Monday, October 31, 2011

Herman Cain: The Sexual Harassment Smear

By now you’ve probably heard Politico is alleging that two women claim Herman Cain harassed them in the 1990s when he was head of the Restaurant Association. This is a classic smear. Journalists with left wing sympathies dig up anonymous sources who claim a rising Republican is guilty of some nebulous crime. They provide no details and won’t reveal the names of the accusers. They imply guilt by saying Cain bought them off. Now they heap scorn upon him, not for the supposed crime, of which they presume he is guilty, but his failure to defend himself to their satisfaction.

This is, pardon my French, bullshit.

Let’s look at the elements. First, we have the nature of the allegations. Politico accuses Cain of sexual harassment. But sexual harassment is an extremely broad category of conduct that can run all the way up to rape. Thus, it is vital to identify the exact conduct. Of course they don’t. Why don’t they? They claim they can’t because of settlement agreements, but that’s a lie as I’ll discuss. The real reason they don’t state the allegations is because there are no worthwhile allegations here and they are hoping the public will think the worst.

These events (assuming they even happened) happened in the 1990s, the heyday of the fake sexual harassment claim. Spurred on by Anita Hill’s own fantasy claims, the 1990s saw spurious well-after-the-fact claims made for things like: telling dirty jokes, asking out on dates, complimenting clothing, excluding from lunches and outside activities with male colleagues, having a racy calendar, looking at the “victim” in ways the victim felt were inappropriate, etc. Also, keep in mind, this was the same time feminists were claiming that “all sex is rape,” that most women had been date-raped, and that women should be allowed to say “no” after the fact. Thus, a reputable journalist not looking to smear a candidate would say more than “harassment” because they would not want to give a false impression.

And let’s look at the reason they claim they can’t say more: the settlement agreement.

First, a five figure settlement is a joke. In fact, it means the claims were baseless because it means the association settled just to avoid the attorneys fees. And again, let me note that we don’t know what the settlement actually is because Politico wants you to think the worst. Rather than hearing “it was $10,000” (the amount grocery stores pay fake slip and fall fraudsters to go away) you’re supposed to think it’s up to $100,000.

Secondly, in the law you hear a phrase all the time: “sword and shield.” What this means is that the law does not allow a person to use the law to attack another person and then to turn around and hide behind that same law when the person counterattacks. This smear is a classic example of such an abuse. What I mean is this: on the one hand, Politico refuses to release the names of the accusers, the details of their allegations or the settlement amount. Thus, they have in effect made it impossible to verify the truth of these allegations by hiding behind the settlement confidentiality provision. But then they turn around and lynch Cain for failing to explain away these allegations, i.e. for failing to violate the same confidentiality provision behind which they are hiding. That is a smear.

Moreover, Politico is lying. These agreements not only require confidentiality of the terms and the allegations made therein, but they also require confidentiality of the agreement itself. When Politico’s unidentified witnesses mentioned the agreement, mentioned the type of allegations, mentioned that there was a settlement, and mentioned that it was five-figure settlement, they violated that agreement. In other words, they have broken the agreement already and hiding behind the idea that they can’t say more without breaking the agreement is a lie. . . and Politico knows that.

Not to mention, I have yet to see Politico mention that the Restaurant Association will have denied any liability in the settlement. Which I can guarantee you they did. Not mentioning that, but instead saying that the Association has refused to comment (as they should) is another smear.

Let’s be clear here. The MSM and left hate and fear strong, smart, capable, conservative blacks. They will do and say whatever it takes to destroy them. And their favorite method is to scream “sexual harassment” because it plays into the racist stereotype of black males as sexual predators. This is usually followed by accusing them of lying about their education, before they start a whisper campaign that this particular black man “likes white women.” That is the bigoted pattern and that is what Politico has started here.

And as you would expect, the usual suspects are already at work. Women’s groups who plucked out their own eyes to avoid seeing Clinton’s constant harassment are demanding blood. Leftist journalists who spent last week telling us that Republican support for Cain proved we are racists because we want a black man “who knows his place” (MSNBC), are now in a feeding frenzy about the out of control sexual predator. And establishment types like Karl Rove are trying to tear Cain down by claiming Cain has refused to answer whether or not this is true. For the record, here is Cain's “evasion”:

“It is totally baseless and totally false. Never have I ever committed any kind of sexual harassment.”
I guess Rove lacks comprehension skills. . . or integrity.

This is a smear and should make you angry, even if you aren’t a Cain supporter. This is exactly the kind of smear the right needs to stand up to and reject. This is shameful.


Ed said...

Andrew, I'm glad you wrote about this because this truly pissed me off! This is absolutely a smear. How do we fight back?!

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, How could I not? This is yet another shameless attack by the MSM and we can't let this stand. In fact, we predicted this in the comments a couple weeks back that the first harassment allegations would be out around this time and that it would be vague and based on "multiple" accounts from unknown accusers. This is the MSM smear pattern for black men.

Unknown said...

Andrew: I seem to remember another "high-tech lynching" launched against a black man who strayed off the liberal plantation. Maybe we'll find out that Anita Hill worked for the Cain organization. Only this time, the creep at MediaMatters won't call her a "little bit nutty, a little bit slutty." In fact, I wonder how much MediaMatters and their puppetmaster George Soros are involved in this smear.

CrispyRice said...

OMG, I know! I've been listening to Rush talk about this today and it makes me so angry!

Rush really pinned it that a black (or Hispanic, talking about Rubio) simply isn't allowed to be a conservative or Republican. The left and the media will do whatever it takes to tar and feather him. Yet somehow, it's the Tea Party that are the racists.

Watch my head explode. Arrrrgh!

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, This reeks of the Anita Hill matter -- minor allegations, brought out for political reasons years after the fact, from a woman who actually followed Thomas to later jobs, suddenly thinks she's a horrific victim of sexual harassment and then goes on to profit from her fame. Gee.

This is an unprovable attack that any politically motivated or economically motivated person can make. And the fact they are trying to make it while hiding behind a confidentiality agreement they already violated is obscene and is pretty much all you need to know to judge the claims.

As for Soros, don't forget that several of Politico's "journalists" when through George's training programs before they joined Politico. His fingers are deep in their reporting.

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, I didn't get a chance to hear Rush, but I'm glad he blasted this. That is exactly what this is -- and attempt to destroy a minority who has gone off the liberal reservation. The Rubio slander is another great example. And don't forget they attack Republican women too in all kinds of sexist ways.

That is how liberals work: scorched earth and nothing is beneath them.

Ed said...

"This is the MSM smear pattern for black men." -- I agree with that 100 percent!

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That's what it is.

In terms of fighting back, just don't let other people make it into something it's not. Demand the facts before reaching any judgment and remember the presumption of innocence. Don't let your friends, neighbors, or other blog join the ranks of people slandering him.

CrispyRice said...

Yeah, Andrew, Rush didn't drop it. And the callers who got on were all really angry about it, too.

I think you're right that we've had enough and this sort of BS isn't going to fly any more.

I hope anyway!

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, I hope so too and I'm glad to hear people were upset at the media about this. In the past, Republicans would quickly fold at these moments and the weak-kneed branch would run to microphones and say something like: "these are horrible charges and need to be investigated, but let's not be too rash." Cowards.

I'm glad to see that Cain isn't taking this sitting down and that so far other Republicans (except Rove) aren't ready to throw him under the bus. We can't let the MSM keep picking our candidates for us by letting them pick off the good ones until we're left with people they find acceptable.

And to fall for a sleazy dishonest attack like this would be an outrage.

Joel Farnham said...


The only way I can see is to attack the attackers. Obviously the media has it out for Cain and so do some of our so-called friends (Rove and Company). Find out what hurts them and hit them hard on it. Also, this particular attack has the added benefit of tarring the accuser more than the accused.

I do know that a majority of the people in the United States give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, despite what the Media and other lefties would like us to do. It also brings Cain front and center in front of the American People. I am sure Cain would have preferred a more congenial approach, but that is life. He is in the big leagues now.

It isn't what happened with Palin. She was sprung on us. Cain wasn't. Also, despite what people think of Palin, most people despise what the left has done to her. And Cain doesn't have to hold back for his handlers like Palin did.

Cain is already demanding his accusers come out and face him. I wonder if they dare? It would seem to me that they again misjudged the situation.

Tennessee Jed said...

Alinsky at work here. pretty much the lowest of the low in trying to rip down Cain

DUQ said...

This angers me a lot. They should not be reporting rumor and until they have actual facts, this is rumor. They are trying to blow this up into something and like you I bet they don't have anything. If they did, they would already have reported it.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I think you are right on all counts.

First, the worst thing to do is to try to defend yourself against unknown people with undefined allegations. That will only blow up on you. The best defense is either to laugh it off if you can, or go on the attack. Since this is something the MSM intends to use to destroy Cain, he can't laugh it off. Thus, the best approach is to counter attack and to point out why this is a smear and nothing more.

Demanding that the accusers come forward is a great first step because if they don't, then it basically proves that the allegations aren't real. And if they do, then you finally have something you can respond to. And if the allegations turn out to be "he looked at me funny" or "he once told a joke" (and yes, those have been allegations made in prior court cases), then the public will see this for the pure smear it is and this will backfire on the MSM.

The danger for Cain is that there is genuine evidence of something big that comes out -- like stalker e-mails or something like that. Something like that would destroy him, since he's denied it and his reputation is based on being a straight-shooter. That said, however, if there were such evidence, the settlements would have been much larger and I can guarantee you that Politico would have found a way to mention the allegations.

As for Palin, I think a lot of people don't like her for a lot of reasons, but I agree with you that few people condoned the MSM smear on her -- the establishment not withstanding. And you're right that she was handicapped because she was handcuffed to captain collaboration and there was no way McCain was going to fight back or let her fight back. Cain has no such problem and has in fact gone on the offensive.

As for the snivelers like Rove, I think they are on the wrong side of history. They continue to be blind to why the public no longer trusts the establishment or wants anything to do with them. I suspect they will wake up one day and find themselves on the outside wondering how their conventional wisdom failed them.

But in the meantime, this is the kind of nasty smear that can hurt a candidate because people who want to believe it will. In the end, hopefully this will be exposed as nothing, but don't be surprised if it just goes silent and becomes a whisper campaign.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I couldn't agree more. Also, as you probably know as a businessman, almost all businesses and many executives find themselves wrongfully sued for things like harassment or wrongful termination or whatever because there is always someone who sees that as a way to make a quick buck. Until you see that there is actual evidence, these things should be taken as nothing more than robbery -- just like slip and fall claims in grocery stores.

And I'm not kidding on companies buying people off for these amounts. I personally know of cases where grocery stores paid $10,000 to people they could absolutely prove had not fallen down (video tape of them lying down) just to make them go away because it was cheaper and easier to pay them off. Insurers usually make the call on that, not the companies.

Until they present actual proof, I see this as nothing more than fraud.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I just made that same point! Great minds, right?

If there was actually some strength to the allegations, then Politico would have reported them. The idea that they are trying to honor the confidentiality agreement is bogus. It's designed to keep them from having to report how shallow these allegations really are and to get Cain to start swinging at perception rather than reality.

If they had anything serious, they would have already used it.

Joel Farnham said...

Herman Cain was not convicted of sexual harassment. Hot Air has the info. Cain's explanation makes sense. Settling things by paying the accuser is galling, but when your brainiac lawyer recommends that you settle, you settle. I am sure, Andrew, that you or LawHawk will know the general going price on these things.

I also get the feeling Allahpundit doesn't like Cain. I am not sure why.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, There are a lot of reasons why people settle even when they are innocent -- both in civil law and criminal law. The biggest is the cost of continuing to fight and the possibility of getting blasted by a huge verdict.

If your attorney fees will be $50k to go to trial and the accuser offers to walk away for $10k, businesses pay upt. It's smart to settle. And that's exactly the math which business insurer's do. They look at the cost of fighting and the risk of getting hit with a big judgment and compare it to the cost of settling. Which ever way is cheaper is the way they will go.

Even in criminal law, people will plead guilty to some minor charge and serve 90 days rather than face the bigger charge and face a possible sentence of 10 years -- even when they're innocent.

In fact, that's one way prosecutors maintain such a high conviction rate -- they overcharge and then offer a great sounding deal.

It's all about risk versus reward and weighing the costs. It's not about guilt or innocence.

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - you are exactly right about the buying off claims because the cost to defend is more than just paying the fraud. It is one unfortunate bi-product of what otherwise is a great legal system. I think the right way to play this is the way Obama did the "birther" thing. Scorn for the accusers and Politico.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I just read the article. Thanks for the link. If what Cain says is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt him), then this is completely fabricated/imagined. Also, there will be a company file if they conducted an investigation as he claims.

I think you're right about HotAir, they seem to be... mocking isn't quite the right word, but "doubting" Cain on this issue. We'll see.

This is the sort of thing that will either be proven or not. If it's proven, then Cain has lied to us and that would be really bad for him. But if what he says proves to be true, then this is 100% a smear and I think the unfairness of the attack will give him a lot of protection from future attacks.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Thanks for confirming that. In my experience, IF something has really happened, then companies fire people and make changes. If nothing has happened, then they just decide if it's worth buying the accuser off -- and usually it is if the accuser is being reasonable in their demands.

It's unfortunate because this does create an entire industry for fake-claimants to run around extorting money, but that is a fact of life.

So I've long looked to see if people were fired and policies/products changed before I ever assume the company actually did something wrong.

Also, people may not realize that decisions are generally made by insurance companies, not the businesses themselves. So settlements are often made even against the company's wishes.

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, for those who don't want to go to HotAir, here is what they are quoting:

Cain told van Susteren that he remembered one woman who was a writer in the Association’s communications department. “I can’t even remember her name, but I do remember the formal allegation she made in terms of sexual harassment,” Cain said. “I turned it over to my general counsel and one of the ladies that worked for me, the woman in charge of human resources. They did investigate…and it was found to be baseless.”

Van Susteren asked Cain how often he saw the woman. “I might see her in the office because her office was on the same floor as my office,” Cain said. Van Susteren asked whether the woman traveled with Cain, who spent a lot of time on the road speaking to restaurant associations around the country. “No, never,” Cain said…

Van Susteren asked what Cain did that led to the accusation. There were reportedly more than one accusations in the complaint, but Cain said he recalled just one incident. “She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying — and I was standing close to her — and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, ‘My wife comes up to my chin.’” At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. “And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable,” Cain said, “something that was in the sexual harassment charge.”


Cain also offered new information about the settlement of the case. Politico, which broke the sexual harassment allegation story, said that the woman received a money settlement “in the five-figure range.” When van Susteren asked about that, Cain said, “My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement…I don’t remember a number…But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement.” When van Susteren asked how much money was involved, Cain said. “Maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”

rlaWTX said...

useful idiots of the world, unite!!

annoying, conniving, back-stabbing, rumor-mongering, muck-raking hacks!

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Tell me about it! This is how Republicans keep tearing each other down -- by buying into these smears without actually looking into the facts.

Right now, we know nothing except that a left-leaning website is claiming that two women made harassment claims against Cain. That's it. We know nothing more. And we should be demanding they come forward with anything they have to prove it or retract the story. We should not be attacking Cain.

But this is how it gets done and we play in it. I recall all the way back to John Tower being attacked for supposed alcoholism (by Ted Kennedy no less), and then Packwood, Clarence Thomas, etc. etc. There are too many to list. And in each case, the right tossed their guy under the bus the moment the left made the allegation.

That makes no sense! We are our own worst enemies.

ScyFyterry said...

Thanks for the information. As I said before, I'm still not sold on Cain, but this doesn't change my thinking. This is just another MSM smear like they always do to Republicans.

AndrewPrice said...

ScyFyTerry, You're welcome. If they had actual allegations, then fine, we should examine those. But this is just a hint of suspicion which they've offered up with no substance. This is like saying "I know something rotten your neighbor did" and leaving it at that -- it's a smear.

T-Rav said...

I just did a quick read-through. I think your initial colorful description is pretty dead-on (so to speak--Happy Halloween, folks!).

I haven't followed this very closely because I smelled a rat from the start and didn't take it too seriously (kind of hard to after the Anita Hill fiasco). I think Rush, Coulter, et al. are absolutely right that the leftists are scared to death of a successful, positive-sounding black conservative and will resort to lies, if necessary, to destroy him. I don't know for sure if these are lies, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them. If they could be made to feel guilt, they ought to hang their heads in shame over this.

T-Rav said...

Also, as far as the other sites go, I don't know about HotAir being negative--I get the impression they're mostly just a bit rattled by some of Cain's gaffes--but as I've said before, a lot of sites have gone way negative on Cain, apparently for no better reason than he's a threat to Perry. And I really don't know why. I mean, in some cases I think I understand their thinking--they fear Romney getting the nomination (as do I), and think Perry is the best chance of stopping that (which I sorta get), therefore Cain stealing Perry's support away is a bad thing. I guess I get that. But that's no excuse for the absolute double standard they've been pulling on their coverage of Cain vs. their coverage of Perry. They and Karl Rove seem to be in the "strange bedfellows" role at this moment.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Thanks! I agree. I think this a blatant attempt to take down a black conservative before he can do any more damage to the cause of keeping minorities as Democrats.

Read the article in italics in the comments and that should give you a pretty good sense of what the real story is here. I would be surprised if there was more to this because I think Politico would have used it already if they had it.

And yeah, they have no shame. It's not part of the playbook.

On harassment, by the way. I don't want to give the impression there is not such thing. There is and it's wrong. But 99% of what gets called harassment these days is not anything anyone reasonable would consider harassment. And that's what I think is going on here. I think you had one or two unreasonable people who made claims to get bought off on their way out the door.

(P.S. Happy Halloween!)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I don't frequent HotAir, so I don't know much about their views. The article seems to doubt Cain in ways that I think they should not be doing if they were being fair, but it is slight. In other words, I don't know if they are pro/con/non- Cain, thuogh this article leans slightly con.

But you're right that a lot of the Perry sites have really flipped their lids regarding Cain. They can't see the writing on the wall that their guy is finished and they have gone into victim mode. It is unbecoming.

As for Rove, Rove is an establishment guy who makes money by pretending that he knows how to do things better than everyone else. He doesn't. He's mentally ham-fisted at best. But the thing to keep in mind with Rove is that he's not telling you the truth, he's telling you what he wants you to believe... which is very pro-RINO.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I see now that there's a good deal of speculation this may have been leaked by another GOP campaign, and Politico is refusing to answer that question one way or the other. Obviously, there's no proof of that--it could easily be the work of a few libs--but let's just say it was. There's really only two candidates who stand to gain from a smear of Cain's reputation like this, and if it came out that one of them, in particular, had done it, I wonder what some of those blogger sites would have to say then? (Sorry, but this double standard they've been exercising has really put me off.)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Sadly, I think that these blogs you mention would just call it "good politics" and would say that "any candidate who can't defend themselves doesn't deserve the nomination"... excluding their own candidate of course, who is being unfairly attacked.

To me, in truth, it doesn't matter where it came from at this point. If it came from another campaign, then I would hold that against them because this is dirty pool. But the real villains right now are the supposed "journalists" at Politico who threw aside any pretense of journalistic ethics or integrity and went into active racist smear mode with this.

And while I hate making this point, it is valid: you can bet their reaction would have been 100% different if this involved allegations against Obama.

AndrewPrice said...

Politico's smear continues. In an interview with the hack who wrote the story (Jonathan Martin), he was asked what Cain did and the guy actually said that (1) he wouldn't get into the details of the claim and (2) it was up to Cain to explain what he's been accused of. As we've said... a smear.

As an aside, I sent Politico an e-mail complaining out their coverage:

Your racist smear of Herman Cain is despicable. Jonathan Martin should be ashamed of himself. He has no journalistic ethics or integrity. Since when is it acceptable to report unidentified, unsourced allegations of supposed wrongdoing and then tell the smear-victim that it's up to them to carry the story? It is racist rumor mongering at best. And the fact Politico would employ this bigot is an obscenity. You have fallen a great deal in my estimation today.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, they already proved their reaction was different. See also: Jeremiah Wright, circa 2008.

That email is hilarious. I doubt they'll respond, but still.

Joel Farnham said...


Cain is not a regular politician. He is a business man first. Contrary to liberal conspiracists and communists, business men are honest. If they aren't, they don't stay in business long. Herman also has a very credible explanation.

On Politico, it is an has always been a third rate blog. I mean if the Politico was an old style newspaper, I am not sure it could qualify as fish wrap.... it has so much excrement written. Whenever I travel to Politico's site, the first words unbidden out of my mouth is, "That's B@llsh..!!"

What really is appalling is that supposedly conservative sites, like Hot Air, aren't automatically shredding this. I don't consider any site conservative that doesn't at least attempt to find out if it is true before condemning Cain. Some of them act like the sexual harassment charge is true, and treat Politico's judgement superior.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, true. They prove it every chance they get. My whole life I've seen the MSM tear Republicans apart for real or imagined crimes and then completely overlook identical or worse conduct from Democrats.

I doubt they'll respond too, but I decided it was worth saying something in any event. Maybe if enough people comment, they'll realize they made a mistake here.

AndrewPrice said...


True. Businessmen don't last very long if they are liars, and liars rarely make it to the top and they even more rarely manage to turn a company around.

I think Cain is someone they don't know how to deal with because he is something they haven't encountered before.

I agree entirely about conservative sites that simply treat this as true. We should never assume an allegation made by leftists against a conservative is true unless and until convincing proof is offered. To simply accept this as true without investigating and questioning it first is simply being a useful idiot for the left -- turning a rumor into a truth that gets used to burn our own people.

And in this case, that is exactly what is happening -- all Politico has offered is rumor based on innuendo from unnamed sources. And they are tossing it out there to see if we take the bait. Any conservative site that doesn't first question the fact that this rumor mongering has taken the bait and is playing along with the left.

I'm not saying this is something we should ignore if it is true, but it needs to be proved true before we take the next step. Politico wants to skip to the next step and assassinate the guy, and a lot of conservatives are helping.

StanH said...

Herman Cain didn’t get to his level in business by being a wilting flower. I expect a full bore counter attack which he has already begun with his strong interview with Greta last evening. It’s imperative that he fiercely and firmly stand his ground, which I believe he will, and has.

When he ran for senator here in Georgia against Johnny Isakson in ’04, as I recall, these accusations leaked out. I forget from where, but it lasted only a moment without Herman or Isakson addressing this, there was no there, there, specious at best. Though my wife and I voted for Herman he lost to the well known Isakson, my wife and I were right, the people who voted for Isakson were wrong…ha.

With Barry’s ass in a sling nothing will be held back, anything goes, and if they (MSM) need to make it up to save their messiah they will. We all need to be prepared to counter the slanders with every ounce of our being whomever the nominee is, because you can bet the mud will be slung.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Not surprising that Politico would do this.
Smears, lies, omissions, leftist propaganda, etc., is SOP from leftist self-described journolists these days.

It still makes me angry though!
And I'm even more angry at those on the right who have piled on because Cain ain't their guy!

I've read more than a few comments and blog posts that justify helping spread these leftist smears by saying in effect that if there's "multiple" allegations then there must be something to it.

Well, I hear multiple, anonymous (and non-anonymous) allegations all the time from leftist sources that conservatives are racist, homophobic, sexist, violent yahoos (like the OWSers) so, going by that dubious "logic" it must be true, right?

Well, needless to say I won't be reading those conservative blog authors anymore unless they quickly apologize.
And I quit listening to Karl Rove and establishment republicans a long time ago.
They have simply lost all their credibility and they have no decency or honor.

Conservatives are supposed to be principled dammit! I can forgive mistakes but I'll never back unprincipled conservatives.

This has nothing to do with whether one likes Cain or his ideas or not.
Conservatives should at least be principled enough and honorable enough to call BS whenever the lefties pull this crap!

If not, well...I ain't got use for fair weather conservatives or RINOs and I'll be sure to spread the word about them.

Writer X said...

Rove continues to make himself irrelevant, along with the MSM. Anyone with half a brain could see this was a smear from a mile away.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, It's interesting to hear that these things leaked out once before already. The media is playing this like some dark secret that's been held for years until some brave young jerk reporter uncovered it.

I agree that Cain will squash this attack. He's not like other Republican politicians who curl up in the fetal position and go all weepy. So I have faith he will handle it. That doesn't make me any less angry, but it does give me confidence in him. In fact, this gives me confidence that he'll be able to withstand anything Obama throws at him too. I look at this as good practice for the mudslinging to come.

Notawonk said...

It's beyond shameful, it should be criminal to smear someone's name in this manner. SHOW US THE FACTS. if you don't have any, but still insist on smearing, there should be a jail cell for ya somewhere.

AndrewPrice said...

USS Ben, Well said. This has nothing to do with whether you like Cain or not -- this is about conservatives stabbing their own with rumors created by leftists. That needs to stop. And like you, I am angry at conservative writers who are buying into this. They are just feeding the leftist destruction machine and allowing this whole gotcha game to continue with Republican after Republican.

And you're right, the fact of multiple allegations doesn't really change anything. It's the nature of the allegations and the proof that matters. In this case, it could well be that this was monkey-see monkey-do in terms of bringing allegations or it could all have been internal office politics. Or it could even have been two friends supporting each other. Unless we are told the exact "what" and "when", then we simply cannot judge what any of this means. And to attack him for this before we have any idea what it actually entails is nothing more than a smear -- a specialty of the left.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, I agree. I think the establishment (and the Roves) really are blind to the fact that the public no longer trusts them or looks to them for advice. They have made themselves irrelevant and I think the way things are going, they will soon find themselves on the outs.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, I couldn't agree more. If you have facts, show us the facts. If you don't, then keep your mouth shut. To speak without facts is a smear.

Post a Comment