I think someone needs to remind Kay Bailey Hutchison that an employer propositioning one of their employees is not just an "off-color remark" and would indeed fit the definition of sexual harassment. Apparently she's a little confused after watching the explanation she gave Candy Crowley on CNN's State of the Union when asked what she thought about Herman Cain's recent troubles.
CROWLEY: Let me ask you about Herman Cain specifically. Is anything that you've heard publicly over the past week disturbed you or made you think, I'm not sure Herman Cain is the best answer for the Republican Party in 2012?
HUTCHISON: Not at all. I just don't see anonymous sources as fair against a candidate. I think if someone has a real concern, they should come out and say it. But nothing that I've heard, in the press that I have read is other than off-color remarks which, you know, I think that he paid a price for that, as maybe he should, but I don't sense that there is something, so far that has come out, other than from anonymous sources that he spoke badly.
And so I don't think that -- I kind of think that this is a presidential campaign thing where his, you know, opponents are coming forward and trying to dredge things up. But unless there's something that's really sexual harassment, which I would stand firmly against, and say that would be a problem.
But until something comes out that's concrete, I think it is politics as usual.
And as Steve Benen pointed out today after watching this same segment, someone might want to remind her what the term anonymous means as well -- Understanding the nature of 'anonymity':
Asked about Herman Cain’s sexual-harassment controversy, congressional Republicans generally take one of two lines: (1) noting the allegations is racist; or (2) the allegations lack merit because we don’t know the accusers.
This morning, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) pushed the latter. [...]
A few too many Republicans seem confused about the meaning of some basic words here.
It’s really not that complicated. In the 1990s, some women who worked for Cain believed he made inappropriate and sexually-suggestive remarks in the workplace. They didn’t hide behind anonymity; they came forward to raise their concerns. Cain’s trade organization was concerned enough about the merit of the allegations that it gave the women a fair amount of money, and as part of the payment, forced the accusers to agree not to speak about the controversy.
They’re not “anonymous sources.” Politico, which broke the story, knows their names. So does Cain and the National Restaurant Association. In one instance, last week, the Republican candidate was confronted directly with one of the accuser’s names, at which point he refused to comment.
Have Republicans forgotten what “anonymous” means?
I don't think they've forgotten. I think they know they'll never be questioned by our corporate media when they twist themselves in knots as we saw Hutchison doing today while trying to defend Herman Cain.
