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.
He must confess, then end his race. That is what they are saying.
So now Newt is our saviour???, good luck with him.
Just like other victims of lynchings.
Given the proclivities of buy a lick, I must admit when I started reading your post I didn’t know you were talking about an SUV.
You forgot about how abortion has been successful in its goal to keep the black population down.
Charges of rapes and beatings, no problem. (clinton)
Charges of comments and ‘inappropriate touching’, string him up. (cain)
These people bore me...
Conceding that you’re government property has a lot of repercussions, not all of them pretty.
The electorate can change this by being alert to the nonsense claims of the likes of Gloria Allred
I dismissed the entire accusation the second I saw that Gloria theRed was involved.
This is old stuff and I think everyone is past it.
It only helps Cain as it distracts from his obvious lack of experience in both foreign and domestic policy.
Cain should bring on more bimbos— it was actually good for him, got him a lot of support on the sympathy front.
What disappoints me most is how many FReepers have switched away from Cain to Gingrich because of the accusations.
These people need to take a stand and fight instead of running at the first sign of trouble.
I wonder what they are going to do when (not if) Newt gets attacked?
.
I cannot agree that Cain supporters ahve turned to Newt. Cain supporters are busy refuting the lies of the media and posters at FR trying to mischaracterize Herman, but that doesn’t translate to a wave of Cain supporters switching to Gingrich.
Oh, I don’t think people switched to Newt because of these allegations.
I don’t care for Mr. Cain at all, but I defended him on the accusations.
I think they switched to Newt because he seems to have a grasp of government sadly lacking in Mr. Cain.
And maybe because of the egregious mishandling of the woman thing by both Cain and his No. 1 man. No dignified response and then say no more.
No, they flailed about blaming everyone, blaming the women, blaming Perry (that really tickedme off and no apology yet).
They just looked bad. And then Cain began to reveal that he’s pretty clueless, so they switched to Newt.
Oh, but didn't you know, charges of a black man allegedly harassing blonde white women were supposed to get all us 'racist hayseeds' in an uproar....
I guess they forgot we don't all live miles from the nearest pasture. We know the smell of what they're selling, and which end of the bovine it came from.
LOL
Im voting Cain no matter who the flavor of the week is. He would have to pull a Sandusky to change my vote. But he wont. He’s a great American.
Not me! I stand strong for Cain. I’m gonna donate again when I get my Christmas bonus.
Totally agree with you.
Newt has a grasp of, and more than a few gropes at, BIG government. Herman's lack thereof is a big plus to me! When presented with a problem Herman considers how to solve the problem. Newt considers how to have government solve the problem.
Their approaches are not only different in scope, but are predictably different in results. Government has real solutions to few problems, but promises fake solutions to many. The Framers understood this but few inside their Federal City now do. The Framers also understood it was possible to have too little central government - the Articles of Confederation proved that - but would all think the pendulum has swung unrecognizably far from what they'd envisioned in the "too much government" direction. They'd much prefer a 'citizen candidate' like Cain over a professional politician like (take your pick of the rest.)
Good article except for the poo-pooing of Cain’s chances.
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.