Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) says the sexual harassment accusations made against Herman Cain are unfair because of their anonymity. And he speaks from experience.
“In my election, I had an anonymous girl from college — who I still don’t know — make accusations against me,” he tells National Review Online. “I don’t think you should print stuff like that. To libel someone’s character and not put your name on it, I think is inappropriate and shouldn’t be printed.”
Paul adds that fear of sexual harassment suits damages workplace relations.
“There are people now who hesitate to tell a joke to a woman in the workplace, any kind of joke, because it could be interpreted incorrectly,” he says. “I don’t. I’m very cautious.”
UPDATE: Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) tells National Review Online that the Cain controversy may encourage Republicans to rally to the candidate’s side.
“With members of Congress and with voters generally, if this turns out to be another racially-motivated attack on an African American conservative that is unfounded, unfair, uncorroborated, and in this instance, based on anonymous sources, I think that’s going to rally people around him, in Congress and elsewhere,” Lee says.
Lee, a former Supreme Court clerk, adds that similarities between Cain’s situation and Anita Hill’s accusations towards Clarence Thomas are relevant.
“There are some parallels here, and to the extent that they played a role in this, it’s very, very offensive, and it’s going to backfire severely,” he predicts.
I'm very cautious, like Paul. Some of the women, though...not so much. Three years here and I've twice been asked "how married" I am...and I won't even go into the yearly Christmas party shenanigans. Good times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy anyone would say that the problem of sexual harassment lawsuits as oppossed to sexual harassment damages relations in the workplace is beyond me.
It is bizarre to me that so many conservatives apparently want to legalize sexual harassment in order to stop lawsuits. Why don't they ever think about stopping the harassment instead?
I am sure that SOME accusations are incorrect. But I have friends who have been victims of sexual harassment. They didn't file a lawsuit over it either. Sexual harassment does happen. For every false lawsuit that is filed, how many legitimate instances of sexual harassment are ignored in the hope that the issue will just "go away" somehow?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf there was a way to get hand wringing classified as an alternative energy source you could get MILLIONS in loan guarantees and grants from the DOE.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is bizarre to me that so many conservatives apparently want to legalize sexual harassment in order to stop lawsuits. Why don't they ever think about stopping the harassment instead?
Geez....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStopping sexual harassment in the workplace would mean firing all Democrats.
That said---I'm for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSexual harassment is vague enough that it encompasses everything from rape and sexual extortion to flirting and extended eye contact. I think pretty much everyone agrees that some sexual harassment is clearly horrible and some is pretty unobjectionable, with gray area in between.
The key question is whether we need greater use of litigators and lawsuits to police the gray area or can we rely on companies and individuals to successfully contract on these issues. If you think companies are evil and people are weak, then you want the government to come in via lawsuits. If you think people are pretty smart and companies are pretty governable, then you'll trust the private contract approach.
What confuses this issue is our cultural and moral baggage accompanying sex. If we just want to make work life more pleasant, it seems like the courts should focus more on mean bosses rather than perverted bosses. Every job I've ever had, the boss has made people upset and made at least half my co-workers cry. It's only for cultural reasons we think that unwanted flirting is a matter for the courts while being critical or mean is mostly a matter of bad management skills.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think both things are a problem. So do most people. Sexual harrassment sucks, and creates a dangerous environment. So do frivolous accusations of sexual harrassment. Sometimes, real sexual harrassment goes unpunished, and other times, non-harrassers get hurt by the laws. It sucks all around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, Paul just lost Williamson's vote.
Funny how Romney hasn't taken Politico to task on this yet....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm taking this as a "not me" on who floated the story to Politico. The Paul camp is out. Who steps up next?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was the Romney camp.
Perry would be dead if he attacked Cain in this despicable way as he would have to rely on Cain supporters to switch if he is going to make a comeback.
Paul was never a likely suspect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an excellent point.
After the furor over the painted rock, Perry simply couldn't afford to attack Cain even if he wanted to---the story would write itself and moreover Politico would much prefer THAT story.
Note also Romney's curious public friendliness toward the man consistently matching him in the polls and Romney's decision to suddenly be less available to the press.
Columbo wouldn't even need to use a "One more thing...." here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSexual Harassment and You
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook, I think this attack is weak-sauce, but "racially motivated"? Really? Isn't this the same race-card BS that we've been complaining about from the left for ages?
Senator Lee, stop and think. If politico had got its hands on a (vague, anonymous) sexual harassment story about a top-tier white Repubican Presidential candidate (or Asian, or Indian, or Ubekibekibekistanian for that matter) would they have run with it? Of course they would!
Yes, I know the Dems would reach for the race card if (and when) the shoe is on the other foot, that doesn't make it right for us to do it now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAn actual moment of sanity from a conservative. Who would have thought?
One of the things that has amused me for years is the deep-seated victim complex exhibited by many conservatives. (But far from all of them.)
I think this ridiculous comment by Senator Lee is an example of that sort of thinking.
Conspiracy-Minded Conservative:
"Yeah, the Anita Hill controversy was ALL ABOUT Clarence Thomas's race. I am sure that if he were a white male like Robert Bork, allegations of sexual harassment would not have been a problem for him at all. There could no possible explanation, such as a strong cultural dislike of sexual harassment which causes such allegations to be taken seriously, that could possibly explain it."
"And it is only because Herman Cain is black that allegations of sexual harassment would be reported by the media! The fact that he is running for the most powerful political position in the United States could have nothing to do with it. It is all because he is a black conservative! That could be the ONLY possible explanation."
One has to wonder what alternative universe people like Senator Lee inhabit anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOther than pathetic projection by liberals, conservatives don't get tied in knots by race - we leave that to the master race baiters. This is nothing more than yet another (if even needed) example of the duplicitous way the media treats conservatives and liberals. More honest liberals (not the trolls on this site) admit to the double-standard, but then say something like "well, that is because Republicans are the party of family values and being hypocritical, which makes them fair game." Look everyone knows there is a double-standard - it took the dang National Enquirer to break most of the stories about Edwards and Clinton.
Media bias isn't just about whether this is a story at all, perhaps there is one lurking, but the choice to ignore or downplay a story or run it with bold faced type on the front page. The MSM does this on virtually every issue - see abortion stories, tea party v. OWS, stories about the economy and homeless under Bush and now under a much worse economy, and on and on and on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStraight-up racial motivation doesn't quite describe what is afoot here. Mr. Cain has commented that he left the democrat plantation decades ago. This is the crux of the issue for the left and their myrmidons in the media.
In a world where the black vote reliably runs upwards of 90% for democrats regardless of who is running, conservative black politicians are a threat to the monolithic hold the democrat party has on this segment of the population. It is not specific to Mr. Cain; Alan West, Michael Steele, and most significantly, Justice Thomas have been the targets of the vituperation. Balkanization and identity politics have been the stock and trade of the left at large and the democrat party in particular for a long time. Anything that questions that model invites attack, particularly conservative politicians who happen to be members of racial minorities.
Mr. Cain and others so inclined consistently speak of the United States as a single nation that can be reunited on the basis of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. That model is diametrically opposed to the divide and conquer tactics of the left and the democrat party.
Mr. Cain is a threat and will receive more of this kind of attention so long as he remains a threat.
The larger story: ignoring the fact that this nation is engaged in a culture war with a deeper divide than at any time since 1860 is reckless. The stakes could not be higher.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother reason why I like Rand. My libertarian friends will have a much stronger candidate for President in him one day than they have in Daddy Paul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSenator Lee is 100% correct.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe witnesses against Cain are not anonymous. He knows who they are. He admits that he knows quite about about them now that his faulty memory has miraculously been restored. Cain should waive the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement and allow them the same freedom to speak that he has.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse