RUSH: Okay, moving on now to the Herman Cain saga, last night I got a note from a friend. “Rush: The Politico website’s gone nuts. They’ve just unleashed attack after attack after attack.” So I went to The Politico website, I looked at The Politico website, and I started laughing because my friend was right. I just had a different interpretation. I looked at ’em as going over the edge. There must have been five or six different links to Herman Cain stories about “the women,” about lawyers for “the women,” about how Cain has blown up the security or the confidentiality agreement, about how the women want to come forward. They can’t wait to come forward, but there’s in confidentiality agreement. They’re doing everything, and I couldn’t stop laughing looking at The Politico website.
Then I found this. This is from a website called Northern Virginia Lawyer: “Based on a suggestion from a local blogger to look into political donors on the Board of Directors of the National Restaurant Association for potential ties to presidential campaigns, I have attempted to identify anyone privy to inside information about the National Restaurant Association who also has recent ties to any presidential campaign.” I’m reading from the website. Everybody’s trying to figure out who leaked this to the Politico. Was it Obama, was it another Republican? Who’s responsible for this. So that’s why somebody here’s trying to find out if there’s a connection from the National Restaurant Association to a current Republican presidential campaign — and they found something.
(shuffling papers) They found something, ladies and gentlemen. “According to the October 2011 FEC report for ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC. a gentlemen named Steven C. Anderson gave $1,000.00 on July 14, 2011. Steven C. Anderson is the same gentlemen who took over the helm as Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association (after a brief intermission) upon Herman Cain’s departure in 1999.” I’m reading now from Northern Virginia Lawyer, the website. “As CEO it is highly likely he would have been privy to details of litigation and threats about litigation from the immediately previous tenure of Herman Cain. There is little more than a coincidence between the support for Mitt Romney and the likelihood that Mr. Anderson knows the background of the sexual harassment threats.
“Nonetheless, watchers of this scandal endlessly pontificate about whether President Obama or a rival campaign is the driving force behind the bombshell story that appeared in the Politico on Sunday. Reporters should follow-up with Mr. Anderson to discern his knowledge. At the least he likely knows the short list of people with inside knowledge about the sexual harassment allegations,” and then there was an update posted at 11:15 last night: “Apparently as this post has taken on a life of its own I need to clarify a few things. This truly is the exact same Steven C. Anderson at the same address that gave donations while at the National Restaurant Association in the early 2000Â’s.” So they have found — this is all it is — a former executive of the National Restaurant Association who has given money to Romney.
That’s all. No more, no less. But everybody’s trying to figure out where Politico got this. Nobody’s talking, but everybody is trying to figure out who leaked it. So this connection has been unearthed, and it’s just another layer on top of all this. Now that has started speculation obviously as these things do, and I forget where I saw this — it was this morning as I was eagerly prepping. This guy Anderson, by the way, has also given money to Herman Cain, according to FEC records, but he’s not given money to any other candidates, just Romney and Cain. Now the speculation is really starting. Again, as I say, I forget what I was reading this morning, but somebody was analyzing Romney (summarizing), “Who wants to be president so bad, he’ll do anything.
“He wants to be president so bad just like his dad wanted to be president, and he will do anything.” Of course, that doesn’t prove anything. None of this proves anything. This story exists almost in a vacuum. There are more questions than there are answers. Every time something is learned or somebody says something, more questions pop up instead of answers. Meanwhile, Herman Cain’s raking in the campaign contributions.
Herman Cain on television appears unflappable about any of this. He’s answering questions from anybody who asks him. Sometimes he contradicts himself; sometimes he doesn’t. But he’s always got that patented Herman Cain smile on his face as he answers all these things.
And he just continues to rake in the big bucks. Then there’s this from the Washington Post: “A woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment in the 1990s is ready for her story to come out, says her attorney, even as the Republican presidential hopeful spent a second day trying to quell this controversy and explain his conflicting recollections of the matter.” Now, you read a few paragraphs down in this piece and you see that this same woman is consulting with her family about whether she should go public or not. She’s consulting with her family about whether to go public, yet her lawyer is out there saying she’s chomping at the bit to go public. She can’t wait to go public, but the story says: Ehhh, not necessarily. She’s discussing it with her family whether she should or not.
RUSH: Yeah, Herman Cain has violated this woman’s privacy. That’s the lawyer’s point. He’s violated it by talking about this, which was supposedly not to be discussed because of confidentiality agreement — and now, this lawyer says his client can’t wait — just can’t wait to go public. But she’s not going public yet. She really can’t wait! The Washington Post says she’s discussing going public with her family. She can’t wait to go public.
RUSH: I don’t know. It’s just all appearing funny to me. I know it’s serious stuff, but now it’s starting to get laughable. This lawyer for the woman — I got it right here in the Washington Post: “Herman Cain’s accuser wants to tell her side of the story, lawyer said.” But would you believe, however, the accuser’s lawyer is out saying in public that he wants the National Restaurant Association to release his client from their confidentiality agreement so badly. His client wants to talk, damn it! (sobbing) She wants to talk, and there’s a confidentiality agreement. Damn it, she wants to talk! … He hasn’t even contacted them yet.
This lawyer, Joel Bennett, is out there making it look like this woman’s got a bombshell. That’s what this means. He is laying the groundwork. He wants everybody to think this woman’s got the goods; this woman’s got more than a pubic hair on a Coke can. This woman can nail Cain, but she’s being forbidden because of the confidentiality agreement — and damn it, we want to be released! … Except, according to the story, the lawyer hasn’t contacted the National Restaurant Association yet to ask them if they will release his client. He’s doing it all in the media. He’s trying to add all this pressure. We’re told that this woman? She’s ready! (panting) This woman is loaded for bear!
She is ready come out and she gonna take Cain out! She gonna come out and she’s got the goods, boy! She is gonna destroy this guy! She gonna take him out; she can’t wait! … Yet a few paragraphs later in the story we are told she’s wary of her name becoming public, and that she is discussing with her family whether to make her story public. The Post article says that her lawyer is “calling on the Association to wave the confidentiality agreement,” and then a few paragraphs later we learn he hasn’t yet contacted them. I’m sorry, all I can do is laugh at this, at the picture that they are trying to create here. When has a confidentiality agreement ever stopped anybody that really wants to talk and really thinks there’s added money at the end of the trail here?
I would think if Cain’s accusers really wanted to speak up they would have found a way by now, especially if they think — and (chuckles) I hate to say this but my family are all lawyers. But obviously they think that there’s a payoff at the end of the trail here. That is why this lawyer’s involved. Meanwhile, the news media is bashing Cain for not giving more details. (laughing) So the lawyer says, “Oh, yeah, my client, she’s got the goods! My client can take Herman Cain down!” He’s not saying that. This is what everybody’s being led to believe by the way the lawyer is handling this. “This woman, she’s got it all — and it’s juicy. Oh! It’s more than just a hand up on the chin. It’s something really, really bad out there. She can’t wait to talk about it!”
Except she doesn’t want her name published. She’s so eager to talk about it her lawyer hasn’t even called the NRA and asked ’em for permission yet to break the confidentiality agreement. Meanwhile, the media are bashing Herman Cain (laughing) for not giving more details, at the same time attacking him for violating the confidentiality agreement. So he’s not saying enough while he’s saying too much; and now CNN, for what it’s worth, is accusing Herman Cain of “getting testy with reporters” this morning as he tried to make his way around Capitol Hill. He had to push his way through a phalanx of reporters who were pestering him about the sex harassment charges; and I don’t know about you, if you look at the video clip, it looks like he was being very polite to me.
I didn’t see Herman Cain getting testy, but I guess “testy” is in the eyes of the beholder. From this Washington Post article: “In a statement the Restaurant Association said that it had not been approached by Bennett but that it would respond as appropriate. Asked whether he had violated the nondisclosure agreement by divulging details about the matter, Herman Cain responded in a Fox interview that he had not because he didn’t reveal the complainant’s name.” Okay, so there’s that. “Lawyer: Contain Accuser Wants to Tell Her Side of the Story.” Then the New York Times weighs in. “Cain Accuser Got a Year’s Salary in Severance Pay.
“The National Restaurant Association gave $35,000, a year’s salary, in severance pay to a female staffer in the late nineties after an encounter with Herman Cain, its chief executive at the time, made her uncomfortable working there, three people with direct knowledge of the payment said on Tuesday. Now, note the New York Times calls this “severance pay.” Severance pay is not a settlement for sexual harassment claims, and since the Times says it, that’s now the official truth — that it was severance pay — and that’s what Herman Cain has said all along. The New York Times calls it “severance pay.” I have it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, not a settlement for sexual harassment claims — and that bears out Herman Cain’s statements.
He said he was only aware of one claim which the Times article calls the second claim. The first settlement for 35 grand was a severance settlement with a sex charge thrown in to sweeten the pot which is what Herman Cain said this was. Yet the article tries to make it sound like they’ve got Herman Cain in a lie. But the size of her severance does not refute Cain’s initial description of the matter at all. He said the woman had been given some kind of severance pay; he didn’t know how much. The New York Times cites this woman’s anonymous “friends and colleagues,” quote, unquote, who say that she told ’em at the time “she was deeply uncomfortable about the situation.” Now, I have been fired seven times, and each of those times (just my own personal experience here), I have been uncomfortable about the situation.
And I have, in talking to friends and family, expressed my anger, my discomfort, and my grievances and how I was wronged. There’s nothing unique here. Everybody who gets fired… (interruption) Well, no, there weren’t any physical gestures when I got fired. You mean when I got fired? No, no, no. (sigh) I don’t remember any physical gestures. No, no, no, no. But… (sigh) You got me thinking about one instance where I did get fired ’cause I told a psychopath that the jig was up and everybody knew the truth about the guy; that’s why I had to go there. I just couldn’t take the lies anymore; I just couldn’t take the lies, and I confronted the guy on the lies, and I got home 30 minutes later and the owner of the radio station called me and said, “You know, we gotta get rid of you. You’re unstable. You’re causing mucho problems.”
So I figured the guy had covered his bases with a phone call to the owner after I had blown the whistle. Anyway so that happens, and I called my dad and said, “I just got fired again,” and it was always my fault, by the way, with my dad. The boss was always right when we were growing up. The boss was always right, the teacher was always right, the principal was always right. Authority was always right. That’s what you learned. (interruption) Well, that’s what you learned when you grew up the Great Depression. That’s what you learned when you went through World War II and you flew P-51s. You took orders! When you had an authoritative father, authority was right. It was the last word on anything. So, anyway, my point is: There’s nothing unique here.
A women gets fired, she tells people she’s uncomfortable about it, big deal. Everybody that gets canned or leaves in undesirable circumstances doesn’t run around and talk about how happy they are. Everybody hates the boss. Everybody’s got bad things to say about the boss. The times goes on to admit that the situation with the second woman “appeared to be more in keeping with a standard settlement related to harassment allegations.” So once again the Times is admitting that the first settlement, the one that we know of for $35,000 was not a typical sex harassment case. Now, that again supports Herman Cain’s claim that he was not aware of an additional harassment claim in that instance; and you got four reporters on this story, including Jim Rutenberg, Jeff Zeleny, and Mike McIntyre.
That’s more reporters than they ever had on Clinton and Lewinsky. Then we go to the AP. Now, this story is by Nancy Benac at the AP and what’s striking about this — and it’s striking because the AP is seldom a news outfit anymore. They’re total agenda-driven. But this one is over the top. I mean, this is not a news story in any way, shape, manner, or form. What they have done here… I guess Chris Lehane has made some comments about that, and they simply have dressed up Chris Lehane’s comments (you know, he’s a Democrat activist for Clinton and Gore) and they presented them as if they were a legitimate news item. “Cain’s Line in the Sand: Denials Invite Scrutiny” is the headline. “Herman Cain drew a line in the sand, and now he has to hope it sets like concrete. Cain … has responded to allegations of sexual harassment with a series of definitive statements that invite closer scrutiny of his past conduct.”
Now, if he had been vague or wishy-washy, would that have “invited closer scrutiny,” too? No, no. What is “inviting closer scrutiny” is that Herman Cain is a Republican. That’s what’s inviting all of this scrutiny. Now, Cain is out there violating the advice of Condoleezza Rice. Condi’s out there saying, “Don’t play the race card.” Herman Cain’s playing the race card. Herman’s out there saying this is happening because he’s black. (interruption) No, Condoleezza Rice said, “Don’t play the race card.” A lot of the former Bush administration Republicans are saying, “Don’t play the race card.” But Herman is his own guy; he’s out there playing the race card. Let’s go to the audio sound bites on this. In fact, this is Herman Cain talking about the race card. He was on Special Report on Fox last night, center seat segment; and Charles Krauthammer said, “Do you think that race — being a strong black conservative — has anything to do with the fact that you’ve been so charged? And if so, do you have any evidence to support that?”
CAIN: I believe the answer is: Yes. I am an unconventional candidate running an unconventional campaign and achieving some unexpected, unconventional results in terms of my — the poll. We believe that, yes, there are some people who are Democrats, liberals, who do not want to see me win the nomination — and there could be some people on the right who don’t want to see me because I’m not the, quote, unquote, “establishment candidate.” No evidence. Relative to the left I believe that race is a bigger driving factor. I don’t think it’s a driving factor on the right. This is just based upon our speculation.
RUSH: So pretty much… (interruption) You do? You like that answer? What do you like about the answer? Let me guess what you like about the answer: “Oh, we can’t prove it but that’s what we think”? Just being bold as you can be. “Yeah, we think it’s racism. I can’t give you any evidence of it; of course that’s what we think,” and… (interruption) Yeah, he did. He points out that it’s… Really the racial aspect of this is coming from the people on the left, no question — and it’s getting to them. They’re terrifically bothered by this. We have sound bites to prove it. Here’s Condoleezza Rice. She was on the Early Show today. Former NBC correspondent, now traitorous Norah O’Donnell over at CBS. She said, “Herman Cain predicted he would be the victim of ‘a high-tech lynching.’ What do you think of that when you hear that?”
RICE: I don’t care much more incendiary language and, um, I actually am someone who doesn’t believe in playing the race card on either side. I’ve seen it played, by the way, on the other side quite a lot, too — and it’s not good for the country. I don’t like the race card when people say that, uh, people are criticizing President Obama because he’s black. I don’t like that very much. He’s being criticized because he’s president.
RUSH: And we’ll be back.
RUSH: Folks… Folks, get this. The Washington Post story that I have been citing liberally here for the last ten to 15 minutes? There are two versions of that story. There is a story that appeared online yesterday and a second version where something has been omitted. I have here what has been omitted near the end of the story as it ran yesterday on the Washington Post website. Are you ready? (shuffling paper) Ahem. Ahem. This has been deleted: “Because the case is more than a dozen years old, Bennett,” the woman’s lawyer, “said he no longer has the file nor does he have the confidentiality agreement. He said that he had not even remembered the name of the Association official who his client had accused. He said he doesn’t remember going to the Association offices. He thinks the matter might have been handled over fax and telephone quite expeditiously.”
It was that insignificant! That has since been deleted from the Washington Post story that is now, at present, running. Let me read it to you one more time. “Because the case is more than a dozen years old,” that would be 12 for those of you in Rio Linda, Bennett, Joel Bennett, “the woman’s lawyer said he no longer has the file,” doesn’t have the case file, he doesn’t have “the confidentiality agreement. He said that he doesn’t even remember the name of the Association official who his client accused,” meaning he didn’t even remember it was Herman Cain! “He said he doesn’t remember going to the Association offices ever to handle this matter. He thinks the matter might have been handled over fax and phone quite expeditiously,” meaning rat-tat-tat, couple faxes, couple phone calls.
Yep, 35 grand? Fine. We’re done here. See ya — and it’s 12 years old and couldn’t even remember that it was about Herman Cain. And doesn’t have the confidentiality agreement, and the Washington Post has stricken that from their only version of the story. This was on their online version of the story yesterday. Not there now. But Diana Schneider, editrix of the Limbaugh Letter saved the cache file of it (c-a-c-h-e, for those of you in Rio Linda) so that we have it in perpetuity; and this lawyer is running around making it sound like this woman’s got the goods. “Oh, yeah, she can’t wait to talk! She’s gonna nail Herman Cain! It’s not gonna be pretty. We can’t wait! It’ll be big bucks! Wait ’til you hear it!”
Yesterday, he didn’t even know who this was about.
Okay, where we going next, Kevin to Columbus, Ohio. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Yeah. Your disdain for the poor never seems to amaze me.
RUSH: My disdain for the poor?
CALLER: Anyway, my point was about Mr. Cain that you keep vigorously trying to defend while we know he’s lying about what happened. Of course this woman doesn’t want to come out because look what it will do to her family.
RUSH: Wait a second.
CALLER: (talking continuously)
RUSH: Her lawyer says she can’t wait to come out. Her lawyer says she can’t —
CALLER: — that you guys will never nominate. I don’t know why you guys are leading him on that way. I’d love to see two black men duke it out for president. That would be more history.
RUSH: Sir, are you on a cell phone?
CALLER: Yes, I am.
RUSH: Well, I can’t talk to you, because you can’t hear me.
CALLER: Yeah, you don’t want to take the point! That’s what that is.
RUSH: Uh, no. I’ve been talking to you the whole time. You just can’t hear me —
CALLER: Yeah! (garbled)
RUSH: — because I’ve got a phone system that doesn’t work with cell phones —
RUSH: — like I’m talking to you right now and you can’t hear me.
CALLER: (talking) — that’s all you do is talk.
RUSH: Look, we’re gonna have to interrupt you. We can’t take cell phone calls. I can’t talk to ’em. This is just absurd, and it’s 23 years we’ve had this problem and we can’t fix it. Anyway, I guess what this guy’s point is that I’m attacking the woman when it was Herman Cain who started it. Sir, it wasn’t Herman Cain that started this. It was the Politico that started this. If you’ve got a beef with anybody for talking about it, blame it on the Politico, ’cause everything was hunky-dory fine until Sunday night when they came along; and you say this woman wants to talk? Her lawyer says she doesn’t want to talk, but then her lawyer is out there saying just the opposite. She can’t wait to come forward, which is not true. Anyway, who’s next?
Santos in Yuba City, California. Great to have you on the program.
CALLER: Oh, hi, Rush. Mega dittos.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I don’t know why I find this hilarious that they go to Condoleezza Rice to criticize Herman Cain for playing the race card. I mean, what is it about her that her opinion on this carries so much weight? I mean, she was secretary of state. It would be one thing if she was a past president of the National Restaurant Association or maybe she has been excused of sexual harassment herself or she was a victim of sexual harassment. So the only reason they went to her is because she’s black.
RUSH: No, she’s got a book out.
CALLER: In a way —
RUSH: No, no. No, no. She’s got a book out. I’ve got it over here. It’s called No Higher Honor and she’s out doing a book tour and so since they’ve got her they ask her about this; and since she’s black, they’re asking her about the race card and stuff.
CALLER: That’s what I’m saying. Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. In a way they’re using her to play the race card against Herman Cain playing the race card.
RUSH: Well —
CALLER: You know what I’m saying? I guess that makes it funny to me. Why of all…? Is this something that’s covered in her book, sexual harassment?
RUSH: No! No, no, no. Well, I don’t know. I haven’t read the book yet. I just got it a couple days ago. I don’t know if she talks about sexual harassment in the book or not, but one of the reasons why they asked her is that they know what she’s going to say. They know that she’s going to deplore the actions of a black Republican. So she’s useful in that regard. They’re pretty confident that she’s not gonna approve of what Herman Cain’s doing, so that’s a gold mine. Pure and simple. You never hear them ask Condoleezza Rice what she thinks about Al Sharpton. You never hear her ask what she thinks of the Reverend Jackson. They didn’t ask her about any of the Democrats’ cartoonists who were drawing some of the most racially offensive single panel and multi-panel cartoons about her when she was secretary of state.
They didn’t go talk to her and ask her what she thought of some of the jokes people were telling about how she got the job as secretary of state and the sexual favors that she had to perform on George W. Bush. They never asked her about that, but she’s got the book out now, and so it’s a perfect time to ask her what she thinks of all this. They’re pretty confident. As far as the media is concerned: Yeah, only blacks can, with credibility, decry playing the race card. Herman Cain… Look, another reason here that they want her to answer this in a certain way is that they are playing the race card, and the left is and the media.
We’re turning it around on ’em, and it makes them very uncomfortable. Their standard operating procedure is to play the race card. So we come along and play it on them, that’s, “Time! Oh-oh, time-out! Time-out! We need to stop playing the race card! We really need to stop playing the race card.” When they’re playing it and they’re called out, “Time-out, time-out, time-out, time-out,” and they go find a bunch of people on our side who will agree because they want to sound worthy. “Yes, we agree, it’s time to stop playing the race card,” and everybody stops playing the case card for a couple hours until the next time the left does it.
RUSH: Here’s a sound bite mentioned earlier that Herman Cain on CNN said he was “testy,” testy with reporters on Capitol Hill today. We’ve got the audio of that and you be the judge.
CAIN: Let me say one thing: I’m here with these doctors, and that’s what I’m gonna talk about. So don’t even bother asking me all of these other questions that you all are curious about, okay? Don’t even bother.
REPORTER 1: It’s a good question, though!
REPORTER 2: Are you concerned about the fact that these women do want to…? Uh, that…? Perhaps one that wants to come forward?
CAIN: What did I say?
REPORTER 2: Are you concerned about…?
CAIN: Excuse me.
CAIN: Excuse me!
CAIN: What part of “no” don’t some people understand?
RUSH: “What part of ‘no’ don’t some people understand?” He’s losing it now, folks! The media is telling us, “He’s getting very, very, very testy! Very testy.”