I don’t have a problem with coming to ones defense against what may be baseless accusations. Presumption of innocence is the correct default position. However, I think one needs to mount a defense with a bit of caution. My main complaint is that the defense by the talking heads on our side is bordering on being over the top. Nobody can really know the real truth here based on what is actually known so far. All we have is speculation either way. Our talking heads need to be careful in case this comes back to bite them.
The other truth here - justified or no - is that this will at the very least linger over the head of the Cain campaign from here on out. Hope no further revelations are forthcoming especially if he becomes the nominee and it close to election time.
My other point is that there are enough issues with Cain to question whether he is ready for prime time. This scandal doesn’t help.
If you want more fodder - just as one example - replay the Lincoln-Douglas style debate with Newt. Twice Cain had to take a pass when the questions required a little more there there than canned campaign slogans and prepared responses. That should give anybody pause and that stuff isn’t going to fly when Cain gets on the stage with Obama and the whole nation is watching.
Not what happened.
Cain once passed the ball to Gingrich in their good-natured back and forth relationship during that debate.
The question was directly in Gingrich’s beltway area of expertise, and Cain wisely let Gingrich talk which Cain - while expertise is business leadership - thought through his answer.
Probably something, Perry should have considered doing recently.
I liked that Cain / Gingrich moment, and the two of them together. It showed they get along well, it showed Cain doesn’t crave the spotlight.
And it showed wisdom.