<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

THE MARK OF CAIN: Talking Points 

I keep meaning to comment on the Big Golden Book of Republican Talking Points, but it is so hard to get a current copy when they keep updating every three or four hours when a new Herman Cain accuser comes forward.

First, Cain's supporters dismiss the accusers because they are anonymous. Then, when they are no longer anonymous, they are attacked for just wanting to be in the spotlight, or for the money, or because they are Democratic operatives.

Not wanting to exhaust myself, I only tackled three of the Herman Cain-related talking points from the last decade or so. (I guess it hasn't been a full decade since Herman Cain entered our lives and enriched us so. It just seems like it.) Perhaps, if I ever get my appetite back after tackling such a foul-smelling cesspool of willful ignorance and blatant dumbassery, I may once again comment on a later edition of The Big Golden Book of Republican Talking Points.

NUMBER ONE

Why has it taken so long for these women to come forth?
- Teapsalm
The implication, much like the similarly shrill "Look at the timing!" meme, seems to be saying that these women should have come forward at some point before it was known that Herman Cain would be a front-runner for the GOP nomination.

I don't really see much sense in using a lame distraction tactic like "Look at the timing!" when the accusations are made a full year before the election (which makes absolutely no sense at all if you are trying to push the idea that this is a "liberal smear") and several months before the first GOP primary (this makes a little more sense, especially for the theory that the Perry campaign or the Romney campaign released this info.)

Is there some good reason why a woman who had been harrassed by someone like Herman Cain migh hesitate before coming forward with accusations like these? Can we look at the past and see an example of a woman being vilified for similar accusations against a powerful Republican?

Yes, we can! (This incident has spawned another talking point that Anita Hill's accusations were proven false. The fact that I have never seen a single fact linked with this assertion is what makes it a talking point.)

Can we look at the more recent past and find a similar attack on a woman who came forward?

Again, yes we can!

So why didn't these women come forward earlier against a powerful man like Herman Cain?

(Well, aside from the nondisclosure agreements signed by some of them.)

Is it really that hard a question?

NUMBER TWO

BILL CLINTON = adultery in the house his wife and daughter lived. You loved Clinton, you forgave Clinton. Now you are ready to hang a man because he is not a democrat.
- spiT4u2
I think he is trying to say that sexual harrassment is the same as consensual sex, and that Herman Cain is under attack because he is a Republican because if he was a Democrat, the story would be ignored.

Well, I don't remember the Republicans ignoring Clinton, Weiner, Edwards, Gary Hart or any Democrat when allegations of a sexual nature appeared. Perhaps dishonest Republicans can make accusations like this and they can claim there's a double standard, but it just doesn't hold up under the least bit of scrutiny.

Honest conservatives, when they find themselves stuck in the echo chamber with dittohead gibberish like this, should speak up and tell their fellow conservatives that blatant and childish like this doesn't make conservatives look very smart or sensible or honest, and it doesn't gain them any friends that a decent person would want.

NUMBER THREE

I am not a politician.
Herman Cain

I hear this a lot. Not just from Herman Cain. From a lot of his supporters.

But I have my doubts. He was the senior economic adviser to Bob Dole when Dole ran for the presidency in 1996. (Dole lost.) He ran - briefly - for the presidency in 2000. (He lost.) He ran to be a U.S. Senator from Georgia in 2004. (He lost in the primary.) He's running for the presidency now. (He's floundering a bit at the moment by reacting to serious accusations with a bunch of childish nonsense.)

So, is he not a politician just because he's not very good at it?

And then there's the National Restaurant Association. Herman Cain was president and CEO from 1996 to 1999. One of its roles is to lobby for the restaurant industry in Washington. It's a lobbying organization. (And if there's one thing consistenly considered lower than your average politician, it's your average lobbyist. Funny how the so-called Liberal Media (TM) never mentions that the National Restaurant Association is a lobbying organization.)

Not a politician? Come up with a useful and relevant definition of "politican" and we'll see if it fits Herman Cain.

THE LAST WORD

Perhaps I could give Cain the benefit of the doubt if he had ever given a single response to the sexual harrassment charges - or a single response to anything - that wasn't arrogant or sarcastic or childish or vile.

Perhaps if he had said a single thing that indicates that he has any respect for his supporters. Or if he had said a single thing that indicates that he thinks his supporters need to be shown any respect.

Maybe then I could find the space in my heart for some wiggle room for Herman Cain.

I'm not holding my breath.

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?