawl. Trust me: it does. Your honor was lost not when you got slapped for it, but when you acted like a jerk in the first place.
As a “gentile”, I only use my gentle hand where it will be welcomed; otherwise it is hands off and mouth shut.
Thanks Duck, but never mind old ro. It’s so easy to get ro going, he’s such a prude. Thanks for the gentle correction. I need to watch my spell checker better.
..and ro…get real…Statistically most relationships/liaisons begin from work acquaintances and they don’t begin with flowers and candy. lol
I’m fairly certain dduck was making fun of you, dear. And hunny, I ain’t no prude. And for the 10th time, and as mentioned in this very thread, I am not a man.
And you are honestly making the suggestion that behavior that toward you would cause you to break someone’s nose is perfectly acceptable when directed toward women? Because it seems like that’s the argument you’re making. Generally relationships between coworkers don’t start with creepy pick-up lines at work. I mean, have you ever even interacted with women in any sort of situations? Relationships or coworkers? OR si all of life some sleasy bar for you?