Creepy similarities in Sandusky and Cain comments

Is it me or are the similarities in the Sandusky and Cain statements eerily similar?  The justification of (denied) abuse or harassment is that “many” (Sandusky) kids were helped or “probably thousands” would say there was none of “that activity” from Herman Cain canceling out the respective reprehensible acts?


“But isn’t what you’re just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don’t necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it’s entirely possible that you could’ve helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn’t that possible?”


“Well — you might think that. I don’t know. (LAUGHS) In terms of — my relationship with so many, many young people. I would– I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and– and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life

From Cain press conference addressing sexual harassment charges: 

“For every one person that comes forward with a false accusation, there are probably thousands who will say that none of that sort of activity ever came from Herman Cain.”

I recognize that the question Costas poses somewhat sets up the kind of response Sandusky gave – however – there would be a million ways to answer it.  First and foremost would have been to say I didn’t abuse any kids and leave it at that.

3 thoughts on “Creepy similarities in Sandusky and Cain comments

  1. Teresa says:

    It’s how they hide. Among the faithful. Reputation and power take precedence over the safety of children almost every time it seems.

    The whole JoPa think stinks so much of the whole situation with Chuck Phelps and Tina Anderson it makes me sick.

    Joe Paterno was rewarded for playing a huge part in covering up the rape and molestation of boys in order to protect the “good ‘ol boys” club. He continued making his $1M a year salary.

    Chuck Phelps was rewarded for playing a huge and PRIMARY role in covering up the DUAL rape of Tina Anderson in order to protect the “good ‘ol boys” club. He was reinstated to the board of directors at Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC.

    Another similarity is that colleagues and associates of BOTH men KNEW the roles they played. And they gave their approval of it.

    One distinct difference is tha JaPa lost his position. And so have many others over the Penn State incident.

    Chuck Phelps is secure in HIS postion.

    It will be interesting to see how this all unravels over the next few weeks. Especially since the Citadel in Charleston, SC is also on the chopping block in the revelaton of more child sexual abuse cover-ups.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s