HERMAN CAIN AND THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION...

While Herman Cain is now being accused of what would normally be seen as a resume enhancer if he were a Democrat, Herman and his team are going to have to become much better in how they choose to handle what could become a serious hit to his campaign. Having said that, I want to make it clear that, despite money supposedly having been paid to these accusers, what has been described by some as "hush money," I find it rather hard to believe that he did anything wrong. It never ceases to amaze me how these pathetic liberals who profess themselves to be so inclusive, are permitted to exhibit such racist behavior and yet never be challenged on it. It is just one more very clear indicator of the liberal bias in the state controlled media conglomerate. It's amazing just how quickly, and with how so little proof of any wrong doing, these people will go after any female or black candidate who is not a liberal.

So what we now have is Herman Cain's campaign adamantly denying the allegations that he was twice accused of sexual harassment while he was the head of the National Restaurant Association back in the 1990s. In a statement Sunday to The Associated Press, his campaign disputed a Politico report that said Cain had been accused of sexually suggestive behavior toward at least two female employees. The report said the women signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. Naturally, neither woman was identified. Now you would think that if the supposed act was so egregious, there would have been a lot more than a mere five-figure payout. In realty, this is nothing more than the same caliber of smear campaign that was attempted against Clarence Thomas by the likes of Teddy Kennedy, who is now, thankfully, rotting in Hell.


The report being made is based on "anonymous" sources and, in one case, what the publication said was a review of documentation that described the allegations and the resolution. Reviewed by whom, someone on a little muckraking mission perhaps? Cain's campaign told the AP that the allegations were not true, and amounted to unfair attacks. "Inside-the-Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain," spokesman J.D. Gordon said in a written statement. "Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr. Cain's tenure as the Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts." Ok, this is a nice little summation of what's going on, but the campaign is going to need to be a bit more forceful in its denials here.


Asked if Cain's campaign was denying the report, Gordon said, "Yes." "These are baseless allegations," Gordon said in a second interview later Sunday evening. "To my knowledge, this is not an accurate story." Cain plans to continue with several planned appearances in Washington on Monday. He is slated to discuss his tax plan at the American Enterprise Institute, appear at the National Press Club and hold a healthcare briefing on Capitol Hill. I think it safe to say that at both occasions Mr. Cain can expect a goodly amount of questions on this topic, so he had best be prepared. Cain, a self-styled outsider relatively new to the national stage, is facing a new level of scrutiny after a burst of momentum in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. And with that increased level scrutiny comes and eagerness by those in the liberal to dig up as much dirt, substantiated or not, as possible on a conservative candidate.


The former pizza company executive has been pointing to his long record in business to argue that he has the credentials needed to be president during a time of economic strife. In its report, Politico said it confronted Cain early Sunday outside of the CBS News Washington bureau, where he had just been interviewed on "Face the Nation." "I am not going to comment on that," he told Politico when asked specifically about one of the woman's claims. When asked if he had ever been accused of harassment by a woman, he responded, Politico said, by asking the reporter, "Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?" Cain briefly told a reporter on Sunday he would not comment on a report that didn’t even name the people who are accusing him. But while many are already maybe a little too eager to assign guilt, one conservative did come to Cain’s defense Sunday night. And that was Ann Coulter.


And I have to agree with Ann Coulter, who appearing on Jerry River's, aka Geraldo Rivera, "Jerry at Large" on Fox News, described herself as being “spitting mad” about “this attack on Herman Cain.” “Liberals are terrified of Herman Cain,” Coulter said. “He is a strong, conservative black man. Look at the way they go after Allen West and Michael Steele, and they’re not even running against Obama. They (liberals) are terrified of strong, conservative black men.” As for the substance of the attack on Cain, “What’s being alleged here isn’t even genuine harassment,” Coulter said. “Like I say, it isn’t touching, it isn’t groping; it’s ‘Ooh, he said something and we thought it was inappropriate.’” Which should make it all the more easy to handle by Cain's campaign team. They're going to need to be a bit more aggressive in nipping this silliness in the bud.


Coulter called the Politico hit piece an “outrageous attack on a black conservative who is doing extremely well and I think will be our vice presidential candidate.” But Cain’s team is going to have to much better in how it chooses to handle this potential campaign killer. Campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon, after repeatedly given a number of opportunities to deny the Politico report, refused to do so in his Sunday night telephone interview with Jerry. Gordon called the Politico report a liberal smear: “This is not even a sourced allegation,” he complained. But repeatedly pressed on whether the report is true, Gordon dodged the question every time: Is Herman Cain denying that two women were given a cash payout to hush up the allegations against him, Geraldo asked. And again, referring back to the Clarence Thomas episode, what is being perpetrated here against Mr. Cain, is nothing more than a "high tech lynching," albeit an updated version.


Gordon responded that “Mr. Cain deserves better than this.” Jerry, being ever the persistent gutter journalist wasn’t about to give up: “Do you deny that this ever happened?” "You know, Geraldo, just let me tell you. This is just an example of the inside-the Beltway media attack…” In the end, Gordon told Jerry the question of whether two women received cash payouts to settle the harassment allegations would have to be put to the National Restaurant Association. "Multiple sources" told Politico that the two women complained of "sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable." Now I understand there is a fine line when denying accusations of this type, if you're too strong, then media morons, like Jerry, will begin to think that maybe there's some truth to them, if the response is too weak, inconsistent or even non-existent, the accusations only fester and become much more than they really are.


This form of slimy tactics is a perfect example of why so many good people refuse to run for public office. Why should they be forced to run a gauntlet made up of liberal faux journalists, and to expose their family to what is nothing more than the pathetic behavior exhibited by those same sleazy journalists. And it's always the conservative candidates who come under the most severe level of scrutiny. If Democrats were made to face the same in depth digging up of any dirt there wouldn't be but a handful in all of Congress. They're permitted to be "former" members of the KKK, take part in all manner if inappropriate behavior and are even permitted to have committed murder. Look back over all that was glossed over in the case of Barry "Almighty" regarding his background and very questionable associations. The net result here is the fact that we’re left with candidate essentially "selected by those in the media by their keeping certain information on some candidate under wraps regarding candidate they favor while exposing, or even making things up, when it comes to candidates that they oppose.