Perhaps taking a page out of the James Carville strategy of handling “bimbo eruptions,” Herman Cain’s campaign is asking: “Who is Sharon Bialek?”
From a release/email:
… In stark contrast to Mr. Cain’s four decades spent climbing the corporate ladder rising to the level of CEO at multiple successful business enterprises, Ms. Bialek has taken a far different path.
The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances – which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred.
In the courts, Ms. Bialek has had a lengthy record in the Cook County Court system over various civil lawsuits. The following cases on file in Cook County are:
· 2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management
· 2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
· 2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
· 2005-M1-111072 Defendant in lawsuit against Mr. Mark Beatovic.
· 2007-M1-189176 Defendant in lawsuit against Midland Funding.
· 2009-M1-158826 Defendant in lawsuit against Illinois Lending.Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV). Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011
In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001. The respective case numbers according to the PACER system are 1:01-bk-22664 and 1:91-bk-23273.
Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years. Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011
Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago.
Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?
The questions should be – who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions?
This is likely a hint of what we can expect from today’s press conference, and it strikes me as risky. Attacking the attacker can work, but this could also be perceived as an attempt to discredit a “victim” by presenting irrelevant information. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out…