Because he didn't sexually harass anybody because she said stop, and he stopped; she said take me home, and he took her home.Now, I am not a listener of talk radio very often. While I do sometimes get useful information, I personally feel it more entertainment than substance. But, shortly after the press conference I was in a car with a friend who was working on a local campaign to re-elect a state delegate doing a get out the vote effort for yesterday's elections. He happened to have it on. I thought then that Rush went too far, but I didn't really get to hear the entire thing.
I did notice that when we were listening to Bialek she said that she told him, "What are you doing, Mr. Cain, I don't want you to," and he stopped. She said no and that was it. No means no. . . . When Herman Cain drove the babe home she actually got there and is alive to talk about it.
Jill over at Pundit and Pundette didn't take to the Rush dialog on this any better than I have:
Well yes, it's true, no one's accusing him of abduction or murder. But that's what I'd call a pretty low bar. Would Rush have the same casual response if someone treated his wife like that?She asks the question:
What she is accusing Cain of is worse than that. I've been out of the dating scene for a while and I know things have changed, but have we really sunk so low that a guy sticking his hand up a woman's skirt and pushing her head down to his crotch is just making a romantic overture?There are many things about Ms. Bialek's story that I find troubling. There are things that just don't make sense to me. One being that what she was describing is not harassment, but assault. That was a criminal offense and she should have contacted the police. Digging to see if she has financial gain to making these allegations, is she prodded along to make them, and if so, by whom? Those are legitimate questions to ask. Her credibility then becomes questionable. But, for people to talk about her sexual history is downright low and disgusting. Bill Kurtis has basically publicly called her a whore:
And lot of people [at CBS] know her and she has a history. . . . There's a lot more to the story that is just developing.One of the constant themes you hear from the right in regards to the media coverage of the accusations against Bill Clinton once he started running for president was that the media attacked the women instead of dealing with the allegations against President Clinton. That is exactly what Rush just did. He now no longer has the credibility to go after the press for not doing their jobs in regards to Clinton.
I believe that the first women's motivations for making the accusation need to be examined. Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has pointed out an article done the by the AP on one of accusers who seems to have a history of making harassment claims. She went on to make another complaint at her next job, in fact. In that complaint she was looking for a raise and a promotion. Apparently, the claim was eventually dropped, but one can detect a pattern of behavior with her that makes her complaint against Cain much less credible.
As a woman, I find it just more than a more disturbing that the first line of defense is to call the woman a whore and to dig into her sexual history. In this day and age most women have a sexual history. Some may be more sorted than others, but few women were pure as the driven snow on their wedding nights. The right or wrong of that is up to your own particular morals. But if only a virgin or a woman who was on her wedding night can be a victim of sexual harassment or assault, most women better start not leaving their homes without a guard, because it will open season on many of us.
I have to hang my head in shame to see where Rush took this conversation. His sexual innuendo with her last name and saying that since she is still alive to talk about it is way over the line of decency. I am with Jill in asking if someone stuck his hand up his wife's skirt would he just be grateful that she isn't dead, and to heck with the gesture?
As a person who honestly believes that the media went too far in going after the women who accused President Clinton in a personal, demeaning, and disgusting fashion, I am no more pleased the some on the right are doing exactly the same thing. Investigate the claims and look into seeing if they are being driven by money or a sick attempt at 15 minutes of fame. But leave the woman's sexual history out of it. It is none of our business.
Cross posted at just a conservative girl and PotLuck