I'm beginning to be concerned about the way Herman Cain is being treated during the controversy about his alleged sexual harassment. I'm concerned as a black (I learned that from Herman Cain). I'm concerned for the same reason that many--if not most--women think he is getting his due. I'll admit, there are some things about which I'm not able to be objective--though in those circumstances I realize that I could be the one that is wrong.
I am not aware of every statement that Herman Cain has made related to accusations against him by potentially as many as three women who either worked under him or in his presence as he served in some kind of leadership position. My reaction has not been to whether he is guilty or not guilty as accused. My reaction is to the media having rendered him "guilty until found innocent" in Cain's words.
There are people of various persuasions who are pulling for the women to be telling the truth and others pulling for Cain to be telling the truth. One or the other is not telling the truth, or both are telling the truth. From what I have heard, there does not seem to be enough information surfacing to know what the truth is.
This is what I know. For some reason two women surfaced to announce that they had been sexual harassed by Herman Cain. I have heard no reason why these women chose to release that information or otherwise make that assertion.
Did they not like Herman Cain because he is a black American? Was it because he is a black American conservative? Was it because it because they do not believe a man who has done such things should ever become President of the United States? Or was there some other reason? Regardless of what it was, there was something that motivated their decisions.
The women want Cain to grant them the privilege to speak out about the alleged sexual harassment. But why would he do that? If they are telling the truth, he won't want them to tell it. And if they are not telling the truth, why would he want them to lend support to the suggestions that are being promulgated by the media?
The media is saying that Cain is changing his story. Well, based on what I have heard, he has. But the story seemed to change when he was attempting to explain different aspects of the history surrounding the accusations.
The latest information to surface suggest that during a previous senatorial campaign eight years ago he told his campaign manager that there had been a sexual harassment complaint made against him that might surface as an issue in the campaign. He did not say he had been guilty of sexual harassment. The media is treating that information as a confession of guilt.
This manager ends up in Rick Perry's struggling campaign. Was he added to the Perry team because he said he had some useful information? Did Perry know about that information before it was released? Probably not. He would have been provided a shield of deniability.
Cain said that he may have said or did something that someone might have interpreted as sexual harassment, which is possible. We don't know the details of how the case was resolved. Was Cain found to be guilty or were the findings inconclusive for some reason? And if the evidence was conclusive, why did the women settle for merely a reportedly $35, 000.00?
A second witness has surfaced who says that he saw the sexual harassment happen, and a third woman who said she was sexually harassed by Cain and started to file a complaint but decides against it.
I don't know why Herman Cain is receiving persistent attention to his possible involvement with these women, while the media stopped questioning Senator John McCain during his run for the presidency when he said he would answer no more questions about an alleged extra-marital affair. These two acts are certainly different situations but not different enough in the moral severity to deserve such unequal levels of coverage.
What is it that Cain is supposed did? Was it something he said, something he did or something he wanted to do?
Was Cain a Republican at the time of the alleged incidents? Were the women Democrats? And if they were, was the incident made more objectionable because Cain was a Republican?
Or was it an arrogance within Cain that made him feel empowered, because of his position, to seek liberties with these women that resulted in confrontations exaggerated because of ideological conflicts between the parties.
I still have not idea what the truth is. But neither do the media, though they talk as if Cain is the only player not telling the truth. Has anybody volunteered to take a lie-detector test?
No comments:
Post a Comment