SHE'S KNOWN TO PREFER STAYING OUT OF THE SPOTLIGHT and in the shadows behind husband of 43 of years, Herman Cain. Still there are times for a wife to come forward and be in the spotlight. Now--with sexual allegations swirling around her husband--- it seems to be as good a time as any to speak up. Friday night she plans to open up with Greta Van Susteran at Fox News for her first big national interview. It can only do Cain good even as his accuser clamors to tell her side of the story by going public and grabbing the spotlight (she probably already has a book deal in the works!) for her 5 minutes of Anita Hill-like fame:After a lifetime spent in her now-famous husband’s shadow, Gloria Cain will make her public debut on Friday night, when she sits down for her first national interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. The interview will come under less than ideal circumstances: Van Susteren will have to ask Mrs. Cain about the sexual harassment allegations against her husband, and any drip of scandal or innuendo that emerges between now and then.
Meanwhile, Iowa yawns. Even as Carl Rove who supports Mitt Romney for president wants his accuser to speak. That's fine. But after all is said and done, very few minds will be changed: those who stand by Cain will still stand by him. Those who want to see him fail, will still be there cheering his accuser on in a he said/she said conversation that will never ever be proven except through known character over time.
4 comments:
WHY does the accuser want to speak publicly?
Currently, she has anonymity. Cain could say anything in the world, and it would fly by her, b/c she has anonymity. Her public reputation has not been impugned.
If I am truly wronged, upset, offended, then I take my settlement and I do not desire to revisit the painful scenario. I move on. For whatever reason, the accuser is eager to revisit. Why? Does a person say: "You said I was as tall as your wife, and, 15 years later, I am still INFURIATED at you, and still want to punish you." If this is what the accuser is saying: does this reflect well upon her?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Separately from all the above: if we pretend every inferred allegation occurred, i.e. uncomfortable atmosphere + invitation to visit a hotel room, then ... ought such things disqualify a man from being POTUS? B/c, if oafish sexual banter disqualifies one from being POTUS, then we have just disqualified most every man of spirit from ever being POTUS. If making a sexual pass disqualifies a man from being POTUS, then we have just disqualified a tremendous amount of talented and virtuous men who have succumbed to moments of human weakness.
Eliminating the sexual aspect from the equation: do we truly want a POTUS who has never succumbed to human weakness? who has never said and done stupid stuff? First, such a human being does not exist. Second, if he or she did exist, I would not want him or her for POTUS. I want someone who is fully grounded in the human experience.
Is sexual sin a special category of sin? IMO: no.
So well said, Greg. Can't disagree with anything you've said.
Something else:
The Pretend Media is protecting Romney. They have aimed their big ammunition at Palin, Bachmann, Perry, and now Cain. In a repeat of how the Pretend Media first helped and then hurt McCain in 2008: media will protect Romney until Romney becomes the nominee, then media will unleash their big ammunition on Romney.
We conservatives must not be so foolish as to allow media (and Dems voting in the New Hampshire Repub Primary) to select our nominee for us.
"Pretend media" is the best moniker I've heard in a long time....thanks!
Post a Comment