Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Herman Cain Sexual Harassment is Not Like Bill Clinton



It is so easy to be accused of sexual harassment. A simple look can be use as a ground for sexual harassment. Liberals are associating Herman Cain with former Democrat President Bill Clinton, former Democrat Senator John Edwards, former Democrat Congressman David Wu, former Democrat Congress Anthony Weiner, former Democrat Governor David Paterson, former Democrat Congressman Gary Condit, and former Democrat Senator Gary Hart. Instead, Herman Cain's accusation is similar to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The media loves to denigrate powerful black conservatives with false accusation. We should not compare apples to oranges. People in power are always targets for personal gain. This is the society we live in.

(Globalaffairs) First off just because someone is accused of a something does not make the accusation true.

Sexual harassment alleged against a man 15 years ago was any action by a man that the woman claimed was sexual harassment. A woman simply had to say so I felt sexually harassed by so and so simply because "fill in the blank". The climate was such it had to be treated and investigated as a claim of sexual harassment by the company. As far as any litigation, anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason regardless of the merits whenever they want. In the case of Cain there seems to be some confusion whether or not an actual lawsuit was filed. If it was though you can bet it will be found out.

The allegation of sexual harassment is a two edged sword. One edge is is an act that no one would disagree that a particular act or action would by any reasonable and prudent standard constitute sexual harassment. The other edge of the sword is a false or ridiculous even if true but the charge nevertheless has to be treated as serious or legitimate. Crazy in such instances!

Regarding the latter category, even though there is no merit to the charge against the accused if they are a person of position and power they are figuratively extorted into making a settlement as they simply cannot allow the charge, even if false, to become public because in the public arena being accused is the same as being guilty or at the least having your reputation severely tarnished.

Look at Justice Clarence Thomas. One woman without a single piece of evidence, not one piece, just an unbelievable and totally unsupported lurid story smeared Thomas to many for life and all most derailed his confirmation to the Supreme Court. All the circumstantial evidence including an investigation by the FBI exonerated or favored Thomas. No matter, many still believe Hill’s lies.

This is likely to hurt Cain unless something new comes out clearly exonerating him. That is unlikely because you cannot un-ring a bell. It is wrong and unfair to Cain for this to be brought up based upon what has been presented so far.

Mr. Cain must not make the mistake of dragging this issue out. He needs to immediately hit it head on no matter the facts. Dragging it out even in the situation of innocence would only hurt or cause further damage to him and his campaign.