Let's put some things aside. I condemn sexual harassment. I have no intention of voting for
Herman Cain. I don't know if Herman Cain committed sexual harassment. What I do know is that settlements of law suits including those alleging sexual harassment are not evidence of anything. Law suits are settled everyday because of the embarrassment a trial may bring and the expense of defending. One of the great failures of our judicial system is the cost of justice. Many suits without merit are settled, because it takes too great an expenditure of time and money to defend them. Settlement may well be an admission of guilt, but it is wrong to assume that it is.
I watched television today with some horror as Mr. Cain was barraged with questions as to whether or not "allegations of sexual harassment" were made against him and whether or not those claims were settled. Questions as to whether or not he committed sexual harassment certainly would be appropriate. The only relevant question is whether or not the allegations are true, not whether they were made.
Sexual harassment is a serious matter and is certainly relevant as to whether or not someone is qualified to be President of the United States. But these revelations say more about our political system and its coverage than they do about Herman Cain. The media serves an important function when it vets political candidates or nominees and searches their past for evidence relevant to their qualifications. But all too often the revelations are minuscule and ancient. The previous scandal of choice is hiring an undocumented alien. I don't think anyone (and certainly not someone as wealthy as Mitt Romney) hires a gardener and checks the immigration status of each person that gardener employs.
I do not suggest that sexual harassment falls into the same category -- it is far more serious. But think of the time and effort that has been devoted to President Obama's birth certificate and more importantly, how this non-fact regarding his birth has been accepted by so many as the truth. Even if false, the allegations have a life of their own. I recognize that reporters' questions are not subject to the same strictures as questions asked in a trial. Courts don't allow "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions, because the question presupposes a fact not in evidence. A question that asks whether allegations were made -- not whether they are true -- has the same effect.
And now the media is suggesting that how the questions were handled reflects upon Mr. Cain's competency -- not the truth so much as the technique employed to respond. The same has been true in respect to the Republican debates. The emphasis is on how well the candidates performed rather than what they actually said or believe. Being "glib" is more important than being smart. As a result, many select and elect candidates around the edges and focus on what the media considers important -- no matter how trivial -- and not on the fundamental beliefs and qualifications of the candidates.
If Herman Cain was guilty of sexual harassment then it is appropriate for that fact to influence his election chances. If he is not guilty of sexual harassment, the fact that it was alleged against him and settled should play no part in his candidacy. It is the answer and the truth that are relevant; not the question and its inferences.
Spencer Green: Mitt Romney Seduces Tea Party Members With Candles, Barry White Songs
Rev. Debra Haffner: Raising Cain on Sexual Harassment
James Kotecki: Herman Cain Sings! That's... Different
Your Honor are you serious? Even in the federal court the verdict is usually based on personal belief or personalities of the parties or witnesses and not the facts or the law.
I lost a civil bench trial only because the sitting judge said that I wasn't devastated enough or because of my "cavalier" attitude. I was the plaintiff. The contracts, agreements and witnesses didn't even count! The only thing that mattered to the judge is that I was winning a major lawsuit against one of the largest banks in America.
Judge, I got the Herman Cain, and Clarence Thomas treatment!
Ann Coulter said that it was only because I am a black conservative, republican! I tried to implement the don't ask, and don't tell rule, but it is obvious that I am black. In my situation due process was suspended! So, Judge Sarokin, why should Herman Cain get a break? That would be the "affirmative action" that Herman said he never needed!
God Bless You Judge and Thank You for Your Time!!!!
LAMAR C. CHAPMAN III
Lifetime Lincoln Conservative
"Orthodox Republican"
United States Naval Academy
Integration Team - June 1971
Oak Brook, Illinois
The issue is about "How" Herman Cain is Addressing the "Exposure".
If he "Stepped up to the Plate" and said;
"Affirmative, I Settled the Claims 15 years ago" or "Negative I was not involved in any Claims 15 years ago".
That would have ended the "Investigation Right there.
But his "Slowly 'Recovered' Memory" over the past few days, leads the Media to "Smell Blood", like a Shark in the Ocean and believes their is a "Bigger Story" Here!
You know, were there so many claims he forgot paying a years salary about one? His general counsel surely grilled him in preparation for a deposition in the course of settling. And we're to think he doesn't remember that, but he still has the focus to be CinC?
We expect the media to ask the right questions in order for us to judge for ourselves the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of the answer.
But the sharks smell bl oo d in the water, and are circling w/ anticipation. Sex always gets people's attention.
But the point remains, the sport of politics is a dirty one, and journalists and other candidates love to participate in the "gotcha"... it increases ratings, the other candidates hope it will result in a knockout punch.
We the people need to decide who will best serve us in the white house, and vote accordingly.
We can also hold the media to a higher standard in reporting to us the news...
The argument of this essay is that "the answer is relevant, and not the question." In most court cases the payoff is the answer, and that payoff becomes the evidence that a crime has been committed. So too, the answer in this allegation is the payoff. Thus, the payoff is the evidence of guilt, rather than of innocence.
Is that the gal Obama was poking that the media ignored?
Why did the media try to hide his crimes?
Oh, wait, HE was Democrat.
Cain is no politician but he's fast becoming one with this issue. I don't think how he answered questions from reporters is indicative of anything in particular; he could've honestly been caught flat footed & unprepared. Various consultations with his campaign managers probably account for the unevenness of his explanations. Whether Cain is telling the truth or not remains to be seen. Gennifer Flowers (tapes) didn't stop Bill Clinton from becoming President but Donna Rice (pics) completely knocked Gary Hart out of contention. If anyone else comes forward with similar accusations against Cain, that imo would be the other shoe falling & probably enough to end his campaign.
I also find it quite heart-breaking to see so many men (sorry, but it is mostly men) so quick to wave sexual harrassment off as something commonplace and coined up by treacherous devious women. That's an awfully broad brush, quite a generality. Do none of you have wives, daughters, sisters? because you are including them in your general assessment of women in the workplace.
How do you propose that we decide if he was guilty or not?
Wow. I think that "facts" will be in short supply.
How much does it cost to settle? vs. What it cost to fight? What are the chances of winning? And, what happens if we lose?
If the cost of settlement is less than the cost of fighting, one obviously settles, irrespective of guilt or innocence (actually, in civil proceedings is liable or not liable).
In a settlement there is no legal determination made, no findings of fact, no conclusions of law -- therefore, there simply no way for us to know thru the settlement whether the allegations of sexual harassment are true of false.
It should also be acknowledged, as anyone who has employed others know, that employees frequently raise false allegations against employers to get better parting deals. If anything, to settle sexual harassment claims for three months salary suggests thread allegations.