Monday, November 7, 2011

Tit Vs Tat

If the the latest accusations against Herman Cain do not disqualify him from The Presidency in the eyes of Republicans, then why did similar accusations disqualify Bill Clinton?

If all of the sexual impropriety charged against Bill Clinton (Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, and several others) did not disqualify him for The Presidency in the eyes of Democrats, then what's the big deal with Herman Cain?

I'm particularly interested in hearing the stammering from both sides as they justify themselves.

17 comments:

Foxfier said...

From memory-- though I was rather young at the time-- it wasn't the accusations of being a scuzz that should've disqualified Clinton, it was the the supported facts of it.

Cain's is different because those who made accusations at the time won't come forward, the person who's come forward didn't make the accusation at the time, and there's no evidence to back up the accusations. (let alone the innuendo)

Here's a from-that-time summation of one of the Clinton cases:
There is believable evidence that Jones was summoned to the then Governor Clinton's hotel room, that she met alone with him and that when she emerged she quickly told several people that she had been humiliated by Clinton's sexual overtures-and recounted virtually all the details she would later spell out in her legal complaint.

Brian said...

As I've already written (elsewhere) this is pretty far down on my list of reasons that Mr. Cain should not be president.

That said, it's worth pointing out that if the accusations against Mr. Cain are spurious, then they were almost certainly dreamed up and put out there by...Republicans. So there is some consistency, there.

But going to your question...people overlook the character flaws of others all the time. Or at least make a decision of what they can and cannot tolerate, for the sake of whatever they think is worthwhile about that person. Not just politicians, either: friends, spouses, kids, employees.

So if someone honestly thinks that Herman Cain would be a really great president, maybe they're willing to overlook the possibility that he's a bit of scumbag. People certainly have done that with Clinton.

But I think it's silly for them to pretend that they are doing anything other than that.

Bike Bubba said...

Well, since Gloria Allred has been looking for a client on this line for about a week, I'm thinking Brian's incorrect about it being Republicans doing this. We know the Democrats have hangers-on who will work like anything to get this out about the GOP--e.g. Larry Flynt--but if we're going to accuse Mitt or Rick of this, well, Deming's Law comes to mind--"In God we Trust, all others must bring data."

Bike Bubba said...

And regarding the allegations, we do have one named accuser--we'll see if her story pans out any better than Anita Hill's. (Hill's chief character witness perjured herself on the stand--not quite like Clinton first denying, than admitting dalliances with Flowers and Lewinsky)

my name is Amanda said...

It stands to be clarified that the original "accusations" are currently not accusations at all, but settled incidents involving women who are now anonymous because that was the agreement in their settlements. (Um, which is why they won't come forward.)

For the most part, I don't care about whether some politician has committed adultery; it doesn't speak to their suitability or unsuitability for any kind of job, including the job of being a president.

Sexual harassment - and definitely sexual assault - is a different matter. (And the woman who is saying that Cain grabbed her crotch and tried to position her head is describing assault. Ahem.) Aside from whether someone like this can actually do the job, as a woman, I don't perceive that person as being someone who will fight for my rights or success as a citizen, because their behavior speaks to lacking regard for women as human beings.

Clarence Thomas' record as a judge speaks to THAT.

Speaking of, Bike Bubba, will you please provide a credible link to the statement about Anita Hill?

The sexual misconduct of President Clinton is similarly inexcusable - the harassment stuff, I mean - but I was too young back then to consider it, and I wasn't even a Feminist by the time he had served his two full terms. As a college student, all the hoopla pissed me off because - as now - I didn't give a damn about whether he had an affair. And I hadn't yet studied about how inequality in position and gender can give someone the power to compel sexual favors, or just harass women in general. In retrospect however, despite his misconduct, he actually has a decent record on women's rights. But as a voter, I wouldn't have known that in 1992.

Oh, I consider Herman Cain to be a total joke/unsuitable even without the harassment stuff.

Foxfier said...

MNIA-
They were released from the settlements by the NatRestAus; the "big news" before this latest didn't-say-anything-before gal was that an accuser had..send a lawyer forward to say "is so!" anonymously.

What the woman who claims Cain assaulted her is describing is assault, and it's odd that she waited fifteen years before saying crud about it, in contrast to Paula Jones.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Justice Thomas' record, seeing as how our definition of person differs radically-- mine includes all humans, yours does not.

Ben Dover said...

I consider Herman Cain to be a total joke/unsuitable even without the harassment stuff.

But you supported Community Organizer Obama?

No offense, Amanda, but you're a fraud (in addition to being extremely vacuous).

Brian said...

No offense, Amanda, but you're a fraud (in addition to being extremely vacuous).

"I don't mean to be a dick, but, [SOMETHING ONLY A COMPLETE DICK WOULD SAY]".

(Just to be clear, Ben Dover, I'm calling you a dick.)

No offense.

Foxfier said...

quote
Update: I think that bears pointing out considering that in the course of one week Politico ran 91 stories about “sexual harassment” charges against Herman Cain, and now acts as if reporting allegations of “sexual harassment” is the same thing as reporting the facts which would give rise to the legal conclusion that Cain’s conduct constituted “sexual harassment.”

Gino said...

i dont mind if a person's argument is deemed fraudulant/fake/stupid/etc..., but i prefer that insults not be directed personally at the poster her/himself.

"fraud" is a strong term. be careful where you throw it, and dont throw it lightly.

Amanda conducts herself well in forums, here and elsewhere. it takes a large set of ovaries to come here and engage discussion when most of my audience
tends to lean right. i respect that.
a fraud she is not.

my name is Amanda said...

FF - We'll have to agree to disagree on Justice Thomas' record, seeing as how our definition of person differs radically-- mine includes all humans, yours does not.

Hahaha! Yeah, my definition of "all humans" includes "women," while your's does not. (Oh snap!)

We should have a beer some time. Most women I know don't enjoy arguing.

I don't have the energy to investigate the validity of the story you linked. But I read it, and I imagine if it's true that the women can, but don't want to come forward, then it's probably because they care more about their peace than taking down Cain. That they're not interested in having their names smeared in the national media. For them, the issue has perhaps been settled for years.

What bothers me is that their silence would be construed as admittance of falsehood. As far as I've read, they didn't have anything to do with leaking the story to begin with, so why should they have to defend themselves as liars?

Re: your comment with the quote about stories/allegations = facts. I agree that it's egregious, but I think both political sides of the media are guilty of doing that. Which doesn't make it okay, but perhaps speaks to the hypocrisy to which Gino originally refers in his post.

Brian and Gino - Thanks! *smile*

my name is Amanda said...

I acknowledge the apostrophe error in the previous comment, and seek to clear my good name: totally a typo!

Foxfier said...

Hahaha! Yeah, my definition of "all humans" includes "women," while your's does not. (Oh snap!)

Yes, I victimize my entire sex by not giving us the special power of giving or taking away another human's personhood at will-- I'll gladly cop to that charge.

We should have a beer some time. Most women I know don't enjoy arguing.

I think it would be enjoyable, although as I'm a mistress of treppenwitz, I think you'd come out ahead. At least I can be pretty sure we'd avoid the usual social manipulation instead of argument annoyance....

What bothers me is that their silence would be construed as admittance of falsehood.

By some folks, yes, but you can say that about anything; part of the question is what one means by false.
Do I think that the settlement women felt offended? Possibly, I had no reason to disbelieve their sincerity before the one gal's anonymous affirmation. (Obviously, that doubt applies only to her.) Do I think that Cain was groping, harassing and generally sliming his way around? No, if he were a notorious offender there'd be something more than some small settlements way back when-- if nothing else, there'd be police records of assaults on him! Some fifty year old guy grabs me in a manner not approved, I'm responding, ex-boss or no.

About the only bright point is that I remember the late 90s just fine, so I can call BS on claims that such things were "just not done." (A popular claim when someone asks why a person waited over a decade to say anything.) Heck, a few years after this, I was dealing with a psycho false accuser and got to see how much that power can corrupt folks.

We don't know who offered the story, since it's all anonymous. I'm still betting on the Perry campaign with a chance at one of Obama's guys... but this is all a personal call. It could have been one of the women. Heck, the ladies could be dead. I don't even know if we can assume they were all women.

Argh, I gotta go... hope this isn't too rambling.

Mr. D said...

In Clinton's case, Monica Lewinsky wasn't the issue. Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick were the issues.

As for Cain, I'm with Brian and Amanda (see, Amanda -- it's possible!). He's not qualified to be president under any circumstances, but the harassment stuff certainly doesn't help his cause. And I too suspect that the initial efforts to get Cain were from other Republicans, although I can't prove it (and have on interest in pursuing the matter).

Brian said...

The Starr report did a huge disservice to the women that were actually (likely) victimized by Clinton by devoting so many pages to the lurid details of an inappropriate--but by all accounts completely consensual--relationship with Monica Lewinski. It effectively conflated two completely different things in the public mind, one of which is a moral failing and the other a criminal act.

Bike Bubba said...

Amanda, I made a mistake; it appears to have been perjury not on the part of her chief character witness, but on Ms. Hill's part. Arlen Specter called her out on it.

Kinda like another serial sexual harasser who lived at 1600 Pennsylvania from 1993 to 2000....involving some pretty clear perjury. Yes, L'Affaire Lewinsky would not have been a big deal....if it wasn't relevant evidence for President Bubba's (no relation) being sued for his harassment.

Regarding Cain, what does it say when people who promised silence speak up under cover of anonymity? It means, of course, that their testimony cannot be trusted, end of story. Cain doesn't look good here, but he doesn't look half as bad as his accusers.

kr said...

Cain doesn't look good here, but he doesn't look half as bad as his accusers.

Ignoring of course that people promising silence about abuse/harassment--if such abuse/harassment actually occurred--is just wrong at nearly every level, and a "justice" system that makes that happen has some pretty serious flaws.

*If* the criminal acts occurred, the system has just let Bike Bubba, with clean logic, turn the victims into the at-fault parties ... such is the result of a still functionally shame-based, ass-backwards "justice" system for sexual crimes. Shaming the victims is what has *always* been wrong with sexual aggression in Western, and likely nearly all, societies.

Cain would be a trainwreck for America. I also suspect the charges may be a manufactured attempt to bring his candidacy down, and may be from Republicans, Democrats, random rich white closet-supremacists ... could be a lot of people, he's very inconvenient to many power-players. But vilifying either Cain or the accuser(s) is completely inappropriate and only demonstrates prejudice when we have *no* reasonable evidence either way.