Archive for the ‘Herman Cain’ Category

The Curious Approach of Newt Gingrich

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

Newt's Got a Plan

Few things have been clearer than what this past week has made apparent:  The GOP establishment doesn’t want to win an honest fight, and those who comprise it don’t believe we should have any say whatsoever.  Whether you’re a staunch conservative, or a Tea Party patriot, there can be no way to miss the point demonstrated by a week-long attack-fest aimed at Newt Gingrich.  We’re not part of their party, and they will choose the nominee, and if we don’t like it, we can just shut up and go away.  Well, we’re not going away, and we won’t be shut up, and we’re going to call them on their twisted, half-truth ridden distortions in media, and we’re going to turn off their networks, and avoid their favorite in-the-tank websites, and we’re going to forge ahead without them if necessary.  The simple truth is that the GOP establishment needs our support much more than we need theirs, and with the direction this is going, I can’t see a single reason to support them or their chosen candidate.  Meanwhile, something else is brewing, and I take note, because watching Gingrich speak, I realized there was a change, and it manifested Saturday night.

Watching Herman Cain endorse Newt Gingrich on Saturday night, I think I glimpsed a bit of the future, because I think what Gingrich has been saying from the outset of this race is correct:  We must all set aside our petty differences and find a way to engineer victory as a team.  So far, among the candidates who entered the race, and have subsequently departed it, Cain and Perry, each once a front-runner, have endorsed Newt Gingrich. Now while it’s the undisputed truth that conservatives are a generally independent-minded lot, I don’t think we should fail to notice this.  I’ve told you before that a candidate who was an aggregate of the best parts of all of these would be great for the country, but alas, no such candidate stepped forward.  What we’re watching now, as Gingrich integrates these former competitors into his team is the result of having treated both of these men with due respect to their positions and experiences and accomplishments over their lives.  Gingrich has a big idea, all right, but it’s not about some mission to the moon.  Instead, I believe he’s focusing on building a team that can win in November and take the country back from Barack Obama.

This represents a serious departure from previous campaigns, as when the vanquished left the scene, frequently never to be seen again.   Think about what this will mean to the strength of the GOP team come November if Gingrich is the nominee.  He’s building a governing majority now, with the party as his first target.  Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is tooling around trying to further divisions in the party.  Are we now witnessing what is effectively the updated version of the Reagan coalition?  That would be a stunning achievement, and while he’s a long way from having accomplished it, that he’s seeing that far down the road is a hopeful sign.  Nothing is more prone to failure than an ad hoc campaign without direct and vision guiding it forward.  Whatever else you may think of Gingrich, it’s now clear to me that he has a plan, and if just a little luck breaks his way, he might not only capture the nomination, but also the presidency.

It’s always been true that the most effective presidents were those who could put together a governing coalition that permitted the best people to lead with their strengths and their passions.  If Gingrich is figuring out the way to do this effectively, then we as conservatives should be thankful, whether we intend to support him in the primaries or not.  We need somebody at the head of this movement who can focus and direct its energies not only to electoral victory, but to a concrete plan of restoring our nation.  Could Gingrich be that leader, after all?  I’ve certainly had my misgivings, and as Sarah Palin reminds us, he is a “flawed vessel,” but as she also points out, nobody is perfect and without troubles.  Can Gingrich be a true reformer?  He’s done it before, certainly, because his accomplishments in leading the Republicans to sweeping victory in 1994 was a marvel  in modern American history.   Could he do it again?

Time will tell, but for now at least, we know with certainty one thing:  Newt has a plan.

Allen West to Lefties: “Get your leftism the hell out of America!”

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

Hooah!

I’m not going to write a lengthy article to accompany this. There’s really no point. Congressman Allen West makes plain everything that really needs to be said.  He spoke at a dinner Saturday in Florida that would see Herman Cain endorse Newt Gingrich for President shortly after Colonel West’s remarks concluded.  There’s a good reason West remains a highly motivational, show-stopping speaker at these sorts of events, and I personally look forward to hearing more from him soon.

Here’s the video:

Flash: Cain Endorses Newt Gingrich in Florida on C-SPAN Live

Saturday, January 28th, 2012

Cain Endorses Gingrich

Saturday night’s headlines will erupt, and this should lead the headlines on Sunday morning, but since the media is too busy clubbing Gingrich over the head to notice, you never know. I can’t think of a more impressive situation for Gingrich.  This comes at an event in which none other than Congressman Allen West had spoken just moments before, and in an environment of incredibly good cheer. Herman Cain was on hand to both introduce and endorse Newt Gingrich!

Newt Being Assassinated; Public Being Suckered; Gingrich Must Call Bluff

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

Perfectly Timed Political Hit

Let me start by saying I am speculating, but anybody who assumes the left is behind this character assassination is smoking dope.  If you think this was instigated for any reason except to combat the story that I reported earlier, you’re mistaken.  There will be no linkage back to the real culprits, of course, just like in the Herman Cain case, but you had better know the real reason:  Newt was beginning  to pull even with Mitt Romney.  If you haven’t noticed the convenient timing of these stories throughout the campaign year, I have news for you: You’re being led by the nose, and on the day that a story comes out about Romney’s offshore investments, what you’re actually seeing is a well-coordinated smear.  If you don’t understand, I’d like to explain.

The story about Romney is a set-up, and by the time they’re done “investigating,” it will be shown that Mitt Romney had done nothing illegal, which we could already guess. This is to give ABC News plausible deniability for being in bed with Mitt Romney.  In this manner, it looks as though Romney is just the lesser victim of this ABC News’ “diligent investigation,” but it’s much worse than that.

The story that Drudge is now pushing is a sham.  The very idea that ABC News wouldn’t run with this story in order to wreck Gingrich prior to South Carolina out of ethical concerns is a laughable hoax. ABC News has no journalistic ethics of which to speak, but in any case, we’re taking this no better than third-hand from a master head-line delivery artist named Matt Drudge.

How do I know the Newt story is a set-up?  I don’t, but let me explain why I think so:

If this was real, and if Marianne Gingrich had something shocking and new to disclose, the story would be running right now.  On the other hand, if the story is garbage, and what the former Mrs. Gingrich said was really not news, you would release the fact that you had the “dirt,” and you would withhold it while letting it “leak” that it was explosive and damaging.

For all we know right this moment, this is no more than the laments and disclosures of a jilted spouse.  I don’t mean to minimize the pain of divorce and all the things that lead to it, but if ABC News can dismiss Linda Tripp as a disgruntled former employee, it’s reasonable to suspect they could likewise dismiss Marianne Gingrich as a “disgruntled former wife.”  The only reason not to do so is that she has something so thoroughly damaging to tell that it would wreck Gingrich.  It could be anything from pillow-talk about political adversaries, or even friends, to something of a personal nature, but it could also be the complaints of an ex-spouse.  (Again, to ex-spouses, I am not dismissing your feelings, but let’s try to be objective about this, and admit that ex-spouses frequently aren’t.)

So why withhold it?  Because the speculation will be more damaging to Newt in the South Carolina primary if it’s a big unknown than if it were something less than catastrophic.  It is for this reason that if I were Newt Gingrich, I would insist that ABC make the footage public out of a “sense of ethics” for the candidates because an unknown looming negative is always worse in the imagination of voters than the facts of the allegation, short of murder or other gross illegality. If I were Newt, I would demand it, and I would demand it now.

I also suspect this will be used in an attempt to damage anybody who has endorsed Gingrich. After all, the argument will be, if they would throw their votes behind Gingrich or vote for him, how can they be trusted? Expect the media to immediately begin making the rounds of all those who have endorsed or in any way supported Newt Gingrich for comment, hoping to show them on camera or play the audio of them backing away from Gingrich.

I don’t think the former Speaker of the House reads this wee column, but if he does, the thing I would suggest to him is to demand it be released to clear the air before the election, particularly if he suspects that this is a trumped-up hit-job.  Speaker Gingrich, you should call ABC and Drudge’s bluff: Insist they put it out now, rather than damaging you by delay.  The damage being done to your reputation by this impeccably-timed leak is greater than the story is likely to do, because it will almost certainly come down to a he-said-she-said between former spouses.  Of course, it’s your campaign, and your life, but that’s my thinking.

Update: As I prepare to take this to press, Breitbart is reporting that ABC now “intends” to release the story on Friday night, the literal eve of the election.  It is either damaging or nothing, but it is the anticipation of the story that will do the most damage.  I still believe that Newt must call ABC’s bluff, because at present, he has nothing to which he can respond, and Friday, it will deprive him of time.  For this reason, I suspect the story is garbage, and when it’s disclosed, it will likely be nothing, but the whole thing is cooked and really, with the damage this will do hanging over his head, Newt would be better to demand it be released.  Even ABC couldn’t sell the “ethics” angle for withholding it, so it will go to press at the last possible moment when Newt won’t have time to refute it or anything of the sort, while the anticipation of the story is permitted to build right up to the eve of the election.  This is scandalous “journalism.”

 

The Establishment Way

Saturday, January 7th, 2012

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

I’ve been discussing this over the last week, but it is the subject from which there is no escape if we are to take this process seriously.  Maybe that’s the point to be made about the GOP’s nomination battle:  The establishment sets out to win this war every four years, and every presidential election year since 1988, they have managed to pull it off without a hitch and without recourse for the party’s base.  As Jay Cost explains in a most excellent article at the Weekly Standard, it’s rigged, and this has been the situation since the 1970s, with only Ronald Reagan breaking the trend. If you needed more evidence than this GOP primary season has provided already, you have only to consider the words of this genius, New Hampshire State Senator Gary Lambert, who offered:

“Rather than go on with the blah, blah, blah. I’d like to get right to the point. Which is – Look, we know how this movie is going to end. Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee,” he said.
“This is not about picking your favorite, it’s not about picking someone you like. It’s not about picking someone even with your own beliefs and principles. This is about picking a person that can beat Barack Obama, period.”

Here’s video(I didn’t create the “Mafia” text, although honestly, it seems apt in the context of Lambert’s diatribe):

Did you catch this?  He knows “how you think.”  If you were confused, let me suggest that this establishment Romney hack should have cleared it up nicely for you.  While I’d like to tell you that this guy was going to be tossed from the party for making this statement, the truth is that he’s the norm, and this is the general sentiment of those who run the party.  They don’t care for your beliefs, your opinions or your ideas.  They don’t have any regard for your preferences.  Their analysts and public relations goon-squads choose.   You’re to be herded like the compliant cattle moving through a series of chutes, and you end up penned-in, voting for their preferences.  All this, and yet they wonder why they lose as often as they win, and blame you for the defeats?  Do you really wonder why the country is going to hell?  These people are helping take you there, of course, because they know better.

Don’t worry, Tea Party.  Don’t worry, conservative grass roots activists. You still have a role to play, and it’s to sit down and shut up and vote as they instruct you.  If you’re offended by any of this, it’s only because you’re an “impractical idealist.”  Please don’t bother to explain to me why I must support somebody who holds me in such contempt.  Please don’t tell me how we “must save the country from Obama.”   These people are every bit as bad in their own way, and that we tolerate their domination of this process is a depressing statement on our own gullibility.

There will be more revelations coming out of this process, as I’ve begun to get the sense that some within the establishment want to effectively shut down the primaries altogether, skip the convention, and immediately go to the general election campaign.  I don’t quite know how they would rig the game so thoroughly in that fashion, but I think Lambert’s rant basically tips the establishment’s hand in this respect:  They aim to close this all down quickly now.  Where they’re concerned, it’s a done deal, so when I hear Herman Cain talking about an “unconventional process” on Hannity Friday, I wonder now if he doesn’t literally mean “without a convention.”  Of course, that’s just wild speculation on my part, but given the manner in which Cain stressed the “un” in “unconventional,” I’ve begun to wonder if this might be the sort of thingat which he was hinting.  In this video, Herman Cain discusses this same thing with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room on Friday(Again, I apologize for the poor quality, but I wanted to be sure you could form your own impressions:)

I’ve also been thinking about the notion of endorsements, and how effective they are(or aren’t,) and how important they are to voters generally.  My own take is that I use endorsements to draw maps of who is beholden to whom, because that’s what determines many of these endorsements, and to be quite blunt, I don’t care at all who any politician recommends in this fashion.  I’m able to make up my own mind, and I’m able to discern who I should support, or not, as I imagine is the case with the vast majority of readers here.   Nevertheless, I enjoy seeing the endorsements because it becomes a form of identification.   Remember, we were told McCain was a ‘Maverick,’ but here he is in 2012 endorsing a party guy and making quite plain that he’s ready to shut down this primary process.  So much for the “maverick.”  He’s much more like a milch-cow.  What’s interesting about the Cain video is how it reveals his willingness to manipulate his supporters for maximum effect.  He’s doing his best to keep them together, to make the best pitch he can when he finally throws his support behind Romney, which it seems that he may well do.  This will have other potential fall-out, should it pan out as my magic-decoder ring seems to indicate it will.

This soup is the end result of pouring out your best efforts and your diligent activism into a rancid broth.  The establishment runs the party, and they do so mostly without reference to we little people.  We’re only good for three things where they’re concerned:  Money, Votes, and Campaigning.  They don’t care about our ideas, our principles, or our most firmly held beliefs.  They manage us, herd us, and drive us into a stampede, with the idea being that we should all arrive simultaneously at the conclusion they’ve laid out.  That’s the game, and it’s been the play for decades.  As Jay Cost concludes his article, it’s worthwhile to consider:

“Yes, it is important to consider the big policy issues – tax reform, health care, industrial policy – but without good rules to produce good nominees who can implement those policies, then it is all for naught.”

Sadly, it’s true.

Cain Out of Presidential Race

Saturday, December 3rd, 2011

Cain Bows Out of Race

Saying he was suspending his campaign for the GOP nomination, Herman Cain announced to a crowd of disappointed supporters that he was effectively ending his White House bid.  Despite what others may say, I think the American conservative voter will miss Herman Cain’s populist voice in this 2012 election season.  Mr. Cain’s particular strength had been his ability to resonate with voters who have regarded Washington DC as the ongoing source of our troubles, but not necessarily any solutions.  Cain’s candidacy first came under attack after several women made claims of sexual harassment, including a over-hyped media event featuring one of the accusers and Gloria Allred, her attorney.  To date, Gloria Allred still has not provided the alleged sworn statements she said she was waving around in that press conference, making it appear as though she may have known there was no truth to the allegations.  Last week, another woman of dubious credibility came out to claim she had carried on a thirteen year long affair with Mr. Cain, but just as with the others, she has provided no substantial evidence of her claims to date.

Whatever you may think of Herman Cain on the issues, what torpedoed his campaign is nothing more than press-hyped innuendo, at least thus far.  While it is possible all of these accusers are telling the truth, my own gut tells me that at least some of these charges are pure nonsense.  Part of my reasoning is that the method by which these things have been used to take down Cain have emerged is with much media fanfare, but in follow-up, very little substance.  More, when one accusation didn’t work, more were trotted out.  When the sexual harassment allegations didn’t convince voters entirely, accusations of an affair were brought forward.  One after the other, charges were made until the mantra became “it’s the seriousness of the charges,” without any real examination of evidence.

Whenever I see people begin to talk “about the seriousness of the charges” without reference to any substantive evidence, my antennae deploy in suspicion of treachery.  It’s not that Herman Cain couldn’t have done all of these things, although some surely seem farcical.  In any event, I’m disappointed to see Cain depart, if only because his views on taking power from the DC insiders was refreshing and offered hope to people for real reform.  Whether one thought the merits of his “9-9-9″ plan were great or terrible, it surely spawned debate on the question of our system of taxation.  Few conservatives will fail to remember 9-9-9 in association with tax reform, and I believe Mr. Cain deserves a good deal of credit for bringing that discussion so much attention, irrespective of these allegations about his personal conduct.

Cain was also willing to go into a forum in which he would face former Speaker Newt Gingrich in a one-on-one debate, which turned out to have been a wild success among voters who wanted to be able to gauge the candidates side by side, in isolation from the glitz and hype of a big stage production with a half-dozen or more candidates and sound-bite worthy time constraints.  Readers of this blog favored that format by a wide margin, expressing the opinion that the remainder of the debates should take on that kind of one-on-one format, since it allowed for a more free-ranging and thorough discussion of the issues based on their merits, and tended to stay away from the sort of “gotcha moments” that tend to characterize the traditional debates.  While readers of this blog thought Cain lost that debate, they nevertheless gained a good deal of respect for the man’s positions.  He also endeared himself to debate watchers in that forum. One would think other candidates would recognize the value of such debates to voters, but some candidates are more interested in winning without the voters learning anything substantial about them.

Herman Cain has been a ground-breaking candidate because he comes not from a long career of government service, but instead because from a private sector background with unique solutions to problems facing our republic.  His exit leaves another hole in the field, because the rest of the candidates have extensive government service that makes it difficult to consider them “outsiders.”  Cain said that he would continue to try to reform government from the outside in his announcement Saturday, and many Americans fervently hope he will carry that out with the same personable good nature that shows through even under duress. His announcement Saturday paid appropriate respect to his supporters, and to the country and its voters as a whole, and it’s why so many believe Cain is simply a class act. This writer certainly hopes Herman Cain will stay involved, because this country certainly needs more voices from outside government demanding real change.

Cain Leaves Rails in Newspaper Interview

Monday, November 14th, 2011

What Can You Say When Words Fail You?

It was too good to last.  While the personal attacks against Herman Cain were based on unsubstantiated allegations, I knew his real problem would eventually come up:  He does a decent ten-second sound-bite, but I think his depth of understanding on issues has always been lacking.  There have been signs all along, such as his lack of knowledge on the issue of a “right of return” claimed by Palestineans, his dearth of knowledge on some of the entitlements-related issues as demonstrated by the Cain-Gingrich debate, and now he’s really blown it with some very odd responses to questions about Libya in a sit-down interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  I do like Herman Cain, and I think he’s a genuine and sincere American who believes in a message of optimism, but the fact is that he doesn’t know the issues.  Cain’s reliance on his life’s experience in business has come down to this:  He’s inspiring and motivating, but it does not qualify him to be the President.

I say this with some sadness, because I firmly believe we need a candidate with his optimistic view of America’s potential, but I also know that in the real world we face, that alone will not salvage our position.  If he gets this  confused over our foreign policy on Libya, it’s going to be a problem.  He seems to have gotten confused about the question, his rehearsed answer, or some combination of the two.  To his credit, he gets back on track but he seemed to be stalling a bit in trying to do so, suggesting he was trying to remember what his position has been rather than responding directly to the question.  Again, I’m not bashing Herman Cain, but giving you my best assessment of his knowledge.  It may be that he would be able to stumble in this fashion through foreign policy crises that may arise, but that’s not really the scenario in which you want your President learning the foreign policy ropes.

I also realize that Cain says he likes to have full information before making a decision, and that’s laudable, but the truth is that a President must frequently make decisions despite sometimes sizable gaps in the available information.  Some of those situations will be time-critical, and a President will be forced to try to fill in the blanks with best guesses from advisers, but also from his own accumulated knowledge and experience.   Herman Cain has a great deal of wisdom and experience in some matters, and virtually none in others.  Foreign policy is one of these, and the truth of the Presidency is that foreign policy is arguably the most important concern of every President, whether the occupant of the Oval Office recognizes this fact or not.  If defending the country is the primary purpose of the federal government, then foreign policy must be among our top priorities for our nominee.

This lack of detailed knowledge becomes readily apparent when placed alongside Newt Gingrich, another technocrat with long experience as a policy wonk, but it’s more than that.  I have had concerns about Cain from the moment he first ran into the “right to return” flap.  Even at that, I’d still take a Herman Cain over a Mitt Romney, but the truth is that there are better options than either, in my view.  This particular instance with Cain comes at a bad time, because the latest round of polling seems to indicate his personal favorability has slipped in light of an admittedly dubious batch of allegations about his personal conduct.  A bit reminiscent of Perry’s mental slippage of last week, this moment may provide the final downward impetus to seal Cain’s fate.  Honestly, it’s too bad because he may very well be innocent of all the wretched allegations leveled at him, but in politics, it is so difficult to over come perceptions that when combined with this episode, may turn out to have been an insurmountable obstacle to his campaign.  Then again, people have counted Cain out before, and he’s survived.  Whether he can win the nomination with his clear lack of knowledge may be another matter.

You can watch the video clip from the interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel below:

Analytical Software Shows Cain Truthful, Bialek Not So Much

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Who Lied?

Herman Cain was asked about polygraph testing in his press conference Tuesday evening, but the formality of that sort of testing may not be necessary in any event.  Police frequently use analytical software to assess the truthfulness of interviewees to see if they’re likely telling the truth.  CBS Atlanta is reporting that Private Investigator has applied this technique to Herman Cain’s press conference, but also to Bialek’s, with some amazing results.  While no technology is 100% accurate, it’s also true that some technologies are more reliable than others.  This voice analysis technique is said to be much more accurate than polygraph testing, for instance.

That’s a stunning claim, but such software has been in use for a number of years, and while it holds no sway in court because it is not a 100% perfect technique, much like a polygraph, it’s nevertheless a useful technological tool that is used by investigators to help determine if they’re on the right track.  Honestly, if the software wasn’t so expensive, I’d consider a copy just for evaluating news-casts.  Wouldn’t that be fun? Tell the truth: Who wouldn’t want to run some of Obama’s statements through this sort of analysis? Karl Rove?  Oh, that would be fun!

As I said, while the technology isn’t 100%, and readers shouldn’t consider these results perfectly conclusive, it does lend to the credibility of Herman Cain. Again, you can watch the video of the CBS Atlanta report HERE.

My Thoughts on the Cain-Gingrich Debate

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

One Clear Winner or Two?

In order to avoid lending my own bias to the results of the polls I put up at the conclusion of the Cain-Gingrich debate, I withheld my own opinion on the performance of either man, and instead focused on the format of the debate, and my own thinking about that aspect of the story.  For the record, the polls have closed, and you can see the results here.  In this instance, I agree with the majority opinion on all three questions, including particularly the question “Who won?”  It was clear that while Herman Cain is a very likable man, at least insofar as his debate performance goes, the problem with Herman Cain has nothing to do with style, but instead entirely with substance.  It’s not that Cain didn’t score some points with me, as he most certainly did, but most of the points he scored with me were on a non-specific basis, or on the basis of his affability.  In terms of the issues, while I did not agree in every dimension with everything Newt Gingrich said, I nevertheless admire his command of the issues at hand, whether or not his views or ideas aligned precisely with my own.  He understands the issues in specific detail, and his knowledge as an historian lends to his presentation.

The truth is that the specifics of issues seem to pose a problem for Herman Cain, and to be honest, we knew this well in advance of this debate, so it’s worth noting that Cain at least had the courage to come forward in a venue where he knew that he was at a distinct disadvantage.  While that’s to Cain’s credit, the simple fact that he couldn’t provide any information on the subject of defined benefit plans suggests he simply isn’t ready.  He had some excellent one-liners, but then again, so did Gingrich, but the problem for Cain is that in the details, Gingrich demonstrated a detailed level of understanding that simply out-classed Cain.  Cain’s knowledge was general, and generic, and at that same time, Gingrich knew the nuts and bolts of the subjects under discussion.  There simply is no way to ignore the truth of the matter.

If the presidency were based on likability, Herman Cain would have won this debate, but the truth is that being President is a serious business, and knowledge of these issues is critical to the sorts of reforms we hope the eventual nominee will advocate, whoever that turns out to be.   Unfortunately, the presidency isn’t solely about detailed knowledge either, because what conservatives want is a president who they can trust, and whose first instinct isn’t to create another program or department or bail-out.  Conservatives want to know that a president has their backs.  Gingrich suffers from the deserved impression that he may lose his grounding under some circumstances, as expressed through his Global Warming defection during which he appeared with Nancy Pelosi in a joint advertisement on behalf of Global Warmists.

This is the dilemma presented by the Cain-Gingrich debate.  I suspect that even those who rated the debate “a draw” will admit that on the totality of the issues, Gingrich really was the superior of the two, but that their impression of Cain was informed by his engaging, and at times, humorous presentation.  I also suspect these are people who, like me, still feel a bit burned by Gingrich on a few matters, like the aforementioned Global Warming surrender.

There can be no real doubt: Gingrich absolutely dominated the facts and the issues in this debate, and on that basis, he must be considered the victor, but whether he can smooth over his past failures in the eyes of conservatives is another question.  The truth is that I suspect most conservatives wish that Cain had Gingrich’s grasp of the issues, or that Gingrich inspired conservatives as well as Cain does.  Conservatives want the “complete candidate” for a change, without compromise, and some of us thought we had spotted one, but she chose not to run.  We’re coming rapidly to the time for choosing, and the fact is that conservatives are still unsettled about it.  What the moderates and establishment Republicans hope to do is to make it difficult for conservatives to settle on a single choice, thus dividing the conservative wing of the party in the hope that they can be conquered.   So far, that strategy is paying off as the party is fractured but Romney’s support remains steady at around 25%.

Like many conservatives and Tea Party folk, I thought we would have a unifying conservative candidate, but that choice hasn’t materialized.  I say to my conservative and Tea Party brethren that among those still in the race, these two are probably the best, although I’d like now to see Gingrich face Bachmann in a similar style debate.  I’d like to see Cain against Romney.  I’d like to see Perry against Paul.  The format of this debate was the best of them in my view, and clearly in the view of my readers too.  This is the debate we should be having.  Let’s get to it.

Cain Categorically Denies Allegations – Still No Proof He’s Lying(Updated)

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

Justifiably Righteous Indignation!

Here’s the funny part:  At this point, I’m inclined to believe him.  More, there is a backlash brewing among conservatives who suspect this has been a hatchet-job, and not necessarily directed by Democrats, and there is that segment within the conservative movement that is substantially ready to tell the media to kiss off.  I find it interesting because after ten days of accusations, rumors, and an uninterrupted stream of innuendo, we still have exactly nothing to suggest that this is more than a load of manure.   After more than a day having elapsed, Gloria Allred still hasn’t provided those alleged “sworn statements” to the public for examination.  If I were the purveyor of hamburgers, I would ask simply: “Where’s the beef?”

There is the so-called fifth accuser who isn’t actually accusing anything.  The media is referencing unnamed sources who are friends of unnamed accusers.  Most of the people involved in this “story,” apart from Bialek and Cain are unnamed.  Let me tell you what I suspect:

Last week, it was the idea of providing the notion of Herman Cain as a harasser.  When that failed to bring him down, and people basically questioned the entire “unnamed accusers” business, they dug up one willing to go on the record.  They trotted her out Monday, and now they have “established a pattern,” but a pattern of what?  I see a pattern of lies and deceit, but not on Herman Cain’s side of this.   What I see is a rush to convict Cain of exhibiting a “pattern” based on the accusations of one woman of increasingly dubious history and motives, brought to light by one of the worst ambulance-chasing celebrity attorneys in all recorded history.  Then we have the absolute spectacle of Karl Rove telling us that Allred adds credibility.  Again, I ask: In what sort of world does Karl Rove live that Gloria Allred’s involvement adds credibility to the claims of Bialek?

Add to this the utter absurdity of Touré appearing on MSNBC to talk about the “predatory black sexuality” of African-American men?  WHAT?  Am I to understand that this is to be the norm in media?  Are we really supposed to believe that the seriousness of the charge supersedes the validity of the evidence and testimony?  Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t pretend to know what’s inside Herman Cain’s head, and I don’t pretend to know what’s been going on over all these years, but here’s what I suspect:  I think they have to destroy Herman Cain, and I think they’re getting desperate.  I don’t think Cain was supposed to get this far.  I think he was intended to appeal to enough of the Tea Party folks to divide that wing of the party, but something happened on the way to an election:  Suddenly, Cain had become the persistent front-runner.

After all that had been put into the task of securing the nomination for somebody else, Herman Cain had suddenly become a real obstacle, and worse, he began to believe he could win.   This is the reason Cain must be destroyed, but frankly, the longer this goes on, the more we fail to vet Romney.  Look.  We’ve paid scant attention to anything else for these last ten days.  Nobody benefits more from this entire episode than Mitt Romney, except perhaps for Obama, who knows he can beat dear Willard without difficulty.  Cain, in contrast, scares the crap out of Obama.

Let me reiterate:  We still have no evidence of note, and nothing of legal substance.   Herman Cain’s press conference was a sharp rebuke to the media.  That will not deter the media.  It was also a stern warning.  I think conservatives have had enough.  The senseless smears of Palin that were almost criminally contrived, and of other conservatives over the years all set the stage for this situation.  Conservatives will resist this nonsense because they have finally realized they must, because dirt is dirt, and if we’re going to have any integrity at all, we must admit that they can scowl and posture, but they still haven’t shown us anything that convicts Cain, or even substantially harms him.  What we’ve been presented is a load of innuendo.  As of this moment, there is nothing.  Nothing that merits tossing Herman Cain overboard.  Nothing at all to suggest a “pattern of abuses,” other than the abuse of Cain’s record and character and reputation.

You can come here and tell me you believe Bialek, but what evidence do you offer, apart from “feelings” and “instinct” and “intuition?”  Notice that all of these are emotion-bound concepts, and yet if you rely solely on your mind, and the available evidence, what must you conclude based only upon that which is demonstrable at this time?  What must you conclude?

There’s no doubt in my mind that if Herman Cain is guilty of any of this, we’ll know in short order, but there’s also little doubt in my mind that he’s probably innocent of the “serious charges.”  I am no longer going to listen to discussions of the “seriousness of the charges,” not because I believe that such conduct as has been alleged isn’t serious, but because I know that charges are just that, but precisely nothing more, and until they are substantiated by evidence and testimony of credible witnesses, they are only charges.  I have yet to see any of either quantity.  I’m still waiting for Allred to release the statements.  What are the odds that we will never see these alleged statements?

You can watch the press conference, in three parts below:

Come Clean Gloria Allred!(Updated)

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Let's See the Statements!

I want to see the statements.  Don’t wave statements around, and then withhold them.  For all we know, those were an e-mail from your cosmetic surgeon and the evening’s hotel menu.  Release the statements!  Show us this damning evidence!  What are you hiding from us?  Why won’t you show us these sworn statements?  What is the point of gathering sworn statements that are never to be released?  What good are they?  How do we know anything about the nature of the statements?

These two statements could say “I remember Ms. Bialek being upset at the time.”  What would that mean?  We know she was at least somewhat upset because she had been “let go” by the her employer just beforehand.  We don’t  have any clue what is in these allegedly corroborating statements, and until we see them, they constitute nothing except props for Gloria Allred’s traveling stage show.

Ms. Allred, you should immediately release these statements or explain why you will not.  Your client’s allegations are defamatory, and yet there is no supporting evidence of anything, except for her testimony.  I must conclude that you are misleading the American people, and that your concealment of these sworn statements is intended to carry out a hoax.

Then, after all of this, we now have the statement of a Tea Party member who says your client wasn’t at the event she says she had attended to speak to Mr. Cain.

This is all very curious, and I simply wish to know from Ms. Allred what sort of case she is presenting to the American people.  I don’t know what she’s attempting, but until I see these statements she has yet to release, I have no reason to assume this is anything but a pile-on episode in a long history of dubious cases involving Ms. Allred.

Now for all I know, this is on the up-and-up, but what makes me doubt it are the following things, right off the cuff:

  • Allred’s involvement. At all
  • The lack of release of the supposedly corroborating statements
  • The testimony of the accuser herself

In the end, if this turns out to be in any measure true, it will destroy Herman Cain, for lying about it, if nothing else.  For his part, he and his campaign are denying this flatly.  I am going on record here to say that if it turns out that this woman’s testimony is substantially true, Cain has no business being on the ticket, whatever the motivations driving this belated disclosure, but before I am willing to condemn the man, I’m going to need something a good bit more substantial than Gloria Allred standing behind a pile of microphones and before a camera waving “sworn statements” around to which she has not given us access.

In short, Ms. Allred has a responsibility to clear this up on behalf of her client, and in the name of justice.  If there is anything of substance to these statements, it will doom Mr. Cain’s candidacy as it should, but let’s not assume anything, because Allred has a long history of bluffing.  I’m calling her bluff: Release the statements!  Let us decide if the testimony alleged to be in them is credible.

Come clean, Ms. Allred!

 

Update #1: Contrary to previous stories, somebody claims to have witnessed Bialek at Tea Party Rally with Cain

Update #2: Cain to hold a press conference Tuesday

Cain Accuser: Come Clean Mr. Cain!

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Accuser Comes forward

I honestly don’t know what to make of this, apart from the fact that it is a political attack.  I’m going to insist on more information, some sort of corroboration, or something.  Do we have hotel receipts? Do we have dates, times, anything to substantiate any of this?  My problem with all of this is simple: In the press conference, we were told there would be statements by two contemporaneous witnesses to the alleged victim’s statements in confidence.  These statements have yet to be released.  It’s one thing to say the statements exist, but it’s something else again to produce them.  Something is very odd about this, and the public would be right to withhold judgment pending the disclosure of these statements.  Until then, what we have still amounts at best to a “he said-she said,” and it’s not enough to believe the accuser.

I’m not going to get into trying to debunk the specific accusations until we’ve had something to substantiate the claims that both individuals were there, were present at the hotel in question.  I don’t wish to smear the accuser, Sharon Bialek, and I won’t, but the problem is that her attorney, Gloria Allred, has a history of some very dubious cases, and in this case, since no action will be take, and no claims will be filed, it’s difficult to understand how this is anything other than a politically motivated attack. If she seeks no compensation or settlement, then her only possible purpose can be to damage Cain’s presidential campaign.   The question is then: “Why?”

Over my lifetime, I’ve learned that people can be motivated to make ugly accusations for all manner of reasons, and sometimes it’s because they wish to see justice done.  Other times, it’s because they have some other axe to grind with the target, and the problem in this case is that while it’s being presented as the former, we really have no evidence one way or the other.

Allred said “Mr Cain, while running for President, is actively lying to Americans.”  My question for Allred is this:  You say you have corroborating statements from contemporaneous witnesses, but you have not released them.  What does Allred offer to substantiate the circumstances?  Do we have anything that shows Cain was in Chicago at the time?  Do we have anything to substantiate the Bialek was in Chicago at the time?  Do we have any information to show that there is or was any relationship of any sort between the two, never mind the allegations put forward by Bialek?  At present, I know of no information apart from her statements, and the statements of Allred, and to be honest with you, I don’t consider Allred a credible source for any information.

Allred’s comments preceding her client’s statement seem to me akin to that moment in A Few Good Men, when the character played by Demi Moore stands up in court and says “I strenuously object.”  The problem is that it’s pointless for Allred to stand up and say Cain “…is actively lying to the American people,”  after offering absolutely nothing to corroborate her client’s claims, apart from a business card that shows Bialek did work for the Education Foundation at some point, although by her own admission, not at the time of the alleged incident.  Statements of that sort are theater, but they have no impact because there is no evidence to support them.  Additionally, we do know that Bialek thought at the time she was let go from the foundation before the alleged incident.  It was stated flatly that she thought she had been fired unfairly by the Foundation because she hadn’t raised enough money.  Allred states that Bialek is a registered Republican.  What does that mean?  There are a number of other candidates in the Republican party who will benefit from this disclosure if it sticks.  It’s not as though the only people who intend political harm to Cain are Democrats, and in fact, I’ve said that all along.

Again, I don’t have a particular dog in this hunt, except to say that I would prefer the truth on all such matters.  What Allred has engineered was a very dramatic, hyped, and overblown spectacle from which no usable evidence of misconduct was produced, apart from Bialek’s claims.  If the two men who allegedly signed statements corroborating Bialek’s claims will not come forward, or otherwise consent to the release of their statements, then I don’t know how we’re supposed to view this as anything but an unsubstantiated political attack.  At the moment, that’s the extent of this despite the endless media coverage.

Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t have the truth of this matter yet, and while it’s our natural inclination to believe that where there is smoke, there must also be fire, but the truth is I’ve yet to see any damning evidence.  Bialek sounds credible, but then again, many people are good liars, so I have no idea about her actual credibility.  Without the release of the statements from her friends that purport to support her story, I haven’t enough evidence to damn Herman Cain.  It’s not enough to trot out an alleged victim who makes claims, wave around some pieces of paper that are alleged to contain statements from two confidantes of the alleged victim, and then call it a day.   There must be more, or it’s simply another claim brought forward in dramatic fashion by Gloria Allred.  Frankly, that says plenty to me about this woman’s motives, because she did not seek out an attorney so much as the media management of a publicist.

Here’s the press conference: