The Great Cain Robbery

I had wanted to 'get my feet wet' by talking about other pressing issues before dealing with presidential campaign politics. But 'life is what happens while you are busy making other plans,' it is said, and so I have to jump in at the deep end.

Just to avoid later confusion, I hold that the treatment Herman Cain has received in the press in recent days is a new low. Once you think the MSM has sunk as low as it can go, someone finds a basement door. The court of public opinion has been a kangaroo court on past character assassination attempts targeting conservatives, but there is a refreshing change this time around; people aren't buying the charges. Cain remains well within the 'frontrunner zone' in polls (though few will acknowledge this) and the Cain campaign is exceeding its own funding goals, enabling it to ramp up a presence in Iowa that had recently been lampooned as 'hopelessly weak'. One endlessly-cited Reuters / IPSOS poll, in reality an unscientific online survey, showed minor dips in Cain's 'favorability' with Republicans (still well above 50% even if you believe the survey) and with voters in general (in the 30's, which ain't bad for an 'unknown' candidate two months before the first primary and who wasn't supposed to make it even this far).

The way to overcome gossip, slander and libel (from the law firm of the same name) is to "live so that no one will believe your detractors." Cain does this, and it explains why his support remains firm despite the sewage-slinging attacks that have been aimed at him. If there were any truth to these allegations, Cain would have been dogged lo these many years by a whisper campaign that would drown out anything he might have to say. If he had a 'past' anything like these women are alleging, any associate who cares anything about Cain at all would practically have forbidden him from running. Instead: no whispers, no negative counsel, no doubt on the part of his Democrat wife that the charges are false (thank you, Lord, for keeping his family out of this and keeping this from harming his family life). In short, no proof = no story, or how journalism used to be practiced in days gone by.

The way this 'story' went down is the politics of personal destruction at its sleazy worst: Anonymous accusers, uncorroborated claims, no evidence. Demands for Cain to 'come clean' and 'tell all'. The problem with telling 'all' in a case like this: suppose there isn't anything to tell. Suppose all you can tell is that the accusations are false. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, many people are too cynical to believe in the possibility of straightforward, unalloyed innocence. Therefore, Cain's detractors are looking for an abject admission / 'apology' a la Clinton, while a vocal minority of nominal Cain supporters seem to be waiting for a rueful press conference where Cain looks suitably chastened and offers details that do not totally exonerate him but do not fully corroborate the accuser's stories, either ("there were some things said and some things done that I wish I hadn't done, but it wasn't as bad as she's saying it was,"). That way, everyone receives their pound of flesh and we can finally rejoin the campaign, already in progress.

Someone who maybe had crossed a line here and there (like 'we all' do at times) could offer up a meaningless mea culpa, reasoning that 'giving the people what they want' is the fastest way out of this quagmire. He could even borrow a page from the Democrat playbook and say, "I did nothing wrong and I won't do it again." But an innocent man of character would rightly see such tactics as both a sellout and an open invitation for more of the same.

It is worth noting that as of the time of posting, the dreaded five-way press conference is now down to two (presuming that additional accusers can't be found beforehand). Obviously the others said to whomever is driving this (cough David Axelrod cough), "Look, this isn't gaining traction the way you said it would. I'm not letting myself be dragged through a minefield for this. Get someone else." But Judas would still have been Judas even without the inducement of thirty pieces of silver; one wonders what the going rate is, these days. Perhaps Jezebel is a more apt analogy.

The possible Axelrod angle is not due as much to the overt threat posed to "Obama" (see my future post on the many names of 'The One') by Cain at this pre-Iowa juncture as it is to the desire of a Democrat in deep trouble in national polls to run an easy, uncomplicated campaign against an 'opponent' who agrees with him on virtually everything, thus limiting real debate and making life easier for the teleprompter operator. Thus, "Obama" wishes to run against Father of Obamacare Mitt Romney. The advantages for "Obama" are many, but the principal one is that it allows him to basically re-run the '08 campaign so that he can focus on keeping his past under wraps (and/or improving his golf game).

An Obama / Romney 'contest' (apart from being like the counter person at the ice cream store asking which flavor of vanilla you would like) lets "Obama" be the 'underdog' to Romney's white RINO. The (s)crappy community organizer from Kenya / Indonesia / Hawaii / Connecticut / maybe not Connecticut / Illinois (yeah, that's the ticket!), vs the guy from Utah via Massachusetts. The guy in the contest with the most experience being president vs the guy with the most experience running for president. The guy from the mean streets of Chicago (so he would have us believe) vs the quintessential country club establishment Republican.

Whereas Obama vs Cain gets rid of the race angle right away (how can someone vote for Cain only because "Obama" is black?). Obama vs Cain means lots of questions about Obamacare, and about fundamental differences in economic theory (Socialist vs free market conservative). Obama vs Cain could even raise the issue of eligibility (gasp!), though Cain has not commented extensively on this to date. Cain vs Obama could, in short, produce the sharpest difference seen between candidates in a presidential campaign since Reagan vs Carter. Not bad for a former 'pizza guy' who had no experience and wasn't running a 'serious' campaign.

The seriousness of Cain's campaign is no longer in question, thanks in part, oddly, to five accusers who likely won't receive their full fifteen minutes of fame but who hopefully have learned to beware Democrats bearing gifts. I don't know that it is true that 'everyone has a price' -- I can't be bought -- but clearly there are at least five people in this fallen world who need to take a close look at how easily they and their services can be purchased.

Until next time, remember that being right there is better than being left there.

CC