Here we are again. After all the reports of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, I am very sad to report yet another illicit relationship that Herman Cain has notched in his bedpost. Yes, Americans, Herman Cain has had an ongoing affair with a fickle, hard-hearted, vindictive, selfish, spoiled lover, and the sad fact is, he is still pursuing her today, shamelessly, tirelessly, even publicly, and his efforts are starting to really have their toll on his long suffering family. How could he do this? Who is this paramour? Her name is “Conservative America.”
Conservatives, I must ask you a question. On forums, in blogs, on news websites, we conservative types rant and rave about how we know, we can see, smell, taste, we can even feel it from every root of every hair on top of our heads, down to the individual fibers that make up our toe nails, that the mainstream media is playing us. That the MSM is full of lefties who report the so-called “news” in such a way as to promote a very obvious leftist agenda, that they demagogue and demonize the righties, that they twist facts, and butcher sound bites, and — being totally frank here — lie through their bonded, bleached teeth, smiling like some sort of evil, eco-friendly plastic faced Barbie or Ken. We know it! For that matter, they don’t even really try to hide it anymore! They are utterly shameless!
So here’s my question, conservatives. Knowing this, why on God’s Earth, when reports start coming out about a conservative engaging in morally reprehensible behavior, why do so many of these anti-leftist-propaganda-newsers turn, en masse, against the target of the blatant, obviously-politically driven attacks — which just happen to come without any kind of proof or evidence? In truth it reminds me of one of the 12 Apostles. Not Judas, the betrayer — Judas was pretty clear, and in a way, more honest than this one I’m thinking of. No, it reminds me of Peter. You remember Peter, right? The guy who said “Oh no, Jesus, not me, I’ll stand by you no matter what!” who then turned around and denied Jesus, and pretended he didn’t even know him, tried to sort of get out of the way before the ugly mob could scoop him up, too. “I’ll stand by you Herman Cain!–unless your political enemies start in with accusations of sexual misconduct. Then I won’t be able to wash my hands of you fast enough.”
How many of us have ever been accused of something we didn’t do? You were accused of cheating on a test, taking little Sally’s candy bar, broke the cookie jar, put a new dent in Dad’s car, flirted with so-and-so while dating such-and-such. And how do you prove you didn’t do it? How? How do you prove you had the proposal first, and Bob-in-the-next-cubicle stole the idea when you asked what he thought of it? How?
The news about accusations of a sexual harassment suit that first surfaced, stated that the suit was eventually settled, within the confines of the National Restaurant Association, and not as a sexual harassment settlement, but a severance settlement. There was no proof that he had done anything, but he was accused, and so years later, is presumed to be guilty. Now, we all know that most corporations prefer to settle these sorts of things quickly and quietly, no matter the guilt or innocence of the accused, because trying to prove that it didn’t happen is incredibly costly. A settlement is less expensive, and the problem, for the corporation at least, goes away. There was one other case mentioned where a settlement was paid, and a third woman saying she “felt” she had been harassed, but had never brought charges. More accusations, more presumption of guilt.
Then came forward Sharon Bialek with her rather lurid description of an encounter with Mr. Cain. Once again, there was no proof, only an accusation. Once again, Mr. Cain was presumed guilty. Ms. Bialek stated that she wasn’t going to say anything about her encounter with Mr. Cain, which if it happened in exactly the way she described rises beyond mere harassment to assault, but she was upset that Mr. Cain was denying allegations of sexual harassment, and that she just wanted him to admit it, to come clean.
Of course, it’s important to note, that by now, every woman who has ever met, worked with or been in the same county as Herman Cain, is reassessing whatever encounter she may have had with him, even if it was “good morning” at a water cooler, and trying to determine if she has been in some way sexually harassed, even though she didn’t notice at the time.
The woman who most recently came out claiming a 13 year consensual affair with Mr. Cain stated in her interview with her local news station that
“…she was not surprised by the allegations, but was bothered by the way Cain fought back, attacking the woman, including during an appearance on Late Show with David Letterman. ‘It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them,’ White said. ‘I felt bad for them.’”
First of all, I would like to point out a major failing in her statement. She complains that “…the burden of proof was on them [the accusers].” Well, in pretty much all legal systems in the world, the burden of proof is upon the accuser. That is why when a civil or criminal infarction occurs people are not just scooped up and jailed indefinitely or receive a bill for fines or settlements for things someone just says they did. There is a hearing, often with a jury, where the judge or jury hears evidence, and see exhibits which the state or a plaintiff’s attorney has gathered to attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. So, the notion that the burden of proof was on the accusers—yes that’s sort of how those things work. Or at least they should. Instead, in each of these cases, Mr. Cain was presumed guilty based solely upon accusations. He denied wrongdoing, and his denial was accounted as proof of his guilt. Mr. Cain was not extended the courtesy that even the most base criminal receives: being presumed innocent, until factually proven otherwise.
Secondly, the accusers were not “treated as if they were automatically lying.” If you think back to those earliest reports, it was immediately assumed that the accusers were telling the absolute truth, and to suggest that their coming forward was anything like politically motivated was tantamount to tattooing “Misogynist” across your forehead and demanding that some woman kick of her shoes, get in the kitchen, and make you a “samich.” Mr. Cain was tried and executed in the court of leftist media with an expediency that puts our state and federal court systems to shame. (Perhaps because those systems require solid evidence.) The first editorial words uttered after the reports were published was that Mr. Cain’s campaign was over — thus reported by the plastic media with gleeful smiles, and glittering predator’s eyes, all but rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the rapid implosion they expected to ensue. “Fresh fish!” was the clarion call among the lefties.
But, they were dead wrong, weren’t they? The conservatives of the United States all declared to know that leftist media machine for what it is, thumbed their collective nose at that whirling, clunking, politically funded mechanical behemoth, and stood their collective ground behind one of our own!
In the blink of an eye, faster than flipping a switch, people who had claimed wholehearted support for Mr. Cain started commenting and blogging — Obviously they had been wrong to even consider Herman Cain for the nomination! See what a vile man he is! He’s a liar! I’m all disillusioned with politics! I knew he was too good to be true!
It has been startling and frankly disgusting to watch as Mr. Cain has been repeatedly stripped, and lynched by people on the Conservative side of politics. We expect it from the leftist machine, that Judas whose actions are predictable and familiar. But we conservatives have turned on one of our own! And for what? What PROOF has there been?
It seems to me that this whole thing does nothing but help the leftists and progressives. These accusations are 100% perfect for them. In the current media climate, if a person is a conservative, and they are accused of any sort of sexual misconduct, the media, and it’s now proven, even conservatives will latch on to that accusation like a piglet on a sow’s teat and will not let go. The accuser is cosseted, assumed to be absolutely honest, and as purely motivated as fresh falling snow. To question the veracity of their statements is to prove one’s own woman-hating tendencies. To require proof is equivalent to supporting female castration or saying a woman deserves to be raped if her skirt is short. Sexual misconduct is the sacred cow of all allegations. It is absolutely inviolate. If those allegations are leveled at a conservative at least. Worse yet, at a black conservative.
About a week before all this sexual misconduct HYPE (yes, I said it, I said HYPE) broke in the media, we heard Touré, a 40-ish black man, a true-left talking head, on “The Last Word” with host Lawrence O’Donnell stating essentially that Mr. Cain isn’t a real politician (thank goodness) or a serious candidate, that he’s more of an entertainer for the Republican white folk. He used a word that blew my mind at the time, and I still feel a mild sense of surprise when I think about it. He said that Mr. Cain has ongoing “’moments of minstrelsy’ to appease white conservatives.” It’s that word “minstrelsy” that totally flabbergasted me. That word goes back to a time from about the late 1880’s through the 1940’s perhaps even into the 1950’s when a lot of people, very racist people, tried to enforce the notion that the only career path a black person could or should be allowed to pursue would be in entertainment, for the enjoyment of white folks. That keeping a black person in entertainment, rather than allowing them to pursue other, perhaps more academic professions, was a means of keeping them “in their place.” This notion was recently spoofed in the film “Ella Enchanted.” While it was humorous there, it was nothing like humorous in practice, and it should be a source of embarrassment for anyone who promoted or supported it.
So you have this Touré person praising Mr. Obama for being a serious, important law professor (which he is not, he was a law professor’s teacher’s aid,) and then referring to Mr. Cain as nothing more than a white-made minstrel act, set up to appease the Republican conscience. Then the sexual misconduct scandal breaks all over the place, and Touré opens his mouth again, declaring that Mr. Cain is surely going to loose all his white, conservative support. His reasoning?
“We’re going to see how open the GOP is to this black — their ‘new black friend’ when they find out he is harassing blonde women as opposed to black women. That sort of thing of black sexuality — predatory black sexuality. Very frightening in this country, still. Very threatening. So we’ll see how that plays out. “
And how has it played out?
Another talking head, Karen Finney said just a day or so later:
“Look, I think it will be interesting to see if these guys rally around Herman Cain with as much voracity [ferocity?] as they have these last couple of weeks now that it’s clear that a whole other layer of black sexuality has been infused into this,”
So did we Rally? Or did we sell him south?
Let me be very clear here. I do NOT think that this has anything to do with Herman Cain being black and his accusers being white. Not at all. Maybe I’m being Pollyanna here, but I don’t think it’s a racism issue. I think this has to do with Peter’s problem. Remember him, from early on in this missive?
Mr. Cain, as his popularity grew in the polls, and his campaign began to have a real resonating success among people all over the nation, also grew in another way. He grew a great big target smack dab in the middle of his back. We righties should have known there was going to be some sort of scandal that would erupt around him. We should have been braced for it. Instead, too many conservatives threw their support behind him, believing in him like Peter did Jesus. We now understand that Peter and the other Apostles had the then-current Jewish notion that the Messiah was going to come along and militantly assert the superiority of the Jewish people. When Jesus was betrayed and allowed himself to be taken prisoner, Peter (and the other Apostles) scurried away like a rat from a sinking ship, or a conservative from a beset Herman Cain. Seems the conservative talkers, the conservative bloggers, the conservatives themselves can’t shake off the dust of Herman Cain fast enough, and claim “Too bad about that Cain guy, but you know I really supported [Paul, Bachman, Romney, Perry…] all along. Never took Cain seriously, nope, not me”
What I’m saying is, conservatives, having thrown their support behind Mr. Cain, believing a non-politician might have a shot at the presidency, seeing him as “just one of us”, who had really lived out the American Dream in a rags-to-riches sort of way, these conservatives have now, as one other article put it “thrown Cain under his own Train,” and now, all disappointed and disillusioned, many of those conservatives are opting out of the fierce attention they had paid to the race for the nomination and the White House. And who wins? In a scenario where conservatives and independents are disillusioned, disgusted, disappointed, and now, disinterested, who wins? Let me give you a hint: It isn’t America.
Understand, I’m not comparing Mr. Cain to Jesus. I know the difference between a candidate and the Savior of mankind. I’m comparing the actions of a collective conservative mindset to the actions of another fallible human being. I’m sure Mr. Cain expected Judas, the leftist media machine, to attack him, and I’m sure he was ready for that. I wonder, was he ready for the conservatives to turn out to be Peter? Frankly, whether he was or not, the conservatives should be ashamed for our part in tearing this good man down. And, whether we support him for the nomination or not, we need to thumb our nose at that rattling leftist media machine, turn our backs on the gossip and scandal, and get down to the business of vetting the candidates based on real issues, rather than focusing on the soap opera the leftist media is promoting like an episode of “90210.”
Conservatives, individuals, pundits, and talking heads alike, have played right into the hands of the leftist media we all so distrust. They “report” as though it were real news, instead of Enquirer-worthy gossip, and we swallow it whole. We have collectively done exactly what they wanted us to do. Pardon my sarcasm but… “GREAT JOB!” We’ve been played like a well tuned instrument. Not something we should be proud of. The leftist media machine and their socialist-plotting bottomless pockets couldn’t have been more successful in disrupting the entire conservative movement if they had, lets say… produced a cigar and a stained blue dress.