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.


UPDATE:

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.

     

Professor Jacobson: Embarrassed and Disgusted

Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection clarifies why the conservatives who don't defend Cain are equal to those creating the stir and attempting to assassinate his character without any serious facts or evidence. 

Embarrassed and disgusted by the behavior of numerous “conservatives” and “libertarians” on Twitter dancing on Herman Cain’s (presumed) political grave.

Let’s sum up the “facts” as they are known right now.  Mostly unnamed people accused Herman Cain of unspecified conduct which some people who will not specify the people or the conduct have deemed “inappropriate.”  And one of the unnamed people received a piddly $35,000 severance package almost 15 years ago for unspecified conduct which included conduct unrelated to Cain.

That’s what’s known now.  Maybe actual facts will come out proving that Cain did something wrong, but those facts are not out now.

Insisting on actual facts before a major conservative politician is taken down is not “selling out our minds.”

Cain has seriously messed up the situation and his campaign with an inconsistent response and a blame game, but does this justify the gloating and pure happiness being exhibited at the media feeding frenzy?

We really are our own worst enemies.

Be sure to read the entire thing at LegalInsurrection.com

The Tucson Blood Libel Controversy and the Character Assassination of a Conservative

After Palin had been falsely accused in the Tucson shooting, she released a statement via a video in which she spoke about American values and liberties, and the forces of evil and good. A majority of Americans, however, were aware of only two words which she had used in describing the media and liberals immature and dangerous blame game; blood libel.

The fact that the liberal media pounced upon those words were of no surprise since they’ve done much worse; they blamed her in murder for no reason other than political hatred. The reactions of the establishment and a significant number of conservatives, though, were quite shocking; mainly that  many questioned and criticized her usage of those words. Whether one agreed or disagreed with the wording she used to defend herself (which I as a Jew understood) shouldn't have made the slightest difference. It wasn’t the time to analyze her response. It was a time to passionately defend her against the appalling lies and express wholehearted support despite one’s possibly differing opinion on how she should have responded.

It is already Wednesday, three days after the story broke, and the entire media is still focused on only one thing; Herman Cain and the possibility that he sexually harassed two women in the 90’s. Actually, although I wrote “the possibility,” the media is having a field day with the Politico piece, and is determined to portray and convince the public of Cain’s guilt despite the lack of any evidence.

In no way can one compare the Tucson story and the endless attacks Palin endured, to the Politico story regarding Cain’s possible sexual harassment. It is unclear whether Cain can or will survive this, or whether it will still develop into something more serious. I also want to make it clear that I’m not on the Cain train nor convinced he’s ready to be president. However, when a hit-piece loaded with anonymous sources is released against a conservative, with the sole and obvious intention to destroy the person, it is the duty of all conservatives to defend the accused who is most likely at least partly innocent of the claims thrown at him.

Cain was attacked solely because he’s the current conservative leading the polls. Politico, or any other member of the LSM, would have never a similar story such as this if the person in question would’ve been Obama’s green jobs czar or some other liberal. Therefore, now is not the time to criticize his campaign staff despite what many see as incompetence of their part, but to create an outcry against the injustice and double standard the media has employed in the name of journalism.

Governor Palin has taught us time and again the importance of defending others. She had written Facebook posts in three different instances in order defend Juan Williams, Dan Fagan, and Dr. Laura who had come under hateful fire from the left. She rose above and disregarded the fact that all three of them have often spoken disparagingly of her, since when someone is wrongly accused, one’s own interests should be of no significance.

Those three cases were extremely significant since it involved the limitation of individual’s freedom of speech which is a basic right granted to all Americans in the first amendment. Cain’s situation is somewhat different, yet equally outrageous. He has come under false anonymous character assassination, which has become the number one tool used to destroy true bona fide conservatives. They’ve done it to Clarence Thomas, have employed it against Sarah Palin, and are now in the midst of mudslinging Rubio and Cain. 

We conservatives cannot afford to remain silent in the face of these despicable actions. We must fight and protest all hateful attacks against conservatives without differentiating between those you personally support and those you personally oppose for any given campaign or job. Only if we set up a united front to counter the attacks aimed our way can we hope to cause enough uproar to put a hold to the double standard employed by the media at a regular basis. 


 

The Politico Media Harassment of Herman Cain

I haven't had a chance to jot down my thoughts on the Politico-Cain story, where Politico and the LSM have attempted  to create a storm out of a non-issue or minor issue at best. 

Articles based solely on anonymous sources are almost never credible, and almost always at least partly false. Add to that, that the details given are vague, that the settlements were in the five-digit figure which in the 90's was considered a very low settlement, and you find yourself wondering why they are attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Doug at C4P  wrote an excellent piece explaining amongst other points, the importance of having all conservatives to defend Cain even if one isn't supporting him for the general election. Which is the exact scenario I'm in as I'm still undecided, and I agree wholeheartedly with his viewpoint. He also explains the racist aspect and the possible sources behind the leak.

 

John R. Guardiano of ResCon1 has written a great article, loaded with links, expressing the sentiments many of us feel regarding the  baseless attempt at character assassination, and much much more. Here's a sneak preview, and make sure to click on his name for the entire article!

As loyal readers know, I’m with Jeffrey Lord, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham: This is a high-tech lynching of a highly accomplished black man who threatens the liberal order. Indeed, it’s no “Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal”; it is, instead, a Politico media harassment scandal.

I say this because, as Robert Stacy McCain has observed, Politico has presented no real and discernable evidence against Cain. The charges, such as they are, are so vague and lacking in specificity that they could include even innocuous behavior which no reasonable person would find objectionable.

And of course, we have no way of knowing whether the charges are credible because Cain’s accusers are being protected by a cloak of anonymity.

This may be standard journalistic practice, but it’s also highly unethical in my opinion: Concealing the identities of the accusers allows them to level ruinous charges against high-profile figures, but without ever having to subject themselves and their allegations to critical scrutiny.

Yet, it’s a basic principle of American justice (enshrined in the Sixth Amendment) that the accused has a right to confront his accuser.

Then, too, there is something called the statute of limitations: The charges against Cain date back at least a dozen years, Stacy notes. And the passage of time and distance make it increasingly difficult to gauge whether these charges were and are legitimate.

In addition to the statue of limitations, another point to ponder is that he isn't even being accused of actually committing or even attempting to commit a sexual crime. His one-time gesture simply made the accuser feel uncomfortable and harassed.

Erick Erickson’s Virginia Senate Flip Flop Undermines ‘Badge of Honor’ Talk

In response to my C4P post Tuesday highlighting RedState’s inconsistent treatment of Republican candidates, including its pro-Perry, anti-Palin bias, Erick Erickson wrote this: (emphasis mine)

God help us, but if there is one uniform criticism from all sides, it is typically that we here at RedState are not team players. And I wear that proudly as a badge of honor. I’m not willing to sacrifice my conservatism for the GOP or a particular candidate.

Erickson might not chuck conservatism “for the GOP or a particular candidate” but he does appear willing to “sacrifice his conservatism” when it threatens his paycheck.

Politico’s Ben Smith posted an article Wednesday shedding light on Erickson’s conscience-for-hire, providing yet another glimpse into Erickson’s well-documented ability to quickly spin away earlier views and inconvenient facts. No doubt he calls this flip flopping behavior “being objective” or something.

Erickson originally endorsed Tea Party candidate Jaime Radke in her Virginia GOP senate contest against establishment pick, and former senator, George Allen. Notice Erickson’s bold proclamation of how important it was to support the grassroots. That is … until he was told not to.

“This race may be the big grassroots vs. party establishment race of 2012 and a test of the tea party’s continued momentum,” wrote Erickson, who is also a CNN contributor.

[Erickson's] endorsement, Jaime Radtke campaign manager Carter Wrenn said, gave the campaign a boost. But soon, he noticed that RedState wasn’t giving Radtke’s campaign much attention.

“The word came back to me that the people who own Human Events and RedState were for Allen and had asked Erickson to step back,” he said.

This summer, Radtke emailed Erickson to ask if she could speak and network at his RedState Convention earlier this month, to which she had not been invited.

Erickson responded in the August 4 email to Radtke, which her campaign manager Wrenn forwarded to POLITICO, with a frank explanation of why he couldn’t offer her a speaking slot.

“[M]y bosses are HUGE Allen friends, not just fans. They are socially connected,” he wrote. “So I’m having to tread carefully in this. Happy to help, but it’s got me in a difficult position. So please come and let me introduce you to people, but just understand that I have to be delicate for now.”

Erickson did, ultimately, allow Radtke to introduce Stephen Bannon, the director of the Sarah Palin film The Undefeated in which Radtke appears. He did so, Wrenn told Radtke, because the Eagle officials weren’t present. Radtke didn’t respond to a request, through Wrenn, for an interview.

Erickson responded in an email to POLITICO that the Eagle officials hadn’t forbade him from taking sides, but simply “asked [that Erickson] go slower in evaluating that race instead of diving in head first.”

“It was not a commandment or order, but out of respect to the long-term relationship a George Allen has with Eagle, I thought it was a reasonable request I was happy to accommodate,” he said. “As it turns out, I don’t really see any way George Allen gets beaten and I’d rather focus resources in Indiana and elsewhere.”

I’m not taking sides in the Radtke vs. Allen battle. Nor do I have any issues with the Eagle officials since they are businessmen like any others who’ve got the right to support the candidates of their choice. I can similarly understand Erickson’s need to respect his bosses’ wishes.

What’s troubling is Erickson’s delusional self-portrayal as this “idealistic pure conservative” who won’t allow anyone or anything to sway his positions when the truth shows otherwise time and time again. It’s nothing but spin.

Erickson’s initial support of Radtke as evidenced by his promotion of her articles — to his rapid turnaround toward openly mocking her — makes him seem like an insincere, self-serving flake. (Remember when he promised to provide the names behind the Will Folks smearing of Nikki Haley, then quickly changed his mind on that, too?)

That was precisely the point of my C4P post about RedState’s hypocrisy with regard to covering candidates. They don’t promote conservatism. They promote flavors of the month. In his nonsensical, self-martyring response Wednesday, Erickson dismissed all these facts I laid out in the piece, and chose to focus on one C4P reader comment calling him a “hack” out of more than 150 comments.

I’ll just close by pointing out the irony that on the same day Erickson talked proudly about wearing badge of honor for being a “non-team player” he devoted two columns to hyping Perry’s candidacy. In the first one he cited a PPP poll which has Perry up, as a likely sign of his winning the primary. He cited a Gallup poll in the other piece as proof that Palin should not think the nomination is hers for taking if she runs.

Funny how Erickson forgot to mention this inconvenient piece of info from the PPP poll:

Independents view him (Perry) negatively already by an almost 2:1 margin, 29/55, and Democrats pretty universally give him bad ratings at a 10/71 spread. As a result Obama leads Perry thanks in large part to a 24-point advantage with independents at 56-32.

To Erickson’s mind, Perry’s negative numbers are neither worthy of being mentioned nor a sign of him being unelectable. But Palin’s high disapproval figures are reason to believe she has been made radioactive. — despite the fact that unlike Perry, she hasn’t even begun to campaign, and she has already had everything including the kitchen sink thrown at her for three years.

Two candidates. Two different standards at RedState. Par for the course.

The internal politics at RedState are irrelevant save that all conservatives should be made aware that the information there is tainted. Erickson’s views time and again are based on additional factors besides the promotion of “conservatism.” Sometimes it’s about his own bottomline.

In consuming the information provided at RedState, it should be buyer beware.


This article is cross posted from Conservatives4Palin.

Politico’s editor-in-chief John Harris doesn’t seem to read Politico!

Imagine the reaction of the media, if a reporter from Fox News who constantly attacked Obama and the Democrats would join the official team of a Republican campaign.

To say the media would go wild would be the understatement of the year.

Protests, and boycotts against the journalist’s previous workplace would be promoted by the entire mainstream media and the reporter and the candidate would be denounced by all.

Such a reporter would definitely never be accepted back into the folds of journalism, after all he besmirched the entire journalistic machine with his obviously partisan and one-sided reports, all in the effort of being seen and accepted by some political campaign.

Surprise!

Politico reporter Andy Barr has covered national politics since 2008 and has shown, as most of the Politico reporters, open admiration for the leftist agenda and contempt for Sarah Palin specifically as well as other Conservatives while claiming to be an honest reporter who reports without favoring one side over the other.

He had done such a hell of a job smearing the right and promoting the left, that he’s been officially hired by the Democratic Party to drop the official non-partisan title and get paid by them to continue his partisan work!

Wait!

There’s more! 

Here’s an excerpt of  Alex Pappas’s article on The Daily Caller:

Barr is not the first Politico reporter to leave for a Democratic gig. Congressional reporter Jonathan Allen left Politico in 2009 to work as an aide to Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida Democrat, but he returned to Politico in 2010.


Politico’s editor-in-chief, John Harris, responded to questions about Barr’s departure, writing in an email that the website’s management does not “worry about someone’s personal ideology so long as it is understood that their responsibilities at Politico mean leaving personal views at the door.”

Oh yeah? Are Roger Simon’s attacks at the evil Rupert Murdoch because of Murdoch’s purchase of the newspaper Simon worked on also considered “leaving personal views at the door?”

What about the entire Politico machine pouncing upon the Republican African American Congressman Allen West from Florida for an email he sent to Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Does that too stem from pure journalistic motives?

Oh, and let’s not forget that several Politico reporters including Mike Allen, Lisa Lerer, and. Ben Smith who joined over a hundred liberal Journolists posing as trustworthy reporters while having toiled together to destroy the Conservative movement in every way possible. These reporters definitely left their “personal views at the door.”

I think “personal views displayed openly for all” is a better description of Politico reporters.