Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Things I regret saying on the internet

Things I regret saying on the internet

  1. Why I respect Jennifer Rubin (October 22, 2011)

The post in question was limited to the following matter of respect:

I don’t always agree with Jennifer Rubin, the not-liberal blogger at The Washington Post, who used to blog at Commentary.

But I respect her because unlike the Stockholm Syndrome suffering not-liberal columnists at The New York Times, Rubin is willing to take on her own newspaper.

But I deeply regret saying it in light of Rubin’s conduct with regard to the Herman Cain allegations.  Rubin has been vicious, as pointed out by Dan Riehl tonight, far more so than the worst left-wing flame throwers.

Rubin repeatedly invokes her prior career as a lawyer, but has had a completely unlawyerly lack of concern for facts.  The demand for facts is portrayed by Rubin as a slavish adherence to some mythical conservative cabal, when facts are what we all should be demanding.

Where are the receipts for the hotel Sharon Bielak says was upgraded? Where is evidence of her travel?  Why did she not tell her fiance about it until the night before she flew to meet Gloria Allred, and why did she not tell one of her best friends at all?  We should be demanding these facts as a matter of basic fairness to both parties.  If the facts support Bielak, so be it; but if the facts support Cain, why would Rubin not want to know it?

And as to Karen Kraushaar, there are no facts reported as to what Cain allegedly did, other than Cain’s own recollection of a non-sexual hand gesture.

Politico reports that there were “conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually  suggestive nature….”  Those aren’t facts, those are characterizations.  What did he say, what words were used, when were the statments made, where was each statement made, and who else was present.

These are the basics which should be included in any reputable reporting, and these are the facts we all should be demanding before reaching conclusions.

Demanding facts as to Cain’s alleged conduct is not the same as excusing proven conduct.  But none of that lawyerly stuff seems to bother Rubin in the least.

If Cain is guilty, I’ll be the first to say it.  But show me the facts first.  That’s not a blind allegiance to some cause, other than the cause of justice and fairness.

I apologize.

[Note: Change made to paragraph regarding Kraushaar shortly after posting]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Professor, on October 31th, the day after the story in Politico broke, Herman Cain told Greta Van Sustern that the National Restaurant Assocation had done an internal investigation into the claims of Woman #2 and those claims were found “baseless.”

Where are the documents that support Cain’s claim?

Cain said that Woman #2 was a bad employee?

Where is the proof of that claim?

Cain said today that the smear against him is coming from the Democrat smear machine.

Where is proof of that claim?

Tonight on his TV show, Bill O’Reilly said that Cain told him last night, again, that Rick Perry’s campaign is behind the “smears” against him.

Where is proof of that claim?

Cain is claiming that Kraushaar’s son works at Politico.

Where is proof of that claim?

Yet, you are demanding hotel records to exonerate the person who is making allegations against Herman Cain. Yet Herman Cain has made claim after claim, and no demand of proof have you requested from him.

Sorry, Professor, you threw away your objectiveness a long time ago.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to retire05. | November 8, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    You don’t know what you are talking about. I called for a release by NRA of all the files, so that we could see what was uncovered in the investigation.

    Added: I also supported releasing the women from their confidentiality agreements. I want the facts, not the characterizations and conclusions of Politico or Romney-bloggers.

      OK, Professor, so you called for the release of ALL the NRA documents. Where is your call for Cain to prove that this story was leaked by a) the Perry campaign b) Rahm Emanuel or c) the Democrat Machine?

      But I figure that since Cain slandered Woman #2 (Kraushaar), and her identity is now out there and the NRA has said they would release her from the confidentiality agreement, that the NRA documents are soon to follow. Her attorney said that she had provided them to him. And she is now going public.

      The only option the NRA has now is to claim that they simply released her to make a statement through her attorney, and that ain’t gonna fly with the public. Fox reported that Kraushaar is also talking about doing a press conference with ALL of the women involved.

      This ain’t over, and you damn sure are not going to get what you want from Herman Cain in the way of release of the documents. Mark Block has already stated, on national TV, that Herman Cain will not request the release of the documents. That alone should make you go “Ummmmm?????”

        Retire, you are an ardent Perry supporter-nothing wrong with that- and though I am neither an ardent Perry supporter nor a Cain supporter I do know for a fact that if Cain were not leading in the polls then both you and I and Prof Jacobson would be dealing with vicious, malicious falsely-manufactured character assassinations against your preferred candidate Perry. Whe Perry was leading in the polls, the media was taking down Perry with a rock!

        Was this fact not obvious when the character assassination through false media accusations came upon Sarah Palin?

        We can disagree on policy but we should agree that perceptions created by media manipulation is dangereous.

        How do you think Obama was elected? Politics is a game of perception and the fake paper-mache’d Greek columns were intentionally designed for a specific reason.

          Juba Doobai! in reply to syn. | November 9, 2011 at 12:27 am

          Retire05 is like a box of rocks. All he can see is his candidate, and he doesn’t get that joining the LSM in savaging GOP candidates he doesn’t support is only strengthening the LSM. Right now, he knows that Perry is not under fire and he thinks Perry’s safe. That’s a great fantasy. All I know is, if/when Perry comes under fire again, I’ll do to Perry here what retire05 and other Perristas have done to Palin and Cain. I used to like Rick Perry, but his supporters make rocks look bright.

          retire05 in reply to syn. | November 9, 2011 at 10:11 am

          Who I support in this GOP primary has not one damn thing to do with wanting to know the truth. TRUTH. Do you understand that? Do you understand that when someone has nothing to hide, there is no reason to change their story as Herman Cain did from his first interview with Fox the morning of Oct. 31 to his later interview with Greta Van Sustern that afternoon? Do you not understand that someone who is not guilty of the allegations being levied at them, they defend themselves, WITH PROVABLE FACTS, not levy allegations at others, trying to divert the blame.

          Cain blamed, and is still blaming, Rick Perry for the leak. Of course, Mark Block also blamed Curt Anderson, Rahm Emanuel, and yesterday Cain blamed the “Democrat Machine.” Frankly, I dodn’t care WHO leaked the story, I can about the truthfulness of the story. You seem to care about the source, not the action. Who leaked the story (Politico says it was a NRA insider) has nothing to do with the truth. Nothing.

          Cain’s campaign has been in total disarray. Why? Did Cain not know that this would come out? Is he so naive that he thought he could keep this story under wraps? Are we to assume that a man who threw his hat in the presidential primary ring in 2000, with his background in corporate management, withdrew because he was unaware of how much money and organization had to go into a national campaign, AFTER, he had been hobnobbing with D.C. politicians on a daily basis for almost three years? If that is the case, then Cain did not possess the business acumen that he claims he does. Do you believe Cain when he said that he told Curt Anderson, a seasoned campaigner, of these charges in 2004? If so, then Cain knew they would come up and be a problem then.

          You need to ask yourself a few logical questions, and I don’t see any of you doing that. If this was a problem for Cain in 2000/2004, why was his campaign not on top of this, and why, when they were advised by Politico that the story was going to run in ten days, did Team Cain not get out in front of it? Why is Mark Block going on national TV and making claims that one of the women’s son works for Politico when that man is clearly not related to her? Why is Mark Block on Fox, apologizing to Curt Anderson at the same time Herman Cain is on Hannity’s radio show blaming Curt Anderson who works for Perry?

          I understand you are passionate for your chosen candidate. And that is great. But you want to ignore all the inconsistancies that Herman Cain, himself, has presented. Now, in order to defend Cain, you accept the practice of personally destroying the accusers. You are like the criminal defense lawyer that tries to destroy a raped woman by showing the jury what a loose woman she had been prior to the rape.

          Did it ever occur to any of you why rape cases are so hard to prove and why victims are so reluctant to testify? This is why. They know they will be destroyed by those defending the rapist. Every piece of their personal life will be put on display. Just as you, and Team Cain are now doing to these women. I don’t care if these women were working as hookers in Las Vegas, it has nothing to do with the allegations against Cain. Please, none of you should ever sit on a jury.

          I want the truth. Not Cain’s truth, not the women’s truth, just the simple truth. That is why we have primaries, so the candidates can be vetted. But I refuse to succumb to the tactics of the left by immediately destroying the women in this scandal. That is exactly what Bill Clinton did and yet, the truth eventually came out. If we follow the lead of the liberal press in this issue, how are we any different than them?

          I recently read an article by Fred Thompson. He said that the day after he announced his candidacy, there was a website that came out that tried to destroy him. It took time, but he eventually learned that the creator of the website worked for Mitt Romney. Yet, Cain blames Perry. Why? Cain has said he would not be Perry’s VP, that he would not support Perry 100% if Perry was the nominee. That was before any of this happened. Why? Cain supported Romney in 2008 and I suggest to you that Cain, who is nipping at Romney’s heels in the polls, should be going after Romney, not Perry. But he’s not. Is there a quid pro quo with Cain and Romney?

          These women made accustions against Cain. I want solid proof of their accusations. Cain has made accusations against others. I want Cain to prove his claims. But you only demand proof from the women, not Cain. That is blind loyalty.

          Perhaps Professor Jacobson should change the name of this blog to the “Three Monkeys of Cain”, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

          Ask yourself; if others are trying to destroy Cain with falsehoods, does that justify Cain, and Mark Block, trying to destroy others to divert attention from Cain’s problems? The whole thing stinks, including Team Cain.

    Browndog in reply to retire05. | November 8, 2011 at 9:38 pm


    Where’s YOUR proof of the contrary?

    This is really getting out of hand.

    BTW, Professor-

    I kinda knew that would happen (regretting Rubin)….it’s happened to the best of them.

      retire05 in reply to Browndog. | November 8, 2011 at 10:22 pm

      Browndog, I don’t know the truth. But neither do you. Either Herman Cain is lying or ALL five women are lying.

      But Hermand Cain blaming everyone except the Devil himself (and I am sure that will come within days) for a story that is basically true (two women did levy allegations against him and those two women were given settlements by NRA; FACT) and that Herman Cain is trying to direct attention to someone for the blame, not the charges, but the leak, should give you pause unless you are so emotionally tied to Cain that he could axe murder his mother and you would find an excuse for that.

      What does it benefit Cain to smear others while he claims he is being smeared? Did you read Team Cain’s statement on Bialek today? Not one sentence denied guilt. It was just a smear on Bialek and casting doubt because she has had financial problems. Hell, financial problems now affect 14 million unemployed Americans. What does that gain Cain?

      Like it or not, Cain is handling this really badly. Had Cain come out and said “Yes, there was a misunderstanding and part of the Politico story is true.” and then relayed the part that was true and go on and say “But I hold no animus toward these women and I hope they have gone on with successful lives. These misunderstanding happen. I’m sorry the felt the way they did.” He would have come out of this unscathed.

      Instead, he is only prolonging the inevitable, the release of the documents and the actual claims made by the two women at NRA.

        Milhouse in reply to retire05. | November 8, 2011 at 10:58 pm

        Either Herman Cain is lying or ALL five women are lying.

        How do you reach that conclusion? Three women have not yet made any allegations at all. One has alleged that he politely asked her to dinner. And one has alleged that he made a crude pass at her, which is very not nice but not really a huge deal. Cain has denied that last claim; he hasn’t denied asking the other woman to dinner, and he certainly hasn’t denied whatever the other three are talking about — how could he, when he has no way of knowing what it is? So for him to be telling the truth only one woman needs to be lying, and that one is Allred’s client which means she should be presumed on general principles to be lying anyway.

        MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to retire05. | November 8, 2011 at 11:45 pm

        >>Either Herman Cain is lying or ALL five women are lying.<<

        Not necessarily. He could have done or said something with completely innocent intentions that was misinterpreted.

        For example, a female cook in the cafeteria where I used to work would often take my lunch order by asking, "so what'll it be today, honey"? Calling me "honey" was completely innocent and I never thought anything about it. But if I had an axe to grind, could I have pretended to be offended and reported it to management? Yes. Would I have prevailed in a sexual harassment claim? Highly doubtful. But the company would have to investigate the claim before it could be dismissed. Sorta like what Cain says happened in his case.

        Turn it around and imagine a boss innocently uses a term of endearment in addressing an employee, or compliments her on her appearance, or her fragrance, or whatever. He's only trying to be nice. But it might be misinterpretted that he's trying to hit on her. She might believe she's been sexually harassed, but that was never his intention.

        I'm not saying anything like that happened in Cain's case. I'm simply pointing out that the women could believe they were subjected to sexual harassment while Cain can sincerely believe he did no such thing. And both positions can be honestly held.

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to Browndog. | November 8, 2011 at 10:42 pm

      Cain categorically denied all of Bialek’s claims at his news conference but retire05 points to a “statement” amd says “Not one sentence denies guilt” in a lame attempt to portray Cain as not disputing her accusations.

      What word would best describes this willingness to argue in bad faith against a conservative candidate because the writer thinks it will benefit his or her preferred candidate? How about “Rubinesque?”

Don’t feel bad- you’re not the only former Rubin fan. I used to look forward to “morning bits” (and it’s Commentary predecessor) every day, but as of last week I couldn’t take the daily sniping at everyone but Romney, and deleted her from my newsreader.

Neither Bialek nor Kraushaar is running for President. As far as we know, Kraushaar and the other NRA complainant had nothing to do with leaking the story.

Cain could have — should have — called on the NRA and his accusers to release the record of their complaints and their resolution and for the accusers to come forward and tell us now what their complaints were.

If as Cain continues to insist, the NRA complaints were baseless and Bialek is a liar, he should have no qualms about full disclosure of everything.

It is now a virtual certainty that all the facts will be disclosed — soon. So why isn’t Cain calling for that now instead of, Clinton style in the Paula Jones case, trying to rough up his accusers?

“If the facts support Bielak, so be it..”

agreed. and i expect the receipts you desire to be published soon. and for the sworn affidavit of her bf at the time to be scrutinized and found truthful. and for more women to come forward.

now professor, 4 women have now alleged this behavior by cain – a married man.

with two cases filed decades ago. well before cain or anyone who knew cain could have imagined he’d ever be a candidate for potus.

even if they’re “trailer trash”, these charges deserve to be taken seriously.

can’t we do better than cain?

    Milhouse in reply to reliapundit. | November 8, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    now professor, 4 women have now alleged this behavior by cain – a married man.

    No, only one has alleged this behaviour. The others haven’t alleged anything at all.

    with two cases filed decades ago. well before cain or anyone who knew cain could have imagined he’d ever be a candidate for potus.

    And therefore? They filed complaints to get money, and they got some, but not nearly as much as they could have expected had there been any substance to their allegations, whatever they might have been.

      boone in reply to Milhouse. | November 8, 2011 at 11:57 pm

      There is a difference between not alleging something that is known publicly and not alleging something at all. Clearly there are at least three allegations, because two resulted in settlements/agreements. So we know there are three. It is reported there is a fourth, but we don’t know what the allegations are with her as of yet, so I will spot you that.

      As to the fifth, I completely agree that the story in itself isn’t a huge deal. However, it is inappropriate for a married man to single out a “lovely young woman” who he doesn’t know to take to dinner. This suggests a general lack of approbrium which lends some credence to the other accusations of sexual harassment. Is it dispositive in itself? No. But as evidence lawyers point out: a brick is not a wall.

Cain’s attorney did a decent job. As I suggested in comments yesterday, someone should explain why we have statutes of limitation and why we have rules of evidence. They’re not just made up things so that people “can get away with stuff.” Cain’s lawyer did that. (I’m sure he read javau’s comments at the LI.) But Cain should have alluded to his lawyers remarks in his answer: “I can’t remember which is one of the reasons they have statutes of limitation. People forget and their memories are not clear.”

Now these “causes of actions” are being “tried” in what? The court of public opinion? Who is going to be the final arbiter? What if the hotel destroyed the receipts from 14 years ago? Why would anyone, including the accuser, hold on to 14 year old hotel receipts? Does anyone reading this have 14 year old hotel receipts, just in case you have to defend or accuse someone?

I do not like Cain and like Rubin even less yet you require Rubin to use some kind of rules of evidence even though there are no such rules in the forum in which these things are being tried. I’ve heard people analyzing Bialek’s hug of Herman Cain. Now there’s expert hug analysts, just like some people are experts on building collapses because “I saw the video on the INTERNET!” Have we all gone mad?

    “Who is going to be the final arbiter?”

    The final arbiters of the charges against Pres. Clinton were U.S. Senators. The final arbiters of the charges against Clarence Thomas were U. S. Senators. But in this case it will be the voters. The hijinks of the media have turned many people off from following their coverage of this or anything else controversial. That 61% of Americans are *angry* at the media says a lot about who even pays attention.

    None of the “regular” people I come in contact with have mentioned a thing about this. They talk sports, weather, unemployment, but not gossip about someone who’s not even in office yet. Shoot, except for the lying under oath, no one really cared about the sexual morality of Bill Clinton, FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK. Why should it be different now?

Followers of the “Throw enough mud on the wall and some of it will surely stick? STRATEGY” will – surely – appreciate the Unadulterated Humor in this from Doug Ross …

…those who don’t learn blah-blah-bah….

I like math.

5X0=Obama is a Great President.

Stay tuned….next week-


Go away, Herman. You and your campaign manager have become an embarrassment.

    boone in reply to retire05. | November 9, 2011 at 12:19 am

    Retire, you are frankly coming on a little too strong. I understand this issue has a lot of people fired up, and I don’t think you are wrong to point out that Cain’s response to the allegations has been less than stellar, heck, to me less than acceptable. I think you are fine to disagree, but you might want to work on tone a little. Just a friendly suggestion.

      spartan in reply to boone. | November 9, 2011 at 8:48 am

      Frankly, retire05 is plenty calm considering all the gratutitous cheap shots taken at Perry by folks on this forum. I have always advocated a ‘wait and see’ approach with regard to these claims and allegations. However, it seems apparent there is a lot of emotion, sturm und drang if you will, expended on the belief that Cain is the guy (the One) who can beat Obama and right all wrongs. Ah yes, the political salvation crowd.

      And if the substance of the allegations are true, do we go down with Cain? Who do we blame? If the allegations are false does that erase all the mistakes of substance and policy made by Cain?

I didn’t say anything, but I nearly gagged on your Rubin column when I read it. I think a first with your site 🙂

Glad to see you updating your world view. The “house” conservatives at big media rarely are. 🙂

I agree, Professor, it is troubling when so-called conservatives come out and make baseless and harmful accusations against Republican nominees in hopes of destroying their political futures . . . but enough about Herman Cain’s accusal of Rick Perry.

(FTR, I agree with you on Rubin as well.)

I am not in favor of dancing to the tune of our beloved media. President Obama’s popularity is at an all time low and the liberal left stands to lose it all if they can’t destroy every challenger, one-at-a-time, like a shooting game at the carnival.

There are non-facts that are trotted out endlessly and therer are real facts that the media ignores. Andy Rooney died last week of “complications following minor surgery” in New York City. Want to tell me which hospital? Try and find out- it’s just a tiny fact gone missing thanks to our unbiased media. Cain’s got the opposite problem; non-facts pop up hourly, please.

Yeah, pile on, go ahead. Our jorno-lists won’t stop till there are no candidates anywhere except Barry. It’s a lonely world for intelligent conservatives and I won’t let crazies like Alred and Rubin make my choice for me.

Hopefully Perry will be proven the honest one in these confrontations. That said, he will not be able to resurrect his campaign to a degree of gaining the nomination.

Newt may be the only one with the intellect to beat Obama and in a debate would clean his clock. Sadly Perry would not and Romney is just not a conservative. Yes I know Newt has some baggage but we’re not electing a Pope. In a series of debates Newt will be the smartest person on stage and the undecideds can and will be won over.

Newt may be our last best chance to right this course the Democrats have chosen to take this once great country.


This is my first time commenting here. I have visited for many months though.

Has anyone double checked what the woman said at the press conference?

If you do, you will find that part of her statement is that 14 years ago, Herman Cain said to her something about “stimulus package.” Well, to my knowledge, “stimulus package” didn’t come into the national lexicon, that is, common usage until just before Obama entered office.

This is a good ten years after the incident supposedly occurred. Why add that to a statement? If this is faulty, what else is faulty about her statement?

A good piece by John Nolte, which is akin to the analysis of Professor Jacobson:

Sharon Bialek: Where the Story of Cain’s 4th Accuser Should Go Next

‘Most of her jobs ended in termination. It’s always the employer’s fault, not hers.

‘This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.’

This is were Ms. Ninja (“no income, no job and no assets”) Bialek lives. Obama capo David Axelrod also lives in this building.

Jennifer Rubin, I find, is pretty terrible. She is the type of “conservative” that only the Washington Post would hire.

I get a bit tired of the repeated claims that Cain “is not handling this very well.” What would you prefer, for Cain to call in his women hounds and call them trailer trash like Bill Clinton? Have Caville refer to the women as those who you would find by dragging a dollar bill through a trailer park?

Or, how about the exemplars John Edwards or Anthony Weiner?

If you are going to complain that Cain hasn’t performed well in handling these revelations, be prepared to give examples of who actually has performed well in such circumstances.

Not a question of performing well, although it is a part of the vetting process to watch the candidate under stress, isn’t it?

To me, the wild variety of tales Cain told in the first few days of the story were efforts to minimize the story and the damage and he knew what he was saying was untrue. Now he has explicitly called them ALL liars, and further claimed he “never did an inappropriate thing in my life.”

You can believe it if you like.

I consider it a lie if he knows it isn’t true but presents it as true anyway. If you need to figure some Clintonian way around his falsehoods, that should tell you right there what you need to know.

So how about these statements from Cain, which I came up with after the first few days after the story broke (the first is from early this year though)?:

No skeletons in my closet
Had no idea what story was about, couldn’t prepare
Accusations baseless
No settlement that I know of
Only incident I recall is height of wife story
Were settlements, but insignificant
Said no settlements because I thought they were “agreements” (Bill Clinton loves this one)
Settlements were normal severance pay, two-three months salary
High tech lynching
Briefed Curt Anderson on scandals when he worked for me in 2004, he works for Perry and leaked it
Maybe didn’t brief him
Perry still did it, maybe Anderson still did it

In order to believe Squirmin’ Herman has been honest with the American people, you must believe he did not know any of those claims or statements were false when he said them. This is no courtroom and the standard is not reasonable doubt. It doesn’t pass the smell test, and in politics that is a death sentence.

DINORightMarie | November 9, 2011 at 6:39 am

I must say that I immediately question, and usually discount, anything printed or said by a WaPo or NYT “journalist.” I am thankful that you, Professor, read and blog about them, so I can save myself from the muck and mire.

I keep posting about you and Mark Levin when discussing and blogging about the Cain hit-job. You are the two consistent voices of reason calling for FACTS to back up the allegations.

Cain’s lawyer apparently gave some succinct information about such attacks and being tried and convicted by the press. But, all too predictably, those things are NOT being reported. Differences between sexual harassment vs. inappropriateness at the workplace; settlements vs. agreements; statute of limitations on such cases; etc. etc.

Worth noting.

Something Mark Levin mentioned on his radio show (I believe it was in the 2nd hour) about a well-renowned Chicago CBS/national journalist who Mark says is credible and solid, though left-leaning ideologically, was that this Bialek woman has a murky reputation and that the FACTS about her will taint her allegations. His quote was, “….there is more to this story….” That needs to be looked into, to understand the character of the accuser.

Character matters; if she is doing what she is doing for payment – whether fame, promise of later cash, a job, or some other “gain” – and she is known to do “anything” for money, then that needs to be known.

If only reporters would DO THEIR JOB and report on FACTS and KNOWN information.

“WASHINGTON (AP) — A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.”

“Kraushaar’s complaint was based on supervisors denying her request to work full time from home after a serious car accident in 2002, three former supervisors said. Two of them said Kraushaar also was denied previous requests to work from home before the car accident.”

“As newly reviewed records pointed to deeper financial problems for the Chicago-area woman accusing Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment, he wasted no time Tuesday in suggesting she is motivated by monetary gain.

Sharon Bialek’s fiance — who said he is her primary source of financial support — is unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy, according to Lake County court documents reviewed Tuesday by the Tribune. And in Cook County, lawsuits show she has been targeted by creditors who claimed she owed them thousands in unpaid rent, personal loans and credit card bills.

In a round of TV interviews, Bialek, 50, said she had no financial reasons for coming forward and had not been promised a job in exchange for accusing Cain of groping her in a parked car 14 years ago. She sought to downplay past financial problems.”,0,4756421.story

    spartan in reply to Viator. | November 9, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Let’s get this straight; what Bialek claims to have happened is not sexual harassment in the workplace. I suggest you reread what happened in the Paula Jones case. The trial judge found Clinton’s behavior, while boorish, did not rise to the standards of sexual harassment. Clinton won on summary judgement.
    Had Bialek made these claims 14 years ago, she would have gotten nothing. I think Kraushaar’s complaint will be devastating. I think what Bialek alleges, so will Kraushaar. I don’t know for sure but there is a reason you bring in Lin Wood. It isn’t to litigate the non-claim of Bialek (and suing her for libel/slander is pointless as she has no money). You don’t bring in a big gun like Wood unless you have a big problem. Perhaps, the claims made while Cain was at the NRA were not frivolous.
    Something to think about.

The ‘conservative’ columnist (calumnist?) at the WaPo is always going to be a bigger problem for conservatives, it’s the Washington Post for crying out loud. Does anyone honestly think they’d allow it to be any other way?

With their willingness to jump in and carry water for the LSM the Perry camp has effectively placed themselves among the Romneyites in my book.

Regardless of the particulars of Cain’s situation this was a prime opportunity to put the media on the defensive – to point up the egregious double standards and blatant hypocrisy of their unwillingness, if not flat refusal, to investigate charges against their anointed ones (Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Obama, particularly as compared to the inquisitions they have directed at those they deem unfavorable (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, etc.)

Every time they brought the Cain story up it should have been met with return fire directed at their own failures. Sure, that might have lightened Cain load, but it would also lighten everyone’s load.

Instead Perry’s and Romney’s people have both (and again) chosen the classic beltway RINO tack of sucking up to the LSM crocodile, hoping they get eaten last.

If this is what they are, we neither want nor need them, because they are not on our side.

    boone in reply to ThomasD. | November 9, 2011 at 10:23 am

    You do realize that Perry has said absolutely nothing about Cain ‘s allegations? Including offering a strong denial that he leaked the story and then standing down, which I gelt showed a lot of class, considering Cain was lobbying grenades inside the tent.

      ThomasD in reply to boone. | November 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      You do realize that you have entirely avoided all of the Perry supporters who have been fanning the flames over this?

      Or do you honestly think anyone is buying your Perry as disinterested Hamlet schtick?

These things happened during a time when the Sexual Harrassment era enforcement was very strong. I remember men couldn’t even comment on a woman’s fragrance – sounds silly to me but it could be construde as a “pass” and anything relating to a comment like “you’re looking good today” could be sexual. I remember it well because some women were more sensitive to that sort of attention and would report even the slightest comment. There were meetings galore about what was proper behavior during that time.

What is even more interesting, there have been no reports to come through since that time 14 years ago of any misconduct by Cain. I have been sceptical of the women who have brought charges and continue to support Herman Cain.

“On his radio program Tuesday, Mark Levin aired a clip of veteran journalist and CBS anchor Bill Kurtis on WLS saying that Herman Cain’s accuser, Sharon Bialek, is a former CBS employee with a “track record.” Given her checkered past, a chuckling Kurtis posited that Bialek‘s and Cain’s roles in the alleged car-incident could even have been reversed.”

If nothing else, this is making it quite clear that Perry is attracting a lot of the support he should be ashamed of; not exactly a shock.

theres an excellent post on national review corner by french expressing wha i have been trying to say about the legal insanity in the cain affair – no link writing from kindle makes it difficult

Referenced above..

“This is unjust . . . to Herman Cain. He faces old claims from women who obviously felt that the initial incidents (if any) didn’t merit a legal filing. In some ways, Herman Cain faces a more difficult challenge than Clarence Thomas. At least Justice Thomas had the opportunity to confront his accuser in a format where Americans were able to weigh their competing stories, saw them competently cross-examined by senators from both sides, and were able to reach a judgment, a judgment that was decisive at the time: Justice Thomas had been wrongly accused. As painful as that experience was, I wonder if it is ultimately less painful than shadow-boxing against accusers whose celebrity attorneys parade them on the morning shows, making allegations that are impossible to disprove yet equally impossible to ignore. Herman Cain is being forced to prove a negative — without access to contemporaneous evidence.”

“Yet Cain also wins greater scrutiny, not exemption, because he is black — or at least a certain sort of black. In addition to his conservatism, his voice, bearing, grammar, and diction, even his showy black cowboy hat, bother liberals in much the same way that Joe Frazier was not Muhammad Ali and Clarence Thomas was not Anita Hill. Black authenticity, as defined by Southern mannerisms and darker complexion, amplified by conservatism or traditionalism, earns liberal unease. Rarely has anyone been so candid in confessing just that unease as were Senators Harry Reid and Joe Biden in their backhanded praise of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign. I think Reid (“light-skinned,” “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”) and Biden (“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”) both were trying to say at the time that Barack Obama did not look or sound like someone analogous to Herman Cain.”

“Again, the comparison with Obama is volatile: Cain is authentically African-American and of an age to remember the Jim Crow South; Obama, the son of an elite Kenyan and a white graduate student, came of age as a Hawaiian prep-schooler, whose civil-rights credentials are academic. Cain’s lack of experience and seemingly embarrassing ignorance about the right of return or nuclear China are amplified by his unaffected style, whereas Obama’s similar gaffes (57 states) and buffoonery (inflating tires to preclude drilling for oil) are mitigated by metrosexual cool. After all, we live in an age when Herman Cain, with his black hat, his deep Southern cadences, and his ease among tea-party crowds, is suspect, whereas Barack Obama booms on about “millionaires and billionaires” while golfing, jetting to Martha’s Vineyard, and shaking down demonized corporate-jet owners at $35,000 a pop.”