Over the last twelve hours, the Cain controversy took a lurch toward complete farce with the Cain campaign accusing, with no evidence, the Perry campaign and specifically Curt Anderson, with leaking the story. As a theory, this at least makes sense: Perry needs Cain to deflate, and one interpretation of Perry’s strange New Hampshire speech is that it was an over-the-top attempt to demonstrate the liveliness and personality that has helped Cain steal most of Perry’s support. But the Cain campaign seems only to be making a wild guess about Anderson. Incredibly enough, Cain himself made the accusation and then Mark Block went on Special Report to reinforce the charge with a — let’s just say — memorable performance. Among other problems with this tack, it’s extraordinarily foolish for the Cain campaign to make this about anything other than an unfair attack on it by the media. Now, it’s a little less a story about a biased media and a little more a story about intra-conservative backbiting. Cain has been the sympathetic victim so far, but now he’s the one who’s lodged an unfair charge. While there aren’t great reservoirs of support out there for Rick Perry at the moment, Republicans have shown they don’t react well to evidence-free, outlandish attacks by one candidate on another (see how Bachmann hurt herself by going too far on the vaccine issue). The Cain campaign would be well-served to get their candidate out of Washington and instead put him in front of real voters who are much less likely to obsess about this story than Washington-based journalists.
Meanwhile, more people are willing to say Cain did or said atrocious things around women, without doing us — or more importantly, him — the favor of spelling out what these alleged atrocities were.
This whole episode is just strange...
If you tried to sell this script it would not be bought -- even in Hollywood by people who hate Conservatives -- it would be considered too unbelievable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is exciting. We're just one Ross Perot's daughter's sabotaged wedding away from a new campaign season record.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWanna feel old?
I bet no one under the age of (roughly) 35 has any idea what you're talking about.
Time flies, doesn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmmm, that's interesting, Rich, but what if the Perry campaign really did give Politico the story? I'm not a Cain fan but that is what I instantly suspected when I read the Politico story. Is Cain supposed to ignore it because some might be irritated by his making charges against Perry?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis was a farce from the very beginning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWheeeeeeeeeeee!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCheer up, Rich, it probably all helps your man, Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHate to say it, but accusing Perry's campaign without proof is a bad move, and so far I'm one that has been defending Cain. It looks hypocritical -- complaining of false accusations with no proof and then making accusations of others that can't be backed up with proof.
Drudge is now linking to a report that Rahm Emmanuel(!!) may have been involved in launching the story -- now that sounds more like it (this is such a sleazy attack, where else could it come from but CHICAGO?) Though with all the "anonymous sources" and blog junk being passed off as journalism these days, I'd assume "most" of what's being reported right now is going to turn out to be false.
I still like Cain on the whole -- there is a big difference between being disappointed by intra-party mudslinging vs. actual sexual harassing behavior (for which there is still no proof).
Cain needs to get away from TV reporters and back on message: jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs. That's what 2012 will really be about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMakes no sense. The Dems would launch this only if Cain actually got the nomination, surely. Why bother with it now?
Perry had much more motivation, and the immigration attack on Romney certainly shows he's no stranger to cynical mud-slinging. I mean, it's not like Perry can articulate anything positive. Or simply articulate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRook, it's kind of sad that you keep attacking Perry for being inarticulate when the guy you're in the bag for can't say anything without later issuing a retraction. It doesn't take Perry three interviews before he finally sticks to a position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause they don't want him to get the nomination. They'd rather face Romney who they can use the race card and class warfare against.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRook, don't give up your day job to become a political strategist. You don't begin to fathom the depths of scheming deceit involved in candidate smears.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a pretty much a Cainiac and I agree with you, Rich.
The Cain campaign had only circumstantial evidence of Perry campaign treachery. Not nearly what they needed to make their charges seem reasonable.
Also, Mark Block just didn't look confident and composed during his appearance. It would have been much better to skip the whole thing.
As you say, the media are guilty enough for that to have been the narrative of Cain's response for now.
Rookie mistakes once again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find the Perry claim rather plausible, actually, and it makes him look like just another cheap, empty suit pol., who has nothing to offer but a bag of tricks.
But how on earth did Cain and his people (he does have more people than cigarette man, right) think this was not going to come up eventually? I guess it's like Dubya and the allegedly brilliant Karl Rove thinking the drunk driving arrest was going to stay buried.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlausable? Maybe.
The problem is, attacking without proof. This makes him look as bad as the original Politico story where 'women came forward' and said he did a something.
If you're going to attack someone, especially if you're accusing them of 'unfounded allegations' then you don't do so w/o proof.
It's another unforced error by Herman Cain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't Politico cares if this story is true or not....the point is to make Republicans look bad and get us not not talking about Obama. Jonathan Martin and the other hacks at the Politico will run any story, most of them based on single anonymous source, about a Republican.
This is why I dont understand why National Review basically treats Politico like it's out there to get to the truth of the matter on politics. Politico is a vanilla version of the Daily Kos. They are supposed to be the political ESPN but they don't have one fricking conservative on their staff?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMatt, every element of the Politico story that was reported as fact was eventually confirmed by Herman Cain himself.
Someone came to Politico with a story about Herman Cain, the leading Republican presidential candidate being accused of at least two instances of sexual harassment, with at least one of those cases ending in a cash settlement.
They went to Cain 10-DAYS before they went to print, to give Cain the opportunity to provide some insight and balance in the peace. Cain said nothing. When they finally sent a reporter to question him in person, Cain responded - "Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?"
So, Politico finally went to print, and everything that they report is fact turns out to be factual.
Criticizing Politico in this instance is idiotic. Herman Cain only has Herman Cain to blame about the damage this story has done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't care about the accusations made against Herman Cain for the same reason that I couldn't give a rat's furry butt about Cain's 9-9-9 plan: the man understands foreign policy and today's geopolitical scene about as well as Rosie O'Doughnuts (and the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a liberal media/Politico hit job on Cain. It doesn't have anything to do with the other Repbulican candidates, and they want supporters of different Republican candidates fighting with each other.
Again, Politico does not care if the charges are true or not. They just want there to be doubt out there. Otherwise you don't run the story, because the women have not gone on record yet, and they did sign a confidentiality agreement not to talk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a liberal media/Politico hit job on Cain. It doesn't have anything to do with the other Repbulican candidates, and they want supporters of different Republican candidates fighting with each other.
Again, Politico does not care if the charges are true or not. They just want there to be doubt out there. Otherwise you don't run the story, because the women have not gone on record yet, and they did sign a confidentiality agreement not to talk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse