I'm so terrible about keeping up with a blog. No matter how often I promise myself otherwise, I always ens up going months without writing anything. I think part of the problem is that I'm trying to write a column every day/ So from now on I'm going to try to write every day, even if it's just a sentence.
I do have something for today, though: Herman Cain, my main man for 2012, is under attack from every direction because a few women have decided to try and derail his campaign by bringing up their claims of sexual harassment from fifteen years ago.
Fans of sites like Politico and ThinkProgress have been rubbing their hands with glee as said sites have published story after story after story on it, trying with crusader-like fervor to keep all the spotlights pointed at the matter until Cain's political fire is smothered and drowned. You think I'm being facetious, but Politico posted an article nearly every hour on the hour for the first 24 hours after the story broke.
Despite the accusations (5 of them now) Cain's numbers are still rising. This hasn't worked out the way the Liberals and the other Conservative candidates had hoped it would.
That's what really gets to me: these are allegations. There is no proof that Cain acted inappropriately to the women in question.
The only evidence for misconduct is as follows: two anonymous testimonies, one campaign worker who says he was uncomfortable with the way Cain acted towards women, and a radio host who seems to subscribe to "guilty until proven innocent" when he suggested that it was on Herman to prove he didn't act inappropriately rather than on his accusers to prove that he did.
Some might call the NRA payouts evidence, but considering they payed roughly $100,000 between the two women, it probably would have cost much more to drag the issue through court.
The thing that irks me is that Liberals who defended Bill Clinton and Anthony Wiener (some actually did) and called their incidents "personal business" which "doesn't affect the ability to lead" are outraged at these allegations and say that Cain is undeniably incapable of leadership because of them.
Word to the pundits: think, people! These are allegations. No proof, circumstantial evidence. Try thinking "innocent until proven guilty" instead of the other way around whenever it's convenient for your talking points.
El Conservador (C) 2011
I do have something for today, though: Herman Cain, my main man for 2012, is under attack from every direction because a few women have decided to try and derail his campaign by bringing up their claims of sexual harassment from fifteen years ago.
Fans of sites like Politico and ThinkProgress have been rubbing their hands with glee as said sites have published story after story after story on it, trying with crusader-like fervor to keep all the spotlights pointed at the matter until Cain's political fire is smothered and drowned. You think I'm being facetious, but Politico posted an article nearly every hour on the hour for the first 24 hours after the story broke.
Despite the accusations (5 of them now) Cain's numbers are still rising. This hasn't worked out the way the Liberals and the other Conservative candidates had hoped it would.
That's what really gets to me: these are allegations. There is no proof that Cain acted inappropriately to the women in question.
The only evidence for misconduct is as follows: two anonymous testimonies, one campaign worker who says he was uncomfortable with the way Cain acted towards women, and a radio host who seems to subscribe to "guilty until proven innocent" when he suggested that it was on Herman to prove he didn't act inappropriately rather than on his accusers to prove that he did.
Some might call the NRA payouts evidence, but considering they payed roughly $100,000 between the two women, it probably would have cost much more to drag the issue through court.
The thing that irks me is that Liberals who defended Bill Clinton and Anthony Wiener (some actually did) and called their incidents "personal business" which "doesn't affect the ability to lead" are outraged at these allegations and say that Cain is undeniably incapable of leadership because of them.
Word to the pundits: think, people! These are allegations. No proof, circumstantial evidence. Try thinking "innocent until proven guilty" instead of the other way around whenever it's convenient for your talking points.
El Conservador (C) 2011
RSS Feed