The Herman Cain 'scandal' - much ado about nothing?

I've been watching the Herman Cain 'scandal' closely. It seems to be characterized more by the absence of anything that can objectively be termed 'scandalous'! Despite the best efforts of Politico (which broke the 'news', and has so far published 94 stories about it in the space of less than a week) and its allies on the left of the political spectrum, I've so far seen no convincing evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is anything more than innuendo, gossip and slander. There's literally been not one single piece of substantive evidence that could be laid before a court of law as grounds on which to convict Mr. Cain of any offense. Instead, everything's a mish-mash of generalizations and suggestions, without any specific or credible allegations of a crime having been committed.

(I'm afraid I simply can't accept that accusations of 'inappropriate conduct' are worthy of serious attention. After all, what is 'inappropriate conduct'? It usually depends on who's defining it. There's no legal standard for it, and no generally accepted set of criteria by which to assess it. If the media are trying to judge Mr. Cain according to such subjective standards - their subjective standards - they've got nothing to do with justice at all: instead, they're a wannabe lynch mob.)

Jeffrey T. Kuhner puts it into perspective for the Washington Times:

The political establishment is obsessed with how poorly Mr. Cain’s staff has dealt with the accusations. The more important story, however, is liberalism’s hatred for black conservatives. The hypocrisy and double standards are surreal, even Orwellian. When Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President George H.W. Bush, liberals insisted he was unfit to sit on the high court. This was because Anita Hill, a former female subordinate, accused him of “sexual harassment.” The core of her complaint was that Mr. Thomas on several occasions had made sexually inappropriate comments to her. For Democratic leftists, this was the ultimate disqualifier: a dirty mouth.

Yet when President Clinton was in office, the same liberals excused far more egregious - and criminal - behavior. Mr. Clinton was accused of exposing himself to Paula Jones, threatening her with losing her job if she didn’t perform sexual acts. Kathleen Willey alleged that Mr. Clinton had sexually assaulted her in the Oval Office. In the Wall Street Journal, Juanita Broaddrick accused - in painful detail - Mr. Clinton of having raped her. The president engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the White House and then lied under oath, suborned perjury and abused his office to cover it up. Mr. Clinton was a sexual predator who presided over the most lawless, scandal-ridden administration in memory. But Mr. Clinton was and remains a liberal icon - a charming rogue who just can’t seem to keep his hands off the ladies. The bar is different for black conservatives, such as Justice Thomas and Mr. Cain. They are demonized - and discredited - by liberals for allegedly doing things many Democrats - from the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to Al Gore to Rep. Barney Frank - would consider tame.

. . .

The reason for the double standard is that Mr. Cain poses a mortal threat to the Democratic coalition. For decades, blacks have been the electoral linchpin of the Democratic Party. Take away the party’s stranglehold, and it would be reduced to a minority rump. If Mr. Cain wins the GOP nomination, he could easily peel away one-third to half of the black vote. That would strike at the very heart of the liberal regime. It would show blacks a way out of the liberal plantation marked by the welfare state, affirmative action and grievance-mongering.

There's more at the link. Blogger Emily, at Naked DC, puts it rather more pointedly.

This is all kinds of super lame. Unless there’s a sex toy or an intern or a cigar or, for that matter, like thirty women he’s been hanging around with privately on the campaign trail, this really isn’t going to matter. ... It doesn’t really make sense to keep hammering at this story unless someone’s really trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Justin Bieber is having a better day in terms of sex scandals.

Again, more at the link. Emily also points to evidence that the 'scandal' may have originated in the camp of a Republican rival for the GOP's Presidential nomination, although that's yet to be proven by anyone concerned.

Overall, I'm less than impressed by the lack of substance to the allegations (at least as presently reported), and growing more angry by the day at what appears to be nothing more or less than a 'hatchet job' inspired by partisan political perspectives on the part of the news media. If they can prove me wrong about that, I'll be the first to publish the news here, and apologize; but so far they haven't even come close. In fact, the whole affair reminds me more than a little of the famous Dan Rather/CBS News scandal about former President Bush's military service. Based on the material so far made public, I daresay any 'evidence' about Mr. Cain's alleged misdeeds will end up as discredited as that offered to denigrate former President Bush.

It seems a large number of Americans agree with me, as Bob Gorrell illustrates.




Peter