Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Third Cry of Wolf is Usually Ignored; Why I Will Not Stand by the Character Assassination of Herman Cain
I’m starting this article with a disclaimer that I’m not on the Cain bandwagon, have never written an article about him prior to the harassment claims, and have serious doubts whether he’s ready to be the next president of this country.
That being said, I’ve found it difficult to remain silent in the face of a possibly wrongful character assassination of a conservative. Wherever one turns, one encounters political professors, experts, and junkies who warn to stay away from defending Cain since no one knows who is in the right and he may very well be in the wrong. Although their advice is sensible and smart, I somehow found myself comparing the events to one of Aesops fables which my parents taught me as a child, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”
For anyone unfamiliar with the story, a young shepherd boy who was in charge of a flock of sheep decided to play a trick on his fellow villagers. He cried “Wolf! Wolf!” when there was none, and when the townspeople arrived ready to attack the wolf, he enjoyed a good joke at the people’s expense. Several weeks later, he once again played the same trick, only to once again infuriate the people who ran to save him and his flock.
When a few weeks later a real wolf came out of the woods and the young shepherd cried out in panic “Wolf! Wolf!” none of the villagers bothered coming to his rescue not trusting there was any truth behind his cries.
I’ve been following the news and watching some claim Cain to be a wolf, while others proclaim the women to be wolves, and yet others focus on Politico’s role and their wolfishness. It is clear that it isn’t possible for both sides to be right, thus there must be a wolf or wolves hiding beneath sheep’s clothing. Who it is though, is known only to the parties mentioned.
However, this much is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt. One of these parties has in the past often played the role of the boy who cried wolf especially when dealing with conservatives. They’ve promoted countless untruth and twisted truths and have gone out of their way at every available opportunity to attempt to destroy conservative politicians, candidates, and spokespeople. People came running from all sides at the sound of their cries only to discover time and again that the story is completely false, full of holes, or totally exaggerated. In other words, the wolf cried over was nowhere in sight. This wolf-crier is obviously Politico, and one’s skepticism towards another hit piece loaded with vague details and anonymous sources is totally acceptable and even laudable.
When a woman, Sharon Bialek, not part of the anonymous sources in the Politico story, came out in the public and openly accused Cain in sexually harassing her, the doubt of many increased whether Cain is or isn’t innocent. After all she said she came to the open without looking to get money, she had worked at the NRA a half a year prior to the timeline of her story, and had appeared at the TeaCon event in Chicago just as she had said.
Upon closer investigation though, she appears only slightly more credible than Politico. This is a woman who has filed bankruptcy twice yet continues to live far above her means. She has held nine jobs in the last seventeen years, and most of them ended by employer termination. She has been described as a gold-digger by a friend, lives in the same building as David Axelrod, and accused several of her employers and also accused her boyfriend in harassment in order to receive money she needed to pay for a loan. Additionally, her own father never heard this story from her until this Monday when she went public, nor did her current fiancé.
The fact that she’s cried wolf several times in the past, including against her boyfriend, is trigger enough for me to reasonably question, although not dismiss, her story.
The second woman who came forward publicly is Karen Kraushaar, one of the women who Politico originally anonymously referred to having received a settlement from the NRA due to sexual harassment claims against Cain. Once again it’s her word against Cain’s with Cain stating he made a remark about her height equaling that of his wife’s and simultaneously gesturing to his chin to indicate the height of his wife. It’s interesting to note that Kraushaar, like Bialek, has filed harassment charges at more than one occasion. She filed another harassment charge three years after she received the settlement from the NRA against her new employer. Also noteworthy is the fact that she is currently an Obama employee, as she is a Communications Official at the Treasury Department.
It’s very possible that these women are right and saying the truth, though it’s equally possible that Cain is the one with truth at his side. However, the USA has always prided itself with its policy to always consider one innocent until proven guilty. Since Cain is being accused of acts without the accusers providing for the public any credible evidence to back the claims, one can therefore validly question why so many conservatives have put the big guns aside and refuse to defend Cain against unproven charges or openly speculate that he may be innocent despite the plurality of accusers.
One doesn’t have to support him for the presidency to question the media’s treatment of Cain. As William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection had tweeted, it seems as though the new standards for conservatives have become “Not Presumed Innocent Until Proven Not Guilty.” Perhaps this should become the new motto of the Republican Party for they seem to have an endless supply of conservatives which they don’t mind throwing under the bus. Herman Cain, you are therefore innocent in my eyes until proven guilty. It is not the job of the accused to prove his innocence. It’s the accuser who must have the necessary evidence in order for his claim to be considered valid.
Thanks to Joel Farnham for the link to a great article after having posted this piece which raises additional questions regarding Bialek. I felt that one of the many points expressed was worth repeating.Although Bialek claimed to have approached him at the Tea Party event to see if his reaction, which she said was an expression of uncomfortableness at seeing her, eyewitnesses tell a different story.