Herman Cain Allegations

A story has surfaced recently that accuses GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment while he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.  Supposedly, two different women filed complaints against Cain for harassment, and both received settlements to remain mum about what happened.  A third woman has also come out, saying that he harassed her as well, and she feared losing her job if she failed to do as he asked.  There are also, though very minor, claims from an Iowa radio host stating that when Cain came in for an interview, he made comments to two female employees that made them uncomfortable.

The catch in all this?  These are all anonymous allegations.  Politico broke this story earlier this week with no proof that any of these claims are true.  You would think that, in this case, Mr. Cain could come out and disregard the rumors.  He claims they aren't true, so what else would he have to do?  If they are really false, all he needs to do is come out and say very strongly that there is no credibility to these accusations.  Instead, Mr. Cain first came out saying that there was no settlement because he "didn't do nothin' wrong!"  Since then, the Cain campaign has been all-consumed with finding out who leaked this story to the press.  Personally, I feel this is the wrong way to address this.  If there is no substance to these claims, why be so determined to find out who leaked them?  Why not continue with the campaign as usual, knowing that when you run for President, you're going to find those people who want to tear you down. 

As of yesterday, the Cain campaign adamantly believed that the Rick Perry campaign was somehow behind this story.  Apparently, a pollster named Curt Anderson worked for Cain during his Senate run in 2004 (which he lost).  Cain claimed yesterday that Anderson was the only person he told about these allegations then, to make sure he knew if they ever came out publicly.  Cain says that he told Anderson of one claim, though, not two.  In a later interview yesterday, Cain said he was "almost certain" he told Anderson about the allegations.  The catch in this one?  Curt Anderson was recently brought on to the Rick Perry campaign, giving Cain reason to believe that Anderson leaked the story.  Mr. Anderson denies that he leaked this story to Politico, and has given them full permission to publicly say if he was the source of this story.  Since Politico has not yet done that, it gives reason to believe that Anderson was not the leak. 

Really, though, why does it matter where the story came from?  If this really happened, it should not be of such concern who brought it up.  We should be glad that this came up before the primaries so if these stories are true, the voters know before they go to the polls.  At this point, these sources are still anonymous.  The lawyer for one of the women who filed harassment claims against Cain in the 1990s is speaking with the NRA, and urging them to release her from the confidentiality agreement.  This story has only been out for a week and more than fifty stories have been released in the news about it.  One thing is certain, though:  We need answers, and fast.  Enough of dripping information out to keep people interested; people are going to become disinterested if this keeps up.  We need to know the truth about whether these allegations are true.  Mr. Cain should not be running from them and instead trying to find the person who leaked the story.  If they're such outrageous claims, why not say so every chance you get, rather than focus on finding the "culprit."