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.
The Daily Caller reported today that Herman Cain told reporters today that he would not answer questions about the alleged charges against him while he was speaking to the group Docs4PatientCare at the group’s annual meeting in Alexandria, Virginia. I have no problem with that–the whole story is ridiculous. The Women’s Liberation movement has made sexual harassment charges a joke–anything you decide makes you uncomfortable can be classified as sexual harassment. The standard is so low that opening a door for a woman can be considered harassment.
Anyway. I am wondering where these charges came from. I have no doubt that someone who claimed harassment was paid a severance and let go. I just want to know who she approached with her information. My actual guess is that the attack came from the Republican establishment. If they are really good, they will blame Rick Perry for the attack–that would eliminate two non-Republican-establishment candidates at once. I realize that I am in the tall weeds here, but I do wonder who gave the story to Politico. I don’t think Herman Cain has handled the charges well, but he is so inexperienced and understaffed that he can easily be caught off guard.
I do wonder who dug up the dirt and I am prepared not to believe anything I hear about the source until well after the 2012 election. The truth may or may not ever come out!
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.
John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the efforts by some media outlets to begin the tearing down process of all Republican presidential contenders. I’m hoping that the electorate is too sophisticated to fall for this ploy.
Mr. Hinderaker states:
The election is still over a year away, and yet “news” stories intended to bring down leading Republican contenders are appearing on pretty much a daily basis. I’m not sure I will be able to stand it for another 12 months.
The Associated Press’s story of the day on Herman Cain relies on battlefield preparation that has been done over the last year by the far left: “Long ties to Koch brothers key to Cain’s campaign.” This is one of those wink-wink pieces; you wouldn’t really get the point unless you are aware of the left’s over-the-top campaign against Charles and David Koch, two of the very few seriously rich people who support conservative causes.
The story in the Associated Press goes on to list the various questionable associations between Herman Cain and the ‘evil’ Koch brothers. The Koch brothers are the force behind Americans for Prosperity, a group that supports conservative causes. Therefore the liberal media has painted a target on their backs. The media is also trying to link any Republican candidate they can to them–two birds with one stone.
The attack on Romney is more subtle. The article reports:
Try as it might, the Times (New York Times) is not able to put Romney in a particularly bad light. On the contrary, it appears clear that he was an unusually effective leader in this aspect of his life, as in all others. But the Times has a purpose: it wants to rally potential Obama voters who are appalled by the economic performance of the Obama administration, by letting them know that Romney is a man of deep religious conviction. This, to many readers of the NY Times, is weird. The Times hopes that the idea of Romney’s religious faith will horrify some voters even more than Obama’s policy failures. And, as to some liberal and atheist voters, it probably will.
The growth of the alternative media is not totally the result of brilliance on the part of those involved in it–it is the result of a mainstream media that has lost its way. I am hoping that the American voter is too smart to fall for the tricks the media will use to try to win a second term for President Obama. It’s a shame that the media cannot honestly report the accomplishments of President Obama and those candidates likely to run against him.
Many of us are not thriving in President Obama’s economy. I understand that. I also understand that there is something in human nature that wants bad things to end. However, we have somehow descended into a political system that is in campaign mode all the time. The presidential campaign starts the day after a new president is elected. We need to stop that. I realize it gives us more time to size up the candidates, but other than the political junkies, no one will be paying attention until next June anyway. What has happened to our political system?
There was a Republican straw poll in Florida yesterday (the day after the Republican debate). Yesterday’s Washington Times reported that Herman Cain received 37 percent of the more than 2,600 votes cast.
Another Washington Times story posted the numbers for all the candidates:
William Kristol at the Weekly Standard posted an article partially explaining the results. He points out that even though Rick Perry did not do well in the debate, the disappointed voters did not move their support to Mitt Romney. Mr. Kristol also points out that the debate and straw poll will result in Rick Santorum and Herman Cain both getting more serious consideration by the voters. Mr. Kristol also suggests that a lot of people will be carefully watching Chris Christie’s Reagan Library speech on Tuesday.
The bottom line here is that the debates are not necessarily constructive at this time. They are something of a ‘gotcha’ game where the Democrat party can do opposition research. I really question the wisdom of starting the debate process this early.