Attacks on Cain reflect unspoken acknowledgment of conservative virtue *UPDATED*

I’ve kept pretty quiet about the allegations against Herman Cain.  As I blogged at the beginning of this news story, the fact that the charges go back to the era following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ellison v. Brady (9th Cir. 1991) 924 F.2d 872, means that they’re inherently suspect.  By doing away with the “reasonable person” standard, and substituting a “reasonable woman” standard, the Ninth Circuit opened the floodgates for endless claims by women who took offense if a man complimented their haircut or said hello to them.  These claims existed side by side with genuine claims from women who were subject to traditional sexual harassment:  have sex with me or lose your job.  I’m also suspicious because Gloria Allred is suddenly in the picture.  She has a knack for showing up whenever she can to destroy a Republican.

Having said that, I do not want to find myself in the ethically compromised position of a Clinton supporter back in 1998, when we were trying our damndest to explain away entirely unacceptable, indecent, and credible accusations.  If there’s nothing but vague accusations of winks and looks, I’m siding with Cain.  If there’s more, I’m dropping him.

And as to the latter, Andrew Klavan confirms that we conservatives are doing the right thing — and that liberals are paying conservatives a backhanded compliment — when we expect more of them than base liberal behavior.  Thus, after discussing the media double standard that always attaches to sex scandals (excusable if a Dem does it; inexcusable if a Republican does), Klavan has this to say:

And yes, it’s unfair. But there’s a reason it’s unfair—a reason it should be unfair. There’s a reason we right wingers vet our candidates while the left adulates theirs, a reason we condemn our miscreants while the left elevates theirs, a reason our news outlets cover stories that the left covers up.

The reason is:  we’re the good guys. We have to do what’s right. The left doesn’t. Sorry, but that’s the way it works. It’s the price you pay for defending what’s true and good, the price of holding yourself to a high moral standard. Our politicians have to be better than their politicians. Our journalists have to be more honest. Even our protesters have to behave with decorum and decency—and still suffer being slandered—while theirs can act like animals and commit acts of violence and lawlessness and spew anti-semitic filth and still find themselves excused and glorified.

There’s a reason the bad guy in movies is always chuckling darkly while the hero frequently finds himself with a laser beam cutting a path toward his vitals. The world is a place that has to be fought for and wrongdoers hold high power in every field. Liars wear ties and sit behind desks and tell us “That’s the way it is!” while drawing seven figure salaries from mainstream corporations. Truth tellers—the Becks, the Limbaughs, the Coulters, the Breitbarts—have to create their own venues while dodging brickbats and charges of bigotry and meanness and insanity.

Herman Cain is going to have to run the gauntlet, not just of a racist and dishonest left that wants to destroy him but of a fair-minded and decency-loving right that wants him to come fully clean and let the voters decide how we should proceed. The fight for truth, liberty and morality requires sacrifice and self-examination. The self-righteous quest for power over others does not.

The world is just as unfair as you think it is. You’ll never catch the devil hanging on a cross.

To which I can only add “Amen!”

UPDATE:  Once upon a time, when SNL was periodically funny, it correctly identified the problem.  (And to the list at the end of the video, I’d add “Don’t be a Republican, especially a black Republican.”

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/sexual_harassment_pointers.html

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    Whoria Allbad. Enuf said about her.
     
    Hasn’t anyone wondered why swords were not drawn in 2004 when Cain ran in the primary in Georgia for senator.
     
     

  2. Mike Devx says

    Given the dirty, dirty politics in play these days, I’ve decided that anonymous charges against a presidential candidate simply cannot cut it.  Period.  So kudos to this woman for standing up and telling her story publicly.

    I said on another thread I’m waiting two weeks for as much of the full story to come out before I make up my mind at all.  We’re eight days into my two weeks…

     

  3. jj says

    Now Allred’s involved, all by itself acceptable proof in just about any jurisdiction that the allegations are BS. 
     
    California don’t embarrass easy, do it?  What does this halfwit have to do to get disbarred?

  4. Mike Devx says

    Hey jj,

    The first thing I did yesterday was look up Allred’s history, since I knew she’d been constantly in the public eye and was tarnished.  But I found that the cases she’d handled all seemed credible.  Yeah she’s showy and extravagant and a publicity hog… and yes she’s an ardent leftist feminist… but I couldn’t find anything she’d done that would indicate that she supports BS lawsuits.

    Can you point me to any information about Allred that would indicate that because of her involvement, these allegations are likely bs?
     

  5. Mike Devx says

    Sadie, interesting link in #4.  I wonder what the case was actually about.  Isn’t it interesting that the supposedly conservative woman Sharon Bialek would retain David Axelrod as her attorney, beginning in July 2009 and apparently continuing through today?

    That bureaucratese “record” reminds me of why I hate bureaucracy!  It tells us so little.  I can’t even figure out what the $3539.58 mentioned midway through was all about.

    But I do want to know why she retained David Axelrod for this case, and what this case was and is about!
     

  6. suek says

    Apparently it’s not the same David Axelrod we know and love to hate. Odd coincidence, but it’s a different one. Same name, different person. (See Michelle Malkin today)

    Apparently it a case to establish the paternity of her child, and – I think – a paternity support case.

    No indication of whether the father of her child was the “boyfriend” of the period who was mentioned in her current statement.

  7. jj says

    Danny – I am unaware that Allred ever “handled” a case, though I suppose it depends somewhat on how you define “handled.”  Did she ever actually initiate a suit?  Or… like… practice law?  ( don’t follow her closely, she’s uninteresting.)  She used to stick her nose in Van Susteren’s legal roundtable, where guys like Fager, Krause, Williams, the jerk who always wears a deerskin jacket – they’d just laugh in her face. 
     
    She showed up to insert herself into the Scott Peterson thing, “representing” someone who required no representation: Scott Peterson’s girl-friend.  No one had accused her of anything, she was not being sued by anyone, she wasn’t herself suing anyone.  The most that could have happened to her would have been that she might have been called as a witness to testify to a matter of fact, such as where he was at 6:30 Tuesday evening.  (“Screwing me, yer honor.”)  Does the Constitution require we provide lawyers to potential witnesses?  I’ve been a witness, I didn’t need a lawyer…  Except in rare cases where there might be some danger of self-incrimination – which the court should routinely protect against – do witnesses need lawyers?  So – what “case?”  There was a “case?”  Not that I ever saw.  There was Allred, BS-ing her way into some sort of payday, I suppose.  (I don’t know what that little zero, Peterson’s girlfriend, had to pay her, but I guess the publicity was worth it.)
     
    Now here she is “representing” this floozy in another “case.”  What “case?”  Is she going to sue Cain for harassing her?  Well… no – not fourteen years later she isn’t.  Is Cain suing her?  No, he’s not.  So she needs a lawyer, because………………………….?  What’s Allred doing?  Anybody?  I guess she’s figuring this dame’s going to sell her story, and she can have a piece.  That’s pretty much it, as far as I can see.
     
    It’s far too often trash, with Allred.  Bottom-feeding.  Garbage.  Nonsense, that’s far more about her getting her not-very-attractive mug on camera than it is any “case.”  The “law” has little to do with what she does. 

  8. Mike Devx says

    jj #10,
    I think you’re absolutely right, jj.  Gloria Allred is there for appearances and “gravitas” only, in the sense of adding credibility to the accuser.

    I think Cain and his teak saw the same thing; after all, at this point, he had no need for counsel either, but to step up that podium *alone*, today, would have given her an advantage in the public arena.  So he quickly retained some very serious counsel himself, and they did their appearance to perfection (I thought).

    Even game.  If this were poker, Herman Cain just went all in, meet and show, and laid all his cards on the table, and sat back.  ”Let’s see what you got.”  Now it’s on her.  the interesting key thing that is the only thing I’m waiting for concerns that hotel room that someone upgraded to a master suite.  The hotel’s got to have the records; I want to see those records, else I’m ignoring the rest of this particular incident.

    the other accuser who went public today works for Obama and her son works at Politico.  So she’s compromised as well.  She’ll tell her story, but only if she gets to have all the other accusers with her in a common press conference.  Well, wouldn’t that be nice?  Well you can’t always get, what you want, Mick said, and that applies for her too.  She now has to get her full story out sometime soon, too, or lose credibility.  The clock is ticking for her.

    The media is getting really nasty, claiming (with no justification at all yet) that white America is going to turn on black Mr. Cain because of his “predatory black male sexual aggression” against these poor white women.  It’s almost as if the MEDIA is trying to introduce this INTO peoples’ minds as a reason to generate a Cain collapse.

    I still have seven days til my personal “deadline” on this story; two weeks from the story break, when I hoped we’d have all the info out there and I could decide for myself what was really going on.  All the significant sturm und drang might still all wrap up by then!  Until then I am “keeping my powder dry”.
     

  9. kali says

    Allred confuses me. Remember how she did actual harm to her “client”–Meg Whitman’s illegal immigrant housekeeper? If she wasn’t disbarred/disciplined for that, who exactly is her client, then and now? Is there a client-attorney relationship if you’re not the one paying the attorney, or the attorney is doing it for publicity/politics/pro bono?
     
     

  10. suek says

    >>and her son works at Politico>>

    Apparently that should be “used to” work at Politico. Not that that makes a lot of difference.

    >>Remember how she did actual harm to her “client”–Meg Whitman’s illegal immigrant housekeeper?>>

    Maybe. Maybe not. She _does_ live in California, you know. I’m not sure the state would take any action – especially with Brown at the helm. It would be interesting to find out some follow up details, but I don’t know where you’d find them. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that somehow pressure was applied to obtain her citizenship as part of the deal. Or maybe it went the other way – some big bucks, and the lady returns to Mexico to live in comfort for the rest of her days. Or how about the recent deal I’ve heard about – buy a home in the US for $500K+ and citizenship is a sure thing. When you think about some of the real estate deals we’ve heard about in recent years – person buys super house for half of the appraised value and then is forgiven the owed amount – I could see an easy deal on that. She “buys” the house, but doesn’t make any payments…no foreclosure as long as she keeps quiet about it and everybody’s happy.

Leave a Reply