Sharon Bialek, Cain’s accuser, on video

Surprisingly, it was not easy to find the video of Sharon Bialek’s statement. It’s at this page, the second video down.

I repeat what I said before: given that we’re constantly told that sex—including fellatio repeatedly performed on the president of the United States in the Oval Office by a young government intern—is a discretionary private activity with no public significance, and given that the iconic feminist Gloria Steinem herself enunciated the “one-grope” rule, I don’t see how Cain’s 15 year old aggressive sexual behavior in an automobile, which he stopped as soon as Sharon Bialek told him to stop, matters politically. If we were still living in a society that followed traditional morality, it would matter politically. But we’re not. We’re living in a radically sexually liberated culture, a continent-sized bordello, where conservatives are automatically mocked and dismissed if they attempt to introduce traditional standards of behavior into public life—until, when liberals are seeking to destroy a Republican, they suddenly turn around and tell the conservatives that in this instance the conservatives are free to enforce traditional standards and indeed must do so. So let us please stop being the liberals’ willing puppets.

I am not saying that nothing that Cain may have done could disqualify him. If it turns out that he committed more serious sexual transgressions than what we’ve heard of so far, the issue would have to be reconsidered. But I don’t see how the Non-Judgmental States of America in the year 2011 says with a straight face that Cain’s alleged 15 year old grope and head-pull, as objectionable as it may have been as private behavior, disqualifies him for the presidency.

I believe that Cain is unqualified by his complete lack of ability and preparation for the job. But that is a separate issue from these sexual accusations.

In taking this position, I am not dispensing with morality. Indeed, I am not addressing morality at all, because morality, which the ruling liberalism tells us is purely a private matter (meaning that all consensual behavior which stays within the one-grope rule is ok), is not the issue here. The issue here is the standards which the ruling liberalism has put in place for public life and to which it has forced us all to accede. And by those standards Cain’s alleged behavior as a private individual 15 years ago does not come close to disqualifying him for public office today.

- end of initial entry -

Jim C. writes:

I have to disagree strongly with your take. If Bialek’s version of events is true, Cain sexually assaulted her. And I wish you wouldn’t parse this case from a partisan perspective; some of us still believe that moral judgment is as important in business as it is in any other aspect of life. This woman believed that Cain was an ethical businessman, and what she discovered was a perv with affirmative action mojo.

LA replies:

Parsing it from a partisan perspective is the very thing I have not been doing. Unlike the Republicans who have been all-out defending Cain from the charges, I OPPOSE his candidacy.

I’m not saying that moral judgment does not matter. I am saying that given the actual ruling morality in American public life, which the liberals have imposed on us, Cain’s 15 year old alleged sexual assault, which evidently lasted about five seconds before he stopped and left Bialek alone, is not disqualifying in my opinion. If there were more such behavior by him, and more serious behavior, then it would be disqualifying. But this one incident, assuming it is true, does not rise to that level.

November 8

Alexis Zarkov writes:

In my opinion Bialek has zero credibility. [LA replies: If she were lying, wouldn’t she make up a more serious sin by Cain than a single grope, which he ended as soon as she told him to?] Note that she read her statement, and it comes across as entirely scripted. [LA replies: it’s normal for people to write down important statements they are making in public.] If her description of Cain’s action is accurate then he might have been guilty of a sexual assault, which is a felony in most jurisdictions. If she was so upset then why didn’t she go to the police? [LA replies: She was on friendly terms with him, and was hoping for his help in finding a job. Also, it’s you who describe it as a crime, not she.] The introduction of the vile, ambulance-chasing attorney, Gloria Allred (appropriately named) further drains her veracity. [LA replies: is it an established fact that all of Gloria Allred’s clients have been liars?] I have to ask why does Bialek need a lawyer? She has no standing for a lawsuit. If Cain were not a public figure, then he would have grounds for a defamation suit against Bialek who is obviously acting out malice. She is out to injure his reputation. As a public figure Cain would have to prove actual malice (a legal term) to prevail in a defamation suit. In other words, he would have to prove that Bialek is lying. Thus neither Bialek or Cain can sue, so we can never get to the whole truth of the matter. We will never know if she invited Cain’s sexual advances or even if they occurred at all. We could experience an endless parade of accusations against Cain with no way to verify anything. His enemies could keep this up until Cain’s poll numbers fall. Let’s further note than anyone who tries this against a popular Democrat will meet with a campaign of personal destruction. Look at what happened to “Joe the plumber.” He mildly embarrassed Obama and within days dirt on him began to leak from public officials. Another popular Democrat, Bill Clinton launched a campaign of personal destruction against Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, and Monica Lewinsky. Such is the state of politics in America.

Alexis Zarkov writes:

Mr. Auster raises a number of questions on my narrative about Bialek’s veracity. Here are his comments and my answers.

1. If she were lying, wouldn’t she make up a more serious sin by Cain than a single grope, which he ended as soon as she told him to?

You assume that when people lie they must only tell whoppers. People lie, or distort the trust for all sorts of reasons, and in many ways. Bialek might have invited a sexual advance, but then thought better of it. Do you really think women are rational?

2 … it’s normal for people to write down important statements they are making in public.

But they usually take follow up questions. Bialek won’t. Most likely her lawyer won’t let her because her story could come apart. I also note her somewhat robotic demeanor as she spoke. As it stands, I don’t find her statement credible. That might change with more information, but we are unlikely to get any. We have a drive-by accusation here. Make a sensational claim and then run away.

3. She was on friendly terms with him, and was hoping for his help in finding a job. Also, it’s you who describe it as a crime, not she.

It’s the law that defines the behavior she describes as a sexual battery—a felony. [LA replies: That’s way off. There was no battery here.] She said she didn’t file a complaint against him for sexual harassment because she no longer worked for the National Restaurant Association indicating that she was very upset. But she could have complained to the police. I suspect she didn’t because there’s no substance to her story. The police would have interrogated her, and she didn’t want that then or now. As for the friendly terms, that was before the assault. I suspect they were on good terms after the alleged assault because nothing really happened. [LA replies: I repeat that it’s incorrect to think of this as a criminal act and to think that her story is only believable if she treated it as a criminal act. It is ridiculous to imagine her going to the police and making out a complaint stating, “I was sitting with Mr. Cain in his car when he stuck his hand up my skirt and pushed my head toward his crotch, and when I told him to stop he stopped.”]

4. … is it an established fact that all of Gloria Allred’s clients have been liars?

I can’t give you a smoking gun for each of Allred’s past clients, or even a majority of them. However a lot of her cases get dismissed such as Rhonda Miller’s suit for sexual harassment against Arnold Schwarzenegger. Allred takes on all variety of women as clients on matters that go nowhere legally. For example she represented Rachel Uchitel and Joslyn James who claimed they had affairs with Tiger Woods. But no complaints were ever filed. Allred trolls the waters of American female lowlife—hookers, porn stars, gold diggers—seeking publicity by defaming people in the public eye. Again I ask, why does Bialek need a lawyer? Who is paying Allred? Is Allred paying Bialek? Any woman who retains Allred is automatically suspect given her history of flamboyant headline grabbing antics.

I see that Mr. Auster’s latest post strengthens my argument against Bialek’s veracity. Frankly I don’t understand why anyone would have given her any credibility at all.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 07, 2011 07:10 PM | Send