Political Animal
Blog
When a campaign is confronted with a controversy, Crisis Management 101 offers some basic guidelines: know the facts, get the truth out, and stick to the story. Herman Cain’s presidential campaign, confronted with allegations of sexual harassment, somehow managed yesterday to get all of this backwards.
Keep in mind, Politico first started asking the Republican campaign about the allegations 10 days before publishing its report yesterday. In other words, Cain and his team knew this story was coming, and had all kinds of time to prepare.
And they still managed to screw it up, offering a series of “shifting explanations,” many of which contradicted each other.
Since POLITICO published a story Sunday night revealing that the NRA had reached financial settlements with two women who accused Cain of inappropriate behavior, Cain and his spokesmen have offered a shifting and inconclusive series of responses.
The result is that a story that would have been damaging to Cain under any circumstances now threatens to derail his campaign permanently as the former trade association chief’s honesty comes into question.
The Cain campaign first attacked the story without denying its accuracy, then said the story is wrong, and then effectively conceded that the basics of the story were accurate. Cain said he’d never been accused of harassment, then said he had been accused, but the charges were false. Cain said he knew “nothing” about the financial settlement with the accusers, then changed his mind, and said he “was aware” about one of them and even offered details on Fox News.
Cain even said he’d referred the allegations to the National Restaurant Association’s human-resources department at the time, and that wasn’t true, either.
Remember, the candidate and his team had a week and a half to prepare for this campaign bombshell. The Cain campaign had all kinds of time to get the facts, understand the details, and formulate a public response. Indeed, one can imagine a perfectly competent response to the story, which could have been offered yesterday morning: “I was accused; the charges were false; here’s how I and my organization responded at the time….”
Instead, the top-tier Republican looked bad when the allegations came to light and managed to look worse when he couldn’t keep his story straight. Even the most ardent Cain backers would have to concede a campaign that contradicts itself, over and over again, despite plenty of lead time, is not where it needs to be.
For that matter, if the allegations against Cain are accurate, his career in politics should come to an abrupt end.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on November 01, 2011 8:07 AM:
I'm not so sure his political career's over just yet.
Cain has the most important attribute - he pisses off Liberals.
Conservatives have a way of rallying around their candidates if they have that key attribute.
Their response to America?
Clenis
Monica
Clenis
Monica
Rinse & repeat, just to piss the Liberals off - then dump Cain for whoever the real candidate's going to be.
Rich on November 01, 2011 8:08 AM:
It's an old story..."It's not the scandal, it's the coverup", and like his stand on abortion, he offers half a dozen versions. Are we supposed to pick the one we like?
FRP on November 01, 2011 8:10 AM:
I have heard that the way you practice is the way you play the game .
efgoldman on November 01, 2011 8:12 AM:
...if the allegations against Cain are accurate, his career in politics should come to an abrupt end.
Just like Clarence Thomas, you mean?
Oh, wait...
Danp on November 01, 2011 8:15 AM:
It's certainly fair to say that Cain botched this, but the bigger story is that the media controls the size of a scandal more than the protagonist. Vitter, Gingrich, and Ensign never came clean publicly. Tiger Woods made general admissions early, but that wasn't enough to stop the media from searching interviews with any coctail waitress they could find. I suspect Cain expected a Vitter-like reaction, but got the Spitzer, Clinton, Edwards, Weiner treatment. I seriously doubt Romney would be disadvantaged by multiple positions on an allegation like this. Heck, none of his other inconsistencies get much notice in the media.
c u n d gulag on November 01, 2011 8:15 AM:
Also, too -
If it's a Democrat, it's a cardinal sin!
If it's a Republican, they channel Mel Brooks:
"It's GOOD to be THE KING!!!!"
John B. on November 01, 2011 8:16 AM:
What FRP said. What has me shaking my head as I follow this is not the story of the accusations but how the Cain "team" has been (mis)handling its account of the story. It's no stretch to extrapolate from all this how a President Cain's White House would manage some large domestic or international crisis that they wouldn't have the luxury of ten days to prepare for, and get a serious case of the cold shivers in the process.
EDIT: One of the Capta words is "passed," which Cain certainly has not done.
berttheclock on November 01, 2011 8:17 AM:
Considering the way the far right ignores facts, talk of any Cain Mutiny may prove to be premature.
just bill on November 01, 2011 8:18 AM:
no, steve, cain's career in politics should come to an end because he's an idiot.
Neil B on November 01, 2011 8:20 AM:
On NBC NN last night, they said the charges had been investigated by the NRA (?) and no grounds found, IIRC not just a quote from Cain himself. So, what *is* the latest "real scoop" such as it is? And I guess we can wonder if the media will pay much attention to the less, uh, sexy issue of the non-profit and campaign issues?
BTW note also, Cain was head (or whatever, he doesn't like to be clear on his job title) of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City. That enrages Paulistas and should be used against him if he rises higher, setting off that branch of the Right to be suspicious. (Not that we shouldn't be suspicious of the Fed either, it deserves more scrutiny and calls to "audit the Fed" are actually one of the worthy areas of overlap with some right-wing interests.)
Neil B. on November 01, 2011 8:23 AM:
BTW efgoldman, isn't it true (?) that we still aren't sure what really happened in the Thomas-Hill case?
BigRed on November 01, 2011 8:26 AM:
Don't assume for an instant that is terrible news for Cain. He may come out of it stronger than ever. So what if Cain is not following the “rules” of damage control. The folks that support him don’t care about what the media says he should be doing.
Rich on November 01, 2011 8:31 AM:
@Neil B.: An old wingnut meme. Hill-Thomas has had more postmoretems than Frankenstein's monster. He was guilty as hell. Biden and Metzenbaum flaked out.
The new double standard seems to be that GOPers would even let their guys get away with a dead girl or a live boy, all the while yammering about "the children" or "Family values".
By rights, Cain should be out of it by noe. Grover Norquist (of all people) didn't like his econ plan. He's had more abortion positions than Mittens. And like the rest of the field, his grasp of the Constitution or foreign affairs seems nonexistent. He may have executive experience--but that was years ago. Like Newt, he's been making his bucks as a pure peddler of bullshit.
DAY on November 01, 2011 8:32 AM:
Yet another "forest/trees" story that the media does so well.
Three questions, one answer:
Is Snooky running for president?
Is Lindsay Lohan running for president?
Is Herman Cain running for president?
Extra point Bonus question: (The same answer will suffice for all three contestants)
What ARE they "running for"?
Jurgan on November 01, 2011 8:40 AM:
I think my favorite part was when he said "I had thousands of employees working for me." There's only one way I can think of for that statement to make any sense, and that's if it's followed by "... I can't remember which ones I harassed." You'd think you'd remember being sued- unless it was a very common thing for you.
rea on November 01, 2011 8:50 AM:
IOKIYAR
berttheclock on November 01, 2011 8:50 AM:
Neil B, Cain was many things in the KC area. Having come from the Godfather's Omaha region to be a director for the Fed, he, also, was on the Board of Directors for Hallmark Cards for 10 years, served on the board of Utilla, an energy firm which became Aquilla, and was considered to be an Enron clone (large settlement with former employees who had lost their retirement funds in the failed Aquilla) and worked closely with Americans for Prosperity in the KC area, including being involved with fund raising for them.
I wonder if Cain still sends Hallmark cards to the ladies in question in the harassment issue. Donald Hall of Hallmark has, definitely, given to his campaign.
Gov't Mule on November 01, 2011 9:13 AM:
Did Cain himself violate the confidentiality agreements in the lawsuits by giving "a name" to a staffer (presumably Mark Blum). The evolving explanation by Team Cain is that a staffer was made aware of the allegations and given a name. How does this not violate the original confidentiality clause?
The second reason I mention the confidentiality agreement is that this is now an extraordinary story. We have a man, nominally leading or near the lead, in the race to become the Republican Presidential nominee. Moreover, we already have delved into the Presidential sexual harassment pandora's box with Bill Clinton.
I would venture that IF either woman came forward, neither Cain nor the NRA would sue for violating the confidentiality agreements. Why? Because neither Cain nor the NRA want to keep this in the public eye and a protracted lawsuit could keep the story going for years.
Josef K on November 01, 2011 9:15 AM:
For that matter, if the allegations against Cain are accurate, his career in politics should come to an abrupt end.
What career?!?!?
And as I suggested yesterday, the Republican base has become too radicalized and rabid to care about this anymore. They want their savior, and Cain looks like he's it (for now).
Gods help us all once the Convention starts.
g on November 01, 2011 9:20 AM:
isn't it true (?) that we still aren't sure what really happened in the Thomas-Hill case?
I'm pretty clear on what happened. A woman testified under oath the exact details of what she had experienced while working for Thomas.
Thomas responded with a "how dare you listen to this woman!" defense.
I know which one I believe.
Following that, the entire body to which Anita Hill testified proceeded to smear her and cast aspersions on her character.
The tone is surprisingly the same here. The women in question here will probably not come forward, but despite that I am already seeing smears and hateful remarks appear online.
Danp on November 01, 2011 9:20 AM:
Did Cain himself violate the confidentiality agreements
As I understand it, the agreement only forbids discussing details. Also, Cain's staffer got the name from Politico. If there was a violation, I would think it was Cain describing the gesture he made about his wife's height. That would seem to allow the accuser to come out and rebut that nonsense.
Kathryn on November 01, 2011 9:31 AM:
Unclear to me of this will sink his "campaign" or not, apparently more serious, but less attention grabbing is financing of campaign by a non profit early in the "campaign". That is illegal, imagine that. FOX, Limbaugh and Coulter want to keep him around to bolster their ridiculous claims of racism. One of the MSNBC shows last might showed a clip of Coulter with the jaw dropping statement that our (GOP) black folks are better than theirs (Dem).
It's not everyday the right wing snares a black man who agrees with them about everything, he's a great cover. How any mildly intelligent independent voter would vote for any Republican after watching their debates, Mitt's shape changing, Perry's bizarre performance art in New Hampshire, Herman's verbal contradictions within one speech is beyond me. Of course, they aren't really paying attention.
Anonymous on November 01, 2011 9:34 AM:
@ Rich 8:08am, yes, it's up to us to decide what the truth is from the conservatives carte blanche of information. That's how they want it for science in schools...
This issue, with not being prepared despite 10 days heads up... Cain's not a politician, he's a business man. This issue came up, he might have said no comment or denied it, and to him, that's it, this story wouldn't be issued because there weren't two sides, or more likely, he thought it'd be tabled, maybe for later use. He has no use for "games" he expects "results" (or whatever bullshit gets the tea party boners up) so he didn't see this as an issue, he moved on, put on his hat and practiced his 8 second smiling instead of getting out in front of this. Or maybe he even though he could crush it with the sheer force of his awesome rich manly-ness.
If any of those are true, it'll make him MORE popular to the base; "THEY tried to take him down" or "Some gold digging bitches (everyone knows GOP hates women, right) tried to derail him, but he didn't pay dem no mind, he kept on chugging along, going after what the real issues are, job killing regulations, all EPA regulations should fit on a napkin, taxes are too hi---SQUIRREL! what were we talking about?"
There's always some sort of defense or apathy for the right when this kind of stuff happens.
berttheclock on November 01, 2011 9:47 AM:
I believe what Ms Coulter was attempting to say was "We have better Lawn Jockies than they".
johnny canuck on November 01, 2011 9:47 AM:
Danp on November 01, 2011 9:20 AM:
Did Cain himself violate the confidentiality agreements
Confidentiality agreements are frequently one way: in return for receiving money the recipient agrees to keep quiet. The person giving the money has no obligation to keep quiet. They keep quiet for the same reason they gave the money: they don't want the story coming out.
David Martin on November 01, 2011 10:46 AM:
Fox assures us it's liberal media slander.
royalblue_tom on November 01, 2011 11:17 AM:
The main story is that he was a senior executive but can't manage his language well enough to say:
Then he can go on the attack and state that monstrous slurs are being made about him because of his popularity, and that the everyone (that's you press people) should see that this is dirty politics at work. ;)
Daddy Love on November 01, 2011 11:32 AM:
"The Cain campaign first attacked the story without denying its accuracy..."
And usually they just stop there. Point to Cain.
Bartender on November 01, 2011 11:59 AM:
OMG! The Repub's are all in such a tizzy with scandalous attacks on their guy? Oh the shame! Seriously, can these guys spell W-H-I-T-E-W-A-T-E-R? Enjoy the show Rush.
Robert Waldmann on November 01, 2011 2:02 PM:
Maybe I've been in Italy too long, and I certainly don't know the facts of the case, but I just don't understand why the leaked claims of fact amount to sexual harassment. The most extreme thing that Cain is alleged to have done is to invite a woman to his hotel suit -- once. I have never ever invited a woman to my hotel room (I have never stayed in a suit) but that sure doesn't sound like harassment to me.
I would say it can only become harassment when one doesn't take no for an answer. I mean at first at the second invitation. There is no suggestion (in the very limited public record) that Cain suggested any advantages from work from acceptance of the invitation or any disadvantages from rejection.
I think the issue is that Cain was married at the time. This has no legal relevance and, I think, it should have no political relevance either.
As details emerge, we may learn that he is a bad husband. So what ? We already have plenty of proof that he would make a bad President and the two issues are unrelated.
Note I think that sexual harassment is vile and indicates contempt for the 64 civil rights act. But I don't think that every pass is sexual harassment.
nemisten on November 01, 2011 4:05 PM:
Please, PLEASE, everyone -- don't dogpile on ol' Herm. We need him in the race! Think it thru:
There'll be a tsunami of apoplectic fits, seizures, convulsions, and heart attacks amongst the Teabaggers who have to choose between a President Cain or Obama! I'd wager 40% of those fat, stupid, 'guvmint hands off my Medicare', Faux-watching dolts will croak.
Just smile and let it go...