Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:59 AM PST by Misterioso
Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, keep saying that "Herman Cain must answer the charges against him." When he repeatedly says, "I didn't do it. I don't even remember these interactions with these women," this isn't considered answering.
But how is one to prove a negative? How is one supposed to prove that one is not guilty of something?
If someone walked up to you and said, "You killed my brother," you'd be shocked. "What?" you'd say. "What are you talking about? How dare you make such an accusation? What's going on here?"
Imagine if you were put on trial for breaking a law and your lawyer was informed, “Your client must prove he didn’t do it. The burden of proof is on him.” This would be the antithesis of rationality, and what has always been the uniquely American form of justice.
Not so when it comes to sexual harassment, at least when a conservative (especially a black conservative) is accused of it. The onus of proof is on the one being accused.
But it's not merely unfair to ask someone to prove a negative; it's logically untenable. Liberals knew this full well when Bill Clinton was accused of various sexual harassment incidents, but that, of course, was entirely different. Bill Clinton was advancing the cause of liberalism and socialism, while Herman Cain is perceived, at least, as hampering it. Therefore, he must prove his innocence—not because of what he said to some woman, but because of what he dares to oppose in his political beliefs.
Since a negative cannot be proven, the person attempting to do so can only look foolish trying to do the impossible. That’s why Herman Cain ended up looking like such a fool. Any woman on earth could approach him, accuse him of something that went on when the two of them were alone, and when he denies it, say he's lying. You have only your biases and prejudices to rely on when trying to figure out what the truth is.
Beyond that, you’re simply never, ever going to know.
Nobody will say what I’m saying, because they’re afraid of being accused of advocating or tolerating sexual harassment, or denying it exists.
Nonsense. Of course sexual harassment occurs. Harassment of all kinds happens when two people are alone. It's not always sexual, and it's not always a man victimizing a woman. Women harass men, and men harass men.
Women harass women too, in various ways.
What’s a Republican voter to do about Herman Cain? People should file these accusations away but not make too much of them when deciding whether or not to vote for Herman Cain. I'm not defending Cain's political views. Although I like the man compared to other politicians (not saying much!), his proposal of adding new taxes without confronting the problem of massive government spending is foolish, at best, will never pass and could not work even if it did. I have no vested interest or desire in seeing him win. But I surely don't want to see him lose because he's accused of something which nobody can ever prove. Even Bill Clinton ran into trouble not for sexual harassment per se, but because he was caught lying in sworn testimony which made him guilty of perjury.
The real problem with Herman Cain is that he's a threat to the liberal, socialist establishment. The liberal, socialist establishment is a mean and unfair one, at the core. Liberals championed Barack Obama primarily for his race. Never mind that Obama is only half-black; he's perceived as a fully black man and therefore he's the "first African-American President." This was a big deal to liberals when he won, and it's the only thing they have left to champion given the miserable failure and disaster that has been his term in office. The idea that Herman Cain can come along and be black but -- well, not think like a black man is "supposed" to think, is a moral obscenity too hideous for the typical liberal who works in government, academia or the media to contemplate.
It undermines everything they believe, and they are having none of it.
Herman Cain might not have obtained the nomination anyway, and he probably will not get it now. Liberals claim to fear running against Mitt Romney, since he's the only one who can supposedly beat Obama, but Romney does not threaten liberals the way someone like Cain does. Cain proves that it's a fallacy that all blacks must be liberal and socialist, and in the process exposes the vicious fallacy that socialism actually is in the first place. Romney is nothing more than Obama-lite, and liberals know this. They don't want to lose to him, of course, but they can live with Romney and easily defeat him the next time around, should he manage to win without the strong support of conservatives -- something John McCain could not do, by the way.
If Herman Cain is guilty of anything unbecoming a President, we’ll never know, at least not from these pseudo-scandals of the last several weeks.
And that’s the whole point. When you stand against the establishment, or even seem to do so in an importantly symbolic way as Cain does, you’re going to pay a price.
Ping..
Cain's paid the price, stood strong, and will be the next President.
If it weren't for healthy drive to reproduce our species would have died off long ago.
Yet any liberal you care to talk to will tell you that Clinton was impeached because of sex.
Anyone who doesn’t see these accusations as a hit job is already pissin’ Kool-Aid, anyway . . .
So very true. The socialist leaning MSM typically follows the European model of guilty until proved innocent, rather than the system under our Constitution, that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Herman Cain's only sin is being a black conservative, during the heyday of political correctness.
Herman Cain is the best candidate to get America back to work. I am really looking forward to a Cain/Gingrich ticket.
Has anybody made a factual allegation?
If we abandon any candidate that state-controlled media makes content-free allegations against merely because he/she faces content-free allegations, then we might as well nominate Ubama and be done with it.
As long as she wasn’t trying to sell you a Prius, you’re fine.
Although I have heard they have shots for that now..
:)
I’ve heard “any liberal” say that he shouldn’t even have been asked the question that led to his perjury.
I don’t think he did anything wrong. This is a witchhunt. Hell, I don’t care if he screws farm animals. It’s gonna be either Cain or Newt for me, or some combination thereof.
” some blond tried to sell me a hummer”
sometimes the jokes write themselves.
Oh please. Is this smear still going on? Hey, Mitt - you ain’t winning - so give it up. You are as bankrupt in the mind as your sweetie accuser is in the pocket.
Old news. No pictures, no dress, no videos...case closed. We’re all up in Newt’s keester now about AMNESTY now....
“I was in Chicago a few years back and some blond tried to sell me a hummer, she looked a whole lot like buy a lick. Wonder if she still has the hummer are she lost it in a bankruptcy.”
I doubt that was the kind of ‘hummer’ she was selling. Hint: it doesn’t have wheels.
I have begun to pray that Cain stands tall and becomes our president.
Mathew 25:23
His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
It’s way too soon to count Cain out, even though Newt Gingrich has pressed ahead in a lot of polls. Gingrich, that notorious loose cannon, could easily point gun at toe and pull trigger. This is like a horse race that hasn’t gotten to the half mile marker yet.
I like Cain because he is a deep thinker. The last time we got a deep thinker was Ronald Reagan. Now Cain, the mathematician, the one who worked up a successful business formula to save Godfather’s Pizza from going under, has stepped forward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.