Author Topic: Shame on Republicans Who Threw Herman Cain Under the Bus  (Read 607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 36,103
Shame on Republicans Who Threw Herman Cain Under the Bus
« on: November 04, 2011, 03:01:16 PM »
Shame on Republicans Who Threw Herman Cain Under the Bus
November 04, 2011


RUSH: Bernard Goldberg, who has a website, has a take on this.  "What If Herman Cain Were a Liberal?"  Here's an excerpt: "Yes, the so-called mainstream media uncovered Gary Hart's sex scandal when he was running for president in 1988, and he was a liberal Democrat.

"They also went after Anthony Weiner, another liberal Democrat, who eventually resigned from Congress.  John Edwards was something else.  Reporters didn't want any part of that lurid sex story and covered it only when they couldn't ignore it anymore.  How about Bill Clinton?  Yes, reporters covered Monica and the blue dress and all that.  So we certainly can't say they ignored his sexcapades.  But it's more complicated than that.  Let's go back to Herman Cain.  His accuser is being described in the press as an Ivy League graduate.  They never explain the relevance of that, so I'll tell you:  it's to let you know that she's smart -- just like the reporters who are covering the story -- and that people who go to Ivy League schools should be taken seriously.

"Unlike Paula Jones.  Paula Jones, you may recall, was the Arkansas state employee who said Bill Clinton, when he was governor, summoned her to a hotel room and exposed himself in front of her.  Given what we know about Clinton, the story is hardly incredible.  But the day she came forward with her story, NBC and CBS ignored what she had to say and ABC News devoted a measly 16 seconds to her story. ... Charlie Gibson of ABC asked a colleague on the air:  'Why does anyone care what this woman has to say?'"  I think it's an interesting point.  They point out how achieved these women and that one of them is an Ivy Leaguer.

That is supposed to certify believability, credibility, and intelligence; and I would say the media did their best to ignore the Clinton story, and when the Clinton team finally decided how they were gonna handle it, going after the women, the media was very compliant.  When they went after Ken Starr the media was very compliant.  The media did everything it could to advance the Clinton version of the story, and if it weren't for that blue dress? I'll guarantee you there'd be an entirely different take on the Clinton story today if that blue dress had not been kept and found and DNA tested.  So Herman Cain.  The crazy notion here the truth might be its own best defense? The media can't handle it.  Here's another way to analyze this: Herman Cain may not be a skilled liar, but you know what else I've noticed?  He doesn't retreat at the first sign of trouble.

He doesn't cave, he doesn't whimper, he doesn't disappear, he doesn't hide -- and I really mean this when I say, "Shame on the Republicans that piled on Herman when nobody knew the facts." Nobody to this day knows the facts.  But shame on those Republicans for treating Herman Cain -- in the media and elected politics. All Republicans, all conservatives, if you are one of those who treated Herman Cain as though he was guilty just because of his unpracticed response to vague suggestions of legal or immoral or unethical behavior. If you caved just to look good to the mainstream media, if you piled on Herman Cain just so the rest of the mainstream media wouldn't associate you with the ragtag conservatism you don't like, then shame on you!

Because here's a promise that you can take to the bank.  Every one of you Republicans -- other nominees in the media, elected politics -- you can take to the bank that your guy is going to be next.  If they take out Herman Cain, whoever's up next is gonna become the next target -- and if you continue to accept without question whatever the mainstream media says about any of our candidates just to look good to them, just to curry favor with them (or just to appear as though you're not as silly conservative as, say, Limbaugh and the talk show guys are), you're eventually gonna be next, or the guy you support is gonna be next; and for you to be consistent, you're gonna have to throw him overboard as well.  When that happens, when it's your guy that's the subject of innuendo and anonymous details, you're going to wish that you had Herman Cain and his backers to fight back alongside you.

You're gonna need all hands on deck, because what this is with Cain is nothing compared to what's coming.  What we're in the middle of here is a test to see just how frightened Republicans can be made to be at the first sign of trouble; and way too high a percentage of establishment Republicans failed the test.  I know what some of you will say. "Look, we're conservatives.  Family values, all that! We can't be seen defending a guy about who it is said might have sexually harassed a woman." Wait until you know that he did before you throw him under the bus! Ninety-nine percent of establishment Republicans failed this test.  Now, there's a plus side.  The plus side is the American people still support and like Herman Cain.  It doesn't mean he's gonna get their votes, but he has their support in this instance.

I guess there are a large number of people on our side, folks, who are never going to understand or never going to accept that we are in a war with collectivists and other assorted parasites who want to destroy the US economy as currently built -- and if you show any kind of weakness, they come back at you in greater numbers.  (See Oakland if you have any questions.) There was more patience for the O.J. Simpson verdict than there has been for Herman Cain.  You want to talk about a rush to judgment? Politico, which consists of mainly left-wing stenographers from the Washington Post who started their own website so as to protect the Post name -- stenographers for the Obama regime --they run around, they attack a man everybody says is a good and decent guy, who has flaws like all the rest of us.

Republican blogs (some of them) and Ruling Class chatter abandon Herman Cain quicker than a carton of milk past its expiration date.  Just like they did Newt.  What did Newt do?  Newt went out, bought his wife an expensive but affordable necklace, and he's accused of being incapable of managing money.  This was the guy most responsible for delivering budget surpluses and balanced budgets not that many years ago.  As I look at this week, it hasn't been all that good for Republican unity or courage.  There's gonna be a nominee.  One of these Republicans is going to be the nominee, and whoever it is is head and shoulders above Barack Obama and anybody else the Democrats could throw up in replacement if they decide to do that.

And we might want to keep that in mind, since the election is a year away and the primaries are right around the corner. All this sloppy partisan gotcha reporting should have gotten 99% derision from establishment Republicans.  That didn't happen, but there will be other opportunities for our side to show a little fortitude.  I understand the fear. I understand the reluctance.  "Oh, gosh, what if it's true? (sigh) I gotta really protect myself here.  I've gotta make sure that I don't say the wrong thing here so, this is really true, they can't come back and say I defended the guy.  So what's the safest thing to do?  Condemn him!  Yep, it's the safest thing. He's not gonna be nominee anyway, so I'll just condemn him, and I'll show in a reverse racism way that I'm really not a racist like the left says.  I'll show I'm not just supporting the guy 'cause he's black.  I'll really show 'em how smart I am! I'll show 'em how well rounded I am; I'll show 'em how open-minded I am. I'll show the left," and I don't care what you want to "show the left." When that's your motivation for remaining credible, you lose it all with me.


RUSH:  Back to the Bernard Goldberg's piece at  I think Bernie slides by the media and Bill Clinton a little too much.  I don't think the media was as investigatory or harsh or suspicious, doubting or tough on Clinton at all.  You remember Gennifer Flowers came forward during the 1992 presidential campaign alleging that she had had a 12-year relationship with Clinton back in Arkansas.  She was a TV infobabe at the time.  Clinton denied it on 60 Minutes.  So Gennifer Flowers held a press conference and she had tape-recordings that she had recorded secretly of phone calls with Clinton, and one of those phone calls is where he compared Cuomo to a Mafia don or some such thing. Do you remember that?

The media ignored that and went after Gennifer Flowers as a slut, and they went and tried to find out all kinds of dirty information about Gennifer Flowers.  In the meantime, later, Clinton subsequently apologized publicly to Mario the Pious for the remarks he had made on those tapes.  In his deposition in January of 1998, while denying Kathleen Willey's sexual accusations against him, Clinton admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Gennifer Flowers.  Now, that's the standard the media celebrates for handling these kinds of things.  That's what we're supposed to accept?  David Gregory would admire that?  "That's a strategy!  That's an organization for dealing with us!  We like it when candidates have a strategy and an organization for dealing with us.

"We don't like it when they're disorganized and no strategy and just scattered around out there, especially when they beat us," and don't forget that Clinton settled with Paula Jones for $850,000.  "Trailer park trash."  She didn't go to an Ivy League school.  Let me ask a question, 'cause Bernie's right about this: The fact that Cain's accusers went to the Ivy League, that means instantly credible -- and they tell the truth. They're serious people there in the Ivy League, just like us reporters.  We're Ivy Leaguers, too. We're in the same club; you can't doubt us.

"Well, what was Clinton doing toying around with trailer park trash in the first place?  Why weren't you people in the media embarrassed?  Why didn't you go to Clinton and say, "Look, if you're gonna do this, find some Ivy League babe so we can at least be proud of you?  You're embarrassing all of us! First you had to go to Arkansas be governor, you almost destroyed your wife by making her go, and now you're out running around with Arkansas trailer park trash and you're making us help you deny it?  Couldn't she at least have been an Ivy League babe that you were diddling?" That never was said.


"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

 Fanaticism is nowhere.
There is no tenderness or humanity in fanaticism.
  - Joe Strummer

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo