[Updated] Cain PAC Calls Accuser An ‘Ugly Bitch’


[Update] As I thought might be the case, this group has no official ties to Herman Cain. Some seem to think it’s a hoax site. I don’t know if that’s true, but it at least is not tied to the Cain campaign.

The official website of the Herman Cain PAC has an article calling Karen Kraushaar, one of his accusers, an “ugly bitch.” It actually says, “Ew, gross! Who the hell does this ugly b1tch think she’s fooling?” There’s no indication of the actual legal status of the group — their About Us page is blank — so I don’t know if this group has official ties to Cain’s campaign. But it is named after him, for crying out loud, and strongly supports him. And that speaks volumes. Here’s a picture in case it disappears:

Comments

  1. says

    I think you may be confused about their comment, just as they seem to be about the difference between Canis lupus familiaris and Equus ferus caballus.
    Both mistakes are probably easy to make.

  2. Michael Heath says

    The page’s been taken down. I’m not sure how to retrieve an archive of the page where I’d love to have a link. I relentlessly used the archived page of Sarah Palin in a written survey which had her claiming the founding fathers used ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance.

  3. Randomfactor says

    I saw that earlier and thought it might be someone independent of the campaign itself, at least. However, I feel certain that’s the way the candidate himself would view the situation.

  4. says

    Yes, gone done whatever hole these things go when they embarrass the people who post them. Why is not posting them in the first place so difficult?

  5. Randomfactor says

    Or maybe it’s another weird viral attempt on the part of the campaign. I mean, really, “yellow flowers”?

    The Smoking Man from X-files managing a campaign?

  6. Captain Mike says

    Words fail me utterly. Try as hard as I might, I can’t understand the mindset that would produce something like this.

  7. A. Noyd says

    The above might be a hoax, but here is an actual article from Andrea Tantaros at NY Daily News dripping with victim-blaming bullshit like:

    Let me be clear: I’m not saying that Cain isn’t guilty of sexual misconduct that took place when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s. But this scandal should have every woman asking: At what point do women need to take some responsibility?

    Whatever happened to hitting delete [to get rid of an offensive email]? Or ignoring the catcalls? Or simply telling a guy to get lost? Plainly put: If a man lays his hands on me uninvited, one of us is going to the hospital. And it isn’t me.

    That is a woman being ugly, and I’m not talking about her looks.

  8. says

    It’s not the official Cain Pac web site, and it might even be a hoax, but the comments on the page Ed quotes accurately reflects the sentiments — and many of the comments — expressed by Cain supporters at FreeRepublic.com, right down to the “clarification” as to which one is Kraushaar. It’s ugly stuff.

    I don’t think the web site’s fake. The site is owned by the same person who owns http://unitedconservativeamericanetwork.com/ which appears to be a half-assed, but genuine attempt to build an on-line grassroots organization.

    Thus while the hermancainpac.com site has nothing to do with Herman Cain, the sentiments expressed in the article are almost certainly real, and reflect those of a not insignificant number of Cain supporters (really, the Free Republic comments are that nasty).

  9. says

    Plainly put: If a man lays his hands on me uninvited, one of us is going to the hospital. And it isn’t me.

    Plainly put: if a woman had sent the president of the National Restaurant Association to the hospital, would his apologists be cheering her brave defense of her honor?

  10. D. C. Sessions says

    Think “Herman Cain Art Project”

    It’s more and more the only model that fits the facts.

  11. Aquaria says

    Let me be clear: I’m not saying that Cain isn’t guilty of sexual misconduct that took place when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s. But this scandal should have every woman asking: At what point do women need to take some responsibility?

    Maybe when we can keep our jobs and when our harassers lose theirs, m’kay, cupcake?

    Now go smile pretty for the men. I’m sure they’ll give you lots of pats on the head, like those scumbag commenters of yours already are. Good girl!

  12. Dennis N says

    Don’t get me wrong, the sentiments line up with much of the reactions I’ve seen. There has been victim blaming all around. That particular site just isn’t affiliated with Herman Cain.

  13. eric says

    [Quote from Andrea Tantaros] At what point do women need to take some responsibility?

    Kraushaar did act responsibly: she reported the incident. And folk like you gave her crap for reporting it. This is just more two-faced bullflop: when someone doesn’t report incidents, you claim the fact that they didn’t means the claim is false. When someone does report incidents, you claim the fact that they do is an indication they cry wolf. Either way, big men aren’t at fault.

    What Tantaros and others really mean when they say “take some responsibility” is “let important corporate men get away with it.”

  14. d cwilson says

    Let me be clear: I’m not saying that Cain isn’t guilty of sexual misconduct that took place when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s. But this scandal should have every woman asking: At what point do women need to take some responsibility?

    Translation: Even if Cain was guilty of pushing a woman’s head toward his crotch, it’s still her fault.

    Andrea Tantaros was on The Daily Show last week where she demonstrated that it actually is possible for a conservative woman to be dumber than Sarah Palin.

  15. says

    I googled “Tantaros” and all I get are a bunch of youtubers of some semi-hot skank dressing in a slut uni. Is she any relation to the serious newswoman that wrote that searing piece on Ms. Bialek.

  16. Ellie says

    Re: Andrea Tantaros…

    Her headline reads: Ladies, time to man up…

    Really, Andrea? I have to “man” up? That might be a little difficult since I am a woman. Why don’t you woman up and use your head for something other than a hat rack, or do you get off on the Atta Girls you receive from men, for castigating women instead of being realistically supportive?

    Re: The Cain PAC:

    I do think the website was a hoax, but I don’t think it said anything that hasn’t been said by Cain’s supporters.

  17. harold says

    Ah. The page being a hoax explains a lot.

    If it’s a strategic host, it must have been put up by a rival Republican primary campaign. Because believe me, as a progressive, I am rooting hard for Cain to win the primary.

    If it’s neutral satire, it fails, because it merely mimics previous serious comments by Cain apologists, rather than satirically exaggerating them for humorous effect.

    Personally, I still think some closeted self-hating College Republican campaign aide put it up, under the delusion, at least consciously, that it would help Cain. And (s)he may not have been wrong. Based on the style, I strongly favor this interpretation; I need strong evidence to write this one off as a hoax. It looks like a genuine Rembrandt to me, and I think claims of forgery are belated damage control. But I’m open minded. Also, it doesn’t matter.

  18. Midnight Rambler says

    I think the DKos link is misleading because it was updated sequentially. It looks like it’s not a real PAC and an unofficial site, but not a hoax. It’s registered to Clifford Hoelz, whose Facebook page says he works for hermancain.com and has a lot of links defending Cain. Plus the site has a ton of articles going all the way back to January when Cain first announced, none of them appearing to show him in a bad light (except unintentionally). That would be one hell of a hoax.

    The weight of it looks more like someone affiliated (maybe loosely) with the campaign doing it on their own. But still quite illustrative of their mindset.

  19. harold says

    Wow, what a pile of crazy bullshit from Andrea Tantaros –

    Let me be clear: I’m not saying that Cain isn’t guilty of sexual misconduct that took place when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s.

    If this statement were sincere, the rest of your column wouldn’t exist.

    But this scandal should have every woman asking: At what point do women need to take some responsibility?

    1) There is absolutely no evidence that any of the women involved behaved in an irresponsible way.

    2) What irresponsible act does a woman have to commit to justify a man shoving an uninvited hand up her skirt? I really can’t think of one.

    Whatever happened to hitting delete [to get rid of an offensive email]?

    1) What does this have to do with the allegations against Cain?

    2) Why shouldn’t offensive email be dealt with? Why should it be quietly deleted? In most cases it would just be a case of educating the sender as to what is offensive – and no, the recipient shouldn’t have to personally confront them – but why suggest ignoring it?

    Or ignoring the catcalls? Or simply telling a guy to get lost?

    What the FUCK? Catcalls where? Catcalls from random idiots on the street? Okay, that’s protected random idiot free speech. Catcalls from the head of the Restaurant Association at squirming employees as they try to do their jobs? Is there a difference?

    Telling the boss to get lost is not all that easy. However, I believe that at least one of the accusers did more or less tell Cain to get lost.

    Plainly put: If a man lays his hands on me uninvited, one of us is going to the hospital. And it isn’t me.

    Wow, what a load of shit.

    Now, understand that I strongly support the right of people to defend themselves.

    But the general idea here is just cuckoo crazy. Women should rely on their own physical ability to fight off men? I heard that some guys are pretty strong and/or pretty good at fighting. I also heard that sometimes they use this trick where more than one of them attack the woman at the same time.

    And then there’s the flip side. I certainly think Bialek would have had a damn good self-defense plea, but this shit seems to go well beyond advocating self-defense. Self-defense is when there is no other choice. “A guy touched my arm without asking on a coffee date so I sent him to the hospital.” That’s not going to work in court. Honestly, even “A guy did some crude and obnoxious thing, but I had other options, but sent him to the hospital anyway” is not a great legal situation to be in.

    At least the good news is that the nuts still love Cain. I could sure use a no-stress election.

  20. harold says

    Googling Andrea Tantaros leads me to pictures of an attractive woman who is tastefully dressed. However, that does not change the quality of the idiotic column.

  21. mrmorse says

    I googled “Tantaros” and all I get are a bunch of youtubers of some semi-hot skank dressing in a slut uni. Is she any relation to the serious newswoman that wrote that searing piece on Ms. Bialek.

    This doesn’t really help. This is a post opposing criticism of a woman because of her looks. Showing up to criticize a woman because of her looks and the way she dresses is missing the point.

  22. Captain Mike says

    Perhaps I should explain my comments a little more.

    I’m well aware that there are people who honestly think this way. I’ve dipped a toe or two into Free Republic on occasion. The fact that there are people who honestly and sincerely believe this isn’t what left my gasts completely flabbered. It was the fact that it appeared that the Cain campaign was attempting to use this as a form of damage control. Politically, that seems to me to be a quick route to suicide. On the other hand, considering how much approval bullshit artists like Tantaros draw, maybe this is exactly the sort of crap that would energize their base.

    I think part of my problem is that, all evidence to the contrary, I keep expecting members of my species to react to things the same way I do.

    @ Harold @ 25: Yes, yes to everything. But especially this:

    But the general idea here is just cuckoo crazy. Women should rely on their own physical ability to fight off men? I heard that some guys are pretty strong and/or pretty good at fighting. I also heard that sometimes they use this trick where more than one of them attack the woman at the same time.

    More to the point, they shouldn’t have to fight at all. I’m not only strong, I’ve had a lot of training in how to fight, both armed and unarmed. The idea that I, or anyone else, should HAVE to use those skills to hold onto what’s mine is monstrous. Does Tantaros sincerely believe that not being able to defend yourself somehow makes it okay for others to abuse you? Apparently so.

  23. Pinky says

    Many talk about harassment of women (or anyone else) in the workplace as between the aggressor and the harassed.

    Wrong.

    The workplace encompasses everyone who is impacted by the activities; workers, a visiting vendor or a customer overhearing remarks over the phone.

    No one is a neutral observer. In the same way abstaining from voting is a No vote; allowing inappropriate actions or words to pass without remark is an indication you agree with the harassment or derogatory joke.

    I have spoken up about inappropriate behavior I’ve witnessed and been told by the badgerer to “mind my own business” and by the badgered: “It’s OK, I don’t mind.”

    Bullshit I do not want to be in an environment where a woman is harassed because my mother, grandmother, sister, wife, daughter, etc., is a woman.

    There are other reasons I do not want to work in a hostile environment, regardless if the flame thrower is aimed at me or not.

    Maintaining a professional atmosphere makes good business sense. Who wants to work at a company that loses business because a minority of workers have not mentally advanced past smearing their verbal shit on the walls.

    As for Andrea Tantaros at NY Daily News, lets see if I understand Andrea’s attitude. Instead of expecting a safe work place, a woman who has been immersed her whole life in a society subtly giving the message women are second class, weak and need a man to give her validation is expected to become belligerent when a man, whose rude, vulgar actions have been winked at, overlooked and even approved of, makes a comment that objectifies her.

    Hmm, I guess Ms. Tantaros would agree with the dinosaurs in some school systems who say nothing should be done about a child who is preyed upon by a gang of larger, older juvenile delinquents who harass and beat him every day as they steal his money and threaten to kill him if he reports them to authorities because; “They need to get used to it, that’s the way life is.”

    Ms. Tantaros I suggest you start mumbling instructions to your deity asking for you to always be on the powerful and protected end of the spectrum.

  24. Chris from Europe says

    Aren’t all these new PACs “independent” with “no connection” to the candidate?

  25. says

    Let me clarify what I meant by that: when you see someone going after power, you can be sure it’s out of their own self-interest. Usually of the most venal kind, because that’s the kind of self-interest power attracts.

  26. says

    “This doesn’t really help. This is a post opposing criticism of a woman because of her looks. Showing up to criticize a woman because of her looks and the way she dresses is missing the point.”

    Oh, Okay. I get it. I’ll deal with her the same way I would with Lush Rimjob or Glen Bek.

    She’s a lying, piece of shit fuckbag who relies on the one tool in her toolbox, her femininity, to trash other women. Fuck her, with a fire hydrant. There, is that better?

    Hey, speaking of El Blimpbaugh, I was drinking with a guy at a bar, earlier this evening, and a buddy of his came in and told me that “homosexuality is a behavioral choice, it’s a lifestyle!. Then he said something about John Kerry and blowing someone’s brains out and I said something about Rushbo going to Dominica and he, no shit, said Rush goes for the cigars. Like, Rush can’t get all the Cubans or whatever else that he wants, delivered along with his Oxy? I said, “No, it’s for the little boys and girls he can fuck while he’s there.”. Gosh, that conversation died in a hurry.

  27. danielrudolph says

    But this scandal should have every woman asking: At what point do women need to take some responsibility?

    It’s the bait and switch again. If Herman Cain’s offense were nicknaming female subordinates things “pookums” and “sugar” and the claimants went straight out and filed a law suit without telling him to knock it off or talking to HR, she might have a point. But the charges against him are things he sure as hell would have known better than doing and they did follow proper procedures. Conservatives seem to think talking about other, often hypothetical, cases somehow addresses the issue at hand, when it doesn’t.

  28. dingojack says

    “[Cain] teaches you can do anything sexual you want without negative consequences or moral accountability to God, and that you have no ability to choose whether or not to engage in sexual behaviors,” the pro-family leader [Randy Thomasson] asserted. “This philosophy essentially turns man into an animal, but less than an animal, because beasts follow God’s natural order of sexuality.”*
    Dingo
    —–
    * Well that’s what I imagine WND would say, and that’s exactly the same as a direct quote dontchaknow?

    (The quoted part actually comes from WND, and is part of leader of the thread ‘WND: Students Getting Gay Cooties’ on Dispatches, posted above this one).

Leave a Reply