Here, then is today's story about said candidate. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain admitted Monday to being accused of sexual harassment while at the helm of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, but denied ever engaging in such activity. Cain disputed details of a story that said the association had reached settlements with two women who lodged sexual harassment claims against him as part of a "witch hunt" associated with his recent surge in the polls."I have never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association," Cain said in an interview on Fox News, his first comments on the Politico story from Sunday. "I say falsely because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless." Cain sought to forcefully dispute the story, which said Cain had been accused of sexually suggestive behavior toward at least two female employees during his time as head of the restaurant lobby. The report said the women signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. Neither woman was identified.
Wow. Let's take a look at this. "I say falsely because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless." That is a fascinating way to deny the veracity of an accusation. If, as Cain implies, the accusations were indeed false, they did not turn out to be false after the investigation. They were false to begin with and the investigation--whatever that was--cleared his otherwise good name. The way Cain puts it, the statement suggests that Cain did do something that might have been considered inappropriate, but after the NRA checked it out, the parties involved agreed not to dispute the defendant's claim that the charges were false.
The report said the women signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. This too is fascinating. A nondisclosure agreement is not all that uncommon, but it tends to only occur when the accused wishes to initiate a quid pro quo, such as "Hi there. I agree to give you this money to go away and you in turn agree to go away." If there is nothing to the charge, the accused may still settle, just to avoid averse publicity, yes. But wouldn't it be more likely, given the qualified phraseology of Mr. Cain, to fairly conclude that the charges were not without foundation and indeed the horny little rascal did in fact say or do things he oughtn't to have?
Well, of course.
|"Why would I harass somebody when I can pay for it on the street?"|
This is not the first gaffe in the Cain campaign, nor is it likely to be the last. Just yesterday Cain accused Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger of racial genocide for having her clinics in minority neighborhoods. This is just the type of anti-intellectual nonsense the Cain people know their supporters among the Angry God in the Sky Crowd favor.
|"If that's Herman, tell him he can eat me during the commercial."|