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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0nU9xpavkk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt02IvObwVg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRE5CA9VVaE