I have been making a lot of comment about the MSNBC handling of the Herman Cain allegations, which are shameful, in my view. In the next days, more is surely going to come out. It may very well turn out that Cain behaved badly-to what extent- I don't know. It may turn out that he tried to "score"-for lack of a better word- or actually did "score". At that point, we have to decide what we think about him. It may turn out that he did something worse than merely cheat on his wife. It may very well turn out that Cain will shortly have no other choice but to drop out of the Republican primary race. Frankly, I am feeling pessimistic about his future, and I have to leave the door open to the possibility that once everything comes out, I would no longer support him. (That is not to say that Herman Cain is my first choice among the candidates. He is not, and I honestly have not yet decided who I would like to see nominated to run against President Obama.)
Having said that, I think it is still important to point out that at this point, we still do not know who his accusers are, nor do we know what the specific acts are which he has been accused of. That has not stopped the mob at MSNBC from convicting him on air every night. In the end, they may turn out to have been right, but it will not vindicate what they have said before the facts have come out. Their unseemly behavior these past nights on TV has only lacked the torches and rope.
Once we know all the facts and Cain has made his decision whether to continue to run or drop out, I hope that somewhere in the media, there will be a serious discussion of how their handling of Herman Cain compares with their handling of Bill Clinton and John Edwards. Once Politico broke this story, the media-led by MSNBC- has been all over this like lions carving up a zebra. In the case of Edwards, the mainstream media not only ignored the story-which was broken by the National Enquirer of all people- but ran from it, indeed, had to be chased down the street by it no less. To this day, the media has soft-peddled this story as Edwards has piled one lie on top of another until the last lie is revealed, and on he goes.
It may very well turn out that Cain is not fit to be president of the United States. Yet, haven't we set the bar pretty low after the Clinton affair(s)? Once we know everything that Herman Cain has done during his life, how will it stack up against what is known about Mr Clinton or what has been alleged by other women?
And, of course, there is always that nasty little race issue hanging out there. Is Herman Cain being treated this way because he is a black man, as some are saying? Or is it deeper than that? Is it because he is a conservative black man? It is here that I am tempted to play the race card. I fervently believe that black conservatives represent a special threat to the liberal establishment. The threat is that they are an example of a black person who can succeed in America through his or her own talent, hard work, intelligence, initiative or what have you without depending on the benevolence of the white left and the victicrat activism of the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons. It is driving the left crazy that conservatives and Tea Party types have embraced Herman Cain thus putting the lie to the canard that they are racists. Now the left is reduced to charging that Cain is some sort of showcase you-know-what for the Tea Party. It is all beyond disgusting. Do I think there is a heightened vitriol at work here because Cain happens to be a black conservative? Frankly, I do. Those two words ("black" and "conservative") are a volatile mixture. Put them together and you have something quite different from a John Edwards or Bill Clinton, both of whom I (still) believe are guilty of far worse sins than Herman Cain.
Anyway, that's how I see it today. A few days from now, I may be lambasting Mr. Cain, but who cares? After all, I am not MSNBC.