Who’s Afraid of Cain?

View 700 Wednesday, November 09, 2011

The Herman Cain story continues. After him will come Newt Gingrich. Tonight’s debate will be important. The reason for the increasing shrillness of the attacks is desperation: the liberal establishment has concluded that Obama is vulnerable, possibly even doomed, and of the Republican candidates only Romney appears to be someone they can work with, someone who can grow in office, who will reach across the aisle to continue liberal programs.

Note that Romney has nothing to do with the attacks on Cain. He’s just the guy the media consider to be the lesser of a number of evils. They can work with him.

As to Cain: The charges and specifications are still unclear, as is the number of accusers anonymous and identified. Are there four or five? Have more than two identified themselves? Why come forward now, 14 years after the incidents supposedly took place (about the time of the Clinton Lewinsky affair). If Cain is a serial harasser, why have there been no incidents in this millennium?

As of now the most serious charge is actual touching someone in what amounts to a spectacularly inept pass in a car parked or stopped on a District of Columbia street. The story makes it appear that Cain expected sexual gratification on the spot. The woman, not an employee but a job seeker, said no, and the incident ended without any actual sexual encounter. If the entire incident happened as Bialek describes, it is not sexual harassment, but it would be an assault and battery without injury. It happened 14 years ago, and no charges were ever filed.

No other charge alleges an assault. To the extent that anyone knows, they all involve “inappropriate gestures” at least one of which was “not of a sexual nature.” One or more might sustain a charge of ‘sexual harassment’ in that there was an employee relationship in some cases, but that would have to be a charge against his employer. At least one of the cases was formally reported to the employer and there was an investigation and settlement. The settlement involved termination of the employee and the details are not available, but none of the rumors involves any large amounts of money: the settlements are all far lower than would have been the costs if an actual suit had been filed, and there are many precedents for actions like that.

We do know that President Clinton made much larger settlements, and a great deal more than inappropriate offers or requests were made by him. He also said that he never had sex with that woman, then after the appearance of the dress stained with the Presidential DNA he redefined what “have sex” means. He was twice elected President of the United States.

Cain says he never did anything of the kind, specifically that he hasn’t acted inappropriately with anyone, not fifteen years ago and not since. His defense is innocence. That is hard to prove – how can you prove that you did not do something when the charge is ambiguous, and the specification nebulous? But the Bialek case is specific, and by its nature there is no possibility of witnesses or evidence. She says he did it, he says it did not happen. It all happened 14 years ago. No charges were made, no suits were filed, Cain did not get her a job. Cain has gone for broke here: this isn’t a case of misinterpretation. One of them is flat lying.

The President of the United States was impeached, not for inappropriate sexual advances, but for lying. Interestingly enough, it is not easy to find a copy of the formal Articles of Impeachment that were passed by the House and sent to the Senate; they involved perjury under oath. But then Martha Stewart has been convicted of perjury not under oath for denying to a federal investigator an act that was not itself a crime, so things are fairly murky there – my point being that it will be easy for the Administration and the media to keep this matter alive. Next step might be to have a Federal Elections Commission inspector ask Cain, possibly in a public place; that would allow them to bring charges against him if he continues the denial and the accusations continue. No conviction is needed, and indeed the matter need not come to trial: it’s unlikely that any major party will nominate a candidate for President who is out on bail.

Are the Obama supporters that afraid of Cain? Would they go that far?

A few years ago I would have said that was too farfetched to be credible even in a science fiction story. Now I have to ask. And I don’t know.

The purpose of all this is to eliminate Cain as a candidate.

Newt will be next. Then anyone else who isn’t Romney. The attack machine will be silent on Romney until he is the nominee. Then it will begin again, but it will be a different attack.

If all this reminds us of the end of the Republic in Rome, with Pompey and Cicero and Caesar and Clodius crashing a females-only party, and the street gangs burning public buildings, and mercenaries hired as candidate bodyguards, and the unemployed veterans demonstrations and — Well, it won’t remind many, because our schools no longer teach anything about that. I wonder what the Legions think of Cain?

Odd stories at links that may interest you, but I didn’t feel like writing about.

Google Beer:

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/10/07/google_launches_own_brand_of_beer/

Climate change story continues

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

AP Exclusive: Cain Accuser Complained in Next Job

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/nov/09/ap-exclusive-cain-accuser-complained-in-next-job-ar-1447447/

Internet Legends

http://rjwhite.tumblr.com/post/472668874/fact-checking

Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it

Obama’s billionaire friend has interests in African country’s oil

Read more: Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=356321#ixzz1dFMpUCRo

I have no idea why we are in Uganda, or whether we are doing any good there. I have a couple of sources, but no new information.