Herman Cain’s Campaign Owes Politico An Apology For Attacking ‘Thinly-Sourced Smear’

At a National Press Club event in Washington, DC this afternoon, GOP frontrunner Herman Cain delivered the response to Politico‘s sexual harassment story that his campaign should have given in the first place, admitting that he was, in fact, accused of sexual harassment while CEO of the National Restaurant Association, that the allegations were false, and that he was unaware of any financial settlement. He even cited Politico’s story in his own defense, the same story that his campaign attacked as a thinly-sourced smear.

When this story first broke Sunday night, one of the most damning things in it was the Cain campaign’s responses to Politico in the article, and in the hours following its publication. Even though they had a ten day head start, the campaign, and the candidate, were caught flat-footed.  Politico describes a series of weak evasions by the campaign (“Cain spokesmanJ.D. Gordon told POLITICO the candidate indicated to campaign officials that he was ‘vaguely familiar’ with the charge”), culminating in a confrontation with reporters, by Cain, that had all the grace of Disney’s Gingrich On Ice:

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

Cain’s campaign repeatedly attacked Politico’s reporting, calling it a “thinly-sourced smear,” but in light of Cain’s remarks at the National Press Club this afternoon, it seems they owe Politico an apology. Cain admitted that he was, in fact, accused of sexual harassment while CEO of the National Restaurant Association, telling the crowd, “Number one:  in all of my over 40 years of business experience, running businesses and corporations, I have never sexually harassed anyone. Number Two: while at the restaurant association, I was accused of sexual harassment, falsely accused, I might add.”

As to whether there were any settlements paid, Cain claimed ignorance. “I am aware of any sort of settlement,” he said, adding, “I hope it was not for much, because I did not do anything.”

With these statements, Cain is confirming every factual offering made in the Politico piece, save the settlements, which Cain doesn’t refute, and which NBC News has also confirmed. That article made no claim as to Cain’s guilt or innocence, and contained ample comment from the campaign, none of which contained the admission that Cain made today. By referring reporters to the NRA, knowing the NRA could not comment, and knowing that the accusers have been legally gagged, the campaign hoped to close the loop, but instead, gave the allegations some weight. Cain himself told Politico, through a spokesman, that he was “vaguely familiar” with the allegations. He didn’t seem very vague today.

Cain went on to actually quote the Politico piece in his own defense. “I would draw your attention to the three people mentioned in the article that were at the restaurant association as past chairman, chairman, and incoming chairman of the board, who would have known about this if it had turned out to be a charge with validity,” Cain said.

So, not only was the Politico piece completely accurate, it was abundantly fair, including named sources defending Herman Cain. The only thing missing from the piece was the explanation that Cain gave today, which admittedly relies on that closed loop, but also would have given the story little room to grow.

Cain’s ride atop the polls has shown remarkable durability, and he will benefit from the fact that there’s (apparently) no video of his testy exchange with Politico’s Jonathan Martin, or any of his campaign’s worst evasions. Video is still king, and so Cain’s responses will get the most play. He’ll also benefit from a general ignorance about journalism among non-journalists, who don’t necessarily understand that not all anonymous sources are created equal. Politico’s reporting is strongly attributed, the anonymity is a product of self-evident legal issues, and the reporters, whom I know and trust, have seen the documentation themselves. This isn’t some Page Six gossip item.

In fairness to Herman Cain, it is entirely possible that he and his campaign were being evasive, not because he’s guilty of anything, but because he felt he would not be believed. Conversely, a fair person would have to admit that that same evasiveness raises reasonable suspicion of Cain. As it stands, his accusers can’t come forward, and he’s insulated himself from any knowledge of these financial settlements. If there’s no other shoe to drop, Cain might not just survive this, he could benefit from it as the latest conservative martyr to the “lamestream media,” in the Sarah Palin mold.

If there is another shoe, though, you can bet it won’t remain aloft for long, and I wouldn’t bet on those five-figure non-disclosure agreements to hold all that well. Even if the women aren’t talking, that doesn’t mean they can’t cooperate with reporters “for guidance.” Look it up, Mr. Block.

Other shoe or not, though, the Cain campaign spent the better part of 15 hours trashing a Politico story that turns out to be completely accurate, abundantly fair, and incomplete only to the degree that the Cain campaign made it so. They owe Politico an apology.

Here’s the video of Cain’s NPC appearance, via C-Span:

Update: Video of Cain’s Sunday encounter with Jonathan Martin is available.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.