Month: November 2011

After that detour into Pity-Me Pines from the alleged harasser, it's worth reading the interview in the NYT with Karen Kraushaar. Money quote:

“When you are being sexually harassed in the workplace, you are extremely vulnerable,” she said. “You do whatever you can to quickly get yourself into a job someplace safe, and that is what I thought I had achieved when I left.”

And this is a potential bombshell of a development:

She said she did not know whether or how she might tell more of her story, but had been warming “to the idea of a joint press conference where all of the women would be together with our attorneys and all of this evidence would be considered together.”

At some point, the GOP may need to restrain Cain if he even further widens the gender gap among voters.

A reader writes:

I think it’s kind of funny that Mr. Cain appears to be flanked by one American flag for every woman who’s publicly accused him of sexual harassment.

Another writes:

Here’s a question for Herman Cain: On average, how many claims of sexual harassment do you think the average CEO receives in a career?

This guy is a lunatic.

Another:

As a corporate lawyer, who has advised many executives through depositions and trial, I note that Cain is well coached. His primary defense is really “I don’t remember.” And he has been doing a sliding variant of this “I don’t remember” or “I can only recall . . .” defense for some time previously. The key defense is not that I didn’t do this – – but I don’t even remember who she is. That is primarily a defense (and often legitimate) against perjury charges, but candidly it gives you time to “recollect” something later and adjust to new facts. In terms of knocking down this tactic, you need a real deposition or trial. One persistent questioner, following up and building off prior questions. That is not what you get at a press conference. So, my guess that he will not be killed by this kind of appearance, but by whether more shoes drop.

Another:

The NRA has to release the details of its settlements with these women. Cain can’t sit there and say her claim was proven to be groundless and then leave her without proper recourse.

Agreed. Indeed it would be outrageous at this point if the NRA didn’t release all it has on this matter. And Cain, if he is telling the truth, should be the first to urge this, no?

5.37 pm. My take, for what it's worth. Cain has just given this story major new life. The total denials are accusations of total cynicism and lies from a variety of women whose only common factor seems to be they were grossed out by Herman Cain. They will be forced to respond to being called liars. And I repeat: the existence of five separate complaints – and contemporaneous witnesses to those complaints – makes a big difference to me in trying to judge the truth of these stories. I see no ulterior motive, no grand conspiracy to prevent Cain from getting to the White House (and if there were, it would more likely be a Republican than a Democrat at this point), no reason for so many disparate women to say essentially the same thing.

So you conclude that Cain is either lying or in complete denial. Neither is exactly a recommendation for a potential president of the United States. I give him props for the presser, something Palin's congenital lies and delusions could never have survived. But my sense is that this story will now not die, as Cain intended, but live for quite a while.

It's five against one. It's he-said vs she and she and she and she and she said (so far). Money was exchanged. It says a lot about this guy's charisma that he can even pretend all of it – all of it – is completely false, never happened, didn't occur.

5.35 pm. The NYT has Kraushaar as a source and tries to get him to offer his account of the incident, presumably to contrast with hers. He repeats his sexual harassment was noting the height of his wife, and nothing more. But look: if Kraushaar is not a liar, and I have no reason to think she is, then Cain has said he either found the sexual harassment trivial and non-existent or he is point-blank lying to the public.

5.34 pm. He claims he has a very good memory but may have forgotten the identity of Sharon Bialek.

5.31 pm. Cain claims that a woman who got a financial settlement from the NRA made claims that were found to be "baseless." He wants to imply that she was leaving her job and this came up in her personnel assessment of some sort.

5.30 pm. "Someone is trying to wreck my character." Karl Rove? The genius of this response to Romney was that he agreed with him that the allegations were "disturbing" but because they were false, it doesn't matter.

5.29 pm. The Fox reporter asks if it's a conspiracy. I didn't just make that up.

5.28 pm. Apparently, Sharon Bialek, a Tea Party member, Cain fan, and Republican, is acting to prevent Herman Cain from becoming president. Ditto Karen Kraushaar:

"She wouldn’t be the type to make false allegations," brother-in-law Ned Kraushaar, a Georgia software consultant, told The Daily. "This happened [more than] 10 years ago. It’s not like she wanted to try and hurt the Republican Party."

5.25 pm. Cain simply says that Karen Kraushaar was lying, and her accusations ere found to be baseless. He keeps referring to "the facts." He doesn't seem to grasp the differenc between his "recollections" and facts. And he is blaming all this on keeping a businessman out of the White House.

5.23 pm. Cain says he dealt with sexual harassment immediately when he was an executive. But he first claimed he had no idea about the original incidents or the settlements. And then we get a truly tone-deaf statement: sexual harassment is also inflicted by men on women. And he says this to a woman.

5.20 pm. "Facts" not "hearsay." He is acting as if he is in court, rather than a public official running for the highest office in the land.

5.19 pm. His tone is grave and his pace slow and deliberate. It's an effective performance and I expect it to resonate with the GOP base in their hatred of the media.

5.17 pm. Now he evokes the notion that the "Democratic machine" created this scandal and is now claiming his own family has been stalked. He's doing what Stron Thurmond recommended to Clarence Thomas:

5.15 pm. The solipsism of this guy is astounding, and the use of the third person "Herman Cain" is never a good sign. "Standards of decency" are what he stands for: and he does not mean sexual harassment. He means press scrutiny. And now he's citing his wife in his defense.

5.14 pm. Cain says that he won't let "politics" affect his run for the White House. Then we're on to campaign rhetoric, trying to turn this issue around as a populist assault on the media and sexual harassment law.

5.12 pm. Cain is using notes but claims he has no memory whatever of Sharon Bialek. Total denial of any impropriety. All the women are liars. The incidents "simply didn't happen." It's the Clarence Thomas defense. But Cain has five accusers; Thomas only had one in front of the Senate, although several in the shadows.

5.08 pm. A vague and threatening mention of "anonymous forces" conspiring against Cain. The lawyer is essentially saying the only context in which allegations of sexual harassment should be taken seriously is a court room. The court of public opinion? Not something Republican candidates for the presidency should take that seriously, apparently.

5.06 pm. A lawyer makes two key arguments. One: the amounts paid to settle two harassment claims prove they were "nuisances", not legitimate allegations. Two: it's only credible when someone has actually filed a formal legal complaint. And we have a blame-the-media narrative building. And Herman Cain hasn't even spoken yet.

(Photo: Eric Thayer/Getty.)

Herman Cain doubles down on the mounting testimony that he has been a serial sexual harasser; and goes on the attack:

His campaign’s e-mail casts Ms. Bialek as a frequent job-hopper who has gone bankrupt twice and has what the campaign calls “a lengthy record in the Cook County court system.” The campaign lists her as the defendant in six lawsuits brought by companies and individuals.

This is going to be one hell of a press conference. Stay tuned.

Tonight the hit show will feature two gay teens losing their virginity to one another. About time.

A reader writes:

Um, I suspect ass play on straight guys is not high on the list of things that turn women on. I can't imagine, when single and dating, asking a woman to get all up in there – and certainly none offered. After 13 years of marriage I could probably broach the subject easily enough with my wife, but knowing her as well as I do, she would have no intrinsic interest in going there – only by my request and only for my pleasure. In fact, I think the whole thing would be a turn off for her even if I was totally into it. Ass play has never happened in my sex life not because I've got some thang against it, but because I think it would be a MAJOR turn off to most women, and I think going out on a limb could make the whole relationship go south real quick.

Frum senses that "something's shifting" among the GOP elite. Jamelle Bouie digests a poll, which indicates that while Romney leads in electability, voters are still quite skeptical:

[T]he most important number in the The Washington Post/ABC News survey has less to do with Romney’s strengths or vulnerabilities among the Republican electorate and everything to do with fluidity of the nomination contest, even with Romney as the favorite. Seventy percent of Romney’s supporters say that they could change their minds, with similar numbers for other candidates. Romney’s support among Republicans could collapse, or -– given the weakness of his competitors -– it could increase beyond its position in the mid–20s. Either way, it’s enough to inspire caution in the Romney campaign.

Peter Suderman highlights the former CEO's healthcare ignorance:

Now, most people probably don’t spend much time thinking about the difference between "premium support," which, like Paul Ryan’s health care plan, offer beneficiaries a fixed subsidy toward the purchase of insurance, and defined benefit health care plans, which, like traditional Medicare, offer beneficiaries guaranteed access to a set of predetermined health benefits regardless of the eventual total cost. … But Cain doesn’t appear to know the difference at all. There’s a lot that Cain doesn’t appear to know, or care to know. 

A reader writes:

Listening to your (wonderful) response about deciding not to have children, I was reminded of the following passage from Abbott Awaits by Chris Bachelder. The book is a series of vignettes from the narrator, Abbott, as he deals with his 2 year old daughter and his pregnant, insomniac wife:

"Abbot approaches sleep with an ineffable sense of relief that he did not know, before having a child, what it was like to have a child – did not really know what it was really like – because if he had known before having a child how profoundly strenuous and self-obliterating it is to have a child, he never would have had a child, and then, or now, he would not have this remarkable little child.”"

As a new parent myself, I think that is one of the most profound statements about becoming a parent. The shear life-obliterating quality of it, combined with the absolute miracle that birth and parenting is – the amazing combination of faith and love and biology that reworks life.

So many of my peers (early 30 somethings) seem to become parents out of a desire to continue down the preset path, or because it's what their parents want, or because it's just WHAT YOU DO, and there is a serious lack of prayerful, thoughtful, intelligent conversation between spouses about what it really means. You can never know how self-obliterating it is beforehand, but you can talk to those who do, you can watch those who do, and you can make that honest and intelligent decision to move forward, or to do as you have, and find other outlets to pass your own self on through generations. I wish more Americans would approach parenthood with the honesty you have. It is a huge decision that we have as society determined is expected.