The Christian Science Monitor posted a story today about the latest allegations against Herman Cain. I can honestly say I don’t know what to think. I am not worried about what it will do to the candidate if these accusations are true–I am more concerned about what will happen to the candidate of these accusations are not true. I’m not even sure what I would believe were I to see so-called evidence of Mr. Cain’s indiscretion(s). Now before you decide that I have gone soft in the head, let me explain. In the world of desktop publishing and the internet, evidence is very easy to manufacture. You will note that, as of yet, the only evidence of any misbehavior on the part of Mr. Cain has been the accusations of the women who claim to have been mistreated by him or the woman who claims that she had a long-term affair with him. The problem right now is the number of accusations–there is no actual proof that any of the accusations are true. If a candidate can be destroyed by numerous accusations without proof, we are in serious trouble. I am not suggesting that we automatically decide Mr. Cain in innocent–I just think that no accusation should be taken seriously unless there is irrefutable proof to back it up. Otherwise, anyone running for office can be destroyed simply by having a few people come forward with this type of accusation.
I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, so I have very little understanding of how dating works today and how relationships work today. The latest accusation against Herman Cain frankly leaves me somewhat confused.
First of all, why is Gloria Allred involved? The history of this lawyer in terms of going after Republican candidates is well known. It seems odd to me that she would be involved in this situation where there is not an actual lawsuit or monetary settlement involved.
Secondly, according to a website called National Journal:
“He reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals,” Bialek said, her voice breaking with emotion. “He also grabbed my head and brought it towards his crotch. I was very, very surprised and very shocked. I said, ‘What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for.’”
She said that Cain responded, “You want a job, right?” Bialek said she asked him to stop, and Cain complied. She then asked to be driven back to her hotel, and she said Cain promptly complied with that request as well.
This sounds more like a really bad date than a legal matter. I also find it very interesting that the woman involved lives in Chicago.
Andrew McCarthy posted a story today on National Review Online about the Herman Cain scandal that seems to have taken over the media this week. Mr. McCarthy points out that Politico ran with this story without substantial evidence that the story was true or newsworthy. Politico has compounded that error by keeping quiet about the source of their story.
Mr. McCarthy points out:
But we’ve learned the most about Politico. Look, for example, at this: Politico this morning had a post about how, after Cain blamed Perry for being the source of the sexual-harassment story, Perry promptly turned around and floated Romney as the likely source. Yes, congratulations GOP on the circular firing squad — but that’s not the point. The point is: Politico knows who the source is.
Meanwhile, Politico has twisted the story to be about who leaked the story rather than whether or not the allegations have any foundation. Since Politico knows who leaked the story, that is rather questionable journalism.
Mr. McCarthy concludes:
When I was a prosecutor, it was considered serious ethical misconduct to suggest to a jury something the prosecutor knew to be factually untrue. If the defense called Witness A, and I was aware of the fact that Person B had robbed a bank, it would be a weighty impropriety for me to impeach A’s credibility by suggesting in my questions that A had robbed the bank. If the judge asked me a question, my choices were to give a truthful answer or to refuse to answer and explain why the law supported my refusal — making a representation that was false or misleading was not an option. And if I later learned that I’d been mistaken in something I’d represented, my obligation was to go back and correct the record as soon as possible. All this because a trial is supposed to be a search for the truth, and I would be perverting the process if I suggested that the factfinder should consider something I knew to be inaccurate or false.
I guess similar rules don’t apply in today’s journalism.
Unfortunately, he is correct.
Herman Cain is black. You might have noticed, but in case you didn’t, I would like to bring that to your attention. Now that you know, we can get back to things that are important. In a nutshell, I think that is how most Republicans (and probably Independents, and maybe some Democrats) feel about the fact that Herman Cain is black–it is obvious, but not particularly important.
However, there seems to be an element of the liberal media that is seriously hung up on the fact that not only is Herman Cain black–he is a Republican! Goodness gracious!
Yesterday the Weekly Standard posted a story about some comments made on MSNBC about Herman Cain. The article reports:
“One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” (Karen) Finney said. “I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”
“Thank you for spelling that out,” Bashir responded.
The article further reports:
Liberal comedienne Janeane Garafalo told Current TV host Keith Olbermann earlier this month that Cain is popular with Republicans because it “hides the racist element” of the party. Watch that video here.
This is simply out of bounds. I probably won’t vote for Herman Cain in the Republican primary. (Actually, because I live in Massachusetts, the whole thing will probably be decided before I get to vote!) This is his first run for the presidency, and I think he needs a little more practice before he gets the nomination. He is a businessman–not experienced in the nuances of politics, and I believe that is a problem for his campaign. That said, if he gets the nomination, I will vote for him because I feel that he is quite capable of putting together an awesome group of people to run the country.
While I am ranting, I would like to say that I feel that the series of Republican debates is a mistake. It has devolved into a tag-team wrestling event that has lost its focus. If the candidates continue to pick a person of the week to target, all they will succeed in doing is provide campaign commercials for the Obama campaign. Remember, the Obama campaign is not known for its uprightness–we have to win this election by a lot so that illegal votes don’t count. It is possible that Mickey Mouse may again vote in Orlando.