Cain Mutiny?
What amazes me most--wait, it really doesn't amaze me at all--is that the same group of folks that didn't believe Obama was born here are among the 54% of Republicans who are "unconcerned" about the latest sexual harassment accusations against Mr. Cain. At your next click, I will apologize for saying that.
OK, I may have been deliberately snide. What Cain did this afternoon was change the ground. His adamant denials, even amongst a few shifty comments (no proof of who is behind this, but common sense dictates that we should infer the possibility of some kind of cabal) puts the onus on the accusers to back up their claims. Perhaps they can't. I will even solicit the possibility that it's a Nixonian campaign dirty trick from the Perry camp, who has the most to gain. What I will be brutally skeptical about is some kind of conspiracy involving four separate women. The fact that there are multiple accusations weighs heavily here.
ReplyDeleteAs for the media: Feeding frenzy yes, salacious and ratings-driven, yes, liberal agenda/bias/conspiracy? Nope. The same type of story gave us Clinton/Wiener/Edwards/Spitzer, and more and more. The MSM is an equal opportunity pursuer when thrown this kind of sizzling red meat.
If there is a secret, it will come out. Secrets are damn hard to keep nowadays.
One cabal Cain mentioned as the possible source of the accusations was the "Democrat machine" (last week the Perry camp was suggested.) This week, it's the media and Democrats. I feel silly pointing this out, but the WH would dearly love to run against Mr. Cain. They have nothing at all to gain from his descent. Mr. Romney is their anticipated target, and indeed they have the most to fear from his quarter.
ReplyDeleteSo: If it's not the media, not the Democrats, and not a conspiracy among multiple women, what gives?
a)It's Alred, the attorney, a lefty and lightning rod for scandal. It's her political agenda.
I don't buy this. Whatever one thinks about Ms. Alred, she represented Mr. Wiener's accuser and called for his resignation. Mr. Wiener is a liberal democrat. He resigned the day after her suggestion that he do so.
b) It's Perry.
This makes more sense, but how Mr. Perry's people were able to corral four separate women into this is problematic. Op research may have uncovered the prior allegations and leaked them, letting the snowball of publicity take over from there. This is plausible, but if true, it actually lends substance to the accusations.
c) It's all true, no matter how it came to light.
The most likely scenario. Multiple women, money paid, two accusers still anonymous, reluctant to go public--hardly publicity seekers.
d) It's all an Obama cabal of some sort in collusion with Big Media, etc. No Matter What You Say.
I can't argue with a tautology, an article of faith. I can't negate an inductive assertion that something is true simply because one believes it must be so. This position isn't an argument at all--it's paranoid delusion on a par with black helicopters, cow mutilations, and socialist aliens in Obama's head.
So: pick your poison.
Addendum:
ReplyDeleteClinton said he didn't--he did. Edwards said he didn't and did. I can't, offhand, think of one political sex scandal where the initial denials held up, or where a smear was shown to have been orchestrated.
I think there is very little doubt that some probably seriously inappropriate behaviour took place. Why they keep denying I have no idea. Wouldn't it make better sense to just accept responsibility? Wouldn't these politicians demonstrate that they are grownups in this way? I despair of the stupidity of these wannabe leaders.
ReplyDelete