Last night after his so-called Lincoln-Douglas debate with Newt Gingrich (unlike the “rail splitter” and the “little giant”) during which they disagreed about very little, reporters asked Herman Cain about the public statement of one of the women who alleged that he harassed them while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association. His response was to say, “Don’t go there.” Later he stopped and told them to read “the other accounts” and that he was “back on message.” After that, his campaign manager Mark Block, who earlier in the week made scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations about the Perry campaign being responsible for the story coming out, scolded journalists about whether they knew the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
Block’s attempt to brand the entire inquiry as unethical is geared toward appealing to the sentiments of conservatives who view the media as a hostile liberal entity that cannot be trusted on any issue. But those who bother to read the Code, would easily see there was nothing unethical about the original Politico story that broke the news. Nor is there anything unethical about asking Cain to respond to the public statement released by one of the women who charged him harassment alleging that his version of events was false. But you don’t have to be a critic of Cain to know that there is something fishy about a campaign that refuses to address these questions and chooses instead to attack the press.
Indeed, as subsequent developments proved, Politico’s contention that Cain was the subject of formal complaints of sexual harassment turned out to be true, as even the candidate was forced to admit. Other stories have also surfaced alleging misbehavior on his part. We don’t know who is telling the truth here, and it is possible Cain is completely innocent. But the paranoid manner in which Cain and his minion Block have behaved in the past week doesn’t enhance their credibility. To imagine a Cain White House dealing with the press in this manner is to envision a Republican version of the thin-skinned arrogance that has characterized Barack Obama’s presidency.
Conservatives are understandably inclined to believe the worst of the press. But with the release of the statement from one of his accusers, this is now more than “gossip.” The issue here is real, and to ask voters to pretend these allegations don’t exist or to blame reporters for writing about them is tantamount to demanding they demonstrate a bias for Cain that they would not want them to apply to liberal politicians. Many of the same grass roots conservatives were cheering on those reporters who pursued the story of Bill Clinton’s harassment of women. For them to say the same standard doesn’t apply to a former Washington lobbyist like Cain is pure hypocrisy.
Much has been made over the fact that Cain’s poll numbers have not declined over the course of the last week due to the scandal. Like his unflappable personality, his support has remained steady despite his appalling gaffes and inability to defend his 9-9-9-tax plan. Those who have decided to back him appear to be loyal and will stick with him through thick and thin.
But the odds of his poll numbers rising beyond their current level in the low 20s are slim and none. Few who hadn’t already committed to Cain are likely to do so in the wake of this scandal and the bizarre, even Nixonian or Obamaesque manner in which his campaign has responded to it. Cain’s support may hold steady for a while, but his already slim chances of winning the nomination have been lowered considerably by these revelations and Cain’s response.
