Editor: William Dwight McKissic, Sr is a voice of conscience for the SBC on race related matters. This post is one of the more political posts you will see on SBC Voices, but I think that more than politics is at stake here. I appreciate our brother’s contribution.
The liberal media, conservative Republicans who support rival candidates and African American civil rights leaders who strongly support the Democratic Party and liberal causes, have unwittingly formed an unholy trinity to defeat and destroy the presidential aspirations of Herman Cain. The purpose of this article is not intended to endorse Herman Cain for president; but rather to defend Mr. Cain against the scurrilous, scandalous and shameful attacks on his character.
An allegation and formal complaint is not a conviction. A settlement is not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgement that the parties involved have brought the “disputed” matter to an agreed upon closure without any admission of guilt or liability. There has not been one shred of evidence made available to the public with regard to the sexual harassment allegations leveled against Mr. Cain that suggest he’s guilty. The National Restaurant Association has granted the anonymous accuser(s) and her lawyer the right to tell her story, but they declined.
WHERE IS THE BEEF?
Why are these charges being brought to the public’s attention at this point? The answer is obvious. Mr. Cain has thus far done the impossible. Who would have ever thought that an American Black conservative would be leading the pack for the Republican nomination for president of the United States within a year of the election? No one. That, my friends, is why these charges are being leveled against Mr. Cain. Who has the most to lose if Mr. Cain succeeds? The liberal media, rival candidates, and the Black liberal democratic civil rights community.
The election of Herman Cain as president of the United States of America would change the political, social and economic landscape in America like nothing we’ve seen before. Therefore, he’s a threat like none other to the established order. In Herman Cain, we find the reincarnation and fusion of three great men. His candidacy is causing such a stir and a buzz because he could be the second coming of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ronald Wilson Reagan all wrapped into one. In my lifetime, these three men impacted the political, social, racial and economic landscape like none other. Cain has the populist appeal and tax cutting philosophy of Kennedy. He has the rock-solid conservative values and principles of Reagan. And, he has the racial sensitivity and inclusion/empowerment agenda for minorities and the poor as Martin Luther King, Jr. America has never seen a presidential candidate with all these qualities in one package. Cain has the potential to bring America together like none other. Therefore, this unholy trinity is unleashing everything within their power to stop him.
I’ve never seen the media report as many as three anonymous allegations of sexual harassment, and not only fail to give us names, pictures, interviews, etc., of these accusers. They even fail to provide any specifics or details related to these charges. No other presidential candidate has been treated like this in my lifetime. Why Herman Cain? Names, pictures, and specifics, have been given with every other politician that I can recall who faced a sex scandal. I repeat: Herman Cain is the only one that I know who has to endure a mirage of news reports about sexual harassment without any supporting evidence.
Where is the NAACP in defense of Herman Cain? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in defense of Herman Cain? Where are the liberals who love to support oppressed minorities in defense of Herman Cain? These entities and individuals are losing credibility, because they are proving to be only interested in defending and advancing Black liberals, not Blacks who are independent thinkers. Is the NAACP the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People–period?
I never thought I’d live to see the day when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other conservative commentators would defend a Black man who is being falsely accused, while the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton remain silent or partner in the unholy trinity.
My voice is minor and marginal, compared to the voices that capture the media’s attention with regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I can’t sit idly by and watch this decent, honorable Baptist minister and businessman under attack, and I say nothing. Therefore, in the spirit of John the Baptist, I’ve decided to be a voice crying in the wilderness appealing to this unholy trinity as it relates to the sexual harassment charges—LEAVE HERMAN CAIN ALONE! STOP THE MADNESS! CEASE AND DESIST THE PRACTICE OF A DOUBLE STANDARD! Cease this media lynching. And the only Uncle Tom’s and sellouts that I’ve seen in this campaign are those who are African American that are aiding and abetting this lynching. The one candidate that the liberal media, Black liberal Democratic leaders, and even other Republican candidates fear the most at this point is Herman Cain. And that, my friends, is the basis for this attack.
Make no mistake about it; the liberal media quoting the anonymous sources is racist and wrong on this matter—specifically, Politico. If credible evidence comes forth that suggests Mr. Cain is guilty, I will immediately post an apology; and I will repent; Mr. Cain would need to do the same as well.
With regard to Sharon Bialek, the fourth accuser, I find her story less than credible for the following reasons: (1) She waited 12 years to tell her story; (2) The story she described if accurate would constitute a crime. Why didn’t she report it to the law when it occurred? She appears to be a pawn of the unholy trinity, seeking to deny this American Black Conservative from winning the nomination for president. Since the anonymous charges did not stick to Mr. Cain, she offers herself as a “sacrificial lamb” that stands to gain fame and fortune from her alleged dalliance with Mr. Cain. What we’re seeing is truly a high-tech lynching, akin to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and for the exact same reason. (3) Where is the “blue dress”? She provided no evidence to her claim to truth.
If Mr. Cain wins, the liberal Democratic stronghold on the Black vote will be broken for a long-long time. This is the reason the liberals are trying to defeat Mr. Cain.
I admit to two things.
1) Herman Cain’s candidacy has intrigued me.
2) The accusations greatly bother me.
I appreciate both your passion and your perspective. Thanks!
My sympathy right now is with Mrs. Cain.
I do have a problem with two women being ‘silenced’ by an ‘agreement’, and still being accused of wrong-doing by Mr. Cain publicly. If their names are ‘outed’, they must be allowed to speak and say what they have to say openly, because they have been pointed to and called liars openly.
Fairness ?
Yes, please. But let it be ‘across the board’, not just for the powerful. Let right be done for all who are concerned in this matter.
My problem is that Mr. Cain is an associate pastor of a Baptist church. Those who would defend Mr. Cain needs to remember that context, and wonder about the propriety of a minister of the gospel needing confidentiality agreements of this nature.
If we’re going to address the confidentiality agreement, then we must remember the context in which it was made: This was an allegation made against the sitting president of a very large and very public national business association. As per the authority vested in Cain by the board of directors of the association, he had a duty to protect the reputation of and further the business interests of the association. Confidentiality agreements in workplace disputes are not a rarity; rather, they are the norm. Any counsel working for the association who a) reviewed the allegations, b) believed they were meritless, but c) believed that a private settlement would be less expensive than fighting the allegations would obviously have demanded a confidentiality clause to the settlement agreement. The protection is not merely for Cain, but for all parties involved, including and especially the association. Without knowing the specifics of that situation, or the considerations of the association’s counsel, or the contents of the agreement, I don’t think we’re in any position to make any determination about the propriety of the agreement.
when a man is running for nomination from his party for the Presidency of the United States,
the voting public is entitled to know about his past . . . in this case, now they know, but not enough to make a fair evaluation BECAUSE of those ‘silencing’ agreements . . .
Cain would fare better if everyone involved who knew anything pro or con just came out and put it all out on the table . . . people ARE fair at heart, but they know that when secrets are kept, it’s usually because there is a need to keep something secret . . .
I think the American people should be trusted to evaluate this themselves . . . the whole story needs to come out in the open, then the people will be able to make a judgement themselves . . . Cain should be able to trust the people he wants to govern as much as they need to be able to trust him.
You seem to assume Cain’s guilt in your comment. How do you know the women aren’t lying for political gain? It has happened.
You are pretty quick to judge Republicans, Christiane, but I think we ought to withhold judgment until all the facts are in.
Christiane:
The problem is that both sides relied on this deal when the case was settled years ago.
The woman could have decided to pursue the case, and Cain could have insisted on his day in court. One side would have prevailed, and the other would have been declared the loser.
The winner could forever claim vindication.
But to avoid that, the parties made promises, that each relied upon.
What if Cain tracked these women down 15 years later, found out they were applying for jobs, and contacted the companies they were applying to and said, “This woman is a fraud. A trouble maker. She made a baseless claim against me. She will do the same to you. Don’t hire her.”
It would not be fair if the future employer said, “Well, we don’t believe in these secrecy agreements. Let’s hear anything that Mr. Cain wants to claim and then hear anything the woman wants to say.”
That scenario is unfair. There is no way 15 years later that anyone can be declared as telling the truth and the other lying. Many, if not most, businesses in that scenario would credit Cain’s story some truth such that they would not hire the woman.
That’s what has happened in this scenario, only in reverse.
Cain might have insisted on his day in court if he knew the woman would not keep her end of the bargain.
And now we will not ever know what happened.
These women will just tell their stories, Cain will deny, but enough people will believe, as my wife does, that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
This is fundamentally unfair.
Hi DAVID and LOUIS,
thanks for responding . . .
David, I am not as trusting of politics in general as some are, I know. I had a lot of trust in Republicans when I was young, before everything went so extremely to the right.
I always wanted, as my father did, for our country to have a HEALTHY two-party system . . . I never thought I would see the kind of division in our country that we see now, and I am very disturbed by it. I’m not alone in that, David. Many Republican people do not like the extent to which the party has shifted far to the right.
I look forward to a time when I can feel confident again that both parties are putting the COUNTRY first. I don’t think that is now the case.
Louis, I read your comment with some thought (I tried), and I think that the factor now is that Cain is seeking high office, where at the time the ‘settlement agreements’ were made, he was just a private person.
That does change the game, Louis, and I agree that, as things stand, fairness may not to be had.
It’s just that we saw what happened with Anthony Wiener, and I didn’t want the same kind of ‘trickling’ out of info to happen in Cain’s situation. . .
All politicians need to take a course in how to avoid trouble from the Anthony Wiener School of How Not To Handle A Scandal. Getting everything in the open out on the table up front is better for everyone in cases where someone is being accused. I DO believe that the American people have a sense of fairness . . . including women, Louis, including women.
Separation of church and state please. Not to protect the state, mind you, but the church from getting itself involved with common, vulgar things.
In the Old Testament, instruments used in offerings and sacrifices had to be consecrated first, and were then set aside only for that purpose – offerings and sacrifices – lest the instruments be defiled by common use, or any common instruments be used in sacrifice and worship. The consecrated items were not merely to be kept from sinful use, i.e. pagan worship, but also common, daily, otherwise totally acceptable use. Also, it wasn’t merely unlawful to take instruments from the Baal or Ashtoreth groves or whatever and use them in the tabernacle or temple. It was unlawful to use any non-consecrated item with sacrifices and burnt offerings.
The church should see itself as akin to one of those Old Testament instruments. The church is chosen and set aside God solely for use in God’s purposes, and is not to be used in other purposes. Also, common things, other instruments, should not be used in the church’s place, or even by the church in pursuit of God’s purposes (other than it being acceptable for the apostles to use roads and ships owned and maintained by the Roman state to travel the empire to spread the gospel and other such examples).
Romans 13:1-3 does tells us to be subject to our rulers, but goes no further than that. Meanwhile, Romans 12:1-2 and James 2:1-7 enjoins us to remain separate from them.
Church, state, stay separate.
Might do you good to read American History… and see just how many ministers were involved in the founding of this country. Separation of church and state has been so turned and twisted from it’s original context that it makes me sick. Then President Jefferson told the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 that the goverment would not interfere with their rights of religious expression… that is exactly what it taking place today. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the minds of the founding fathers was it even conceived that God nor those who served Him would not influence government.
The first educational efforts were solely to teach common people to read the Bible because the prevailing thought was… as long as people could read the Bible for themselves, the US governoment would be successful. Well.. look at what we have today… people who CAN but don’t read the Bible and it does not matter if they can’t or don’t, the founding father’s fears have come to frution.
><>”
Herman is local to me. I’ve listened to him for years on various talk radio shows. For reasons other than the recent accusations and news I don’t think he would be capable of winning the 2012 election. But I like him.
I don’t know where this business is going but I am concerned. Were Cain a Democrat, he would have been thrown under the bulldozer by Hannity et al.
My guess is that the accumulation of things will slowly sink his ship. If he is caught in the tiniest lie, and he has made quite categorical statements here, his ship will quickly sink.
Just my opinion. I have been enjoying the candidate debates, mainly because of Cain and Gingrich.
William,
Do you mind being specific about,”reasons other than the recent accusations and news” that would render Mr. Cain not capable of winning the 2012 election?
Charles Krauthammer said Cain was ‘winging it’ on issues. I agree with him.
That said, he is vastly superior to Obama and I would vote for him were he the nominee.
William, I am weary of everyone wanting a policy wonk for president with details. If Cain has the proper overarching principles of a much smaller government, as in government is NOT the solution to every problem, that is what is most important. And enforcing laws we already have is another important solution to things such as immigration. How to do that is the making sausage part with lots of compromise.
According to some this definition, Reagan was winging it. He had 3 main goals but few details. He had the “vision”. He did not acheive them all to the degree he wanted but he sure came close.
The ‘winging it’ was a reference to his penchant for answering serious questions without prior reflection and thought.
Sometimes Baptist preachers wing it from the pulpit.
And, Reagan was practiced in not winging it. Having a vision and leaving the details and implementation to others is not the same as offering policy statements without prior thought and absent the necessary knowledge base.
I like Cain. I don’t think he expected to be at this level and has not been prepared. None of the other candidates look to be winging it to me.
I’m not going to pretend that Herman Cain has received fair treatment in the media.
Here’s how I see it:
Herman Cain is running to be the next President of the United States.
Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment by two women in the late 1990s, years before he ever ran for political office. Whatever the facts, whatever the reasons, a settlement or agreement was reached between Cain/NRA and these two women.
McKissic is correct. A settlement is not a conviction (a conviction is a criminal term though). Nor does the settlement in this case involve an admission of guilt (some settlement’s do involve such admissions). This is not one of those.
These accusations are part of Cain’s past. Either he was rightly accused or wrongly accused. Now, he’s running for President.
What’s so wrong with the public learning about this information? And what journalist would ignore this information? The journalists who broke the story were doing their job, right?
A church is searching for a pastor. Don’t you think that the search committee of that church would want to at least know if a candidate had in the past been accused of sexual harassment (where a monetary settlement/agreement was reached between the parties)?
The truth is, I don’t know whether Herman Cain is guilty or innocent of these accusations. Rev. McKissic doesn’t know either. However, I don’t see it as a negative that we know about Cain’s employment history. Herman Cain should have expected this information would surface eventually.
Just to add: I can understand why people who like Cain are angered. I spent many many many hours campaigning for John Edwards in 2003-2004. I spent numerous weekends in South Carolina, going door-to-door for John Edwards. I didn’t want to believe the rumors about Edwards. I had met him, met his wife, met his daughter. Great family. But it turned out that appearances aren’t everything. The guy was a dog, really a lousy human being.
Pew Research has a new poll on attitudes toward media’s coverage of the Cain accusations.
Among REPUBLICANS, 9% say the coverage has been “Too Easy” and 38% say the coverage has been “Fair”
30% of Republicans say the coverage has been “Too Tough”
pewrsr.ch/sz9Sby
BDW, two questions.
1. State your beliefs concerning substitutionary atonement.
2. State your beliefs concerning religious pluralism i.e. “many paths to heaven offered by varying ethical religions that all contain the same basic truths.”
Be glad to, if you will first explain what either inquiry has to do with this post?
Yeah, I’m kinda wondering what the tie-in is there, Job?
Holy non-sequitur batman!
Batman wears tights, not sequins. 🙂
And, yeah, while on a theology topic I’d love to hear everyone’s views on those, this is not that topic.
Dwight:
I agree with much of what you say here.
This reminds me so much of the Clarence Thomas fiasco.
Allegations such as this are the oldest political trick in the book. Sometimes they may be true. Or they may not be true. Or there may be some truth in them, but they are conflated greatly.
The truth is that there is no way to get to the bottom of any such allegations now, a decade or more after they were made. The parties maintained their positions at the time, and neither was “proven” to be correct or incorrect at the time. So how are we going to solve or get to the bottom of this stuff now.
If a person in our society were charged with a crime, the prosecution talked to the witnesses, started the criminal process, but it got to a point where the process was aborted – who would take that as a conviction? No one.
In this case, it’s going to be one person’s word against another – with no way to sort that out.
And that being the case, what should happen is that the media should report and focus on facts and matters that can be resolved by the voters.
These women could always call a press conference, as Jennifer Flowers did, and the media can cover it.
But at some point, that’s all that can be said, and we have to get back to the point of covering the election.
If the media were not so hostile to Cain for the very reasons you mention, there would be a way home to this, as there was in Clinton’s candidacy (which employed Clinton aide Betsy Wright to deal with “Bimbo Erruptions” that they expected when he announced).
But with Cain, I suspect that the media will just not give it a rest, and they will keep hammering this with no end in sight.
It is unfair, and I am not a supporter of Cain’s candidacy.
I am pulling for him now, just to overcome this in some way due the sheer unfairness of it all.
With the birth of 24-hour news networks, the blogosphere and the influence of social media, I wonder how the first Clinton Administration would have played out in this new digital era? Would there have even been a first Clinton Administration?
I really have my doubts.
Don’t tease me.
CNN was certainly around in 1992.
And there is no telling how many women were around wanting to tell their stories, not just Flowers.
In some of those cases, the press tended to train their guns on the women who made the claims.
Here in Arkansas, a lot was pretty widely known in 1992 about that candidate. That it went unreported and uninvestigated was the choice of the media, not the lack of things to investigate.
Don’t doubt. The “get one free” Clinton became a senator and is now Sec of State. I certainly had trouble understanding the woman’s movement position concerning Hillary. And Bill is considered a statesman. Democrats tend to give their candidates a pass.
Louis, All your points are excellent. Watching the progression of sexual harassment laws since 1980 and certain provisions under Title VII, one can see that it has became harder and harder for the accused to defend themselves at all. That and other reasons gave rise to more “agreements”. And the accused remains the accused whether guilty or not.
IMO, The whole sexual harassment “industry” has hurt victims of other serious sexual crimes.
And this does remind me of Clarence Thomas all over again.
Louis,
Bingo! This is Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Part II.Your comments are always insightful and substantive.
I’ve cooled on Cain a little. One, I don’t think I’ve read anyone who thinks 9 9 9 will work besides Cain, and two, because I think the Bloch / cigarette ad was out of this world stupid.
BDW:
The media should report the settlement of 2 cases of alleged sexual harrassment.
Cain can acknowledge that, and deny that he did anything wrong.
That should be the end of it.
It seems to me there is no way to fairly try those cases now. And that being the case, giving these women and their lawyers air time is unfair.
If the women signed confidentiality agreements then, and did not want any information to get out, then they should not be given a platform today to prove something that they apparently could not prove back then (or at least were concerned about being able to prove).
The Edwards thing is interesting. Media outlets actually knew about the allegations. They had no interest in pursuing the leads or the story.
It took the National Enquirer, of all organizations, to break that story. Much like what the Drudge Report did with respect to Clinton, when NBC had the story in their very laps. Isikoff and Myers (I think) had the story, and NBC just sat on it.
The disparate treatment is what people object to.
I am glad that you acknowledge that.
My wife thinks Cain did it. I have no idea. And I don’t know that in this forum, where one side gets to build up a case, present witnesses with no cross examination, innuendo etc. and the other side can just deny, is a very fair way to figure this out.
Consider the possibility that this is all just some plot to elect Mitt Romney, and that Cain is A) in on it and B) will be handsomely rewarded for his participation in some way.
Now enumerate for the the reasons why the scenario that I just suggested to you CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE. And after you have finished conclusively excluding this scenario from the realm of possibility, maybe you can explain why we occupied Iraq in response to 9/11 being carried out by Saudi Arabians, or why not even Fox News, the Wall Street Journal or any other conservative leaning outlet showed those Jeremiah Wright tapes until after Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination (there was a nice little 6 week long break in between the primaries that allowed this story to be broken and then forgotten about … had it been broken mere days earlier, Hillary Clinton or John McCain is president).
So again. What if this is all some professional wrestling type sideshow scam that Cain is in on just like everybody else?
I can tell you one thing, if one of the other Republican candidates is behind the smear campaign, I hope that comes out. I’d like to know if another Republican candidate did that – he (or she) would certainly lose my vote.
The truth will, eventually, come out, I suppose. But from what I’ve heard .. one of the original accusers received permission to speak, but now won’t .. I doubt her story, and by osmosis, the others, as well.
Check here: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/04/cain-accuser-wont-provide-details-despite-restaurant-associations-consent/
I’ve been leaning towards Cain. I like the things I hear him say. Also, he’s been a successful businessman. I wish we’d have a candidate, who’s not only socially conservative; but also knows how to do business. Unlike the political organizer we have in office right now, who is taking our country down fast.
Until I hear more substantial evidence against Cain, I’m planning on voting for him.
David
Dave,
Thanks for posting this “political” piece. It went beyond the scope of what’s generally posted here. I shall be eternally grateful for your kindness in granting me a platform to air mu support of a person that I believe is being unfairly accused.If no evidence comes forth that points toward Cain’s guilt, he will become the 21st century Emitt Till, if he loses.
Historically, the quick and surest way to get a Black man lynched, even without a trial, was for a White woman or women to claim that a Black man expressed a romantic or sexual interest in them. I believe that’s what we’re seeing. But I pray, that it does not succeed. Mr. Cain should win or lose based on the merits or demerits of his positions. These allegations are extremely disheartening, because he was leading the pack based on the force of his personality and his positions. There will be some persons who will not vote for him now, simply because of the cloud of suspicion that naturally accompany these allegations.
Again, Dave thanks. Fifty years ago, you may not have given me this platform. And if you did, you would have paid a terrible price. Therefore, there’s still reasons to praise God,even in the midst of this sordid situation.
Dwight,
And what’s even more fascinating about all of this, is that it’s liberal Democrats and the liberal news media, who are leading the charge on all of this. I mean, can you imagine what the Gloria Allred’s, and Jesse Jackson’s, and Al Sharpton’s, and the Dan Rather’s of our world would’ve said if Cain had been a black, liberal Democrat? And yet, these same…so called…fighters of racism, are the very ones, who seem to be leading the charge against Cain?
Fascinating. And, even more fascinating is that they get away with it. They get a pass….except from the very few willing to speak out.
David
Biff,
Finally something we agree on…in total too. Maybe I’ve been partially wrong about you….maybe mind you…..you may not be such a dull knife after all.
Fifty years ago, I was four years old, but I’d have shared my Play-doh, at least!
Fifty years ago I was five years old, and I would of had fun playing Play-doh with you. I think you got my point though.
Yes. Times have changed and on this issue, its a good thing.
BTW, I’m gonna try my best to talk CB Scott into running for President. Throw your lott with Scott! Bring this country back to glee, all you’ve gotta do is vote for CB!
CB Scott will straighten this country out, for sure!
David 🙂
David-volfan007,
You think you could talk CB into letting me run with as his VP? BTW, your analysis is spot on.
I like that ticket….CB and Dwight are right! Also, please let me be the head of the CIA if yall get elected. There’s a few things, and a few people, that I need to straighten out.
🙂
David
You got it: volfan007 head of the CIA, pending the Scott-McKissic victory.
Seriously, it’s stated in every presidential election that this is the most serious election we’ve ever faced. Obviously, all of the elections did not fit that description. However, this one comes close. I’m being convicted that I need to spend more time praying for our president and our country. We really are in one terrible mess. And I don’t blame it all on President Obama. There’s enough blame to go around to many of us, including our churches and pastors.
Tony Evans is right: If we want a better nation it starts with each individual dedicating themselves to becoming a better person. Each of us who are concerned about who might occupy the White House, would also be wise to make sure we’re doing our best to develop our own house.
David, I was not preaching to you; I was really preaching to me.
Why not McKissic/Scott?
David,
CB is the stronger of the two of us. I would perhaps be better at domestic policy. CB would be better at military and foreign policy. We would actually make a good team. But I got a feeling both of us are going to stay with preaching and pastoring.
Probably the best thing!
David, I’d be careful about associating CB Scott with Glee.
This comment stream seemed to take an immediate nosedive when CB Scott’s name surfaced.
. . . bad boyz, bad boyz,
whatcha gonna do ?
whatcha gonna do when they vote for you ? 🙂
lol….please dont tell him that I said anything about Glee and him. lol
David
At times I find it very difficult not to be angry with J.C. Watts. This country needed him to run for President in 2008. We needed him to be running this year.
I also wonder whether Mike Huckabee made the right decision. I have no doubt that he prayed about the matter carefully and that he did what he believed to be God’s will. I just wonder whether he made an honest mistake.
I’m not going to vote for Romney in the primary. If he’s the only candidate left by the time we get to Texas, I’ll find some way not to vote for him. He’s the quintessence of what we don’t need in a politician.
I’ve often said that I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that I might lead the church to endorse a candidate in some dire circumstance. The Cain situation illustrates what I perceive to be the danger of making endorsements and the reason why it would take so much of a lopsided situation for me to take that extreme action. I do so hope that these allegations are unfounded. But so many times in the past such allegations have proven to be true. Billy Graham came to a point where he regretted how closely people associated him with Richard M. Nixon. I often think about that Graham-Nixon situation when these quadrennial political contests come along.
Be careful, Dwight. You’re right: These are just allegations and Cain deserves a fair hearing before the American people. But what if there’s a blue dress out there somewhere?
And there we are.
Your choice would be between the blue dress and one who led the fight to not allow medical help to born alive aborted babies left to suffer and die in hospital dirty linen closets.
One a rogue and the other a barbarian
That is politics. The lesser of two evils
Dwight: The liberal media, conservative Republicans who support rival candidates and African American civil rights leaders who strongly support the Democratic Party and liberal causes, have unwittingly formed an unholy trinity to defeat and destroy the presidential aspirations of Herman Cain.
bapticus hereticus: Counting the numbers, then most of America, by far most, do not support Cain; thus his presidential aspirations were already in question.
Dwight: … to defend Mr. Cain against the scurrilous, scandalous and shameful attacks on his character.
bapticus hereticus: That may be the case, but such is not a given at this point.
Dwight: An allegation and formal complaint is not a conviction.
bapticus hereticus: Nor is it an acquittal. There is the presumption of innocence, but such is to be evaluated by the evidence.
Dwight: There has not been one shred of evidence made available to the public with regard to the sexual harassment allegations leveled against Mr. Cain that suggest he’s guilty.
bapticus hereticus: But evidence does exist. Let us gaze upon such.
Dwight: The National Restaurant Association has granted the anonymous accuser(s) and her lawyer the right to tell her story, but they declined.
bapticus hereticus: Will the National Restaurant Association agree not to void the settlement if the women speak?
Dwight: Why are these charges being brought to the public’s attention at this point? The answer is obvious. Mr. Cain has thus far done the impossible. Who would have ever thought that an American Black conservative would be leading the pack for the Republican nomination for president of the United States within a year of the election? No one. That, my friends, is why these charges are being leveled against Mr. Cain. Who has the most to lose if Mr. Cain succeeds? The liberal media, rival candidates, and the Black liberal democratic civil rights community.
bapticus hereticus: Clinton, Bush, Obama, and others had their share of problems being elected. Cain is just one among many. There is probably some race involved (it being one variable among others at work), and that is very concerning regardless of the outcome. If the charges are unjustified, it is truly tragic; if not, it is in the Republican Party’s best interest to know. Better now to find out than when the primaries begin. Recall what the Bush campaigned allegedly did to McCain in South Carolina? A bit late for McCain to bounce back. Some Republicans used race to derail one campaign and now some Republicans argue for it to keep another on track.
Dwight: The election of Herman Cain as president of the United States of America would change the political, social and economic landscape in America like nothing we’ve seen before.
bapticus hereticus: If it is further transfer of wealth upwards, then, no thanks. We have enough of that now.
Dwight: Therefore, he’s a threat like none other to the established order.
bapticus hereticus: Given the prevailing sentiment among Republicans and given their influence on economic policy and how it is debated, his economic policies, although given a few different manifestations of preferred philosophy, are the status quo. The bull can run or the bull can walk, but it is still the bull that is moving.
Dwight: In Herman Cain, we find the reincarnation and fusion of three great men. His candidacy is causing such a stir and a buzz because he could be the second coming of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ronald Wilson Reagan all wrapped into one. In my lifetime, these three men impacted the political, social, racial and economic landscape like none other. Cain has the populist appeal and tax cutting philosophy of Kennedy. He has the rock-solid conservative values and principles of Reagan. And, he has the racial sensitivity and inclusion/empowerment agenda for minorities and the poor as Martin Luther King, Jr. America has never seen a presidential candidate with all these qualities in one package. Cain has the potential to bring America together like none other. Therefore, this unholy trinity is unleashing everything within their power to stop him.
bapticus hereticus: The nature of Kennedy’s tax cut is not the same as what Cain proposes. His cuts were based in a Keynesian economic theory and targeted demand, not something that Cain is proposing. Kennedy as a supply-sider is a discredited argument.
Dwight: I’ve never seen the media report as many as three anonymous allegations of sexual harassment, and not only fail to give us names, pictures, interviews, etc., of these accusers. They even fail to provide any specifics or details related to these charges. No other presidential candidate has been treated like this in my lifetime. Why Herman Cain? Names, pictures, and specifics, have been given with every other politician that I can recall who faced a sex scandal. I repeat: Herman Cain is the only one that I know who has to endure a mirage of news reports about sexual harassment without any supporting evidence.
bapticus hereticus: Surely no one likes, nor should be subjected to such, a shifting set of standards, but if the charges are true, do we, then, overlook his alleged behavior? Recall for years, given alledged and actual moral lapses of Democratic candidates, the elections were about character and family values. Is it too inconvenient now? That is, is it a bit late to cry foul? But if we do,and I hope we do if necessary, is this where it begins to be observed by those in all parties?
Dwight: Where is the NAACP in defense of Herman Cain? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in defense of Herman Cain? Where are the liberals who love to support oppressed minorities in defense of Herman Cain? These entities and individuals are losing credibility, because they are proving to be only interested in defending and advancing Black liberals, not Blacks who are independent thinkers. Is the NAACP the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People–period?
bapticus hereticus: Cain has a net worth estimated at around $7 million dollars. That qualifies as an oppressed minority these days? Running for POTUS is not an easy task, nor a fair one; it is largely not about hitting fast balls thrown in the strike zone, but seems to be more like how one hits curve balls and gets out of the way of knock-down pitches. How Cain handles the situation is just as important as what he is accused of doing, and from the account of a broad audience, political orientation notwithstanding, he is not doing a good job.
Dwight: I never thought I’d live to see the day when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other conservative commentators would defend a Black man who is being falsely accused, while the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton remain silent or partner in the unholy trinity.
bapticus hereticus: Thus “Buy a Lick” and “Our Blacks” language convinces you that Limbaugh and Coulter are to be taken seriously on this issue?
Dwight: My voice is minor and marginal, compared to the voices that capture the media’s attention with regard to these matters.
bapticus hereticus: Be glad, given your passionate defense is a bit premature. That is, few people will notice.
Dwight: Nevertheless, I can’t sit idly by and watch this decent, honorable Baptist minister and businessman under attack, and I say nothing. Therefore, in the spirit of John the Baptist, I’ve decided to be a voice crying in the wilderness appealing to this unholy trinity as it relates to the sexual harassment charges—LEAVE HERMAN CAIN ALONE! STOP THE MADNESS! CEASE AND DESIST THE PRACTICE OF A DOUBLE STANDARD!
bapticus hereticus: All for the ceasing of the double standard. But in politics, such is not given only to race … it is everywhere. But given the US’s history with race, it belittles us a bit deeper than other issues when such a standard is manifested. Let’s create a different way of electing individuals. But this issue is before us and the best way to deal with it is to work with verifiable facts. They exist. Let’s search them out and then make a judgment.
Dwight: Cease this media lynching. And the only Uncle Tom’s and sellouts that I’ve seen in this campaign are those who are African American that are aiding and abetting this lynching. The one candidate that the liberal media, Black liberal Democratic leaders, and even other Republican candidates fear the most at this point is Herman Cain. And that, my friends, is the basis for this attack.
bapticus hereticus: To those that have actually been lynched, what would they say if we could bring them back to life?
Dwight: With regard to Sharon Bialek, the fourth accuser, I find her story less than credible for the following reasons: (1) She waited 12 years to tell her story; (2) The story she described if accurate would constitute a crime. Why didn’t she report it to the law when it occurred? She appears to be a pawn of the unholy trinity, seeking to deny this American Black Conservative from winning the nomination for president. Since the anonymous charges did not stick to Mr. Cain, she offers herself as a “sacrificial lamb” that stands to gain fame and fortune from her alleged dalliance with Mr. Cain. What we’re seeing is truly a high-tech lynching, akin to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and for the exact same reason. (3) Where is the “blue dress”? She provided no evidence to her claim to truth.
bapticus hereticus: Let’s work through this and learn what the fifth person has to say. Let’s get the facts. Cain deserves no less. Nor do those that perceive an injust behavior was directed at them.
Dwight: If Mr. Cain wins, the liberal Democratic stronghold on the Black vote will be broken for a long-long time. This is the reason the liberals are trying to defeat Mr. Cain.
bapticus hereticus: He would be a role model, and success would increase the strength of his party and extend the reach of Republicans in the African American community. Thus, there would be political hay to be made in blocking his efforts. Cannot the same thing be said about the behavior of some Republicans toward Obama? Is there any disdain for such?
“bapticus hereticus: If it is further transfer of wealth upwards, then, no thanks. We have enough of that now.”
The massive bailouts were a transfer of wealth “upwards”. The execs made out quite well.
“He would be a role model, and success would increase the strength of his party and extend the reach of Republicans in the African American community. Thus, there would be political hay to be made in blocking his efforts. Cannot the same thing be said about the behavior of some Republicans toward Obama? Is there any disdain for such?”
No, because the African American vote is part of the democrat party base.
The bailouts were problematic and were approved and implemented before we had sufficient understanding of the issue, but given the panic in the country and among those in both political parties, what happened is not surprising, although there were some pleasant outcomes. But more directly to your point, yes, it did result in another upwards transfer of wealth.
I don’t understand your second post. If the Republicans do little or vote ‘no’ with the argument that ‘no’ is better than ‘yes,’ the resulting more difficult situation with ‘no’ (e.g., slowly improving, uneven, or worsening economic situation) that will likely ensue will be used to promote the economic policies of Republicans and give reason for some to move way from Obama. The problem is that many proposals advanced by Obama originated in Republican circles, which makes a consistent ‘no’ a bit suspect. The reasoning is plausible: in a campaign in which the economy improves, research suggests Obama wins regardless of the Republican candidate, but in one in which the economy is stagnant, woefully uneven, or in decline, the likelihood of Obama winning is problematic. Either party stands to gain if credited with policies that improve what has developed into a desperate situation and for many politicians there are no incentives to collaborate or compromise given a perceived zero-sum game. If Cain wins, his governing victories and loses will be just as hard fought as Obama’s victories and loses. Democrats will do unto the Republicans as the Republicans have done unto them. If in power Senate Republicans abolish the filibuster and deny Democrats minority power, they can expect that when the Democrats eventually win back the Senate that the filibuster will not be reinstated. We can change the players and even change the parties in power and the rules within the present setup, but until we reform the election process, change will be too slow and uneven to respond to the needs of the people. We need a government as complex as the people it wishes to represent, thus the implementation of a simple government (e.g., one that can be drowned in a bathtub) cannot respond to the increasing complexity of this country (any more than one that is differentiated beyond its ability to integrate). This type of government is better able to nuance policy that respects the dynamic tension that exists between the needs of the community and private interests. It also needs a politician whose political career is not bound to year-round fundraising. Given such is presently the case, and increasingly so, expect ‘No’, now, later, and especially with divided government.
“The problem is that many proposals advanced by Obama originated in Republican circles, which makes a consistent ‘no’ a bit suspect.”
Yes, the democrats dine out on that one all the time when their extreme spending and government regulation does not work. The point is “quantity”. Personally I am against any bailouts and more government spending. It only prolongs the agony as we know from the depression of which the WORST year was 1936. The depression within a depression. Obama simply quadrupled the spending and threw in socialized medicine so businesses are holding out to see what happens. And you end up with stagnation. Perhaps a few more Solyndra’s will help you see the light. :o)
The Solyndra issue appears to be a bit embarrassing, but let’s wait till more is known before we settle in on a final judgment (an aside: Abramoff, in interviews about his recently published book, is sharing that lobbying influence is negatively impacting both parties; he would surely know, as it has bitten him, too). But we don’t need to wait to pass judgment on FDR. GDP in 1936 surpassed its previous high, just prior to the crash in 1929. The economy took a bit of a dive in 1937, not 1936, and such was due to Roosevelt’s desire to balance the budget by cutting spending. He comes to learn the value of Keynesian economics to move the country forward out of the 1937 recession. Most people in this country do not blame Obama for the economy; that fault is still reserved for Bush. But people are holding Obama responsible for not improving it quickly enough. Krugman’s analyses grow stronger by the day and Obama’s potential undoing would not be for doing what he has done in terms of spending, but for not doing enough spending. National economies don’t function as family economies, thus analogies to the latter miss the point when touted as the proper way to move us toward economic health. Debt levels are a concern, but its importance is at this time is overstated; eventually spending will be an issue, but that time is not yet; we have other priorities at this point that require a bit more policy nimbleness that the present political climate is capable of fashioning.
On dining: whether or not Democrats like to dine on such is a moot point; that is, such does not change the truthfulness of the assertion.
On socialized medicine: Medicare is highly valued in this country by a huge measure and enjoys the support of the probable Republican nominee: Romney. Tweaking Medicare is probably needed. But absent Medicare, which I support for all, socialized medicine is not something that Obama has shown much interest. For that, H. Clinton would have been a better leader.
Bart,
J. C. Watts would have been a great and the timing obviously would have been right. I publicly endorsed Mike Huckabee in ’08 and he preached at my church during the campaign. I regret these men aren’t running as well.
I’ve finally reached the conclusion that I cannot vote for Romney because if he wins, in my judgement that would advance his Mormon faith. If that’s the scenario we’re faced with, I will either not vote, or given those choices, for the first time I would possibly vote for President Obama.
Thanks for your word of caution.
I must admit, given the “smoke”, I am slightly uncomfortable defending Mr. Cain.However, the initial reporting was solely based on anonymous charges. I found that so unfair and inconsistent with how other candidates were treated, I felt compelled to speak out. If there is a blue dress out there somewhere, I’ll apologize and repent– if Dave allows me to– in this venue and certainly on my blog. Mr. Cain would certainly owe the American public an apology as well. At this point I’m operating on the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty and from most accounts Mr. Cain has a history of being a man of integrity.
It’s good to chat with you Bart.
Assuming, arguendo, that all the charges are true, what of it? Do we now propose that allegations of sexual impropriety (there is no evidence of harassment) render a man unfit for the office of President? This must be what the accusers are claiming, because otherwise, their dilatory proclamation is simply a desire to bring a potentially significant political figure down and call attention to themselves in the process.
Like Mr. McKissic, I think the reasons are many to believe these accusations are politically motivated. For pastors and would-be pastors, however, how would you counsel one of these women, if a member of your church, about raising these charges now?
Dwight,
I like Cain. I contemplated volunteering for his campaign. I still like Cain. But he sorely botched the publicity about the alleged scandal. It made me rethink my allegiance to him as a presidential contender. Not because I think he did so and so with women. Rather because he and his campaign heads folded under pressure. That said, I don’t think he’s ready for the office of national leader. He could ‘fold’ under pressure at crucial moments.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I understand. The allegations and his handling of the allegations would give anyone pause.
However, I’m equally as disturbed about the source and the motivation of these allegations. This is why I remain supportive and sympathetic toward Cain.
If time proves that Cain is guilty as charged of any of these allegations, I will be the first to repent and apologize.
Reading about your support of Cain early on influenced me.You said something to the effect, “I’m going to plant my corn in Cain’s field.”
With that, I am…
Dwight
Brother Dwight,
Thank you for the kickback. Let me be clear: I really do like Herman Cain. I listen often to his radio show here in Atlanta. He may be the most ‘common sense’ candidate on the Republican platform. In fact, he reminds me of a ‘pop’ version of Thomas Sowell, perhaps the reigning politico-economic philosopher of our times, conservative or not.
Nor do I place any stock whatsoever in the trashy gossip or allegations about Cain. In fact, in a chat with friends, I predicted the accusational nonsense when Cain became the ‘front runner’. It’s good to be on top in the polls. But the ‘top man’ has funded researchers–highly paid by ALL the lessor candidates–searchers for his Achilles heel. It was only a matter of time till our brother Cain was assaulted.
I think Cain will win the assault. But I think he will lose because of it, not based upon guilt but simple inexperience in dealing with tremendous pressure. In other words, while I was ready to vote for Cain a month ago, his campaign advisers, who are obviously top-heavy toward political stupidity, made me into a doubting Thomas. For me, it is now a toss-up: Cain or Gingrich, sort-of-a 35/65 weighing, with the scales tipped in Gingrich’s favor albeit all of Gingrich’s baggage I do not ultimately intend to overlook.
Good chatting with you, my brother Dwight.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. I know you liked my book on alcohol and abstinence. You really need to check out David Brumbelow’s new book released by Free Church Press (www.freechurchpress.com). There is an advertisement on the sidebar of this site. David’s monograph surely overshadows my meager attempt. It’s a worthy read, I assure. And, you could easily have Brumbelow in your church for a seminar since he is so close to you.
Peter,
You were reading my mind about Brumbelow’s book.I’ll have my assistant to order me a copy today.
Thanks for the dialogue.
The way that Cain has handled this encounter shows me he’s not presidential material. The Republican Party would, I believe, “allow” a ticket with Cain as the VP nominee en order to draw the black support away from President Obama and the Democrats. Nobody negotiates a settlement where you are the “payee” four times without being involved in a mess – even if the National Restaurant Assn. was obligated to pay all Cains court costs. Further, I believe the Republican Party had no notion this litigation existed in his resume. The Beat goes On !
Those settlements of LESS than a years pay were “nuisance” payments that happen ALL THE TIME. If there was real truth to these ladies claims, the settlements would be at least in the 6 figure range. They were not. Furthermore, Mr. Cain did not have any say in these complaints (he may not even have known about some of them), it was the lawyers at the National Restaurant Association that handled these claims/settlements.
Smuschany – You said, “… settlements of less than a years pay were nuisance payments…” . They sure are – for him and are a legal resolution not a meeting in someones office. No one filed a grievance against you and they did Cain.
Jack I just dont think you understand at all. Businesses like Walmart, Sears, Bass Pro, and even the National Restaurant Association REGULARLY pay out these relatively small settlements. Many DOZENS a year. The reason why, is that the 30k or so settlement is worth a lot less than bad press. The case in point with Mr Cain. There is absolutely NO proof he EVER did anything wrong. If there was, do you SERIOUSLY think these women would have settled for settlements in the neighborhood of 30k? They threw an allegation out, and rather than fight it, and risk bad press for the National Restaurant Association, their LAWYERS (not Mr. Cain) settled with these ladies. That is NOT an admission of guilt. And if you think it is, then you know nothing about the world of business, or law for that matter. Cain himself had NO say in these settlements. If he knew of any of the 3 accusations, he passed them off to the NRA legal team and that was that. Maybe MAYBE he got a memo a few months later saying there was a settlement and he had nothing to worry about.
Oh and BTW, I HAVE had grievances filed against me. On record too. And as I said in my other post, I had no say in the matter, and I just had to sit there and take it regardless of my innocence. Just as Mr. Cain is having to do.
Smuschany – Your assessment of my business “prowess” or legal ability is no basis for right or wrong concerning this issue. These women “settled” because their attorneys convinced them this was their best way to go – i.e. no running to cancelled court dates for years and higher legal fees and so forth. You say Cain had no say or didn’t want a say but was just informed of a settlement. What dream world are you a part of. Here’s your chance – tell us all of your legal and business training ; particularly that training that make you correct all the time.
“The reason why, is that the 30k or so settlement is worth a lot less than bad press”
Actually, it is because it is impossible to disprove and going to court is more costly considering the burden of proof is based upon the “reasonable woman” criteria. Even vendors of companies can be liable for sh charges. It is totally out of control.
Therefore, most organizations have a zero tolerance policy which means any sh complaint is taken more seriously than other sorts of complaints. So, if a complaint is made, it is in your personnel file forever, even if there is no investigation. The complaint is always documented. And the reason they do this is because extremely large payouts were awarded by courts years ago.
“Those settlements of LESS than a years pay were “nuisance” payments that happen ALL THE TIME. If there was real truth to these ladies claims, the settlements would be at least in the 6 figure range. ”
Exactly.
“Further, I believe the Republican Party had no notion this litigation existed in his resume. ”
I think you may be right . . . REASON: Cain didn’t have a ‘structure’ of Republican support throughout the country in the normal way of Republican candidates . . . Cain was supported by groups like ‘Americans For Prosperity’ which are heavily funded by private donors. Cain, himself, admitted that he was close to the Koch brothers . . . something that most Republican candidates would try to hide big time . . . for reasons I do not need to go into.
I think the Republican powers-that-be didn’t see this coming. I think Cain knew it would come out, but the way he ‘third-party’ speaks of himself (not as ‘I’, but as ‘Herman Cain’), I’m not sure he was able to be at all realistic about the consequences.
I support Cain. Period. Why? Because I have in my past been accused of sexually inappropriate comments/harassment. What did I say? I dont remember. What did I intend to say? “I am going to try and win your heart.” What did she hear? “I am going to make you mine whether you like it or not!” And based on the advice of her friends, she went to the school administration. I had to have a meeting with the Director of Security, and I was told I had to stay away from her, and if she gave one more complaint, i would be expelled from the college, and a report would be filed with the police. I had no chance to defend myself, it was her word and her word was the truth period in the eyes of the school.
So should that disqualify me from ever serving in any type of office? I should hope not.
Also something to consider about the Cain situation. All four ladies who are bringing up complaints, all claim this happened while Cain was CEO of the National Restaurant Association. IF this is the type of man Cain “REALLY” is, why have no one stepped up or can even be found, from his time as CEO of Godfathers, or his years on radio in Atlanta, or all the other time OTHER than the few years he was at the NRA? Probably, likely, because of the way NRA LAWYERS handled the situation!
Why now that the NRA has offered to waive the confidentiality clause of the settlements, these 3 ladies STILL have not openly come forth? Well we know one of them has filed OTHER claims at her next job after the NRA (oh she also works for the Obama Administration right now). As for this Biliek girl, again, if Cain really did sexually ASSAULT her as she claims, why on earth would she be willing to go NEAR him let alone HUG him.
These claims have the reliability and truth of one of Satan’s lies. And frankly, Conservatives who are condemning Cain, or saying “he is not fit” should be ashamed they are letting the Liberal media tell them who they can/cannot vote for.
“I had no chance to defend myself, it was her word and her word was the truth period in the eyes of the school”
I know 5 stories similar to this. one happened just last year and the women never said one word to the harasser. Just went to his boss and he was put on probation with NO investigation, etc. And that was within a government entity. That is why I call it the sexual harassment “industry”. And this silliness hurts victims of REAL sexual perversion.
I’ve heard about instances in the military as well that have ruined careers…
Captains of ships (LT (O-3) up to CPT (O-6) who had one female enlisted register a sexual harassment complaint and they were removed from command pending investigation. Though cleared, they never got back command. It’s overkill and your right, it does hurt those who are truly victims.
I have heard of women accusing men of all sorts of things, just because they got mad at them for one reason, or another. It’s really sad that we have women out there, who will destroy a man’s reputation just because they’re angry at him.
On the other hand, true, real, sexual harrassment is awful. The real cases of it are bad. And, anyone who is truly guilty of doing this should be nailed to the wall.
But, I feel sorry for the men, who’ve just paid for the wrath of a woman, who had an axe to grind….and did it with the weapons that a woman has to use….to destroy a man…. false accusations…which the Lord hates with a passion, BTW.
David
I agree with the article except on one point: Herman Cain’s election to the Presidency will not alter the black vote in coming elections to any great degree; they will remain overwhelmingly Democrat no matter what. It will be the Hispanic vote that will be altered.
RJM,
In which direction do you see the Hispanic vote being altered?
A Herman Cain presidency would likely push more Hispanics into the Democratic Party.
Joke or no joke, I don’t think many Hispanics appreciate his comments regarding the electrified fence at the border.
There’s also no indication that Herman Cain is going could woo any substantial number of African-American voters to the Republican Party. I also don’t think many African-Americans appreciate Cain’s comments that African-Americans have been “brainwashed” and are consequently “not open-minded.” That rhetoric isn’t going to win over any black converts.
As to the media, I don’t see how Politico erred in reporting that there was a settlement as a result of a sex harassment accusation. The media isn’t obliged to reveal the identity. We learned of a settlement against Michael Jackson and did not initially learn the name of the family that accused Jackson.
As a Democrat (used to work or John Lewis, involved in Atlanta and state-wide Georgia politics), I’d love for Cain to be the nominee. He’s prone to gaffes, contradictory statements, and appears to be over his head when compared to colleagues like Romney and Newt.
“I’d love for Cain to be the nominee. He’s prone to gaffes, contradictory statements, and appears to be over his head when compared to colleagues like Romney and Newt”
Those things did not hurt Obama and his “57 states”.
We both know that Obama is terrified of running against Cain. But nice try. Otherwise these allegations would not have come out of Chicago at this particular time.
Ann Coulter connects some interesting dots that deserve some attention since Obama has been down this road before to bury his opponent:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2011/11/10/david-axelrods-pattern-sexual-misbehavior
How about we fact check these?
BDW,
You could be right about the joke having pushed Hispanics away from Cain. Those who are fiscal and social conservatives by conviction–my guess is–will vote Republican even if Cain is the nominee.
Regarding the Black vote, if there was a White democrat occupying the White House I would be willing to bet(if I were given to betting) that one-third to one-fourth of the Black vote would go to Cain. If my memory serve me correctly, W. got near 20 percent of the Black vote in ’08. I would expect Cain if nominated to at least get the percentage vote that W. got. However, I could be wrong.
With regard to Politico’s reporting on the Cain story, you have to compare this to other presidential candidates, not an entertainer. I do not believe the decision makers at Politico would have allowed a White presidential candidate to be reported on without names associated with the story. You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Here are a few stats on how African-Americans have voted in presidential elections over the past nearly 30 years:
1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%
2004 John Kerry 88% George W. Bush 11%
2008 Barack Obama 95% John McCain 4%
So W. got 9% against Gore and jumped up to 11% against Kerry. 12% is the highest and Bob Dole got that (interestingly against the “first Black President”).
I could see someone like J.C. Watts getting 15%. Not Herman Cain. I think minority voters would be more attracted to the GOP if the GOP altered its rhetoric. Black voters, after all, have backed fiscally conservative candidates, often white conservatives (like Georgia’s Zell Miller who was backed by the civil rights community) in governors races. The rhetoric is the biggest problem.
As to the media, in today’s 24/7 media landscape where the goal is to break the story, I think it was inevitable that Politico or some other media outlet would report on this. If Politico sat on it, I’m sure it would have been leaked to a blogger (the identities and details would have probably been revealed) and the media would have been forced to cover it as they’ve had to do time and time again.
I’m a fan of transparency. And I’m tired of sex scandals. So, I’m glad when the media doesn’t bury a story.
BDW,
In Texas and Ohio where the marriage amendment was being voted on in ’04, W. got close to 20% of the vote in Ohio and a higher than 10% of the vote in Texas.
If Cain contrast his marriage views to President Obama’s, he would get a high percentage of the Black vote–at least 20% I believe–on that issue and that issue alone. That was proven by the large number of Blacks who voted in favor of traditional marriage in California in ’08.
In 2004, Bush got 16% of the black vote in both Ohio and Texas.
Those two states – at 16% – represent the highest percentage that African-Americans have voted for a GOP presidential candidate in the last three elections.
One point about that:
Political scientists credit Kerry’s narrow victories in Pennsylvania and Michigan to high voter turnout. Black voter share in those states rose from 7 to 13 percent (PA) and 11 to 13% (MI). Kerry lost Ohio, a state where the black voter share increased much more modestly, up from 9 percent to 10 percent of voter share. So in those instances, voter turnout was much more decisive than the fact that Bush got 16% in the state of Ohio.
I’m not sure that such a contrast without help much. John McCain made the contrast too, yet as you note, African-Americans in California simultaneously pulled the lever for Obama and backed Prop 8.
For Cain to take McCain’s 4% of the black voter and Bush’s 11% and turn that into 20% would be unprecedented.
I think one day a black GOP candidate could get 20%. But like I noted earlier, he’s got a rhetoric problem. Accusing African-Americans of being “brainwashed” isn’t going to win over any voters.
Honestly, I wonder if Cain would even get a majority of his congregants to vote for him. I’m sure my Political Science prof friend from Morehouse would confirm that Cain stands no chance of winning many supporters at his alma mater in Atlanta.
Just wanted to add since you mentioned Prop 8, I’ve proposed to present a paper this summer at the meeting of the Baptist History & Heritage Society on the subject of Black Baptists, Gay Rights and Dr. King’s Beloved Community. I quote a dozen or so black Baptist pastors including yourself and Frederick Haynes. While you won’t agree with my conclusion, I think you might find interesting the descriptive parts and compilation of quotes from black Baptists with several different viewpoints. Once I’m finished, I’ll pass it along.
William Dwight McKissic – How can the media supply specific information about a proceding that was agreed by all parties to be closed. The media can only goad the participants into making comments which will open things up. This is still about money as the women have probably spent all they were given and hoped the threat of these conversations would generate more. The attorneys are still the smart ones here.
Jack,
That’s my point: the media had no business reporting these charges unless they could have at least reported the women’s names. Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards sex scandals only came into the public square with names and pictures. But not so with Cain’s alleged sexual misbehavior.
Dwight McKissic – My memory doesn’t tell me how much concrete info the media had about Clinton, Edwards or Hart but sometimes when they do have more than smoke they can’t use it without outing their source , they will hold back printing and talking about what appears to be only rumor and could make them liable. They try and are now continuing to “build” on what they had/have to open the subject. What the media didn’t say to start is now moot as we now have names and pictures and places according to the women. ” I never had sex with that women ” was in his mind technically correct and he wanted to convince us. I have a large problem with the media who are experts in every field but they are talked about in the Constitution as is Religion and guns and the money to exploit it at the limits of common sense.
Dwight, Ole Buddy, Ole Pal and Friend of My Friend formerly of Arlington,
I am not going to let you have it both ways. It is time for you to cowboy up and ‘fess up a little bit.
Cain is in diametric opposition in his views related to the leadership of this nation to that of the current president. You know that and I know that.
Therefore, here is the money question for you today:
Do you now agree with me that the current president and his army of left of center buds who now occupy the Oval Office were and continue to be just plain bad for this country and a good “Cain Mutiny” would be a good cleansing and maybe a fresh breeze in the corridors of the White House?
CB,
I don’t find it necessary to criticize the current president in order to support Cain or any other candidate. Those of us who are social and fiscal conservatives simply want someone in the White House who represent our value system.
Thanks for stopping by. I wondered where you were.
OK Dwight,
You are slicker than a southern backcountry drag strip on a hot summer night.
Therefore, Let me grease the finish line just a little so you can coast on across and save some of that fine tuned engine of yours for another day.
of your own volition you stated, “Those of us who are social and fiscal conservatives simply want someone in the White House who represent our value system.”
Therefore, may I say that you represent those of us who are “social and fiscal conservatives” and declare that we do not believe that the current administration reflects a “our value system” at this present time? Nor, based on this administration’s history, have they ever represented our value system?
May I quote you on that my Texas friend? (and one of the only few of my blog brothers who has not rubbed in the SABANATION loss to the infidels of Louisiana State)
CB,
You know I love you, buddy. However, I said I was a “social and fiscal conservative” and knowing that our current administration’s views are anything but that, I think you can connect the dots.
I would elaborate, but I promised to take my wife to dinner and I’m running late.
God Bless,
Dwight
Dwight,
Enjoy your evening with your wife. That time with her is far more valuable than gettin’ in a set-to with me, even though I always them greatly.
“I think minority voters would be more attracted to the GOP if the GOP altered its rhetoric”
Can you be more specific? And give examples? I am not sure what you are referring to.
Personally,I don’t think it is about capturing the black vote. So, I agree that Cain would not really siphon off that many black votes. I think a Cain nomination would help change the focus of the conversation when it comes to race and the economy.
What really bothered me about Cain is his connection to the Federal Reserve. To be blunt: I don’t trust them dudes, not after reading comments like those by Charles A. Lindbergs’ father who, if memory serves correctly, was in the House of Representatives and had some things to say about it…in a very negative way…like we would have depressions, etc., whenever the controllers of that financial instrument wanted them. The Creature from Jekyll Island is well known for its fulfilling of the Rothschild’s dictum from the 1800s, “I care not who governs, so long as I control the money.” Even so I feel tempted to go with Mr. Cain for many reasons. One being that even the conspirators are not stupid; they know they have been detroying the middle class for the past 30-40 years and now that the job is about completed, people are beginning to wake up to the reality that they have just about lost it all. A work written in the early 1900s, circa 1906, pointed to the treaties and spoke of the decade in which they would be written and how the jobs then would leave America and go elsewhere. Add to the problem automation, computerization, and robotics and the ordinary joe has no hope of a job forever…and if old Wells’ Open Conspiracy is any indication, the ships will fly around and land and execute/terminate the “useless eaters.” And all of Quigley’s
efforts to deny that he told the truth about the conspiracy in his Tragedy and Hope and in his The Anglo-American Establishment never worked to get the genie back into the bottle. There are too many sources out there now for the diligent to double check, cross-check, independent verifications from disparate sources, some of the best evidence for establishing the truth. Right now things look on course for an economic collapse, and barring a tremendous intervention on the Divine side we will have chaos..although I am praying for a Third Great Awakening and expect that God will show up for His people. It always frustrates Satan, when the Lord does that deal.