It’s hard to take a victim seriously when she laughs as she tells her story of “victimhood.” Even though her voice broke briefly during the most explicit parts of the public statement, Sharon Bialek’s claims of sexual harassment by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain were just another silly spectacle orchestrated by America’s most unscrupulous feminist attorney, Gloria Allred.
Why do I discount Bialek’s story? I’ll answer with a few questions of my own.
What was Bialek doing meeting Herman Cain in Washington, DC? What did she hope to achieve by a face-to-face meeting? If she were staying in New Jersey, why didn’t she make it a daytime meeting, not an over night visit? Why do that with someone you know so slightly?
What was Herman Cain to think about a single woman making an unnecessary arrangement like that—agreeing to drinks and dinner on the basis of nothing more, according to her, than a few conversations at public dinners and receptions?
If Bialek were so traumatized and embarrassed, why did she eagerly seek him out at a recent Tea Party event in Chicago? Amy Jacobson, co-host of Morning Drive on WIND Chicago, was witness to that encounter with Cain and described her as “hell bent” on getting back stage to see him. Jacobson said Bialek “cornered him” and that her approach to Cain was “flirtatious.”
If you are embarrassed by a sexual encounter, you don’t eagerly seek out the perpetrator to reconnect for a chat. Unless you think the harasser might someday be president and you are imagining the connections that might come from that.
Why did she so carefully include the buzzwords of a harassment lawsuit? Herman Cain was “powerful,” she said, “in a position of authority over me.” Bialek was “shocked” that he would use his “power” in this way. Does a sincerely abused person so carefully script her account? Were there certain words she wanted to use? This was not a court of law, but her statement was worded like a deposition. She even described the clothing they wore—strange and unnecessary.
Why in one interaction did she say she was concerned for her thirteen-year-old son and the effect this would have on him and in another say she came forward because her son encouraged her to do so? Did she tell her son about Cain’s sexual advances? Why would she do that? Wouldn’t that information be inappropriate and harmful enough to inflict on your young son without making it public?
Sharon Bialek has a history of financial trouble. She has filed for bankruptcy twice and charged a former boyfriend with harassment for trying to get her to pay back money he loaned her. A Chicago friend is quoted as describing her as a “complete gold digger.” When asked if she hoped to benefit financially from her fourteen-year-old accusation of Cain, she deftly replied, “It was not my intention,” eagerly adding that she had not paid Allred any fee for her services. One has to ask, who IS paying Allred?
This is a sordid and slimy accusation. Bialek can say anything and the media will print and reprint it regardless of its veracity. Allred gets another moment in the sun, more clients, and more money, and you can bet Miss Bialek will get something for her troubles as well. And the dirt will stick to Cain no matter his response.
It’s telling that by her own account, she was not offended by Cain’s actions, only that he did what he did knowing she had a boyfriend. Are we to conclude it would otherwise have been fine?
Am I excusing Herman Cain? No. But if he did what she said he did and she in turn flirted inappropriately, it is NOT sexual harassment, it is what happens every day in our sex-obsessed, morally bankrupt culture.
If Cain did what she said he did, he is guilty of faithlessness to his wife, his family and the God he says he serves. If there is any credible basis upon which she can be believed, that’s the criteria on which to judge Herman Cain.
Great Moments in Human Rights: Mandated “Emotional Support” Animals in College Dorms | Daniel J. Mitchell