Herman Cain is twisting in the wind of a very public exercise in the use of innuendo.
Like “entitlement,” innuendo is now being redefined by the pro-Cain media to be much less than it really is, a highly suggestive metaphoric statement used to imply a dismissive comment aimed at a subordinate, male or female.
Being accused of innuendo is like being accused of bad taste, because one person’s outrageous infraction is another person’s cute comment, or so we are being asked to believe.
It just ain’t so.
Asked if he has a “wandering eye” by a sympathetic reporter, Cain replied that he enjoys flowers, but went on to explain that it is sometimes difficult to know where to draw the line.
No, its not. By raising that question – where to draw the line – Cain has made a tacit admission that he actually looks for that line in his social interactions with women.
The statement implies that Cain has impulses toward women that need to be put in check – but that means Cain is pushing the envelope, trying to find out how close he can get to that imaginary line without going over it. This suggests that Cain knows that there is such a line, but he’s not sure where that line is drawn.
This is a symptom of a psychopathic personality. Psychopaths lack an internal, inborn sense of right and wrong that more “normal” (there being, really, no such thing as normal) people usually have. More normal people determine the line between right and wrong by putting themselves into the position of the other person in the process we call empathy.
But the most interesting comment that Cain has made with respect to this issue is that he did nothing wrong and didn’t even know that the complainants had been paid, which he later correct to not knowing how much they were paid.
And that’s just plain bullshit.
Anyone who has ever been the subject of a sexual harassment law suit knows to the penny how much the resolution of that case has cost their organization.
Call it an agreement rather than a settlement simply begs the question by splitting the non-existent difference between them.
In the final analysis, however, we have prima facie evidence that Cain did something wrong. Twice.
You may settle almost any kind of law suit out of court without admitting guilt, and without suffering serious repercussions, but these accusations never reached a court of law….and no one settles sexual harassment cases out of court unless there’s sufficient cause of action.
No competent attorney would ever recommend settling a sexual harassment case out of court unless there was a compelling reason – such as guilt – for doing so. A sexual harassment suit is the one employment matter you never settle out of court – unless your guilty – precisely because that makes you a sitting duck for future sexual harassment suits.
At this point, whether Cain did anything wrong or not, he’s damaged goods. There will now always be questions about Cain’s sexual probity, which makes him a target for further potential allegations as President of the United States.
The mere fact that this possibility exists guarantees that Cain will have to follow a different standard of behavior with female employees – such as never being alone with a female employee – opening the door for other employment discrimination suits instead of sexual harassment cases.
Cain is toast. He just doesn’t know it yet.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Steven Bridenbaugh
Tom Degan
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Grey Treed
Chicago Guy
Vivian Henoch
Salon.com
Comments
I understand about the sexual harassment suit. My son-in-law just stopped to help another employee whose ladder at Home Depot was unstable. She filed a sexual harassment suit, probably because he was too competent, charging "I didn't like the way he looked at me." Fortunately, another female employee saw the whole thing and the suit was dropped. The bad side of this is that HE was harassed until he quit. R
That's not to say that the majority of sexual harassment lawsuits are baseless.
The guy likes women. Good for him.
When he started his business career, it was common to boff the secretaries. By the 90's it was strictly hands off for any direct report. Maybe he didn't get the memo.
Bill Clinton lived over the line. He was still 10 times the President and 10 times the man that his successor was.
And what about honest Abe? They don't call then Log Cabin Republicans for nothing.
Grover Cleveland was elected despite an illegitimate child.
He couldn't be elected today.
This is simply the wrong direction we need to go.
Disqualify Cain based on his failure to be able to perform arithmetic, not his dick.
Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any math ability, so investigating his sexual proclivities is *on*.
For example, I was hesitant to compliment a young lady I recently the fact that my wife was sitting beside me at the time. She thanked me, but these days one never knows who a compliment will be taken. For others, such a comment can be taken as sexist, to wit, the kind of thing I wouldn't dream of saying to another man. True, but I assure you, I would not be offended if a woman complimented me about my eyelashes -- or any other part of my anatomy.
On the other hand, I doubt seriously that the other NRA settled a couple of suits over anything so innocent as my remark. Sad to say, it has been my experience that those who crave power too often crave control over others sexually, if only as a measure of that power.
The evidence of that charge is everywhere in business and in politics. Clinton, of course, and for my money, Clarence Thomas as well. The fact that those charges did not ruin either man's career suggests sexual harassment is not as frowned upon as it ought to be.
Thus, the charges being made against Cain are probably insufficient to keep him from the Presidency. But they certainly compound his other glaring deficiencies. Sad to say, in the end, all of that is less likely to keep him from the R nomination than the fact that he's black -- tho I wouldn't put it past the Republican power structure to run him just for spite.
So we now know this much about Cain: he caves to blackmail. We currently have a black president who appears to be incapable of standing his ground. The last thing we need is another black president who caves in to black mail, as Cain appears to have done, and who needs help drawing the line that separates appropriate from inappropriate behavior. If needs help with that, who is going to help him draw the line in international diplomatic debates?
A man without an internal moral compass cannot lead this nation out of the mess we're in because, without that moral compass, that president will make unacceptable compromises on the basis of expediency rather than efficacy.