I didn’t really want to comment on the Herman Cain harassment story, because it’s a complicated story to comment on. There are several things going on, and the media only likes to focus on certain things.
Here’s what I know: Either Herman Cain did or did not make inappropriate comments and gestures. If you said, “So you don’t know anything?” You’re right. From what I read, neither does anyone else. Since the stories developing I checked again just to make sure, and another accuser has come forward. That still puts me back at “did or didn’t” but still not any real proof.
That’s the problem with this kind of story: It will devolve into a “he said/she said” story (once the accusers are allowed to speak). They’ll have people on their side who corroborate and he’ll have people on his side saying “why, he’d never!”
It’s a horrible story that only leads to bringing out the ugliness in people. Cain supporters, thinking they’re defending him, will commence with the “Women can’t take a joke.” like Rand Paul did. Make sexist comments themselves. Oddly enough they’ve also played the race card, which they hated when Obama did (even though he never did). It just brings out the bad in people. They
stop being stop pretending to be unbiased and start hurling slurs.
The other problem is we don’t have investigative journalists anymore (too few I should say – I hate hyperbole). They “report” what both sides say as opposed to informing us, or looking for facts. For instance, why not say that the reason the women can’t tell their side of the story is that they’re legally prohibited from doing so (I did link to a Huffpo post above that mentions this, but I think only because the accusers made a big deal about it). It’s also a pretty important reason for why they’re anonymous. Also, how about reporting that the majority of civil suits are settled out of court with a monetary settlement (what the people against Cain call a payoff). The reason they’re settled out of court is because it hurts everyone involved to go to court and fight. The accused has to pay even more money to defend themselves, and that defense generally consists of making the accuser look bad (think rape cases where they make the rape victim look like a slut). So to avoid tarnishing their image most accused persons will settle, whether they’re guilty or not. I’m not saying this is what happened with Cain, I’m saying it’s an important part of the story.
Also, Cain isn’t crazy to think that people will “make up something” about him. We know, thanks to David Brock in Blinded by the Right, that people were paid to lie about Bill Clinton. Clinton did have lots of extra-marital sex, but many more women came out than actually had. The same thing happens with celebrities. Have a sex scandal and the tabloids will pay for your story, true or not.
The fact is, honestly, that most of these cases are true. Women aren’t crazy people who see harassment everywhere they look. There’s no logic to it being not true. Sure If a person brought this sort of allegation against him now, it might be suspicious, but bringing it up when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s? Especially when he wasn’t a high profile person nationally? Add to that they were only given a year’s salary. A paltry $35K? Those things give the story some support.
But like I said, I don’t really know anything. I just wish the media wouldn’t force me to defend conservatives. I guess we’ll get back to Death Panels after the Republican Primary.