Picking On Cain
Over the weekend, Politico reported that Herman Cain had been accused by two women years ago of unwanted sexual advances. Politico claimed that a settlement had been made with the two women for a 5 figure amounts in return for their departure and their silence. Welcome to the clean world of GOP politics.
It is hard to say which candidate would have leaked this type of information to Politico. The purpose of the leak is less hard to discern. Cain is getting too close to leader Mit Romney and is crowding out the lesser candidates in the upcoming Iowa caucuses.
There is a charming irony in these charges. In Iowa, the GOP candidates all seem willing to grovel for the evangelical vote. There cannot be enough references to god or the evils of abortion for the GOP candidates to make. Immigration, abortion, the USA is a christian country, and school vouchers all sell well in Iowa.
The charge of unwanted sexual advances, at this point, is just that. A charge. Even if true, there is a thin line between unwanted sexual advances and seeking a date. Seduction is as old as the oldest profession. So again, who threw the first stone?
There is always the chance that Cain’s staff is the source of these rumors. The theory is that it would solidify his position with these same evangelicals who fear the gay and lesbian movement more than a seducer. A seducer or a gay man, which one is the least bad?
If I had to guess, however, which candidate might have planted this “Lee Atwater” type rumor, I would go with Rick Perry. The Perry campaign is eating a lot of dust languishing a distant third or fourth behind Perry and Cain, and sometimes Paul or Gingrich.
In the end, it will be how Herman Cain deals with these charges that will determine the degree of damage. So far he has been very successful in shedding criticism. We will see whether these charges fall off Cain’s back too.
This entry was posted on October 31, 2011 at 9:19 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: evangelicals, gop, herman cain, iowa, mit romney, politico, Religion, rick perry
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
November 3, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Looks like you may have been right. The Cain campaign has aimed a finger squarely at the Perry campaign and, while they have yet to support it, it just seems more likely than any other possibility.
One thing is for sure, the people it was meant to influence aren’t buying it: Cain reported his biggest contribution receipts the day after the news broke.
Now it is five days into the “scandal” and there are still no more substantial details about what supposedly took place. Supposedly a third accuser has come forward (if that is possible while remaining anonymous), but it comes off to me as a pathetic attempt to keep the story alive. These things thrive on the sordid little details trickling out until they become a downpour. Instead, it looks like Politico hocked a loogie on Cain and tried to claim it was raining.
November 3, 2011 at 5:07 pm
T, I think the real story is about who leaked the info to Politico and the second story is why in the world did Politico run with it?
Going back to the days of Lee Atwater and more recently with Karl Rove, there are no GOP ethics or sensibilities in campaigning, it is just about winning. Piss on the other person and complain about the odor…
I am disappointed in Politico since this really isn’t newsworthy. Had Cain made some stirring speech about enabling women to get ahead, the story would expose hypocrisy.
Grand old Party doesn’t look so grand…
November 3, 2011 at 9:01 pm
What is going on right here is a perfect illustration of the tension between establishment GOP and the conservative movement. The label “conservative” gets applied to all parts of the GOP, but really I think the GOP can be divided between conservatives, libertarians, the religious right and the establishment which is the big-government cronyist faction that rightly deserves to be called indistinguishable from their Democrat counterparts. (And they say the GOP is a small-tent party.)
Rove, Atwater, the Bushes, McCain and their ilk are considered by rank-and-file Republicans to be the establishment and the establishment is considered to be decidedly non-conservative. Of course, they love to claim the moniker, but calling oneself a chicken doesn’t make it so, either. Reagan managed to define conservatism for most Americans but, unfortunately, a lot of establishment types glommed onto Reagan after he won the White House and managed to confuse rank-and-file Republicans for about twenty years.
“W” managed to clear up the confusion but too late for the conservative movement to ramp up in time to influence the ’08 primaries. I contend that McCain would have had to face the Tea Party movement if he had been elected because he, too, was key to TARP which conservatives did not support. Even now, phonies like Romney, Bachmann and Christie are trying to claim the Tea Party/conservative moniker and are fooling a lot of people, still.
But here is the part that I am sure you will disagree with: I contend that the conservative segment of the GOP is the closest to the center. The religious right are issues voters, so they are easy for the establishment to peel off. And the libertarians have almost no standards, so they bring in the anti-government loonies. In fact, the far-right libertarians have a tendency to meet the far-left anarchists on the backside (if you picture a circle).
That’s my case, anyway.
November 4, 2011 at 11:57 am
T, a good and well stated case… Where would a Rockefeller republican register? Seems centrist to me…
November 4, 2011 at 1:06 pm
The original Rockefeller, Nelson, emerged in the 50′s from what was then called the “Eastern Establishment,” so in my mind the terms are synonymous. No one wants to be a “Rockefeller” anymore, so they are kind of extinct in that sense. But to get an idea, Prescott Bush and George Romney were considered Rockefellers, and the acorns haven’t fallen far from the tree.
I would disagree that they were centrist. I see a distinction between the terms “centrist” and “moderate” where the latter simply indicates a willingness to collaborate with the opposition. In the case of Republicans and Democrats, that usually involves reaching over the center, but not including them.
Rockefellers are/were traditionally very hawkish on foreign policy, to the point of it steering their domestic policies, so there is another strike against them being centrist. Honestly, the more I think on it, “W” was the prototypical Rockefeller.
* * *
I reread my last post and I realized I didn’t really define my take on the conservative faction. Conservatives are (or at least try to be) the pragmatists. These are the ones who will typically be floating real, meaty policy discussions–you know, the ones nobody in Washington actually wants to have. For all the lambasting Paul Ryan’s plan received, it’s not much different from Bowles-Simpson. Obviously, Reagan is the conservative poster-boy, but even in the White House he had few GOP allies. I would label Robert Taft, Sr. as the first 20th c. conservative. Hopefully that gives you an idea of where I see conservatives falling.
November 5, 2011 at 11:18 am
T, your comments strike me as meaning a political description is often “relative”. For example, most politicians are for god, but some like to wear their beliefs on their sleeves and think what they believe is good for everyone… we might call them social conservatives… To me a centrist might believe the same things but refrain from pushing it on others, or would that also include libertarians?
November 7, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Certainly any political observation is relative because the jargon is so muddled. For example, some might see the “religious right” and “social conservatives” as synonymous, but I would say there is a difference because the former almost always denotes Christians if not specifically Evangelicals, whereas the latter might include other religions, even atheists who see cause to maintain the social status quo.
You observe that almost all politicians are “for god,” so merely making a religious reference from time-to-time does not a social conservative—let alone religious right winger—make, and I agree. But just because one keeps his religious views to himself—or at least does not over-extend them—doesn’t automatically put one into any other particular category. Thus, centrists are still centrists, libertarians are still libertarians, conservatives are still conservatives, etc., regardless of their religious predilections.
* * *
“Conservative” is an unfortunate term because it is rightly understood in a relative sense. From its first usage in politics, it has designated whoever seeks to maintain the status quo. But such is not the case with present-day conservatives (as I identify them).
In the case of these, it ought to be considered shorthand for “Constitutional conservative” which puts them in line with Classical Liberals. More of that muddied jargon.
November 4, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Just a quick off-topic point: I think a false assumption that many centrists make is believing that if Democrats and Republicans could just compromise, something centrist will result. I think that is very, very incorrect and, frankly, nonsensical.
November 7, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Another side-note that I thought somewhat fits here: The vast majority of political identities are just issue groups: religious right/left, pacifists, environmentalists, unions, civil-rights activists, communists/socialists, anti-communists/socialists, pro-choice/pro-life, various energy groups, even races, sexes, and orientations.
These issues voters are reliable knee-jerk voters (a.k.a. “useful idiots”) who respond to buzzwords. The elites in both parties pander to these groups who, unfortunately, collectively make up most voters. Even among centrists, these voters exist, their buzzwords just aren’t as popular.
Any buzzword voter is, at root, a moralist. These are the ones who back something because “it is the right thing to do.” That phrase should be an alarm. It advertises that the speaker really doesn’t know why they believe what they do.
November 7, 2011 at 5:37 pm
T, “its the right thing to do”… very cynical but I am afraid more times correct than wrong…
I use the term “its the right thing to do” but almost always mean that while it may be someones “right” or as a rich country, “how could we not do it”, I also mean that socially and economically it is the right thing to do… for example health care… I maintain it should be available to everyone and there is a much lower cost way than we presently experience to do this… the lower cost at the same or better outcomes is the practical or pragmatic addition to the moral maxim.
If the data or experiences does not lead to that outcome, than the wrong method has been selected or just maybe it might not be the right thing to do…
November 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Of course, there are times where it is patently obvious why something is “the right thing to do,” like intervening in a genocide. But that is because you already know that if you asked “why” you’d actually get an answer you agree with. The question “why” is infinite, and a sound purpose is infinitely reasonable.
I would caution that health care (as it is commonly understood) might not be infinitely reasonable. Is it right to provide direct care to an injured or ailing person? Of course, because one would want the same for themselves in the ailing person’s position (end of life issues aside).
But is it right to compel a doctor to work for free? Certainly not, because sooner or later, you would have no doctors. And by extension, it cannot be right to compel a third party to pay for the doctor’s services.
Whether one regards Jesus as a wise philosopher or the Messiah, one cannot deny the truth in the words, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.” In the same way, any seemingly good idea that has negative results cannot be a truly good idea.
November 8, 2011 at 5:10 pm
T, healthcare is not free and other than Dr Zhivago, not many doctors want to work for free… but that is way beside the point… Using at least 20 other modern countries, there are health care models where everyone gets coverage, where everyone pays, where everyone gets better health care (on average) than the US, and these systems cost far less (like 1/3rd to 1/2). Doctors are well paid in these countries although somewhat less than here. These countries also worry about the rising cost of health care but from a lower base and a lower yearly rate of increase.
But this is for a different post
November 8, 2011 at 5:34 pm
That speaks to the notion that not only are there things which are right to do, but there are right ways in which to do things. One cannot justify a bad approach with a good intention. Steering back to topic, it is by intentions that the elite class in both parties justifies our failing social systems.
For my part, I think that the time is long past to be dubious of the qualifications of those elites, and to start questioning their actual intentions.