http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html
The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.
The Cain campaign was contacted ten days ago and asked about the allegations. With no response, Politico went to press. Cain was then approached (or ambushed as the Cain campaign calls it) outside one of the Sunday morning talk shows and asked whether he had ever been accused of sexual harassment. After declining to answer the question a number of times Cain's response was to ask the reporter if he had ever been accused of sexual harassment.
So we have a situation where two women made accusations against Cain and then left the organization with payments on the stipulation they not discuss their departure. That sounds pretty serious to me and it sounds like the organization felt that whatever happened was enough to warrant a settlement agreement. That's a little more serious than commenting on someone's skirt or how they looked that day.
Secondly, the campaign had ten days to think of something, anything, to respond with. Instead we get no answer followed by an awkward retort to the reporter.
It's significant that a "straight shooter" like Cain never denies anything. From that we can ascertain that he was accused of innapropriate behavior and that there was a settlement for the two women that made accusations against him. Aside from the fact that that should be enough to disqaulify him, how about the fact that he did not react to a volcano that he knows is about to erupt right in front of him?
No comments:
Post a Comment