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.