Were you to ask a conservative what they think of Herman Cain’s current predicament they would tell you that it is nothing more than a conspiracy from the left wing Main Stream Media. This was all conjured up because the left feels threatened by Herman Cain being a front runner and if it wasn’t the left then it’s all Mitt Romney’s fault. That’s it. Or perhaps the left and Mitt Romney conspired against Mr. Cain – because, as you know, Mitt is a dreaded Republican in name only and only true conservatives have the capacity to lead this country. Herman Cain is the real victim here and we all need to recognize that.
Why is this all coming out now? Because who would have cared before?
Herman Cain is the front runner. He’s polling better than the establishment and has essentially gone from being the disregarded guy barely acknowledged during debates to being front and center. He pushed Perry off of his golden boy pedestal and perpetuated Mitt Romney’s place as nothing more than a RINO who forced his socialist health care system onto the rest of the country via the dreaded ‘Obamacare’. Beyond that it should be a truth universally acknowledged that should you find yourself at the head of the pack, you will inevitably end up with arrows being shot at your back.
As much as we would each like to say that we only care about policy thus poo-pooing what happens in a candidates personal life, that isn’t true. There is some sort of ideal there whether it has to do with specific looks or characteristics or morals. What we look for in a President is someone relatively free of baggage who we can look at and point to as someone who not only makes good policy but is a good person. Though each of us says that it’s the former that is far more important it is the latter and our being utterly human that does the driving.
***
In the middle of writing this post I was at a loss for an ending when I came upon a story where Newt Gingrich stated that the sexual harassment claims were nothing but a media witch hunt. Do you mind if I say that that is utter bullshit? Because it is.
Maybe because I am a woman – a fairly young woman, I might add – working in a male heavy environment that causes me to be hyper-sensitive when it comes to this situation but right now, a person who is in the middle of proving that he can be President of the United States of America, may have sexually harassed two – three females during his tenure as head of the National Restaurant Association. Right now no one has said that it didn’t happen though Mr. Cain has changed parts of the story first not recalling such an incident then saying that there was a settlement but he’s not sure of what the amount was. Either way, SOMETHING happened while he was there. As a person who is running for President I feel that we, as citizens of the place that he would like to be the leader of, have the right to know that such behavior is in his past. Whether or not it would affect his ability to lead or make policy decisions is a different discussion as we have seen many men in positions of power behave similarly. But right now as he is in this ‘proving’ stage of his candidacy he has shown that he has poor judgment and we have to ask ourselves if Herman Cain is the type of person we want to lead this country.
4 Comments
See, here’s what I don’t get. One of the reasons I didn’t (and still don’t) like Bill Clinton was the sexual harassment allegations. Like with Cain, SOMETHING happened — though different folks accept different stories.
Both men’s transgressions are off-putting to me, regardless of party or policy. But I still can’t figure out why policy trumped past with Clinton, particularly in 1992 when the field was wide open, and particularly among women.
I’ve honestly been thinking about this comment for days. And I should mention that when Clinton’s transgressions happened I was around 12 years old. All I can say re: Herman Cain vs. Bill Clinton is that 1) in the 90′s there wasn’t a over-the-top, everyone is an armchair pundit, 24 hour news cycle as there is now. So not only are we exposed to it one time but we hear about what happened from 50 different angles non-stop for however many days straight. 2) correct me if I’m wrong but Bill Clinton was already President when the allegations came up and had already been able to prove that he was qualified to be President whereas Herman Cain is still trying to show people who he is and what he is all about.
Obviously none of these are great reasons as to why women would go on to re-elect Bill Clinton but in the mid-90′s we could tune this stuff out. In 2011 it is next to impossible.
Oooh, you had to go there and make me feel old, didn’t you?
1) True that the news cycle wasn’t as amped up then as it is now, but it was definitely present, along with talk radio. I was also *somewhat* young and didn’t watch as much political coverage, but by the time Monica was in the news, it was definitely all over MSNBC and the like.
2) I actually wasn’t speaking of Monica though, but Paula and Gennifer and Juanita, among others, which came up during the campaign. Like with Herman Cain, there were just too many allegations to merely dismiss them, but dismissed they were.
However, one key distinction is that Dems are generally of the live-and-let-live persuasion and Republicans have more to say on what other people do, even within legal boundaries. So in that sense I can certainly understand pointing out the hypocrisy of a Republican who rails against what other people do but then proceeds to do the same him/herself.
Still, it sticks in my craw that Bill Clinton almost certainly treated a number of women quite poorly, including his own wife, and is still generally lauded by progressive women.
This means that a reckless fighter who takes a lot of punches to the head will have a much shorter career then one who is more careful and doesn?? t leave himself open all the time.
One Trackback
[...] hearing of the Herman Cain debacle I immediately scratched my head and wondered about the validity of the story. Now, days later, I am [...]